§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEMay I be allowed to present petitions now?
§ MR. SPEAKERYes.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEthen presented several petitions against the Bill.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, in proposing the second reading of this Bill, to which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had given notice of an Amendment that the second reading be deferred for six months, he admitted that it was a supplement to the last Bill. The object of that Bill was to repeal an obnoxious Declaration, while the present Bill proposed to open several offices to Roman Catholics from which they were excluded by that Declaration. It was therefore a Bill of considerable importance. At the time when Catholic Emancipation was carried in 1829, there were five offices expressly kept from Roman Catholics. The first was the Regent of the Kingdom; the second, the Lord Chancellorship of England; the third, the Lord Chancellorship of Ireland; the fourth, the Lord Lieutenantcy of Ireland; and the fifth, the office of Representative of Her Majesty at the Presbyterian Assembly or Synod at Edinburgh. As to the first of these offices he did not seek to open it to the Roman Catholics; nor did he propose that a Roman Catholic should be Her Majesty's Representative to the Edinburgh Assembly. But the other three offices, he thought, might be fairly opened to Roman Catholics; and it was with regard to two of these three offices that the Bill professed 1094 to deal: for the Bill did not touch the office of Lord Chancellor of England. He was well aware that there were persons whom he might call "old women of both sexes," who believed that the Lord Chancellor of England was the Keeper of the conscience of the Crown, and that Her Majesty consulted him on every question of faith and conscience. They also thought that the Lord Chancellor had to decide on all questions of doctrine and discipline in the Church of England. This was all fallacy; but, for the present, he did not propose to offend those prejudices. The two offices he proposed to open to Roman Catholics—he should say also to Jews—were those of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Lord Lieutenant. A Bill seeking to open the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to Roman Catholics was introduced into that House in 1859, and it was supported by two very distinguished Members, both now deceased, Sir George Cornewall Lewis and Lord Palmerston, and also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, (Mr. Gladstone), it was, however, introduced so late in the Session, and it was met with so determined an opposition by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, that it was withdrawn, and the subject had not been since brought before the House. There was no reason whatsoever why the Lord Chancellor of Ireland should not be a Roman Catholic. He had no ecclesiastical patronage of any kind, excepting two small vicarages in Dublin to which he and four others had a right of nomination. His share, therefore, was but one-fifth of this very small patronage, and so seldom could the five patrons be got to agree, that the nomination in fact lapsed to the Archbishop of Dublin. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland was, in fact, nothing but one of the Irish Ministry, and the Chief Equity Judge of Ireland; and in either capacity there was no reason why a Roman Catholic should not hold the office. The Chief Secretary might be a Roman Catholic, the Attorney General might be a Roman Catholic, and at this moment was a Roman Catholic, and every Minister of the Crown might be a Roman Catholic. Therefore, there was no reason why the Lord Chancellor of Ireland might not be a Roman Catholic. A Roman Catholic might be a Judge of Appeal, and in that capacity might reverse the decision of the Lord Chancellor. Thirty years had elapsed since Roman Catholics had been raised to the bench in Ireland. He believed that 1095 his own father was the first Roman Catholic that ever was placed on the judicial bench from the time of the Revolution, and he ventured to say that a breath of calumny had never rested on a Roman Catholic Judge for the manner in which he had discharged his duties to the Sovereign, nor had the slightest question as to his impartiality ever been raised. There was, then, no ground whatsoever for excepting the Chief Judgeship in Equity from the Roman Catholics. It might be said, however, that it might be dangerous to have a Roman Catholic Lord Chancellor, because he had the control of the magistracy. But it was the lords-lieutenant of counties who virtually appointed the magistrates, and every one of the lords-lieutenant might be Roman Catholics. So, also, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in England, who had the appointment of magistrates, might be a Roman Catholic. There was, therefore, nothing in the office of Lord Chancellor to prevent its being open to Roman Catholics; and it was a badge or mark of inferiority on the Roman Catholic members of the Irish Bar, to say that Roman Catholics should not be eligible to the office of Chief Judge in Equity. The Attorney General for Ireland was a Roman Catholic, the Solicitor General was a Protestant; and, according to the existing law the highest of these officers could not become Lord Chancellor, while the inferior officer could. He now came to the question of the Lord Lieutenacy. He did not ask that a Roman Catholic should be appointed to the office of Lord Lieutenant; that must be left to the Crown; but he saw no reason why the Premier Duke and Earl Marshal of England, for instance, if otherwise suitable, should not become Lord Lieutenant of Ireland simply because he believed in Transubstantiation. It might be said that the Sovereign and the Government being Protestant, the representative should be Protestant. But the Governor General of Canada, the Governor General of New South Wales, and other representatives of Royalty, might be Catholics; and he saw no reason why a ban should be placed on Roman Catholics in Ireland. There was nothing that required the Lord Lieutenant to be an Episcopalian. He might be of any religion except the Roman Catholic and the Jewish. He might be a Presbyterian, or a Socinian, or anything else; but he must not be a Catholic or a Jew. It might be objected that the Lord Lieutenant had extensive Church patronage. That was true. But the Bill pro- 1096 vided that if the office of Lord Lieutenant should be held by any person, not a member of the Church of England, the Church patronage should vest in a person to be appointed by the Queen, under her Sign Manual, or, failing such appointment by the Crown, hi the Archbishop of Armagh, the head of the Established Church in Ireland. The next provision of the Bill was to enable Mayors, and other corporate officers, if they thought proper, to attend their own places of worship in their official robes. In the Catholic Emancipation Act there was a clause enacting that any person holding a judicial or civil office, or any mayor, bailiff, or other corporate officer, who should resort to a place of worship other than one of the United Church of England and Ireland, or the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, in a robe, gown, or insignia of office, should forfeit his office and pay a fine of £100. This was petty, pitiful legislation. The time was come when this should be repealed. When Mr. O'Connell was Lord Mayor of Dublin—he was the first to show the folly of the enactment—he went in state, in