§ On Motion, "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn to Monday next,"
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid*: Sir, I have given notice that I intend to direct the attention of the House to certain circumstances connected with the Select Committee recently appointed to consider the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851, and also one of the clauses in the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which forbids the assumption by Roman Catholic Bishops of titles, held by the Bishops of the Established Church in Ireland; and in doing so I will not long detain the House. The circumstances connected with the appointment of the Committee, 1615 and some of the circumstances connected with its proceedings, are so very remarkable, that I deem it only fair to those, whose evidence has been practically rejected, or, at all events, was never entertained, that the position of the Committee should be understood. It is evident, Sir, from the records of the proceedings of this House, which I have here, that the House was very unwilling that the question involved in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act should be re-opened. I have in my hand the accounts of the proceedings which took place when the Bill for the repeal of this Act was introduced, and when the Motion for the appointment of the Committee stood upon the Paper. On more than one occasion the House was counted out, and it was only through the perseverance of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. MacEvoy), and one or two other Roman Catholic Members, supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue), countenanced as it appeared to me by Her Majesty's Government, that the questions involved in these Acts were raised at all, and even then, not until after much delay and much manifest evasion. I protested against these proceedings, because I hold that Her Majesty's Government are the guardians of the prerogative of the Crown, as well as the guardians of the independence of the State, both of which matters are involved; I felt strongly that the Government ought, on their own responsibility, to have taken a decided course on these great questions. Yet I am far from being prepared to assert that what has occurred is fraught with no advantage. After having resisted every attempt to raise these questions, and to refer these statutes to a Select Committee late in this Session, I asked the House to excuse my serving as a member of this Committee. I did so on the grounds I have mentioned, and because I was convinced from the nature of the subject itself, and from the advanced period of the Session at which we had arrived, that it would be quite impossible that the Committee could inquire into the whole of the questions at issue as their importance demands. The result has proved that I judged rightly in forming that opinion. But before going further, I would remark that there is attached to the reference of this Committee a portion which ought not to be misunderstood; this is an extract from the Votes of this House, dated Wednesday the 31st of July, 1867, in these words— 1616
Petition of the Chairman of the Committee of the Protestant Association praying to be allowed the opportunity of tendering evidence on the subject; referred to Select Committee on Ecclesiastical Titles Bill and the Roman Catholic Relief Acts.Sir, that Order of the House was defeated. That Petition was referred by order of the House to the Select Committee; but by an irregularity on the part of an officer, or of the officers of this House, that Petition was never delivered to the Committee, nor were they regularly informed by any officer of the Order of the House. I have made further inquiries since last, Sir, I brought this matter under your particular attention in the House; I find that the greater part of the Members of that Committee had no notion or idea that any such Petition had been presented or referred to the Committee. I had also, Sir, to appeal to you with reference to the delay in returning certain evidence given before the Committee, of the excessive time taken for the correction of this evidence in contravention of the rules of the House. I find that Dr. Ullathorne, one of the witnesses examined, has written to the Weekly Register, a Roman Catholic paper, denying the accuracy of the reports of his evidence which appear in the public journals. I should weary the House if I were to attempt to go through any analysis of anything like the whole evidence given before the Committee; it is sufficient to say that it was tendered exclusively by persons who seek to obtain the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and the repeal of the clause in the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829 to which I have referred. We know, Sir—for it appears from the tenour of the draft Report which was drawn up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), and rejected by a majority of 1 in the Committee—that he did not propose that the Committee should hear further evidence, because the reference to the Committee—or I might say the Commission of the Committee from this House—was simply to ascertain whether any practical grievance existed under the operation of these Acts, and not otherwise to consider the policy of these Acts. I felt confident, Sir, before the right hon. Gentleman went into the Committee, that he would never be able to limit the evidence to so narrow an issue, but that the evidence tendered would bear directly and chiefly upon the great questions that have existed as matters of 1617 difference between the Papacy and this country for the last 300 years in the form of direct antagonism; but these differences between this country and the Papacy were scarcely less distinct at far earlier periods, when the country professed