HC Deb 07 February 1867 vol 185 cc111-9

Offices and Oaths considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

rose to move— That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove certain Religious Disabilities affecting some of Her Majesty's Subjects, and to amend the Law relating to Oaths of Office. The hon. and learned Baronet said he did not wish to raise any discussion upon this occasion, as he thought it would be better to discuss the provisions of the Bill upon the second reading. The Bill which he now asked leave to introduce was one which he feared would not meet with the same general support as the last, and no doubt the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and other hon. Members of the same opinions, would offer to it all the opposition in their power; but he nevertheless trusted to show to the House that it ought to be carried. When he introduced in the last Session his Bill for the abolition of the Declaration regarding Transubstantiation, he said that he had no intention to alter the existing law as to the qualifications for holding certain offices under Government, because he did not consider that such an attempt should be made indirectly or by a side-wind, but openly, so that the House might have a full knowledge of the object proposed. Accordingly he now asked for leave to introduce this Bill, the object of which was to remove certain religious disabilities and open to Roman Catholics certain offices now closed to them. He would remind the House that there were certain offices in Ireland which Roman Catholics could not hold in consequence of the enactments in the Emancipation Act of 1829, and amongst them were those of Lord Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor. The first clause of the Bill would enable Roman Catholics to hold the office of Lord Chancellor and the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In 1859 a Bill was introduced into this House by Lord Athlumney (then Sir William Somerville) and Mr. Herbert, to enable the Lord Chancellorship of Ireland to be held by Roman Catholics, and that Bill was supported by Lord Palmerston, Sir George Lewis, Mr. Cardwell, and other eminent Members of the House. But in consequence of the late period at which the Bill was introduced the opposition that was offered to it proved successful, and it was withdrawn. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, unlike the Lord Chancellor of England, had no ecclesiastical patronage; in fact, he was no more than the highest equity Judge in that country, and there could be no reason why a Roman Catholic should not hold the office. The other office he proposed to open was that of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; nor could he understand why the Emancipation Act excluded Roman Catholics from it. A Roman Catholic might be the Chief Secretary for Ireland; he might be the Prime Minister of England; he might fill any of the Chief Secretaryships of State; but he was not allowed to be Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It might be said that as the Lord Lieutenant represented Her Majesty—the representative of the Protestant Crown—he must be a Protestant; but it should be remembered that the Governor General of Canada, of India, or of any Australian colony, or of any other dependency of the Crown, might be a Roman Catholic. It was difficult, therefore, to argue with any consistency that a Roman Catholic was disqualified from properly representing Her Majesty in Ireland. It was true that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland enjoyed a good deal of ecclesiastical patronage; but in the event of the office being filled by a Roman Catholic, that patronage could be dispensed by some other person; just as, he presumed, that if the Prime Minister of England were of the Roman Catholic persuasion he would not interfere with the filling up of vacancies in the episcopal bench. The Secretary of State for the Home Department enjoyed large ecclesiastical patronage in Scotland, yet a Roman Catholic could fill the office, though in such a case he would not dispense this particular branch of the patronage attaching to his office. All that he sought by the Bill was to place all the subjects of Her Majesty on perfect religious equality. He did not desire to provide that the Lord Lieutenant or the Lord Chancellor of Ireland should be a Roman Catholic, but only that he might be, if an occasion should arise when it appeared convenient, to give the appointment to a gentleman or nobleman of that persuasion. The next clause of the Bill had for its object to repeal what he must consider as a most miserable clause in the Emancipation Act of 1829—namely, the clause that prevented mayors and other corporate officers who might be Roman Catholics from attending Divine worship in their robes of office, and Judges who might be Roman Catholics from attending Divine worship in their official robes. This enactment was naturally the occasion of ill-feeling in Ireland. It was, in fact, saying that the mayor of a town might be a Roman Catholic, but his robe and chain of office must be Protes- tant; or a Judge might believe in transubstantiation, but his wig and his gown must agree in the orthodoxy of the Thirty-nine Articles. The time had come when they should put an end to these miserable remnants of the past. When a Protestant mayor was elected for Dublin he went in state to Christ's Church; but when a Roman Catholic was elected, he could not go in state to his place of worship. The third and last provision of the Bill related to the abolition of certain oaths. The House was aware that last Session the Catholic oath question was finally settled, and a uniform oath was adopted, which every Member of Parliament must take in future when he took his seat. But the only persons relieved from what the Legislature proclaimed last Session to be an offensive oath were Members of Parliament; and the old oath had still to be taken by members of corporations, magistrates, professional men, and others in Ireland. What he desired by the third clause was to provide that the oath adopted last Session by the House should be the only one to be used for the future in all cases. These were the simple provisions of the Bill, and he would repeat that he did not wish to raise any discussion upon them at present. He trusted that when the House came to consider the Bill they would see that he asked nothing which was not perfectly reasonable and just.

