COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 09 April 1867 vol 186 cc1383-408

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Preamble.

On Question that the Preamble be postponed,

MR. WHALLEY

said, he must dispute the correctness of the words constituting the preamble of this Bill which, he submitted to the Committee, were untrue in themselves, and were contradicted by the whole course of our legislation. It was not merely on account of religious belief that special provisions were made excluding Roman Catholics from holding the offices of Lord Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor of Ireland; but it was because that religious belief was nothing but the outward and visible sign of what might be called a confederacy on the part of certain persons assuming ecclesiastical power and authority to obtain money and to secure influence all over the globe, under the pretence of affording spiritual consolation to those persons who should submit themselves to them. The point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee was, that the admission of those persons to a seat in that House was distinctly coupled with restrictions which one by one and piecemeal were sought to be removed. So far as the Roman Catholic hierarchy were bound by the principles of honour they were bound to accept the Emancipation Act with all its conditions and restrictions; and it was contrary to the spirit of legislation for the past two centuries that these should be swept away one by one. If this were necessary why should not a general Act be passed at once for the purpose. But if this were deemed expedient then our ancestors, from the time of Charles I. and of William III. downwards, must have been under a delusion. When this Bill was first introduced, he stated, and read authorities for his statement, that the Roman Catholic hierarchy were at this moment before the country as organizers of rebellion, and that they had been so since 1862, and he was then called to order, though it was now admitted that that was from a misapprehension. When he last spoke on this subject he was called to order by the Speaker, on the ground that he ought not to say anything offensive to the feelings of Gentlemen professing the Roman Catholic religion; and if the same rule should now be laid down by the Chairman of the Committees, he would return to his house, and remain there until he received a letter from the Speaker, informing him that he had somewhat misunderstood the extent of the restriction imposed on him. It would be impossible for a Member of Parliament to perform his duty efficiently if he were to be restricted in the statement of his earnest convictions, the expression of which should not be offensive to Gentlemen of the Roman Catholic religion, who sat in that House in their legislative capacity, and not as members of the Roman Catholic faith. It was at one time considered offensive to Roman Catholics to say that the earth moved round the sun, and he believed that that statement would still be offensive to Dr. Cullen. He could not therefore consent to hold a seat in that House unless he might have the opportunity of exercising his right of speech in matters which affected the national welfare; and on that ground he had felt it his duty to call upon his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) to answer the statements he (Mr. Whalley) had before made. He had read extracts from the speeches and sentiments of various persons in high authority among the Roman Catholics, including at least one Bishop, declaring that the only reason why they did not come forward and declare their countenance of the Fenian conspiracy was that the proper time had not come, because this country was not at war, because England's time of difficulty had not yet arrived; but that when it did the case would assume a different aspect. The Fenian conspiracy, of which they heard so much, was nothing but the continuation of that long succession—more certain than any apostolic succession—that succession of rebellions in Ireland since 1641, which were the natural result of the doctrines which from Sunday to Sunday were inculcated by the agents of the Roman Catholic Church respecting the "heretics" among whom they lived, and the heretical Government of which they were subjects. The matter he supposed would be treated with the usual contempt, although he had expected that, on the second reading of the Bill, some reply to what he had stated would have been attempted. Instead of treating his statements and arguments with levity it would be much better to answer them; but they were not answered because they did not admit of an answer. He would give a further intimation upon that subject. He believed that the Roman Catholic hierarchy and clergy were endeavouring to maintain the Fenian conspiracy.

MR. ESMONDE

said, he rose to order. The Question before them was, whether the Preamble of the Bill should be postponed; and he would put it to the Chairman whether the hon. Gentleman was speaking to that Question?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Question before them was, whether the Preamble of a Bill for removing certain religious disabilities should be postponed? and that question opened the general character of that measure.

MR. WHALLEY

The Fenian conspiracy was at present discountenanced by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood, because it had for the moment served its turn. But it was still retained, and was not openly countenanced solely because that difficulty of England which was to be Ireland's opportunity had not yet arisen. In confirmation of that view lie would ask the permission of the House to read a document with respect to the authenticity of which he hoped the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland would afford facilities for proving, in the inquiry with reference to the proceedings of Mr. Justice Keogh. The document had been published in the newspapers of Canada and also in this country, and it naturally excited feelings of apprehension on the part of Protestants or Orangemen living in the midst of Roman Catholics. That document was the following oath which was said to be administered to the Fenian conspiracy:— I swear by the Almighty God, by all in Heaven and upon earth, by the blessed and holy Prayer Book of my holy Church, by the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, by her sorrows and groanings at the foot of the cross, by her tears and wailings, by the holy apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, by the glorious apostle of Ireland, St. Patrick,"— (this is the person to whom Dr. Manning alluded, at least I believe it is the same)— by the blessed and adorable Host, by our blessed and holy Church in all ages, and by our holy national martyrs, to fight on the Irish soil for the independence of Ireland until I wade up to the knees in the red gore of the Saxon tyrants and murderers, for the glorious cause of nationality, and to fight until there is not a single vestige, track, or footstep left to tell that the holy soil of Ireland was trodden by the Saxon robbers and murderers; and, moreover, when the English Protestant robbers and brutes in Ireland"— (it was published in Canada, and in England, and he had fair reason to believe that it was an oath that had been extensively taken)— shall be exterminated or driven into the sea like the swine Christ caused to be drowned, we shall then embark and take England and root out every vestige of the cursed brood of the adulterer and murderer, Henry the Eighth, and possess ourselves of the treasures of the beast that has so long kept our island of saints, Old Ireland, in the chains of bondage, and driven us from her genial shores exiles to a foreign land;"— then came this passage, which he asked the noble Lord to include in the evidence in the inquiry about to take place— and I will wade in the blood of all Orangemen and heretics who do not join us and become one of ourselves. Scotland having had her blood shed by the Beast, we shall leave her in her gore. To all this I swear with my eyes blindfolded, not knowing who to me administers this oath. He would leave it to the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Clare to decide whether he should by anticipation notice that oath, while he was asking them by his Bill to remove restrictions which had been deliberately adopted by Parliament, and which had been accepted by that very power which he represented.