spiritual allegiance to the See of Rome, than now; with regard, I mean, to the nature of the jurisdiction claimed by, and the temporal position of, the Roman Hierarchy. The result of the course pursued by the Select Committee is that a mass of evidence upon these general questions, exclusively on one side, has been received, and I am here now to state on the part of those whose counter-evidence — evidence in support of these statutes, as being consonant with, and declaratory of, the common law of this country; as being essential to the maintenance of the prerogative of the Crown and of the national independence, was not received—to state before the House that the evidence given before the Committee was exclusively one-sided and ex parte. It is very important that this should be distinctly understood; because if any attempt be hereafter made to act upon the Report of this Committee, which, by a majority of 1 only, impugns the present law, it ought to be known that the only evidence received by this Committee was from persons directly interested in, from persons avowedly seeking, the repeal of these laws. Sir, it is not enough in such a case as this to prove that the law inflicts no grievance upon a certain section of the community. When a law is assailed, is questioned, it is necessary to prove that it is advantageous to the community and the State. I thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, who displayed in his cross-examination of these witnesses great ability, that there is no real grievance suffered by the Roman Catholic Bishops, or by Roman Catholics generally; unless the operation of these laws is to be considered a grievance, because by them the Papacy is not permitted to supersede through the agency of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy the Established Church and the established Constitution of this country; that they are not permitted to enforce a jurisdiction in this country, which they call merely voluntary and merely spiritual; but which out of their own mouths I can show would, if unrestrained, involve questions of the deepest temporal importance—matters concerning the civil and the social and religious freedom no less than 1618 political rights of Her Majesty's subjects. But, Sir, this evidence, as I have already asserted, has not been received; and I hold, therefore, that the Report of that Committee is the result of a one-sided inquiry—an inquiry which, as the proceedings prove, was conducted by a majority of partisans, and as to the evidence it is clear it is admitted that only one side was heard. It is not enough, I repeat, to prove by direct evidence that the law inflicts no practical grievance. In order to maintain a law there should be direct evidence of the necessity for that law, and of the advantage which the State and the community derived from it. Such evidence, the evidence of thoroughly competent witnesses, was prepared—was intended to be laid before this Committee. This House ordered that the Committee should consider whether they would or would not receive this evidence. But the order of this House was intercepted, and no such evidence was taken, although it was tendered to the House. I have, therefore, a right to say that the Report which was adopted by the Committee is an ex parte Report. The House will permit me for a few moments to show the extent of the questions which the appointment and proceedings of this Committee have disturbed, but have not settled. I quote from the draft Report proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, which was rejected in the Committee by a majority of 1, but which forms part of the proceedings of the Committee. These are the words—Nor is it altogether unimportant to remark that this claim to a territorial hierarchy, 'as morally necessary to the Roman Catholic Church in England,' could only be recognized according to the opinion of the Roman Catholics themselves, by a negation or denial (practically speaking) of the existing Establishment, and the authority of its bishops.When Mr. Hope Scott was asked the question—Then if any bishop was to intrude into the See of another bishop in this country it would be in the eye at least of that portion of the Church, which was in this country a sehismatical act?His answer was—There is no doubt at all about it. The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church would not be justified in placing bishops anywhere in England, or in Ireland, if it did not deny the authority, practically speaking, of the bishops of the Establishment; it is, of course, an issue between the two religions, which it is of no use blinking.And when Mr. Hope Scott was further asked— 1619But the Roman Catholic Church assume that the English Episcopate has no existence?His answer was—Most undoubtedly. The appointment of any ecclesiastical officer whatever of the Roman Catholic religion, and the appointment of any priest exercising cure of souls, is a negation of the Established Church, and that is, of course, a part of the religion which is supposed to be freed by the Act of 1829.The draft Report then goes on to say—Your Committee are surprised at this last observation, since they had always understood that the Act of 1829 had expressly declared, with reference to the assumption of territorial titles by Catholic Prelates, as a reason for their not being assumed, that the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, and likewise the Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, are by the respective Acts of Union of England and Scotland, and of England and Ireland, established permanently and inviolably. Bishop Ullathorne concurs in the observations made by Mr. Hope Scott on this part of the subject.Now, nothing can be more clearly in direct conflict with the claims put forward by the Papacy than the position of the Established