a state carriage, attended by all his officials, to a Roman Catholic Church, and as soon as he reached the church he got out of the carriage, took off his robes, and deposited them in the carriage, then he went into the church, and after service he resumed his robes and rode back in his carriage, thus showing what he thought of such a miserable piece of legislation. Now, surely these cobwebs of intolerance ought to be swept away. The next clause related to the oath. Last Session, a general form of oath had been prescribed for Members of that House, and he proposed that it should be substituted for that still required to be taken by all Catholic officeholders and professional men, who were at present bound to take an oath which that House had pronounced to be offensive and insulting. It might be said that to make this proposal was premature, because the Commission on Oaths was still sitting. But his reply to this was that the Commission had not yet reported, and that if they did report this Session it by no means followed that immediate legislation would be the result. The proposal he now made was simply this: that the oath adopted by the House last year for all its Members should be the one to be imposed in all cases for the future; and if the Commission should recommend any other form, and it should be approved of by the House, there would be 1097 no difficulty in effecting the substitution. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had given notice of an Amendment to defer the second reading of the Bill till that day six months. Now, he respected the sincerity and the courage with which the hon. Gentleman always came to the front as often as he imagined that the Protestant institutions of the country were in danger. But he wished that the hon. Gentleman would at least show some reasonable ground of objection to the Bill, and not indulge in vague declamation about the settlement of 1829, the policy of Sir Robert Peel, or the letters that have passed between the Czar and the Pope of Rome. As to the settlement of 1829, he believed that neither that nor any other arrangement would be accepted as final until all the offices of the State were open to all the subjects of the Queen, irrespective of their religious creeds. He did not bring forward this measure as one that crowned the edifice of religious toleration, hot only as one step further towards that great consummation; and he trusted that it would not only be carried, but carried by such a majority as to ensure its safe passage through the other House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)
§ MR. SCHREIBERsaid, that a short time ago, in a Committee upstairs, the hon. and learned Baronet who had introduced this Bill (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), together with four other Members of the House, bad discharged in his regard certain judicial or quasi-judicial functions in a manner so satisfactory to him that be ought to be the last man in the House to offer any opposition to his being made Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or raised to any other office to which his ambition might aspire, and his undoubted abilities entitled him. He trusted, therefore, in any remarks he might think it his duty to make, he should not give pain to the hon. Baronet. This Session was not far advanced, and already they had proof of the value attached to Parliamentary settlements or compacts. Only last Wednesday the House was called upon to defend a settlement not seven years old, and today a settlement was assailed, which had the sanction of thirty-eight years. That great statesman, Sir Robert Peel, accompanied his measure for the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities by what in the 1098 language of the day was called "securities" and "safeguards," which it was the object of this Bill to take away. The object of Sir Robert Peel, he conceived, was twofold. He knew the system with which he had to deal, and he knew that he could not carry the Bill without conditions. He knew the activity of the Roman Catholic Church, its ambition, its marvellous organization, its impatience of equality, the career of agression which he was opening to the energies of Roman Catholics, and he desired that his Protestant fellow-subjects should at least start even in the race; and so he handicapped the Roman Catholics. If Roman Catholic gentlemen were wise, they would not quarrel with the conditions of the race. They were the price of the liberty which they enjoyed in this Protestant country—in countries where they did the handicapping they were not very nice about the weights. So far from viewing the attitude and action of Protestants in this matter as offensive or aggressive, he regarded it simply as defensive, and as something conveying a compliment to the superior organization of the Roman Catholic system. Sir Robert Peel knew his Bill would not pass without these makeweights, and it was now matter for the conscience and honour of Roman Catholic gentlemen to say how far, having obtained relief on certain conditions, they were free to reject the conditions while they continued to enjoy the relief. What was the language of Sir Robert Peel in proposing the restrictions which the hon. Baronet would now remove? It was this—
This Bill will exclude the Roman Catholic from the office of Regent, and from exercising, under any circumstances, the delegated authority of the Crown; from the office of Lord Chancellor in England and Ireland respectively, and from the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."—[2 Hansard, xx. 763.]Now, be considered the object of Sir Robert Peel to have been the hedging-in by out-works of that Protestant succession to the Throne which was the citadel of our liberties. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was the representative of the Sovereign, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was his constitutional Adviser—their relative position was exactly analogous to that of the Sovereign and Lord Chancellor in this country; and for his part he entirely failed to understand how any argument which applied to the former could not with the greatest case be transferred to the latter. The hon. Baronet (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) went on to 1099 speak of the restrictions upon Mayors in their attendance upon public worship, and called them "cobwebs of intolerance." Why, then, was he so anxious to get rid of them? Cobwebs, at least, were not galling fetters, With regard to the oath it would be premature to arrive at any decision until the Report of the Commission had been received. When this question was discussed in 1859 the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoke of the arguments advanced against the Lord Chancellor of Ireland being a Roman Catholic as trivial, paltry, and secondary. To him, on the contrary, they appeared most weighty and momentous. Assuredly, it was not a right thing to disturb a solemn settlement of Parliament; and he would tell hon. Gentlemen opposite they would not find it a light thing if they persisted in Motions of this kind. The people of England were liberal and tolerant because they were Protestant; but, liberal and tolerant though they were, let them once think that Motions of this kind were aimed at the Act of Settlement and the Protestant Succession, and hon. Gentlemen would find that they had evoked a spirit which might be dormant, but which was not dead.
MR. KERobjected to the Bill, on the ground that it was nothing more than introducing the small end of the wedge.