Resolution moved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove certain Religious Disabilities affecting some of Her Majesty's subjects, and to amend the Law relating to Oaths of Office.—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he thought that this second Bill very clearly explained the object of the last Bill which the hon. Member had introduced. The Bill for the Abolition of the Declaration regarding Transubstantiation passed that House last Session on the ground that the declaration was simply offensive to Roman Catholics, though he, Mr. Whiteside, and some other hon. Members had endeavoured to impress upon the House that it was merely a disguise for a political object. The other House was, he believed, of that opinion, and rejected the Bill. The proposal before the House was that any office in Ireland might be filled by a Roman Catholic. Though ours was a Protestant monarchy, yet it was proposed that the office of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland—which represented the Queen— might be filled by a Roman Catholic. He would remind the Government that the Protestant subjects of this country attached great importance to the fact that the Crown stood limited to Protestants. That was settled at the Revolution, and was considered by their ancestors, and had ever since been considered, to be one of the safeguards of the country. Their experience taught them that that limitation had proved salutary and wise, and the wisdom of this limitation was exhibited in the increasing prosperity of the country. The hon. and learned Baronet said the dependencies of this country might be presided over by Homan Catholics as Governors. He (Mr. Newdegate) believed that there had been instances of that kind; but did the hon. Member mean to say that Ireland was a dependency? He (Mr. Newdegate) thought Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Baronet seemed to think that the liberality of the House ought to have no bounds, for year after year these demands were increased. He did not desire on that occasion to enter at large into the question; but he trusted that the Government would remember that they had been hitherto supported by the Church of England and the Protestant opinion of the country, and if they desired hereafter to have that support, they must, at all events, be ready to guard the Protestantism of the Crown, and be ready to secure that Her Majesty should not in the United Kingdom be directly represented by a Roman Catholic. He was willing to grant to his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects everything that could be granted consistently with what experience had shown to be necessary for the maintenance of the freedom of their own religion as well as of ours. The House would do well to consider how this proposal would be looked upon by foreigners who have more experience of Ultramontane tactics than we have in England. Count Montalembert, in writing the Political Future of England, urged the Roman Catholics of this country and their priesthood to claim, upon the ground of religious equality, admission to every office, and in making this recommendation, he added, "that under a free Government more than under any other form of Government, if you urge this plea and persevere in it, nothing can resist your power." If the Roman Catholic religion were dissevered from the political system, with which it was connected, the objections which he entertained would not possess one-half their force. But the experience of the whole of Europe at the present day showed that the Papacy was the centre and instrument of a powerful political propagandism, which in too many countries had proved itself revolutionary, and it was but the other day that extracts were published in this country from a most important document—he referred to the despatch of Prince Gortschakoff explaining the grounds of the abandonment of the Concordat between the Imperial Government and the Holy See—the Concordat of 1847; and connected with that despatch documents showing that, so far as was consistent with the safety of the State, the Russian Government had on several marked occasions made all possible concessions to the Roman Catholics, and had granted them complete security for their religious institutions and property. The result of these concessions had been witnessed in several insurrections, and at last a most bloody civil war in Poland, directly sanctioned by the Papacy. It was his intention to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department to lay that important document upon the table of the House, for he (Mr. Newdegate) had long noticed a parallel between the policy of the Papacy in Ireland and the policy of the Papacy in Poland, which could not be mistaken. The effect, however, of that policy in Ireland had been less violent, owing to the wiser government of Ireland by England. But still there was an analogy between the position of the people of Ireland and the position of the people of Poland, inasmuch as they were of the Roman Catholic religion to a great extent, and when it was proposed to sweep away the last vestige in Ireland of the fact that the Sovereignty of England was Protestant, it was high time that the House should look abroad; should not regard the subject in a narrow spirit; should not be deluded into the belief that we were merely making concessions to religious scruples when it was evident that these concessions would encourage a deep and wide-spread conspiracy.

