HC Deb 23 March 1860 vol 157 cc1167-9
LORD FERMOY

said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when the Government intend to introduce the Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland) Bill, which was introduced by the late Government, and had passed through the House of Lords, and had been read twice in the Commons before the Dissolution of Parliament. Nobody would deny that the Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland, as well as in England, were in a state which rendered them utterly unfit to administer justice. In 1856 the present Attorney General for England drew a Bill dealing with the Ecclesiastical Courts both in England and Ireland. That admirable Bill was calculated to do as much good to the Church of the two countries as his Bankruptcy Bill was calculated to do good to the trading community. It was lost however in the Upper House upon a division, on which all the English Bishops voted against it, whilst all the Irish Bishops voted for it. That put an end to dealing with the subject by a single measure. Last year the present Lord Chancellor for Ireland and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) drew a Bill which met with universal approval in Ireland. It was introduced into the other House and passed through the various stages, and it was afterwards read a first and second time in this House; but it was, as the Bills of many hon. Members, were cut short by the dissolution. He (Lord Fermoy) was now told that the official gentlemen of Ireland were too busy to give any attention at present to this subject. If the right hon. Gentleman in that House had his head and hands too full, why did he not have the Bill introduced in the other House? He found that there were three Irish Bills on the paper of the House. He would ask where they were? On the 9th of February last notice was given that these Bills would be introduced on the 14th, and then they were postponed to the 27th. On that day they stood first and second on the paper, and yet he found that instead of their being brought on they were "transplanted" to the 13th of March, and then another notice was given to the 22nd of March. On that day they stood 5th and 6th on the notice paper; but the House was counted out. They were consequently still again postponed to the 29th of March, when, in all probability, the Irish Members would be gone over to Ireland for the recess. Up to the present moment, on this most important subject, not a single idea had been given as to what these Bills contained. He would ask why these important measures had been deferred? Because, it would be said, the right hon. Gentleman was too full of business! Three weeks ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Deasy had told his constituents in Cork, at his late election, that they were of the utmost importance. It was paltering with the country to act in that manner; and if the Government were not able to bring on their Irish measures in that House, they could bring them on in the other House, where there was surely some one who knew something about Ireland. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman to give some good reason for not having brought on these Bills.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that it was no doubt desirable that Parliament should pass some measure upon the subject, and the reason why Government had not yet brought in such a Bill was that they had had no opportunity of securing the attention of the House for it. With regard to the other Irish measures, he explained that they stood upon the paper the other evening when the House was counted out; he was in his place ready to move for leave to introduce them, and it was only that occurrence which prevented his doing so. They were on the paper for Thursday next, and if he then bad an opportunity of bringing in these Bills he should avail himself of it. If the evening were occupied by other business it would not, of course, be his fault that he could not proceed with the Irish Bills.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR

said, he did not conceive the right hon. Gentleman had given any answer to his noble Friend's question. He could not believe that the reasons given for the delay in the introduction of this Bill were the real reasons. There must he an objection on the part of certain persons to the principle on which the Bill was founded, else why should it not have been introduced, as it was last year, in the House of Lords? Under the latter Bill the Irish clergy were willing to give up a great amount of the patronage they possessed, and were thus setting a good example to the English clergy. The Bill had passed the other House of Parliament without opposition, and it had passed the second reading in the House of Commons. The Conservative Government had brought the Bill through these stages, and now this Government said it had not had time to continue its progress. He thought some better answer should be given by the Government than that just proffered by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, for people were found who were bold enough to say that the question of patronage had much to do with the defeat of the Bill of 1856 in the House of Lords. He wished to know why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) had changed his opinions? In 1850 he was Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire into the taking of ecclesiastical fees, and the right hon. Gentleman then questioned the registrars and judges of the bishops, and put some pertinent questions to them, and he declared that they had acted in defiance of the Acts of Parliament and Canons of the Church, and he stated that it was desirable the present system should be done away with before another Session of Parliament passed. But now the right hon. Gentleman held the office of Ecclesiastical Commissioner, and he (Mr. Seymour) supposed he represented the right rev. Bench in that House, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would presently get up and expostulate with hon. Members for not being satisfied with the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland. The agitation of this question was injuring the Church, and it ought to be settled at the earliest moment.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, he thought it right to state that there was a question with reference to this Bill, namely, the question of compensation that had been claimed by the registrars of those courts, which might require some consideration. He quite agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Fermoy) that the people of Ireland were interested in the Bills to which he had referred, and he would, therefore, suggest that the Government should withdraw their Reform Bill and proceed with those Irish Bills at once.