§ MR. BAGWELLsaid, there were two parties aggrieved by these restrictions, the Irish Protestant proprietors, of whom he was one, and a vast Catholic majority of the population of Ireland. As a Protestant, he felt that every one of the differences between the members of the two religious bodies was a decided evil. In the common intercourse of life, it could not but he felt that there was a great difference between Protestant and Catholic, and why should it exist? A great many of those distinctions had been swept away, from time to time; a few, however, still remained, just as if, when the Parliament of this country found it necessary to legislate in a spirit of forbearance, they still wished to leave some sting behind, as if to remind the Irish people that they were a conquered and degraded race. Did anyone imagine that the Protestant religion or the Church Establishment was strengthened by such a course? On the contrary, every restriction upon the Catholic was a source of weakness to the Protestants who were in such a minority in Ireland. The more English gentlemen considered the position 1100 of Irish Protestants, the more they would be inclined not to lower the Protestant to the Catholic level, but to raise the Catholic to a position of equality with the Protestant. Questions of this kind were oftener cropping up in that House than in Ireland, because the Irish Protestants found that the more they kept those matters in the dark, the better for themselves. The question about Cardinal Cullen was not raised in Ireland. It was known there that he was a Cardinal—a Prince of the Church—and when he appeared at the banquet of the Lord Mayor, it was taken for granted that he would be recognised as a great fact in the State. As a Protestant, he would wish that all his countrymen were Protestants; but as that could not be, his wish was that they should be all equal. He did not see why the Lord Lieutenant should not be a Roman Catholic; and, as for the office of Lord Chancellor, he was sure that it would be a most wise proceeding to leave it open to Roman Catholics. It had done great good in Ireland to have Roman Catholic Judges, because justice was not only fairly administered, but it was administered with the cheerful acquiescence of the people. In making that remark, he did not mean to imply that justice had not been fairly administered, when there were none but Protestant Judges. He could not see, for the life of him, why the present distinctions should be maintained, and he therefore wished most sincerely that the Bill should pass.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he was always grieved when a discussion of this kind took place in the House. From long experience he had come to the conclusion that all the subjects of Her Majesty should before the law be placed upon a perfect equality. He was very anxious to learn from the responsible advisers of the House what was their view of the Bill? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Schreiber) had made use of some remarkable expressions. He said that the English people were tolerant because they were Protestant. Now, that was not his (Mr. Roebuck's) view. They were tolerant because they were enlightened. He was very glad that the hon. Gentleman pointed to the fact that other nations, when they "handicapped" the Protestant, did not act with the same tolerance that we did. And why did they not? Not because they were Catholics, but because they were not enlightened. Another expression made use of by the hon. 1101 Gentleman was that Sir Robert Peel "handicapped" the Roman Catholics. Now, what was the meaning of handicapping? It was putting a weight upon the better horse. Was that the position in which the hon. Member considered himself in reference to the Roman Catholic? Did he want the Roman Catholic to be weighted because he was a better man than the hon. Gentleman? When the hon. Member again made use of illustrations, he would advise him to be careful of the consequences. Now, if hon. Gentlemen recurred to history with respect to this matter, they would soon come to a definite conclusion. When these restrictions were put upon the Roman Catholics they were put upon them by the most enlightened and tolerant men in England; and when he found that they were justified and approved by such men as Milton and Locke, he did believe that it was at that time necessary, for the safeguard of the Protestant religion, to impose them. But times had changed. We had tried a great experiment by means of the Act passed in 1829; and what had been the consequence? Had it resulted in any injury to England? Had it diminished the safety of the Protestant succession? Did the hon. Gentleman believe for a moment, or did he profess before the House to believe, that there was any danger from the Bill to the Protestant succession? and, if not, what danger was there at all? It was fair to say that there was something in the power of high officials who might have in their hands the distribution of Church patronage. But the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman took away from those officers, if they became Catholics, that very patronage, and put it into hands which nobody could object to—namely, those of the Archbishop of Armagh or the Crown. The hon. Member referred to another point, which his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had called "cobwebs," and the hon. Gentleman asked, would he sweep away those cobwebs? Why not? If he found a cobweb in his room, with the other dirt in it, why not sweep it away? He could not, therefore, accept the illustration of the hon. Gentleman, and admit that those "cobwebs of intolerance" should remain. There was a case in literary history, in which a great poet, in his estimation—Pope—who was a Roman Catholic, had a great friend, Martha Blount, who was also a Roman Catholic, and another great friend the 1102 Mayor of Bath, and they were told that the Mayor used to send his carriage to take Martha Blount to a Roman Catholic chapel. Well, what harm did that do to the Protestant succession? And what would be the harm now to allow the Lord Mayor of York, if he were an Anabaptist, or Dissenter of another kind, to go to his place of worship in his robes? In fact, the whole matter of these restrictions had become an utter farce. Well, lot them look at the whole matter as rational men. He recollected, when he was in Ireland, talking to a dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church about what they had so often heard of in that House—the wrongs of Ireland; and be said to this gentleman, "Will you be good enough to point out a real grievance under which you suffer except it be that of the Established Church!" He could not put his finger on any grievance but the very prohibitions which this Bill sought to abolish; and he replied, "I do not think much of that grievance." He trusted that the Government, going to the front of an enlightened people on this occasion, would agree to this Bill; and, if so, that they would pass it in such a way that the bigotry of the other House would not he encouraged to reject it. If, however, the Government should put themselves on a line with the narrow-minded bigotry of this country, then he pitied them, and he did not think that such a course would do them much honour.