Motion, "That the Preamble be postponed," agreed to.

Clause 1 (All the Queen's subjects, without reference to their Religious Belief, shall be eligible to hold the Offices of Lord Chancellor or Lord Lieutenant of Ireland).

MR. CANDLISH

said, he rose to move the omission from the clause of those words which related to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In doing this, he felt that he was separating himself from his party, and he entered very unwillingly into the discussion of questions of that description; but he proposed his Amendment for a variety of reasons, one of which was, that in his opinion every argument which would tend to throw open the Viceregal office to a Roman Catholic would necessarily and irresistibly lead to the opening of the office of monarch of this country.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words "and the office of Lord Lieutenant, Lord Deputy, Lord Justice, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland."—(Mr. Candlish.)

MR. SCHREIBER

I rise, Sir, to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland. When this Bill was last before the House, an hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck), whom I do not now see in his place, but to whom I am indebted for much good advice on that occasion, spoke of the pain with which he always listened to discussions of this nature. But he forgot to add—and I may be permitted to remind the Committee—that the defenders of the status in quo can by no figure of speech be said to originate these debates; and as to the pain which they occasion, hon. Gentlemen opposite must not suppose that they have any monopoly of that. If I may judge, Sir, from my own feelings, these discussions are at least as painful to Members on this side as on that. But this is a case in which there is a principle to be defended, and a duty to be done, and which leaves no room for the consideration of what is personally agreeable or the opposite. I therefore think, Sir, we might very well be spared those indiscriminate charges of bigotry and intolerance which (permit me to say) furnish such a curious commentary on some people's enlightenment. Now, I think that I shall state the case correctly if I say that the argument of the supporters of this Bill proceed on this wise. They take, for example, the office of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and divest it of all its other incidents and attributes. They then proclaim it to possess a purely civil and judicial character, and as such to be fairly open to the just ambition of the Roman Catholic. Indeed, they contend that it is only proceeding in the spirit of the Act of 1829 so to open it. And I will frankly admit that if they could establish their position, it might be extremely difficult to resist these claims. Accordingly, to suit this train of argument we have lately been favoured by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition with a new and startling theory of the office of Lord Lieutenant. We are told that he is "a mere wheel in the Executive machine, receiving his impulse from an official, who may be a Roman Catholic." Is that a description, Sir, which exhausts the attributes of the Lord Lieutenant's office? Has he no representative position? I always thought he was, in an especial manner, the direct representative of the Sovereign in Ireland; that as such he held Courts, and conferred knighthood, and was prayed for in the Churches, and wielded the prerogative of mercy, and exercised a special supervision over the Irish branch of that United Church of England and Ireland, of which the Sovereign is the head. What other officer in the United Kingdom so distinctly exercises Viceregal functions? And then, Sir, as to the statement that he receives his orders from the Home Secretary, who may be a Roman Catholic, it would be more accurate, and more in accordance with the theory of the Constitution, to say that the Home Secretary, who may be a Roman Catholic, transmits the orders of the Sovereign, who must be a Protestant. The orders are not his own, they are merely transmitted through him from the Sovereign to the Sovereign's representative. It is then, Sir, on the connection of the Lord Chancellor with the Lord Lieutenant, and of the Lord Lieutenant with the Crown, that I, for one, rest my objection to this clause; and I conceive that considerations of a similar nature were present to the mind of the author of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, who, wishing to guard the principle of the Protestant succession to the Throne, drew those lines around it which it is now sought to remove—leaving the Lord Chancellor of England and the Sovereign isolated in the necessary profession of their Protestantism. Passages abound, Sir, in the speeches of the late Sir Robert Peel, showing that he ascribed to the Roman Catholic system—viewed in its relation to civil society—a special aptitude for encroachment and aggression, and a singular impatience of equality, which induced him, by way of precaution, to lay upon it those restrictions—I suppose, Sir, I must not call them "weights"—of which it is now sought to get rid. And when I make that statement of an historical fact, how am I met? It is not contradicted, for it cannot be; but the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose absence I again regret, meets me with a question of this kind, "Was that the position in which the hon. Member for Cheltenham considered himself in reference to the Roman Catholic? Did he want the Roman Catholic to be weighted because he was a better man than himself?" That is a question which I shall answer with another, going more directly to the point. "Was that the position in which Sir Robert Peel considered himself in reference to the Roman Catholic? Did Sir Robert Peel want the Roman Catholic to be weighted because he was a better man than himself?" The idea, Sir, is preposterous. Sir Robert Peel was dealing with a system viewed in its relation to civil society, and it never entered his mind to institute personal comparisons, which least of all men he need have feared. Sir, he feared the system and took the precautions which I have described. Those precautions I believe to have been wise. As such they are regarded by the great body of the people of this country. As such I have ventured to defend them with my voice, and as such I shall support them by my vote. But do the events of recent years lend any colour to these views? Why, what has occurred, Sir, even in the present Session? The noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Lord Naas) no sooner announced his readiness, upon a late occasion, to yield in the matter of the Lord Chancellor, than up rose the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and "trumped" him with the Lord Lieutenant. And in the same manner, if my noble Friend had "led" the English Chancellor, the right hon. Gentleman, I presume, would have had no option but to play "his Queen." And all the while, Sir, arbiter pugna,œ there sits the hon. and learned Baronet watching the game in which, whoever else may lose, he and his friends can hardly fail to win. But the people of this country—the Protestant people of this country—are no party, Sir, to these transactions. They view with repugnance and alarm concessions of which they understand neither the motive or the necessity; and further concessions will assuredly give rise to a loud and angry protest on their part. And even now, Sir, I sometimes think that we may hear the first mutterings of the storm. Be that as it may, we are going to enfranchise the Members of a class which views these encroachments with peculiar jealousy, and who, with that vigorous one-sideness which is at once the forte and foible of their character, are certain to make short work of Motions of this kind and their authors. I therefore am convinced, Sir, that Roman Catholic gentlemen, fortunati nimium sua si bona nôrint, fortunate as the subjects of a Protestant Sovereign and the citizens of a free country, would do well to pause before it is too late, and to accept the Act of 1829 as a settlement to be respected and maintained. When this question, Sir, was last before the House, many of Her Majesty's Ministers were unavoidably absent. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] Absent in attendance, I believe, upon the Sovereign; but I hope that we shall now receive from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer an explicit statement of their policy—a statement which shall leave no doubt that it is a policy Conservative of the Protestant Constitution of this country.