Church; but, as I before mentioned, it is pretended that the jurisdiction, which is claimed by the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, is merely voluntary, merely spiritual. This is, however, in the eyes of those who understand the subject, a very flimsy pretext indeed. It is nothing more or less than the old Papal quibble with regard to the objects, covered by the words "spiritual and temporal," respectively. Then Dr. Moriarty was examined before the Committee, and said—I need not tell the Committee that this enactment—the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851—has been totally inoperative; we hold it to be unlawful and void. We never derived our jurisdiction from Parliament or from the Crown, and we believe that no power in the State can render the exercise of it either invalid or unlawful.Again, the witness says elsewhere—Now this we do not do (claim rank from the State), nor do I envy the distinction which the Protestant Bishop has in holding his title from the Crown, and being thereby constituted a Baron, or whatever he may be, of this Empire, for I prefer to hold direct from the Lord, and to let Dr. Graves, who is Bishop of my place, hold from, the Lord Lieutenant.This Question was then put to him—You spoke of exceptional legislation, and you talked of this as a step backwards; with reference to exceptional legislation, what exceptional legislation, which is still in force, do you refer to?The answer was—There is the existence of the Established Church and all its consequences.1620 He was then asked—Is there anything else?His reply was—I think that that is quite enough.Dr. Moriarty went on to say—I say more, that it is absurd that the Bishop of 7,000 persons or less should be competent to sit in your Legislature, while the Bishop of 223,600 is deprived even of the name and semblance of social rank. I am not ambitious of a seat in the Legislature; but I insist that we should be both either admitted or excluded together, and if only one is admitted, I have the best right to be there. Now while this inequality lasts, there will be strife and hatred and national antipathy, and England and Ireland can never become one united Empire.I ask the House, then, is not this a temporal matter? Dr. Moriarty goes on to say—The repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act would be a very small instalment of justice, but it would be a step in the right direction; it would be a graceful and prudent beginning, and it would convince many, of what I am myself firmly persuaded, that the English people sincerely, and earnestly, and honestly desire to see Ireland governed with justice and kindness, and without distinction of class or creed. In order to be better understood, I will say that I do not want or wish for any positive legal recognition of our titles, for we do not derive them, or any spiritual power, from the Legislature or the Government. The Government can neither give them nor take them away. I wish merely that the prohibition should be removed, and that we should be let alone; and I wish this for the sake of the highest moral interests of society, which depend upon the establishment and maintenance of right relations between the people and those whom God has placed over them.This witness had before said—There is only one body in the country, and that is the Catholic Hierarchy and clergy, who could bridge over the deep and sharp chasm which divides the upper and lower classes in Ireland.Well, is not that a temporal matter? Again, Dr. Moriarty continues—My proper title is Bishop of Ardfert. It is by usage that I have been called Bishop of Kerry. I consider that I no more assume a title when I call myself Bishop of Kerry than I do when I call myself parish priest of Killarney, which I also am; and I consider that the county treasurer, or the county surveyor of Kerry, has a title in the very same sense in which I have. If things were understood in that way, I should think that it never could be imagined that there was any interference with the prerogative of the Crown in assuming titles. These are the observations which I have to make.Thus, Sir, Dr. Moriarty places the title, which he claims to have derived from the Pope, on exactly the same footing as a designation conferred by the law of this country. Dr. Moriarty subsequently said, in reply to the following Question:— 1621As to the purely spiritual title and jurisdiction, exercised by a Roman Catholic bishop, say, in a Roman Catholic country, by the law of his Church is he supposed to possess any power of temporal punishment over the members of his Church?—Yes, he has power by the canon law to punish certain crimes, and to hold a court which implies compulsory jurisdiction; but it is quite obvious that such a power never can be exercised without the aid of the secular arm, and that if the secular arm refuses its aid, there is de facto an end of his compulsory jurisdiction.Therefore it is only by the negation of such jurisdiction, as the Ecclesiastical Titles Act repels, that the power of the Papal Church has not become compulsory and coercive by means of the law of England. He is next asked this Question—If the Ecclesiastical Titles Act had not been passed, and if the Roman Catholic prelates had been allowed without any interference to assume the position of Bishops in ordinary, would they under the canon law have been allowed to possess that authority?He answers—Certainly not, for the State would not lend its aid.The next Question asked was—How are they prevented from possessing it under the canon law?And the answer stands thus—Simply because you will not send your policeman to execute the power.Yes, Sir; and that is what we, who desire to retain the Ecclesiastical Titles Act as declaratory of the common law, desire should continue. We do not wish to lend the police for any such purposes. The next Question asked was—Is it (temporal and coercive jurisdiction) possessed in other countries?