§ MR. NEWDEGATESir, I feel much indebted to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Schreiber) for having interposed in this debate, and for the ability with which he has done so. I feel that on these subjects too much has been left to me by those with whom I agree in opinion on those questions. The House has suffered a grievous loss—a twofold loss—first in the removal of Sir Hugh Cairns, who has reaped the well-merited reward of his professional eminence; and secondly, by the promotion of Sir James Whiteside to the judicial position which he adorns on the Bench of the sister country. We have lost, by the promotion of these two eminent men, an amount of experience, ability, and eloquence which I fear for years we shall not see replaced. Neither of these eminent men was ashamed to be classed amongst those narrow-minded bigots, whose opinions the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has condemned. The hon. and learned Member has given the House some information as to the manner in which he 1103 conducts his household affairs. I do not mean to doubt its efficiency; there probably are no more cobwebs in his chambers than there are in his brains; politically he is a rather rough-handed housemaid. The subject now before the House was considered in the Session of 1859, and again when Acts were passed last Session for the alteration of the oaths taken by Members of Parliament. I felt no grievance in taking the oaths which have been taken by the Protestant Members of this House. I have seen no one unwilling to take them; the House framed these oaths in 1858, and again last Session, so as to accommodate them to the circumstances of the country, as they now exist. But the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield asks, what danger is there in this Bill, or in modern legislation, to the Act of Settlement. I would remind him that the Oaths Bill, as introduced by the late Government, contained in the oath proposed for Members of Parliament no reference to the Act of Settlement. But so strong was the feeling of this House with respect to the Act of Settlement, by which the monarchy of this country is established upon the basis won by our forefathers through the Revolution of 1688—that Act of Settlement which embodied the Bill of Rights—that Act of Settlement, which not only secures the Throne to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, being Protestants, but which also secures the freedom and the rights of the subjects of this free country, Roman Catholics as well as Protestants—so strong was the feeling of this House, that in the oaths, taken by Members of Parliament, holding as we do so large a share of the Imperial power, the Act of Settlement should be recognised, that on the Motion of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer this House, without a division, decided that a recognition of that Act of Settlement should be inserted in the oath. It was proposed that another addition, or rather restoration, should be made to the oath, which future Members of Parliament are to be required to take. That addition was the restoration, the re-introduction of those terms of the oath which all the Protestant Members of the House have taken, and by which we have abjured any foreign jurisdiction within this country. A division was taken in a very full House, and that Amendment was lost by only fifteen votes. The hon. and learned Member, in speaking of these matters, made no reference to 1104 a circumstance that was alluded to by the hon. Member who spoke just before him. That hon. Member said that he rejoiced that a cardinal had appeared in the attire of his function as Cardinal Legate—at the inaugural banquet of the Lord Mayor of Dublin. Well, Sir, most writers for the newspapers seem to consider that a very significant circumstance. I also considered it a very significant circumstance, and hence the question which I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. The Legislature has foreseen that the appearance of any such representative of the Court of Rome would be a very significant circumstance. In the year 1848 the Government of that day proposed that diplomatic relations should be opened with the Court of Rome, and introduced a Bill into the House of Lords for that purpose. That Bill proposed to recognise the Sovereign Pontiff, not as the Sovereign of the Papal States in Italy, but as that, which he claims to be, the Sovereign Pontiff of the whole world. Objections were entertained by persons, for whom I know the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, in common with most others, felt great respect. The subject was considered by the late Duke of Wellington and the late Earl of Eglintoun, who proposed two Amendments—the one, declaring that England was ready to enter into diplomatic relations with the Sovereign of the Court of Rome, as Sovereign of the Italian States, but not in the character of Sovereign Pontiff, claiming an universal sovereignty, a claim which the present Pope has re-asserted by a brief issued only two years ago—the other Amendment, declaring that while England is ready to receive a diplomatic representative from his Holiness, in his temporal and Italian capacity only, she declares it to be illegal for the Pope to send any ecclesiastic to this country, as a Nuncio. These Amendments were unanimously adopted. And are these such light and trivial matters, that the hon. and I learned Member for Sheffield is justified in speaking of them as cobwebs? Last Session I ventured, Sir, to urge upon the House that by removing the declaration in our oaths against the intrusion of any foreign authority into this country, the Legislature would encourage hopes—hopes that it did not intend to realize. It is in the sense of such hopes that I understand the presence of Cardinal Legate Cullen at the inaugural banquet of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, assuming the garb and precedence 1105 which Rome holds due to his functions, Hon. Members will excuse me if, before I come to the more immediate matter of this Bill, I allude to an observation that fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not know that Cardinal Cullen was a Legate from the Papal See. Now, I will show the House that I had high authority for so describing Cardinal Cullen. The history of this Cardinal Legate Cullen is a curious one. He was secretary to the Propaganda at Rome. The Propaganda, as hon. Members well know, was originally a missionary institution. Its position was altered in the year 1836 by a brief of the then Pope, and its authority was increased—a circumstance that has had more effect upon European politics than most people are aware. The brief was directed to Cardinal Zurla, and by that brief the whole of the missions of the regular orders of Rome, which are under the direction of the Propaganda, were placed under the control and under the authority of the Gesu—that is to say, under the direction; of the Jesuits. On the 25th of May, in; the year 1854, a high authority, no longer in this House, Sir Joseph Napier, said, in the debate upon the Oaths Bill then before the House—