MR. MONSELL

said, he would venture to suggest that both the hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House upon this question had mistaken the principles of the Constitution of this country, which were not founded upon the idea of excluding any person from the councils of the Sovereign, or from office, on account of religious opinions. If he recollected rightly, it was Lord Bacon who contrasted the citizenship in this country with the citizenship of the Roman Empire, showing that while in the latter there were various forms of citizenship, that privilege in our own country was complete and entire; and that everybody, unless there were some special reason to the contrary, was eligible for office under the Crown. The adoption of a contrary opinion would be not only an abridgment of the right of the subject but also an abridgment of the prerogative of the Crown—for it was the undoubted prerogative of Her Majesty to select for the performance of public duties such persons as she might think fit. He felt convinced that the two hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the Committee had not adduced a single reason in proof of the assertion that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ought not to be a Roman Catholic, or to show that any danger would arise from such a selection being made. The hon. Member who commenced the discussion had stated that this would be a step towards getting rid of the Protestant succession; but the Protestant succession rested upon the principle that the majority of the people of the United Kingdom were Protestants; consequently, the arguments of the hon. Gentleman—if they possessed any force at all—would go far to show that Ireland, being a Roman Catholic country, ought to have a Roman Catholic Lord Lieutenant as her Governor. He begged the Committee to remember that the question they were discussing was a serious one. It was the one referred to in the preamble of the Bill—that of religious equality; and without that religious equality the people of Ireland never would be satisfied. As long as there was a distinction made between the majority and the minority of the people of Ireland to the disadvantage of the majority, so long would there be discontent in that country. Discontent would produce its legitimate and illegitimate results, and would lead people who were otherwise loyal to act in a manner in which unfortunately too many persons in Ireland were now acting with regard to the Constitution of this country. He could only express his deep conviction that there never would be thorough peace in Ireland until complete religious equality had been established in that country; while if, on the other hand, they established that equality, loyalty and order would prevail among a people who, as a rule, were more strongly inclined than most other people were to pay respect to authority.