CAPTAIN HERBERT

supported the Motion. He thought it quite time that all such invidious distinctions founded on religious differences should cease. He drew attention to the fact that no Irishman or Papist was allowed to enter the Guards. How could they, when there was such a talk about friendship for the Irish people, maintain such exclusions? Why should not Irishmen be in the Guards? Or, rather, why should not Ireland have a regiment of Guards as well as Scotland? He thanked his hon. Friend for having introduced this subject.

MR. HADFIELD

remarked that the comments of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), were based on the Church Establishment; but it was evident that there was at the present time a very uneasy feeling in the public mind relative to what was going on in the Church Establishment. Had the hon. Gentleman ever considered what had been stated, though not in his place in the House of Lords, by the Earl of Shaftesbury; had he reflected on the apathy shown by a Protestant Chancellor and thirty Bishops in the House of Lords with regard to this question? The fact was that they merely stood by and did nothing, leaving it to take its chance. He believed that there existed amongst all classes a cordial attachment to the Throne of this country, and was surprised at the course so often taken by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. That hon. Gentleman had for eight years fought a Bill which merely proposed to remove a declaration which the Leader of the Conservative party declared to be not worth the paper on which it was printed so far as regarded the protection of the Church of England. That declaration was at last repealed, and he trusted that many of the childish declarations and difficulties which in former times had arisen from events very different to those of the present day would be removed, and that the day would soon arrive when no man would be known but in respect of the excellence of his character and his desire to promote the interests of the country.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he felt he could add nothing to what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who, he was happy to see, had resumed the position he had occupied for so many years upon this subject. He must, however, express his amazement at the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Sheffield, whose presumption was beyond conception, because he would insist upon it that the various protections which existed were frivolous and unnecessary. The opinion which the hon. Gentleman had expressed appeared to be so chronic, so engraven in his mind, that he did not appear to remember what had been said by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Whatever might have been the course pursued by that hon. Gentleman for the last eight years the question now was not a question of religion, but whether it was or not a fact that, associated with the religious views professed by Roman Catholics, there were certain political opinions, which in all ages, and in all countries—and never more than at the present moment—were inconsistent with independence and with every principle of civil and religious freedom. The hon. Member for Sheffield appeared to have overlooked that fact, and to insist that all the precautions which our ancestors had framed and devised were frivolous and vexatious. He must also remind the House that if the question were decided according to the views of the hon. and learned Baronet they would be acting wholly without Parliamentary precedent. They had refused an inquiry, and adopted the sentiment of the hon. Member for Sheffield, that this was simply a question of religious scruple, which he firmly maintained it was not. He (Mr. Whalley) had been cried down in a former Session for asserting that the Fenian conspiracy had been originated in the interests of the Roman Catholic hierarchy; but if the House would grant a Committee to investigate the subject he was prepared to reiterate that assertion, and to prove it upon evidence as reasonable as the nature of the case admitted. From 1862 till very recently the treasonable organization had been sustained by the same power that gave it birth; and then, as in the case of all other Irish rebellions, when it had served its purpose, it was allowed to drop, the Roman Catholic hierarchy saying, "We will go no further in this business at the present time." Just as the Fenian pikes recently discovered were found carefully oiled and greased, and evidently laid by for a better opportunity, so the Fenian organization was put out of sight to be revived at some future period. The case of Ireland was almost identical with that of New Zealand. And, perhaps, the able and gallant General, now at the head of the War Department, would hereafter speak out and tell the House how it came to pass that 10,000 British soldiers were unable to put down 5,000 natives in insurrection, who were quelled by the colonists as soon as the soldiers were withdrawn. [Cries of "Question!"] If the House were enlightened upon the point, it would be found that the rebellion had been fomented by the Roman Catholic priests and persons professing the Roman Catholic religion.

Motion agreed to.

Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove certain Religious Disabilities affecting some of Her Majesty's subjects, and to amend the Law relating to Oaths of Office.

Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Mr. COGAN, and Sir JOHN GRAY.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 7.]