I agree that nothing should be insisted on, which we can safely admit to be now superfluous, as having survived the claim against which it protests. But I have been startled to find an edition of the Bullarium, published in 1841, at Rome, in which a selection of bulls has been made and published by Dr. Cullen, then Director of the Press for the Propaganda, but now an Archbishop of the Church of Rome in Ireland: in this the bulls are selected 'for the purpose of having in readiness for the use of the Propaganda those documents, which can conduce to a right and expeditious consideration of affairs, the necessity or opportunity of consulting which might easily occur in the course of matters, frequently to be investigated by the Sacred Council.' Out of the sixty-six documents in the folio, Bullarium, Dr. Cullen selects eight. Of these eight, there is one in the last year of George II., another after the accession of George III. In both the title of the House of Hanover to the Throne is ignored, and the rightful title of the House of Stuart asserted. I saw the volumes myself, and I have extracts from them, and I own I am not ready to throw away our dusty shield, while these rusty swords are unsheathed in the reign of our present Queen by those who best know what is obsolete and what is effective in the Papal system. The preface of this work, which was prepared by Dr. Cullen, refers to the Apostolical letters which have been promulgated from 1745 to the time at which he wrote, and amongst these are several bulls treating the House of Stuart as lawfully entitled to the Throne of Great Britain. These are not dealt with as obsolete records, but selected for special and pre- 1106 sent use. Let the noble Lord pause, and understand what he is really doing, before he cuts down the oath of abjuration; let him be sure that he is safe, and let there be a preamble distinctly reciting the facts and reasons sufficient to justify any deliberate change; let him read the Papal line of succession to the Throne, as it is given in the Hibernia Dominicana, page 148, and let him ask this further question, 'Did Rome treat an oath as valueless when, in the Synod, holden in 1852, where Dr. Cullen presided as the Papal Legate, each Bishop swore according to the oath fashioned in 1564, "to yield true obedience to the Pope, as vicar of Christ, and submission to all the canons and decretals, especially of the Council of Trent?'" There is, moreover, the special and solemn vow and swearing of each, as 'his subjects,' and the formal conclusion, 'So help me God and these holy Gospels.'"—[3 Hansard, exxxiii. 912.]I beg pardon for having read so lengthy an extract; but I think that authority should satisfy the House that the Legislature was right last Session in retaining in the oaths to be taken by Members of Parliament some recognition of the Act of Settlement, because in the present and modern edition of the Bullarium, published under the direction of the Pope, and compiled by Dr. Cullen as secretary of the Propaganda, the succession is, in fact, disputed; and it is this person who now appears—I will not declare in absolute contravention of the law, but, in my opinion, in a manner inconsistent with the intention and spirit of the law of this country, and inconsistent with International Law; it is this person who now appears on an official occasion in Dublin in the garb of a Cardinal, and who is described in every one of the public newspapers as Cardinal Legato of the Holy See—as Legate, a function which I have shown he held long before 1854—while the fact of his having since been made a Cardinal derogates nothing from his importance as a Legate, but is consistent with and increases it; because a Cardinal cannot be appointed to govern any province in the world for the Papacy without possessing legatine power. As history tells us, the last Cardinal who was received in England was Cardinal Pole, in the reign of Queen Mary, and he did not enter this country without permission. Lord Hastings and another Peer were sent by the Queen to bring him to this country, and so jealous were the English people, that even Bishop Gardiner, who was then Lord Chancellor, could not satisfy them until he compelled Cardinal Pole to take out a licence under the Great Seal, limiting the exercise of his legatine powers. The appearance of Cardinal Legate Cullen 1107 in his official robes is a very significant circumstance; for on no official occasion has a Cardinal Legate appeared in this country after such a style since Cardinal Pole appeared here by permission of the Sovereign and of the Parliament during the reign of Queen Mary. I will now proceed to the consideration of the details of the Bill before the House. The circumstances to which I have alluded induced me to consider this Bill as a matter of no slight importance. We are asked to open two important offices—the office of Lord Lieutenant and the office of Lord Chancellor—to Roman Catholics. The House will allow me to remind them of the opinion expressed by the late Sir Robert Peel on the subject. The hon, and learned Member for Sheffield was very angry with the hon. Member for Cheltenham for saying that in the Relief Act of 1829 Sir Robert Peel had handicapped the Roman Catholics. Now, I think the expression exactly and precisely applicable. For all purposes of agitation, for all purposes of aggression, the Roman Catholics in the United Kingdom are now combined under the authority of Cardinal Legate Cullen in Ireland and Cardinal Manning in England.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERHe is not a Cardinal.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEWell, then, Archbishop Manning.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERCardinal Cullen is a Cardinal, and not a Legato.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEThe hon. and learned Gentleman denies everything—he denied this fact the other day; but I will ask him if a Committee of the House were appointed would he undertake to prove that Cardinal Cullen is not a Legate? I know he could not, But, Sir, I was alluding to the position of the Roman Catholics. It has always grieved me that the Roman Catholics of this country and of Ireland could not be safely intrusted with unrestricted freedom of action as against the national authority of this country, I know that the large body of the Roman Catholics of this country, if left to themselves, are too wise and too liberal to make any attack of the kind. But I cannot cast aside all knowledge of the enormous influence upon them, produced by the organization of the Church of Rome. There was and could be no provincial synod of the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church held in Ireland until a Papal Legate appeared there, whose presence, according to the well-known laws of the Papacy, is essential to 1108 the constitution of a provincial synod. The Legate has the supreme authority—something more than a veto; and, by the law of the Roman Church, every decree passed in the synod, thus canonically convened, commands obedience, as a religious obligation, from Roman Catholics. I know that Roman Catholics have resisted this Papal power—Italy to wit. But what is the result in Italy? Why this, that the Sovereign and the Legislature have been obliged to declare that the State can have no union, no relation, with the Church. Judging from this fact, may we not doubt the prudence of relaxing the safeguards which enable the Protestants of England to admit our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects without any restriction to all except the two highest positions of official authority? Sir Robert Peel, in 1828, whilst still opposed to the removal of the Roman Catholic disabilities, stated the matter very strongly. He said, "Can I leave out of account the pernicious tenets of the Roman Catholics, fraught as they are with"—what?—"evil to the institutions of civil society?" And, again, he said, "Of these two religions, one or the other must have the ascendancy." I never heard Sir Robert Peel spoken of as a light authority. These are his opinions, and I ask whether anything that has occurred during the reign of the present Pope has led us to believe that he has abandoned and of the pretensions to temporal authority, to civil jurisdiction, which his predecessors advanced, or that he will abandon any power of interference, which he can grasp in any country, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic? Why, look at the circumstances which are occurring. I alluded the other day to the circular despatch of Prince Gortschakoff, which shows that Russia has been obliged to break off all connection and diplomatic relation with Rome—the reason being that the Papacy has encouraged revolution within the Russian territories. What is the case with respect to the United States? At this moment there is a difficulty between the United States and the Papacy. And why is this? I hold in my hand an extract from a curious letter which appeared in one of the papers in the United States, and was quoted in The Daily News of the 26th of October last. Hence it appears that one of the Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States, not