—Yes. There are appointed officers of the Bishop's court, such as his beadle and his citator, and other officers, who are bound to execute his summons, and to bring persons before his court, because the civil law of the country permits them to do so.Mr. Chichester Fortescue asked—You mean in countries where the Roman Catholic Church is the State Church?—I do.I think, then, I have shown, from the evidence of this learned person, that the statement that this jurisdiction is merely spiritual is a mere quibble, since the object sought by this witness clearly is to release the Papal jurisdiction from the restraint of the law, which prevents its becoming here what it is elsewhere, coercive and temporal in its operation; and the statutes, which prevent this, a Committee of this House, I am sorry to say, has recommended us to abrogate. Nothing can, Sir, be more perfectly clear than that the position of this 1622 House is at this moment exactly analagous to that of the House of Commons some centuries ago: this appears from an extract I will read to the House, from a record of its own proceedings in former days, which is very much to the point. It is an extract from the Remonstrance of the Commons addressed to James I., in 1621, against his countenancing Popery—And from these causes, as bitter roots, we humbly offer to your Majesty, that we foresee and fear there will necessarily follow very dangerous effects both to Church and State, for—1. The Popish religion is incompatible with ours in respect of their positions. 2. It draweth with it an inviolaable dependency on foreign Princes. 3. It openeth too wide a gap for popularity to any who shall draw too great a party. 4. It hath a restless spirit, and will strive by these gradations—if it once gets but a connivance it will press for a toleration; if that should be obtained they must have an equality, from thence they will aspire to superiority, and will never rest until they get a subversion of the true religion.Could evidence be more directly in support of such a Remonstrance than that which I have quoted, as given before this Committee, which sat, comparatively speaking, but yesterday? Might not the House, with as good reason, adopt the substance of that Remonstrance now, as in the year 1621? I most deeply lament that these questions should be forced upon us. When I am forced by a sense of duty to resist the continual encroachments that are attempted by the advocates of the Papacy, I sometimes feel bitterly that some people are taught to regard me as an aggressor. It is now two years since I have originated any Motion in this House, touching or concerning Roman Catholic institutions, the Roman clergy, or the Roman Catholic laity. Two years ago I moved for an inquiry into monasteries and convents. Since then I have been too often compelled to intrude upon the attention of the House. I feel, therefore, that I owe my sincere thanks to the House for the indulgence that has been shown me. But why have I been contending thus? Because month after month, week after week, night after night, there has been carried on in, this House a constant system of aggression, continual attacks have been made upon the institutions of this country. I thank the House for having allowed me thus to disavow any desire to attack my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. But with regard to this question of jurisdiction, there is another circumstance to which I would call the attention of the House and the Government. The evidence given before the 1623 Committee is very astutely guarded. I shall not attempt to unravel the evidence of Dr. Manning or that of Dr. Ullathorne. Time and state of the House forbid my attempting this. But, Sir, these Roman Catholic prelates have their organs, and there is one especially, which was established, I understand, by Cardinal Wiseman, and which is certainly held to represent the views of the Ultramontane section of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland—I mean the Dublin Review. What is the character of the writing in that Review? In previous numbers there have been articles, and in that for the month of July there is an article in defence of the Papacy with respect to the Inquisition, from which I will read a few extracts in order to show the temper of the writing. The article is entitled The Holy See and the Spanish Inquisition; and is in continuance of other articles on the same subject. This is an example of the substance of the article—The Popes of Rome claimed the right, founded in the infallible certainty of their being the exclusive repository of truth on earth, of despotically rebuking error, whatsoever form it might assume; and they discharged their divinely-imposed duty by erecting a tribunal to eradicate the odious heresy. … The successors of St. Peter merit the gratitude of mankind for the establishment of an institution whose wise and merciful administration of the powers delegated to it adverted the most desolating calamities from Christendom… The Spanish Inquisition has often been represented, by very ignorant or dishonest writers, as a despotism of the Church of Rome; but the despotism of the Inquisition from the time of its foundation, until its existence ended, aimed, on the contrary, at crushing the influence of Rome in Spain.This apology is little better than a mere quibble. It is based upon certain differences between the Papacy and the Dominician Order, and the Court of Spain; but the Inquisition had the sanction of the Papacy, nevertheless, and this—the fact that questions as to jurisdiction and power arose and were contested by the local Inquisitors and Sovereigns with Rome—cannot be disproved. The Review continues—The only cheek upon its cruelty was