MR. NEWDEGATE

I do not know, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick is aware of the extent to which his argument may be carried. He states, that the only reason why the monarchy of this country is Protestant is that the majority of the people are Protestants, and that it is by their will of the hour that the monarchy is Protestant. He seemed to justify the retention of the Protestant character of the monarchy of this country on that ground, and to remain satisfied with it. But then the right hon. Gentleman turns to Ireland, and, speaking as if with authority, said that the people of Ireland are Roman Catholics, and that unless complete religious equality was established in that country they would never be satisfied. I am quite aware that the Roman Catholic Members from Ireland have unanimously adopted that opinion under the instructions they have received; because, Sir, we have recently seen in the Roman Catholic papers an authoritative letter from Dr. Moriarty, who claims, legally or illegally, to be called Bishop of Kerry, setting forth that view. He has no right to the title by law; but he assumes it, and he has stated the argument which has met with the approval of Gentlemen opposite. I fully admit that Cardinal Legate Cullen and all the prelates and priests who are under his authority hold that doctrine with respect to Ireland. And what does it lead to? It leads to this—that Ireland is to be governed upon principles different from those on which England is governed. Now, one of the most distinguished Irishmen of modern times, one who commanded largely the support of his countrymen, held that opinion. That is the opinion which was held by the late Mr. O'Connell, who throughout his life agitated for the repeal of the Union, and consistently; for unless the same principles of Government are to prevail in Ireland as those which prevail in England and Scotland, the Union is an abuse. Mr. O'Connell, in his repeated declarations against the Union, was consistent; and the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick goes directly to this, that the Union ought to be repealed. The right hon. Gentleman was also pleased to say that it was an undue limitation of the prerogative of the Crown that any person whom the Crown might nominate or wish to nominate to an office should be excluded by law on account of his religious belief. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the prerogative of the Crown is limited by the Act of Settlement and by other laws of this country. He seems to have forgotten that since the year 1688, if not before, but certainly since the Revolution, it is provided that the Crown of this country shall be held upon certain conditions, defined by law, which were first embodied in the Bill of Rights, and then with the Bill of Rights were embodied in the Act of Settlement, and that by the Act of Settlement the Crown is limited to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, being Protestants. The right hon. Gentleman has been pleased to give his own definition of the prerogative of the Crown; and there is an exact authority for the definition he has given which I hold in my hand. It is the Declaration which James II. issued. I have that Declaration here, and with the permission of the House I will read the substance of it. The right hon. Gentleman will then see how precisely he has enunciated the very principles for attempting to enforce which James II., with his descendants, was expelled from the Throne of these realms. The pith of the Declaration is contained in these extracts— His Majesty's Gracious Declaration to all his Loving Subjects for Liberty of Conscience. We cannot but heartily wish, as it will easily be believed, that the people of our dominions were members of the Catholic Church. And that I have no doubt is the wish of the right hon. Gentleman. We humbly thank Almighty God it is, and long time has been, our constant sense and opinion, which upon divers occasions we have declared, that conscience ought not to be constrained, nor people forced in matters of religion. It has ever been directly contrary to our inclination, as we think it is to the interests of Government, which it destroys by spoiling trade, depopulating countries, and discouraging strangers; and, finally, that it never obtained the end for which it was employed, &c. We therefore, out of our princely care and affection unto all our loving subjects, that they may live at ease and quiet, and for the increase of trade and the encouragement of strangers, have thought fit, by virtue of our Royal prerogative, to issue forth this declaration of indulgence, making no doubt of the concurrence of our two Houses of Parliament, when we shall think it convenient for them to meet, &c. And, forasmuch as we are desirous to have the benefit of the service of all our loving subjects, which by the law of nature is inseparably annexed to and inherent in our Royal person, and that none of our subjects may for the future be under any discouragement or disability, who are otherwise well inclined and fit to serve us, by reason of some oaths and tests, that have usually been administered on such occasions, we do hereby further declare that it is our Royal will and pleasure that the oaths commonly called the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and also the several tests and declarations mentioned in Acts of Parliament made in the 25th and 30th years of the reign of our late Royal brother, Charles II.,"— These are the very tests we are now called upon to deal with— shall not hereafter at any time be required to be taken or subscribed by any person or persons whatsoever, who is or shall be employed in any office or place of trust, either civil or military, under us or in our Government; and we do further declare it to be our pleasure and intention from time to time hereafter to grant our Royal dispensation, under our Great Seal, to all our loyal subjects so to be employed, who shall not take the said oaths or subscribe or declare the tests or declarations in the above-mentioned Acts and every of them. Now, Sir, it was for issuing that declaration, which the Bishops refused to have read in the churches; it was because James II. sought to thrust these principles upon the people of the United Kingdom, that the House of Stuart was deposed and banished the country. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been so outspoken, because he has been labouring for years among the oaths and declarations required by the Constitution of this country, to which he has now pronounced his emphatic hostility. He has declared emphatically that Ireland will never be satisfied, and that the inducements to revolt and rebellion never will cease, until the English people abandon the Protestant Constitution under which they live—that Protestant Constitution which they established by a revolution; that Protestant Constitution which secured their liberties; that Protestant Constitution which, I believe, they are prepared to defend. Sir, it is very fortunate that we have at last an explicit declaration upon this subject. I admit, to the right hon. Gentleman, that there are as many circumstances at the present time which might induce the House to consider whether it would not be advantageous to repeal the Union and govern Ireland upon different principles to those which are applied in England. Look at the existing state of things. The Habeas Corpus Act is suspended in Ireland. If we are to govern Ireland upon the principles of James II. we have it upon the authority of Mr. Hallam that the object of that monarch was to get rid of the Test Act and the oaths, because they prevented the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, and also to get rid of the Habeas Corpus Act, because he held that that Act limited the absolute sovereignty, which he desired to establish. The sovereignty being absolute would exactly coincide with the prerogative the right hon. Gentleman wishes to establish, and of which he says the laws he now proposes to abolish are an infraction. Strange to say the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal party have for years past been proceeding upon the policy of James II. Why, during the reign of James II. many of the ultra-Nonconformists hailed his adoption of that policy, for they believed that under his notion of religious equality they were to enjoy perfect freedom, but the King and his advisers knew better than that. They held out to the Dissenters and Liberals of that day the repeal of the Tests Acts; but they took care to keep in the background the fact that they meant also to abolish the rights and the freedom which the people enjoyed under the Habeas Corpus Act. They did not inform the people of this, until near the close of the unhappy reign of James II., when he showed clearly that he meant to govern absolutely, and without Parliament. It is said if the Union was repealed, that it would be difficult to re-establish the Irish Parliament; but, according to the principles enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick, Ireland ought to be governed without any Parliament at all. In other words, as the hon. Member for Clare hinted the other day, Ireland ought to be governed as a dependency. But since I pointed out where these principles would lead them, his supporters have cooled in their enunciation, if not in admiration of them; but, basing my argument upon the principles of your legislation, and the speech made by so influential a Member from Ireland as the right hon. Gentleman, I have a perfect right to show you the direction in which you are tending. It is well known that the establishment or ascendancy of the Roman Catholic Church is everywhere adverse to free and Constitutional Government. Take the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion, and with it you take absolute government. Have the events even of recent times been swept from your memory. Have you forgotten that the Jesuits in Naples professed openly to the late King—not the exiled King, but his father—that their order was devoted to the establishment of absolute government? It is a well-known fact. It is contained in a document, which has been published—a thing that is seldom done in such cases. There was a slight difference between the late King of Naples, the father of the present deposed King, and the Jesuit Order; and the latter published—as I observed they rarely do—a document, in which they professed their adhesion to the Neapolitan dynasty, because it was an absolute government. You cannot deny that these principles—the principles that have been enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman—the principle of throwing open all offices indiscriminately to persons of every and any creed, and the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, which the right hon. Gentleman avowedly seeks on every occasion, involve the establishment of absolute government; and if you wish that Ireland should be governed as a dependency, perhaps you may be gratified by a repeal of the Union, and by seeing Ireland governed as a dependency. Desiring to preserve to you not less than to ourselves the Constitutional freedom which we rejoice to have extended to our fellow-countrymen, I cannot obliterate from my mind all the warnings of history. I and those with whom I act refuse to abandon the securities provided by the Constitution under which we live, and the laws which give it force. Say what you will, you cannot change the nature of a religion. The Protestant religion tends to freedom—the Roman Catholic religion tends to absolute government. And not even at your own request, prompted by those who seek to establish in Ireland the domination of a foreign Power, not even at your own request will I consent to sacrifice, at the dictation of the misguided zeal by which you are directed, the liberties that you now enjoy, and which the proposal before the House tends to endanger.