long before that date, visited Mrs. Jefferson Davis. She said she had a good feeling towards the 1109 Papacy and the Sovereign Pontiff—because, speaking of the Southern Confederacy, "he was the only Prince in the world that really wished well to our cause, and sent us his blessing." And now I see by the newspapers that a diplomatic difficulty has arisen on this subject. What have we then? In the spirit of the crusades the Pope has made war upon Russia, and he has made war upon the United States, upon the great Empire which has just liberated its serfs, and upon the great Republic we are so often called upon to admire. Is this a Power that has relaxed cither its pretensions or its disposition to interfere with other States? M. Dupin might well say "that the Papacy has forgotten nothing and learnt much." Works have appeared in this country showing that, according to an improved method, the same system of disturbance is now at work in England through the Jesuits, that was at work from the period of the Reformation, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, during the reign of James I., during the reign of Charles I., during the Protectorate, during the reign of Charles II., during the whole time that the Stuarts reigned in England. A very able pamphlet has just appeared, from the pen of the Dean of Ripon, entitled Rome's Tactics, wherein are given authorities for those statements. The hon. and learned Member for Clare, who has introduced this Bill, asks us to open the offices of Lord Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor of Ireland to. Roman Catholics. I opposed the Bill which was introduced by Sir William Somerville in 1859 for opening the office of Lord Chancellor to Roman Catholics. And why did I oppose that proposal? Because I think the Protestant Sovereign of these realms ought to have one judicial office in Ireland reserved for a person of her own creed and of her own policy. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has said that Protestants are not tolerant. Let him read, in the last number of the Dublin Review, an article in which the Inquisition is highly applauded. It is known that the publication was started by Cardinal Wiseman, and I believe it to be under the patronage of Cardinal Legato Cullen. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: No, no!] Then these opinions are inherited from Cardinal Wiseman. In what Protestant State was there ever such an institution established as the Inquisition? It is notorious that our form of Christianity, where Protestantism is Christian—(I say nothing for Pro- 1110 testantism that is not Christian)—is tolerant, is known for its toleration, that it binds upon the conscience the duty of toleration, but it warns us also in the words of Locke, that we cannot give universal toleration to intolerance. It is to guard against the intolerance and interference of the Papacy that these offices have been wisely reserved to Protestants. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is little or no Church patronage attached to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Granted. But to whom on appeal come all questions relating to ecclesiastical jurisdiction? Why, to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. When the Lord Lieutenant is absent the Lord Chancellor is ex officio one of the Lords Justices. He is therefore regent to the Viceroy, and in his absence is invested with regal powers and regal jurisdiction. I might use other arguments. In whom rests the control of all the property of infants? In the Lord Chancellor. But I come at once to the office of Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant is the direct representative of the Protestant Sovereign, of the Protestant Crown of England in one part of the United Kingdom—a Crown that we have acknowledged in our oaths to be Protestant, and have declared that it is to remain Protestant, a Crown which, according to the oath we have framed for future Members of Parliament, must be Protestant. I ask is it too much that we reserve this office, connected with the direct representation of the Crown, to the faith to which the Crown is bound by the Act of Settlement and by the Coronation Oath? I say it is not too much. I believe, that acting in the spirit of liberalism, the Legislature has reached a point at which further concession is fraught with danger. It is evident that if we, in the sense of an equality, which Rome never admits—which Rome recommends to Protestant States, but never practises herself, either at Rome or where she has supreme control, as she has in Spain—I say if we proceed further and blindly in the direction of an equality, which Rome rejects, we shall endanger those great principles of toleration that have given to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects—and I speak on the authority of Dr. Ennis, a Roman Catholic Bishop in Ireland, and of the Count Montalembert—a freedom such as they possess in no other country in the world. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
LORD NAASI shall not attempt to follow my hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) through the varied topics to which he has called attention; but I will stale, as briefly as possible, my own opinion on the provisions of the Bill now before the House. We have heard a great deal to-day, and on former occasions, about the great settlement of 1829, and nobody can attach more importance to that settlement than I do. I believe that any attempt to break through that settlement, in any material point, would not only be strongly resisted by this House, but would have the unfortunate effect of reviving questions now happily settled. In considering this subject, however, we should bear in mind what were those safeguards which were supposed to be necessary at that time, and what were the dangers against which those safeguards were intended to provide? I apprehend that it was then anticipated by many that by the admission of Roman Catholics to equal civil rights, the interests of the Protestant religion would be weakened in this country. But all those great and eminent men who then advocated that admission, based all their arguments on the assumption that all those rights and liberties could be given to our Roman Catholic subjects, without in any way endangering the safety of our Protestant institutions. How far those anticipations have been realized, it is not for me now to discuss. Differences of opinion may, and, I believe, do exist upon the subject; but, so far as I am concerned, I believe firmly that the admission of Roman Catholics at that time to a full and equal share of civil rights has not in any way weakened or injured the influence and interests of the Protestant religion within this realm. That is the opinion I have ever held. That settlement was made thirty-eight years ago, and it cannot be alleged that it is an improper inquiry now to institute how far the safeguards and conditions made then have worked, and how far they are necessary for the attainment of the objects for which they were established and enacted. Some of the provisions of that great settlement have already been swept away. The alteration made in the oath provided by the Emancipation Act, for instance, has taken place without any unfortunate result; other 1112 provisions of that Act have fallen into disuse without, as far as I know, mischievous results. The position, therefore, taken up by those who declare that the provisions of that Act cannot be altered without danger to the Protestant religion, has been proved to be untenable. With regard to the Bill now before the House, the first and most important feature in it is the provision that, for the future, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland may be a Roman Catholic. On that point I differ entirely from the hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Bill. I do not believe that anything could be proposed which would be more distasteful to a large proportion of the Protestant population of this country, as well as of Ireland. The position of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland differs essentially from the position of every official in the service of the Crown. He is the direct representative of the Sovereign; and to him is delegated more extensive regal power than is held by any subject of Her Majesty, except, perhaps, in India. He is the direct representative of the Sovereign, and exercises much of the Sovereign's power; the whole patronage of the Crown, as regards the Irish Church, remains absolutely and completely in his charge. He is entirely responsible for the appointment of the Bishops, and in his relation to the Established Church stands very much in the position of the Sovereign. I think, then, that it would not be wise—looking to the actual duties which the Lord Lieutenant performs, and the position in which he stands—I do not think it would be wise, so long as the office exists—and I believe it will exist for a long time—to intrust such an office in the hands of any other person than a Protestant, and I believe that it could not be done without danger to the interests of the Protestant religion. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the cases of the Viceroys of India and Canada; but their positions are totally different to that of the Viceroy of Ireland. In one case there is no constitutional Government at all; and the constitutional government in the other is of an entirely different nature and character to that in Ireland. Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, and the Lord Lieutenant performs in great part those duties which are performed in this country by the Sovereign, so that as long as the monarch of this country must be by the Constitution Protestant, so 1113 long should the Irish Viceroy be of the same religion. With regard to the second portion of the Bill, however—which relates to the Lord Chancellor—my opinion is different. I own I have never been able to see why the restriction which prevents the Lord Chancellor of Ireland from being a Roman Catholic should be continued, or how the safety of the Established Church can be endangered by its removal. The most important functions which that great officer of the State performs are the ordinary judicial duties of the Chief Equity Judges. Those duties are almost precisely identical with those discharged by other Equity Judges; and, so far as those judicial functions are concerned, when the Lord Justice of Appeal may be a Roman Catholic, and the Master of the Rolls also, I confess I do not see how there can be any danger to the administration of justice, or to the safety of the Protestant religion, from the Lord Chancellor being of the same religion. There are other less important, but still important, duties which the Lord Chancellor has to perform. As a Member of the Government he is to a considerable extent the constitutional and confidential Adviser of the lords-lieutenant; but, so far as matters of a political and administrative character are concerned, and all questions affecting the general policy of Government, I believe the Chief Secretary holds a far more confidential and important position towards the Lord Lieutenant than the Lord Chancellor does. The Chief Secretary is the officer who is responsible to Parliament for every act of the Irish Administration; and I submit to the House that to that extent he holds a far more important position, as one of the confidential and responsible Advisers of the Lord Lieutenant, than the Lord Chancellor. Well, Sir, the Chief Secretary may be a Roman Catholic—he never has been, but there is nothing in the law to prevent it. With regard to an objection which was taken by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that the Lord Chancellor occasionally performs ex officio some of the duties of the Viceroy in the absence of the Lord Lieutenant, the hon. Gentleman is under a mistake. It is perfectly true that in the absence of the Lord Lieutenant the Chancellor is generally appointed one of the Lords Justices to perform his duties; but it does not necessarily follow that the Lord Chancellor exercises the functions of the Lord Lieutenant in the absence of the latter, for the Govern- 1114 ment have the power of appointing any person they choose to perform those functions, and instances have occurred, when a Commission for Lords Justices have been issued, that the Lord Chancellor has not been included among the eminent men who have been nominated for that office. The Church patronage at the disposal of the Lord Chancellor may be said to be absolutely nil; and, as it is well to be precise in the matter, I will read an extract from a speech that was delivered on this subject by the right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) in 1859, and which has never been controverted. The right hon. Gentleman said—
The Chancellor has not any Church patron age, except in respect of the vicarages of St. Andrew and St. Mark, Dublin, as to which he is joined with the Archbishop of Dublin, the Master of the Rolls, and the three Chief Judges, by an Act of the Irish Parliament."—[3 Hansard, cliv. 1106.]Now, it is a remarkable fact that two out of three of those Chief Judges are at present Roman Catholics; if the objection applied at all, it would be as applicable to them as to the Lord Chancellor. As to the other duties which the Lord Chancellor has to perform in connection with the Established Church, it does not appear to me that they are of a very important character, or such as to justify opposition to the proposal of the present Bill. It seems that there is a somewhat quasi-ecclesiastical jurisdiction attached to the office, and it is described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford in these terms—The Chancellor's ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as representing the Queen, consists in issuing Commissions of Delegates, under the 28 Geo. III. c. 32, and advising as to the issue of Commissions of Review of the decisions of such delegates. As to the former, he is merely ministerial, the sole duty being to choose the Commissioners, who must be Protestants. In deciding as to the issue of a Commission of Review the Chancellor acts judicially on a full hearing of the case in open court."—[3 Hansard, cliv. 1107.]I apprehend that if the Bill goes into Committee the hon. and learned Baronet will have to insert a provision that this duty, which I believe has hardly ever been called into exercise, shall be intrusted to other hands than those of the Lord Chancellor in case that office be held by a Roman Catholic. There is another branch of the Lord Chancellor's duties of scarcely less importance than his judicial functions—namely, the control which he exercises over the magistracy. As the House is well 1115 aware, the usual course of appointing magistrates is that gentlemen should be recommended to the Lord Chancellor by the lord-lieutenant of the county. The lords-lieutenant are really the persons who appoint magistrates, and I am happy to say that their recommendations are rarely, if ever departed from. The lords-lieutenant are in many instances Roman Catholics, and though, the party opposite having been so long in power, a great number of the lieutenants hold political opinions different from my own, I am bound to say that their nominations have generally been judicious, and that, though in individual cases objections have arisen, the mode in which their recommendations have been made is, on the whole, satisfactory, and in the interest of the public service. With regard, therefore, to that part of his duty which relates to the appointment of magistrates, the fact of the Lord Chancellor being a Roman Catholic cannot prevent him from adequately discharging it. For the reasons, therefore, that I have given, the House would, I think, do well to entertain the proposal with regard to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and to consent to the second reading of that portion of the Bill. It is not, I may say, a mere sentimental grievance, for I have been told by Roman Catholic gentlemen practising at the Irish Bar, that they feel it a discouragement and a hardship that the highest office in their profession should be closed against them, and I