the determined perseverance with which the Sovereign Pontiffs interfered in behalf of mercy, and by remonstrances, mandates of grace, and even excommunication, moderated its excessive rigour.I am sorry to say, Sir, that there is a very different story to be told on the other side, if the history of the Inquisition were inquired into. I do not deny that some Popes have restrained Inquisitors; but I cannot compare the conduct of the Papacy 1624 generally, with respect to the Inquisition, otherwise than to that of a man who, having regularly hired an assassin, complains that he is difficult to manage, and claims credit to himself for interfering to save the lives of one or two of his intended victims. The Review proceeds—The activity of the Inquisition was mainly employed, during the 16th century, in excluding the curse of Protestantism from the Spanish peninsula. Superficial, heretical, and infidel writers have made the so-called fanaticism of Philip II., in maintaining Catholicity as the exclusive religion of Spain, a favourite theme of obloquy; but his piety and statesmanship in using the Inquisition to save his country from the bloody brood of sectaries that were desolating the rest of Europe, merit for him the name of a wise, well-intentioned, and good Christian Prince. … The claims made by the Church are of infallible certainty that all its teachings are true; that all other teachings are false, and that it is endowed with the right to exclude pernicious doctrine and punish heresy. … The first of these elements, guided by the sublimely merciful spirit of the Founder of Christianity, prevailed through the first epoch of the Inquisition. It checked the savage barbarity of State instincts, interposed a barrier between millions of souls and temporal and eternal destruction, and is the glory and pride of the Catholic Church. It was planned by the wisest of Popes, sanctioned by the most devout and merciful of saints, ruled over by the holiest and most disinterested of religious corporations, and accomplished ends, which Pagan Emperors and Christian Kings had, during long centuries, vainly sought to attain.This shows that, whilst the Roman Catholic Church professes to aim at spiritual jurisdiction only, it will assign no limit to the temporal means and power it considers necessary to the extension of its quasi-ecclesiastical authority. There is a spirit in these writings which it would be unsafe to unloose. The present state of the Roman Catholic Church, the relations of the Papacy with Italy, and the laws of Italy prove this. The laws of France prove this. The able despatch of Prince Gortschakoff, which now lies upon the table of the House, giving a history of the relations of the Court of Russia with the Holy See for more than thirty years, proves this. I sincerely thank the House for the attention it has given me in the endeavour to show the House and my fellow-countrymen that no conclusion against these Acts of Parliament—the Ecclesiastical Titles Act and the analogous section of the Relief Act of 1829—can be safely drawn from the Report of a Committee which has heard direct evidence only on one side, and whose Report is, therefore, founded solely on ex parte evidence.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, the course which had been pursued with reference to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was unwarrantable, unjustifiable, and discreditable to the Government. That measure passed under remarkable circumstances in 1851, but was never enforced. It remained until the present day, when a Bill was brought in to repeal it. The Government never expressed any opinion upon that Bill, but referred it to a Select Committee, endeavouring to absolve itself from its fair responsibility. Now, what had been the course of that Committee? He brought before one of the members of that Committee—the hon. and learned Attorney General—the expediency of examining a gentleman named M'Gee, who had written a great deal upon the subject, which he thoroughly understood, showing the dangers impending over us by the assumption of authority, and by the proceedings of the Roman Catholic Church. The hon. and learned Gentleman fully acquiesced in the propriety of examining the Rev. Mr. M'Gee, and arrangements were made for that gentleman to give evidence; but he was never called before the Committee, and the Attorney General had told him (Mr. Whalley), a few days ago, that the reason why he had not considered it necessary to examine him was that it was only necessary for the parties promoting the repeal of the Act to establish their own case; and that as he did not think they had established their case it was not necessary to reply to it. Not only had the Government endeavoured to absolve themselves from responsibility in the matter by referring the question to a Committee, but their representative on the Committee, the Attorney General, thought fit to be absent when the Committee divided upon their Report, and the consequence was that a Report in favour of the Act was rejected, and a Report for repealing it affirmed by the casting vote of the Chairman. Altogether this was a state of things which he thought was without precedent. He protested against no evidence having been taken except on behalf of the promoters of the repeal of the Act, and against the course which had been taken by the Government in dealing with the matter.