MR. PIM

said, that not long since a Bill was passed in that House for the Confederation of the North-American provinces, but no one thought of proposing any restriction on the religion of the representative of the Sovereign in Canada. And yet what difference was there between Ireland and Canada, except that Ireland was nearer? There was a very large Roman Catholic population in Canada. Lower Canada was chiefly Roman Catholic, but no restriction had been made upon the religion of the Viceroy. If the restriction was needful in Ireland, surely it ought to have been carried out in Canada. He wished to put it to the Scotch representatives in that House what would be the feelings of the people of Scotland if a representative of the Queen were living in the old palace at Holyrood, and the law provided that that representative should not be a Presbyterian? If those hon. Gentlemen who represented Scotland would for a moment reflect upon that point, and would take into consideration the propriety of acting towards others as they would wish to be done by, they could have no hesitation in voting in favour of the present Bill. He must express his surprise that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire should have taken exception to the remark of the right hon. Member for Limerick, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland would not cease to agitate for perfect equality. Three-fourths of the people of Ireland were Roman Catholics, and though he was as thorough a Protestant as any man in that House, he thoroughly sympathized with and felt the justice of their agitating upon this ques- tion. If Members of the Protestant Faith constituted three-quarters of the population of Ireland, and were situated as the Roman Catholics in that country were, would they not, he would ask, think that they were acting in a manner derogatory to their dignity as men if they did not, so long as they believed there was a chance of attaining their object, agitate for a change analogous to that which was now proposed? It had been suggested that the Act of Settlement was imperilled by this measure; but he could no more imagine the possibility of a Roman Catholic Sovereign of England than he could imagine the possibility of a Protestant Emperor of France. In each country the Faith of the Sovereign would be determined by that of the great majority of the population. If they were settling this question he urged them to settle it entirely, and not leave behind one disability to remind the Irish people of the whole series of disabilities which had existed 100 years ago.

MR. VANCE

said, that he must regard the proposal under discussion as a new chapter in the history of Papal aggression. Sir Robert Peel, before he became a convert to the expediency of granting a Roman Catholic emancipation, prophesied that if such a measure were to pass, there would be a number of Roman Catholic Members in that House who would act together as one man, and who, holding the balance between the two opposing parties, would be able in time of difficulty, as it were, to control both. An instance of the correctness of that prophecy was, he believed, furnished on the present occasion. Nobody would some time ago have foretold that the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have consented to give up so completely the Irish Lord Chancellor, or that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire would have bid higher still by giving up the Lord Lieutenant. Let the Committee reflect on some of the minor consequences of what they were asked to accede to. It was distinctly provided by the Act of 1829 that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should not be a Roman Catholic, and the office was in every respect a Protestant office. The Lord Lieutenant, as a Protestant, attended the Chapel Royal each Sunday. Was it to be turned into a Roman Catholic chapel if a Roman Catholic Lord Lieutenant were appointed, as would no doubt be the case, to conciliate the support of the small party who held the balance of power between the rival parties? The Lord Lieutenant had attached to him a dean, sub-dean, and thirty-six chaplains, and he should like to know, in the event he had described, what religion the dean, sub-dean, and thirty-six chaplains were to profess? The Lord Lieutenant had considerable ecclesiastical patronage. By what tribunal was it to be exercised if the holder of the office were a Roman Catholic? The fact was, that if it were enacted that the Lord Lieutenant might belong to the Roman Catholic persuasion, the whole office must be re-cast. The Committee, he might add, was asked to proceed on a most dangerous course. The other evening certain Roman Catholic Members proposed and supported a Bill for the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, but others, more wary, opposed it, because they saw that it affected England as well as Ireland, and they feared that the attention of English Protestants might be directed to projects which had lately been brought before the House, and that public indignation would be roused so as to render their success impossible. The precedent which would be established by permitting a Roman Catholic to be Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, would soon be insisted on in England to the extent of a person of that persuasion being held eligible for the Crown of Great Britain, and so the Act of Settlement would soon be set aside.

MR. SYNAN

said, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, practically, according to his own arguments, appeared to be the only Member of that House who advocated the repeal of the Union between England and Ireland.

