COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 30 July 1861)

§ MR. AYRTON
said, this Bill proposed 1795 among other statutes to repeal certain revenue Acts, and he wished to direct attention to the fact that this was the first instance in which a measure for the repeal of revenue Acts had originated in the other House of Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN
said, the Acts referred to had ceased to be in force.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he had an Amendment to propose. The object of the Bill was stated to be the removal of useless and obsolete matter from the statute book; and as in his opinion the Act of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, passed in the year 1851, intituled the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, properly came under this designation, he proposed that it should be included among the obsolete Acts to be removed by this Bill.
Amendment proposed, at the end of page 105, to insert "14 & 15 Vict. c. 60 (Ecclesiastical Titles Act); the whole to be repealed."

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the Bill repealed Acts which had fallen into desuetude, or been by implication virtually repealed; but its main object was to expunge those Acts from the statute book in order to reduce its bulk. With regard to the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, some maintained that it was in operation, and had been efficacious for its purpose. [Laughter.] That, no doubt, was a matter upon which opinions were not agreed; but the Motion of the hon. Member partook rather of the nature of a practical joke than a serious proposal. The Ecclesiastical Titles Act was passed so recently that it could not be included in the category of obsolete Acts which should be expunged from the statute hook by this Bill.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
wished some of Her Majesty's Ministers would point out that the Ecclesiastical Titles Act had had any practical effect whatever. The Act provided that certain ecclesiastics should not call themselves the Bishops of certain dioceses; but every Roman Catholic believed that Cardinal Wiseman was Archbishop of Westminster, and Dr. Grant Bishop of Southwark, and for the simple reason that those dioceses were created by the very same authority which created the diocese of London, and all the other dioceses of the Anglican Protestant Church, except those established by the Act of Parliament in the reign of Henry VIII. Those two dioceses, together with the dioceses of York and Durham, were created by the 1796 Holy See, without any concurrence on the part of the civil power. As the Act never had been and never could he enforced, it could only be considered by any person of common sense as a mere absurdity, which ought at once to be removed from the statute book, and he should, therefore, cordially support the Motion of his hon. Friend.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, that when Dr. M'Hale, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, was examined before a Select Committee of the House, and was asked who he was, he said, the "Archbishop of Tuam." He was then examined as the Archbishop of Tuam, and his evidence was printed by order of the House as proceeding from one holding that dignity. It was surely a practical joke, after such a proceeding, to insist on keeping this Act upon the statute book.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
thought the prohibition in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act was intended to prohibit Roman Catholic Bishops and Archbishops from taking the title of any See in the Anglican Church. There was no Protestant Archbishop of Tuam.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, the right hon. Baronet had made two mistakes. There was a Protestant Bishop of Tuam; and, next, the Act prohibited the assumption of titles for any place within the United Kingdom. The Act also referred to Deans, Archdeacons, and minor dignitaries of the Church.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, if the hon. Gentleman had formed any design to repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Act it would have been better for him to have directly introduced a Bill for that repeal. If the hon. Gentleman wished to be consistent, why did he not bring in a Bill to repeal the provisions of the Roman Catholic Relief Act? The hon. Gentleman had the example of Sardinia before him, and he had also the example of Roman Catholic France; and he might derive instruction from the course of M. Dupont in the latter country, and of Count Cavour in Italy. It was vain to attempt, by a side-wind like this, to get rid of an important Act of Parliament, and he should certainly vote against its repeal.

§ MR. AYRTON
renewed his objection to the embodiment, in a Bill sent down from the Lords, of the repeal of revenue 1797 regulations, inasmuch as the House of Commons persisted in the right of originating all measures relating to finance. He wished to know whether, if the Bill were passed, a special entry ought not to be made on the Journals of the House containing the reasons for so doing.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he believed all the statutes referred to were obsolete Acts, and that under them no duties were at present levied.