§ MR. WALPOLEIn replying to the remarks of my hon. Friend who has called the attention of the House to this matter, and the remarks of the hon. Member opposite, I think I shall best discharge my duty by not adverting to the general topics of theological and ecclesiastical controversy 1626 raised by my hon. Friend. At the same time, I feel it my duty to put the House in possession of the facts with reference to the proceedings taken before the Committee. With regard to the original appointment of that Committee I had very little to do. I was absent from London at the time it was appointed, and it was from no desire of my own that I was made a Member of it, because I knew that that kind of conversation would go on in Committee which it would be anything but pleasant to listen to. That Committee was not appointed for the purpose either of avoiding or coming to any foregone conclusion respecting any question which might be brought under their notice. The object of the Committee was, a Bill having been brought into the House on the subject, to consider the propriety of repealing the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and whether there was anything in the operation of the law which practically weighed upon Roman Catholics, and which made it expedient that the law should be repealed or amended. That was the object of the appointment, and to my mind that was the only justifiable object for which the Committee could have been appointed. If the Committee had gone into questions of theological controversy, and had taken evidence on historical matters, they would have been instituting an inquiry which could have led to no practical result, because evidence could not be taken upon such matters which are open to the knowledge of every Member of this House, without any particular evidence respecting them being taken. And now, with regard to the proceedings of the Committee, I must confess there was one occurrence which I regret, as I think the House will do. I shall advert to this presently but with reference to the general proceedings of the Committee, I may mention that evidence was taken on the part of those who moved for the Committee to establish their case by showing that the law was oppressive to the Roman Catholics. The Attorney General for Ireland, and three or four other Members of the Committee, including myself, arrived at the conclusion, after hearing the evidence, that no case of practical grievance had been made out, and that, therefore, there was no necessity for us to have any general evidence on questions of historical or theological controversy. That is the plain, simple truth of the case, and I believe that if we had prolonged the proceedings of the Committee, we should have had a most unpleasant, disagreeable, and unprofitable 1627 inquiry. As, however, I have already remarked, there is one circumstance which I regret as a misfortune, and which the other members of the Committee and the House generally will, I believe, also regret. I refer to the Petition which has been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). That Petition was not brought before the Committee from an unintentional mistake on the part of one or two of the officers of the House. Until we had reported, I, as a member of the Committee, was totally unaware that that Petition had been presented to the House and referred to the Committee, requesting that evidence might be taken in answer to the testimony which had been given against the Act. I believe that the Attorney General for Ireland was also ignorant of the fact that such a Petition had been presented. Owing to a mistake in some department of the House, it was not brought under the notice of the Committee, though whether it was submitted to the notice of the Chairman I am not quite certain. If we had known of that Petition we should, in my opinion, have been bound to have taken the evidence of persons who desired to urge reasons in favour of the Act. I think it was a great misfortune that the Petition was not brought under our notice, and also that such evidence was not tendered before the Committee, as it was not desirable to exclude testimony which any gentleman might desire to give. The evidence taken, I admit, is tendered only on one side, but is sufficient to enable the Committee to judge of the particular question referred to them, as to whether there is anything in the operation of the law bearing oppressively on Roman Catholics which requires either repeal or alteration? All the facts were presented in the evidence which was taken, and as that evidence is open to everybody, the case can be dealt with whenever it shall be again brought before the attention of the House in a much more full and complete manner than would have been the case if the question had not been referred to a Committee. You have now before you all the allegations made by able lawyers and ecclesiastics on the subject, and when you have a statement from such a, gentleman as Mr. Hope Scott, who is perfectly conversant with all the facts of the case, and when you have also the answers given to those facts by the counterevidence elicited from himself and others, I think the House could not have been in 1628 a better position to judge of the question. As regards the great question whether the Act should be repealed or not, and with regard to the historical and theological arguments to which my hon. Friend has so strikingly adverted, these are matters for discussion in this House, and when they are raised I shall be prepared to give my opinion upon them, though I always regret such subjects as these being brought forward. The Committee arrived at a conclusion in regard to which I was unfortunately in a minority; but the views of the minority are fully represented in the draft Report which I submitted to the Committee. On the whole, I think there is no reason to complain of the proceedings taken by the Committee, which I believe painfully and honestly discharged its duty, although I regret that the knowledge of the Petition having been presented was not brought under our notice.
§ MR. WHALLEYwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, If the Committee were precluded from inquiring into any other matters except the practical inconveniences sustained by Roman Catholics? ["Order!"]