MR. NEWDEGATE

The hon. Member has totally misrepresented me. I opposed principles which I believe would lead to a repeal of the Union.

MR. SYNAN

said, he considered that the most successful agitators for a repeal of the Union were those who opposed the application of the principles of civil and religious liberty and the establishment of perfect religious equality amongst all Her Majesty's subjects. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) opposed the Bill because it would lead, as he thought, to a repeal of the Act of Succession; but in no respect was the Lord Lieutenant included in, or affected by, the Act of Succession. The hon. Member further said he feared that the Lord Lieutenant's chaplains would become Roman Catholics, but that was no argument against the Bill. The measure was founded upon the principle of the establishment of perfect, civil, and religious equality in Ireland, and he thought it would commend itself to the common sense and justice of every Member of that House.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, that the hon. Member for Dublin had invited the opinion of a Scotch Member, and he would candidly give it to him. The Scotch Members did not come there asking for a Lord Lieutenant for Scotland; they did not want such an officer. The people of Scotland were too economical and would not sanction such waste. That House had twice voted that the office of the Viceroy of Ireland should be dispensed with; and the late Duke of Wellington, in one of the last speeches which he made, prevented that consummation from being attained, asking with whom the Home Secretary could communicate on Irish affairs in the event of the withdrawal of the Lord Lieutenant, and whether he was to do so with the Lord Mayor of Dublin or with the Mayor of Kilkenny, who was at that time in gaol for rebellion. If the Lord Lieutenant were to go away altogether from Ireland and take his thirty-six chaplains with him, there would be an end to the question now before them.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, there were two things which ought to take place before they went to a division—the one was that hon. Gentlemen opposite should allow one English Member on the Liberal side of the House to speak on that question; and the other was that time should be given to the Government to pronounce their opinion upon it. It would, he thought, be very unfair towards the Irish Members to go to a division before they had heard the views of the Government; and, on the other hand, the Liberal party ought not to leave the conduct of the debate entirely to the Irish Members. The Motion of the hon. Baronet ought to be accepted and indorsed by the Liberal party, which had gained many victories in the cause of civil and religious liberty in conjunction with the Irish Members, whom, he was sure, that party would not desert when such an issue was raised. He was sorry that the Amendment had proceeded from his side of the House. He knew there was some truth in what was urged by certain hon. Members opposite—namely, that there was a large body in this country who viewed with some alarm these aggressive Motions, as they termed them. But if there was one duty which seemed to him more incumbent than another in these cases upon English Members of Parliament, it was to speak plainly to their constituents if they put pressure upon them on subjects of that kind. [An hon. MEMBER: There is no pressure.] He said there were many constituencies which were alarmed at Motions like the present; and hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered him when he made use of that expression; and the Members for such constituencies ought to tell those whom they represented that they had to deal, not only with questions affecting England, which was Protestant, but with questions affecting Ireland, which was Roman Catholic; that, however much their constituents might be opposed to Popery, "No Popery" could not be the cry for a country where four-fifths of the people were Roman Catholics. How was it possible for Parliament to govern Ireland satisfactorily if the views of that class of Protestants were to be enforced upon that country? He would ask the House whether any real danger had been pointed out as likely to arise to Ireland from the appointment, even if it were made, of a Roman Catholic Lord Lieutenant for that country? Hon. Gentlemen opposite confined themselves to going back to the Act of Settlement and the reign of James II., as if it was not because what had been done had not been done completely that they had failed to satisfy Ireland and had left her as discontented as she was unhappily seen to be. For these reasons it seemed to him the last vestiges of religious disability ought now to be swept away. They knew what was the matter with Ireland—that it was outraged national sentiment to a great extent. If so small a Bill as that would soften existing asperities in any degree, the Liberal party would do well to support it; and he had some confidence, after the course they had taken on the second reading, that the Government would share in the views he had expressed.

MR. KER

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to this fact, that Ireland was not altogether a Roman Catholic country, for there was a numerous body of people there who were essentially Protestant; and even if they were small in number their views and feelings should not be ignored in that House.

MR. SERJEANT BARRY

said, he at first thought that it would have been better for his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, and to have allowed the question of the Lord Lieutenant to remain for future discussion; but he now thought that the time had arrived when such discussions should terminate in that House, and that the name of Roman Catholic disabilities should never again be heard within those walls. When his countrymen looked for a redress of their grievances to the Imperial Parliament, it was a sad and embarrassing reflection that, owing to the effects of misgovernment, British troops were now again pursuing the footsteps of Irish armed insurrectionists, But to the present hour—and the best working half of the Session was drawing to its close—not the slightest remedy or palliation for the evils afflicting that unfortunate country had been applied. He regarded the present measure as an insignificant one; but it was, perhaps, as large a measure as was within the scope of a private Member. Larger measures must originate with the Government. But up to this time no proposal had been made, except a proposal for the continuation of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act and one for the permanent fortification of the police barracks in that country. When they considered how few Lord Lieutenants could be Roman Catholics, and also how little the Lord Lieutenant had to do, except to administer the laws, it was an insult to Protestantism, and to its hold on the affections and conditions of the people of this country, gravely to argue that its interests were in any way bound up with or dependent upon the maintenance of a Protestant Viceroy in Ireland. With equal justice it might be said that this Motion went to the abolition of the standing army, or to the repudiation of the National Debt, as that it aimed a blow at the Protestant succession. If any man were to assert that these Protestant institutions were not deeply rooted in the hearts of the people of England they would be very much offended, and utter an indignant denial if they were told that these institutions could be affected by the question whether the Lord Lieutenant was to be a Roman Catholic or not. He could understand those who wished the Bill to be rejected altogether; but he could not understand those who drew a distinction between the office of Lord Chancellor and Lord Lieutenant, and thought they were open to the charge of inconsistency. It was said that there was a settlement in 1829, and that the Roman Catholics ought to be content with that settlement. He denied that there was any such settlement. There was no bar in that Act to prevent Roman Catholics from asserting their rights. There was no finality except that of complete equality. It was an injustice in the year 1867 to quote Sir Robert Peel as an authority in favour of these invidious distinctions. Were that statesman now alive, he believed he would regard what at one time might have been safeguards as irritating sources of discontent. He hoped the Committee would accept the Bill as it originally stood, and reject the Amendment.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQFER

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City has just asserted that we all know what is the matter with Ireland. I can assure him, as far as I am concerned, that I do not share that knowledge. I know he is a very able man, and he must be a very favoured one if he has thoroughly mastered the causes of disaffection which afflict that country. I think the debate of this evening must have given us all reason to feel that there is some truth in the observations I am making. At this moment Ireland is the scene of a conspiracy constantly on the point of breaking out, and for which no one has yet assigned any authentic reason—which is not national—which is not indigenous—which is said to be imported—and which, if it does not come from the other side of the Atlantic, is assisted by sympathies on the European Continent. There can be no doubt that certain effects are produced by these extraneous agencies, which are extremely inconvenient, not only to those who govern, but also to those who are governed. I am therefore surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have announced so distinctly that we are all acquainted with the causes of the disorders and discontents of the country, which certainly appear to me to deserve the deepest consideration, but which may also perplex the most attentive. In the course of the debate to-night considerable reference has been made to the conspiracy now so prevalent in Ireland, and its causes have been attributed to the influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood. I do not want to go into details on that subject—one that might lead to controversy and divert our attention from what is before us as a simple matter; but I could not allow the observations which I have heard, and heard at much length, charging sympathy and connivance with the Fenian insurrection to the Roman Catholic priesthood, to be made, without rising and stating, as a Minister of the Crown, that from our experience of all that has passed with regard to this unfortunate conspiracy and insurrection, and with regard to all that is occurring even up to the present moment, we have had no cause to feel any distrust of the loyalty of the Roman Catholic priesthood. And I will go further and say that to their sympathy with the Crown and the interests of England—to the information which they have given—to the general information and valuable knowledge which they possessed and have afforded, we have been much indebted and greatly assisted in the management of affairs of extreme difficulty; and, although we have been obliged to have recourse to severity, I trust the country will feel that it has not been an extreme severity, but that it has been tempered with that discretion of which real force knows how to avail itself. With regard to the present question before us, it is very important that we should distinguish between the nature of things which seem similar, but which are really distinct. The conditions on which the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act was passed are not part of the English Constitution. They were a statesmanlike settlement, and, as a statesmanlike settlement, they were adapted to the time and circumstances with which those statesmen had to deal. They were founded, no doubt, partly on principle and partly upon expediency, and, generally speaking, they were adjusted to the requirements of the period to which they related. But although I look upon those arrangements as the arrangements of very wise and considerate men, I do not hold that we are foreclosed from revising the policy under which those arrangements were recommended to Parliament. Now, with regard to the two particular offices touched by the present discussion, my noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, with the frankness and clearness which distinguish him, made a statement to the House some time ago, in which I entirely agree. I believe from what I myself heard some years ago from one who was a great authority connected with this settlement, that the intrusion into the arrangement of the office of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was a step founded in error. It arose from a misconception of the circumstances connected with that office, and from the mistaken belief that it was identical in its attributes, influence, and patronage with the office of Lord Chancellor in England. The Lord Chancellor of England is placed in a peculiar position with regard to the Church of England. He has great control over the patronage of the Church, and he is peculiarly the Adviser of the Crown in all matters connected with the Church. That is a very good reason why we should maintain in the Constitution of this country that the person who holds the office of Lord Chancellor of England should profess the Protestant religion. But there is not now, mid there never has been, anything in the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland which renders it unfitting that it should be held by a Roman Catholic. It is not connected with Church patronage, nor does it possess any peculiar relations with the Established Church in Ireland. It is simply the highest legal office, and as such the greatest prize that can be enjoyed by the legal profession, and it is therefore desirable that every Irishman, whatever his creed, should have the opportunity of obtaining that high dignity. But there is a very great difference between the two offices of Lord Chancellor and Lord Lieutenant; and even if the distinction were not so complete and absolute as I think it is, it would be, in my opinion, the most unwise and indiscreet act for the Roman Catholics to press a change in the law in respect to the office of Lord Lieutenant. That would be a course which would only revive prejudices and re-call animosities which I had hoped, if they had not been entirely banished, were greatly appeased. The Lord Lieutenant is the direct representative of the Sovereign of this country, and he is placed in intimate relations with the patronage of the Established Church of England in Ireland, and it would be a most unwise course for us to sanction a change that would create great distrust and dissatisfaction in the minds of the population of this country. Therefore, the course originally taken in this debate by my noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was discreet and wise—a course founded on principle, while to proceed further than the line which he indicated would very much offend the feelings of a great majority of the population of this country. It would, at the same time, create consider- able distrust and alarm, and be an obstacle to the encouragement of those feelings which I have always endeavoured to foster; and instead of inducing that equality of position and sentiment of which we have heard so much, would rather tend to produce exactly the reverse. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I shall support the Amendment, which is in unison with the policy of my noble Friend. I am quite willing to open to Irishmen, whatever may be their religious creed, the office of Lord Chancellor. I see no reason why difference of religion should be a bar to any Irishman arriving at that distinction. But I cannot sanction the other part of the Bill; and I believe that we shall be acting a discreet and proper part by determining that the relations of the Lord Lieutenant with regard to the Crown and the country shall not be changed in the manner proposed.

MR. GLADSTONE

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken on this subject with a moderation and with a studious and unaffected concern for the feelings of the people of Ireland, which, in my opinion, do him honour. But, at the same time, I think it must have been obvious to the House that in the argumentative portion of his speech he felt the difficulties of his position; and to use an old and familiar expression drawn from a high source, "his wheels drave heavily." The right hon. Gentleman must be conscious that it is upon grounds of no breadth that he offers a resistance to a most important portion of the Bill. He commenced his speech by stating that he did not pretend to know the source of the evils of Ireland, and it would be most presumptuous in me to contradict him, or to assert for myself any such knowledge. But although it may be true that there are ancient wounds which we cannot heal, and which perhaps are not yet probed to the bottom, still physicians when dealing with the constitution of a patient, even when they doubt as to the ultimate seat of the disease, have recourse to alterative methods, by which they can soothe, if with limited benefit, and which they confidently hope will do something to mitigate the disease. Admitting frankly the fairness of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that if we strictly observe the paramount principles of civil justice—if we carefully attend to the susceptibilities of national feelings—although we may not go straight to the core of the evils of Ireland, we shall assuage their intensity and prepare the way for the ultimate operation. The right hon. Gentleman draws a distinction between the two offices of Lord Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor. He says with regard to the former that its occupant holds a peculiar position with regard to Church patronage. The Bill, however, proposes to divest a Roman Catholic Lord Lieutenant of the exercise of that patronage; and, in the second place, even if it did not, the fact would still remain that the Lord Lieutenant has not one shadow of the higher responsibility with regard to ecclesiastical patronage. Whatever he does is done under the responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown. Then we are told he is a representative of the Crown. Certainly he is the representative of the Crown on all matters of dignity, of ceremonial, of courts, drawing-rooms, and on public occasions, when ladies are presented to him, and in various functions of that description. But this is not to be denied, that the constitutional responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant is inferior in dignity and weight to that of the Ministers forming the Cabinet, and that still the very place of the Minister who specially superintends the Lord Lieutenant in the exercise of his duties—namely, the Secretary of State for the Home Department—may at any time be filled by a Roman Catholic. The right hon. Gentleman has said that those who propose and support this measure will in pressing it revive prejudices and excite animosities. But when we are told that we are not to apply to Ireland principles different from those which we apply to England and Scotland, say that the same principles, so far as they are consistent with the unity of the Empire, should be consulted in framing the laws and institutions of each country. My belief is, that to follow out to their natural conclusion, courageously, prudently, but firmly, the principles of strict civil justice is the way not to weaken and disparage, but to confirm and consolidate those institutions. The right hon. Gentleman says, that to press these claims would awaken animosities and revive prejudices. Where? In Ireland? No, but in England. But is that a sufficient reason why a majority of the people of Ireland should be debarred and deprived of enjoying a matter of a civil right, because the minority allege that their prejudices would be wounded? Now, I ask, is that a fair, generous, and equitable mode of handling this question? Is it a mode by which we may seek to soothe the sore and wounded feelings of the people of Ireland, if, on a question that is not English, but Irish, we are to say to the people of Ireland, "Abate your rights, do not urge your demands, because we who inhabit England and Scotland in a matter purely Irish declare we have prejudices which you must respect?" There is no man in the House, I think, who seriously would urge or could possibly believe—certain I am that the right hon. Gentleman will not seriously urge and cannot possibly believe—that danger would result to the Constitution, the Church, and the religion of the country by the contingency—not arising at the moment, but should it ever arise—by the holding of the office of Lord Lieutenant by a Roman Catholic subject of the Queen. I am only doing the right hon. Gentleman justice when I point out to the House that the right hon. Gentleman in his speech made no such allegation. He rested his opposition on the question of the ecclesiastical patronage of the Lord Lieutenant, which the Bill proposes to take away; he rested it on the representation of the Crown by the Lord Lieutenant, which representation is exercised under the control and responsibility of the Government and a Minister of the Crown, who by the existing law may be a Roman Cotholic; he rested it on the prejudice of this country, to which it would be most unworthy of us to give weight as against the civil rights of a people who are not English, but Irish. But of danger to the Constitution, the right hon. Gentleman has not said a word; and I am persuaded that he believes that danger to be a phantom. If danger there be, it is in this:—in slackness, in reluctance, in niggardliness on our part in dealing with those claims of Ireland which are founded on justice. But to extend largely and liberally civil equality to the entire of Her Majesty's subjects in these kingdoms is the true way of consulting the interests of the religion, the Church, and the Constitution of this country.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 143: Majority 3.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

said, that in the debate on the second reading, the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland called his attention to the fact that the Lord Chancellor had some jurisdiction in the appointment of delegates for hearing ecclesiastical appeals, and was an ex officio trustee of certain Protestant charities. He had consequently prepared a clause providing that when the office was filled by a Roman Catholic those functions should devolve on one of the Chief Judges, being a Protestant.

Clause agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.