believe that the removal of this restriction, will be hailed with satisfaction by many gentlemen of the legal profession who belong to the Roman Catholic religion. With regard to the clause proposing to remove the restriction against Judges and corporate bodies attending Roman Catholic places of worship in their robes of office, and which, to a certain extent, is a sentimental grievance, I profess myself unable to understand why such a restriction was ever imposed. On looking over the debates on the subject, I cannot discover that any reason has been given for it; and the only reason which suggests itself to my mind is that in localities where religious differences prevailed angry feelings might be excited if Roman Catholic gentlemen attended their places of worship in their official costume. I believe, however, that no such feeling exists now in Ireland, and I cannot think that any offence to sincere Protestants would be given by seeing a Roman Catholic official proceeding to his place 1116 of worship in his robes of office, which are merely the insignia of authority. Indeed, I think that positive good might result from the removal of the restriction, for it will show that in the eye of the law and of the Sovereign all her subjects and all her servants are equal, and that the Constitution recognises the principle, that in offices of State, Her Majesty can be served with fidelity as well by Roman Catholics as by Protestants. Moreover, there is this further anomaly, that a Roman Catholic general and his whole staff may attend a Roman Catholic place of worship in full uniform, and wearing all the decorations and insignia which he may have won by meritorious services. Now, I can see no great difference in this respect between the robes of a Judge or of a corporate officer and the uniform of a general, or even of the humbler members of the army or the constabulary. The livery of the Queen is seen in every Roman Catholic chapel in Ireland, every Sunday, and if there is no objection to the humblest member of the public service wearing his uniform, the emblem of his authority, on such occasions, there ought to be none to the highest and most distinguished person wearing the robes and insignia of his office under similar circumstances. I think, therefore, the House would not object to the removal of this restriction. With respect to the clause affecting oaths, I believe that before this Bill can pass the Royal Commission, which is now considering this whole question, will make their Report, and that it will be necessary to deal with the whole of that important subject. Though myself a Member of the Commission, I have not been able since I have been in office to attend many of its meetings; but I have been given to understand that the Report will very soon be issued, and I hope that it will be found to deal so satisfactorily with the entire question, that there will be no likelihood of much opposition to the adoption of its recommendations. I should be inclined, therefore, to support the second reading of the Bill if my hon. and learned Friend will promise tore-consider the question as to the Lord Lieutenant. ["No. no!"] My hon. and learned Friend will do well to consider that suggestion, because I believe he will find that there will be great and serious opposition to the measure If he retains that clause, such as may prevent the passing of the Bill at all, and will, at all events, give rise to protracted debate. 1117 Moreover, though the proposal as regarded the Lord Chancellor has been made once, if not twice, before, that referring to the Lord Lieutenant has not been brought forward on any previous occasion. If therefore the hon. and learned Gentleman will give some expression of feeling as to his opinion on that point I shall unhesitatingly give my vote, as an individual Member of the Government, in favour of the second reading of the Bill.
MR. GLADSTONESir, I cannot but congratulate the noble Lord on the general tenor of the speech he has just delivered. We have certainly made a very great advance since this subject was discussed in the year 1859; and the speech of the noble Lord was, I think, so satisfactory in most of the propositions which it contained, and in particular was so just in the principles which it laid down—and which in my opinion are not one whit less applicable to that which he reserved and refused than to that which he conceded—that I propose to meet the appeal which he made to my hon. and learned Friend with a counter appeal. He asked my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) for a concession which, I am afraid, my hon. and learned Friend cannot make: he asked him to declare that he his ready to drop from his Bill that provision which relates to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. But I must appeal to the noble Lord to consider further the scope and breadth of the principles which he himself has laid down; and if he will only consider them in the candid spirit in which he approached the general question I feel sure that, instead of asking my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw that proposition, be will himself be obliged to support it. Let us consider what those principles are. The noble Lord said—and said with the greatest justice—that the securities, or the so-called securities, inserted in the Act of 1829 ought to be viewed in the light afforded by subsequent experience and according to the exigencies of the present day; differing entirely in that respect from the hon. Gentleman who, in the year 1859 represented, always in the most courteous manner, the opinion which then appeared to prevail—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for the Home Department—who declared that in his belief there could be no peace or union in Ireland unless it was clearly and definitely understood that all the securities of the Act of 1829 were to be maintained. We are now 1118 entirely agreed with the noble Lord, who appears, I presume, upon this occasion as the organ of the Government, with respect to the principle on which the securities are to be reviewed. Now the most important portion of this measure deals with two functions, and I contend that every material consideration which is applicable to one of them is equally applicable to the other. The fair general description of both of them, it appears, is this—that they are offices whose main and leading purposes are strictly civil, but that there are attached to them certain incidents, more or less important, which are of an ecclesiastical character. Well, if no special provision was made upon that subject it would be a fair objection to the measure of my hon. and learned Friend to say that he was about to intrust to hands that were not fitted for such a task the discharge of functions that are more or less of an ecclesiastical character. But my hon. and learned Friend completely meets that objection by providing that of those ecclesiastical functions those personages, if they be Roman Catholics, shall by law be absolutely divested: and that is the principle on which the law has proceeded in other cases of an analogous description. Why do we allow the Secretary of State for the Home Department to be a Roman Catholic? The Secretary of State for the Home Department excercises ecclesiastical functions, and be exercises them even, according to the established usage of the State, as a matter of business in his Department, and without reference to the Crown. In the ordinary discharge of his duties, and without reference to the Crown, he makes numerous appointments to benefices in the Established Church of Scotland. But in that case it is provided by law that if the Secretary of State for the Home Department shall be a Roman Catholic he shall not exercise that ecclesiastical function; and that is the very same principle which my hon. and learned Friend proposes to apply to the case of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The noble Lord, in the case of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, accepts that provision as satisfactory. Now, what I want particularly to know from the noble Lord is this—why is that pro-vision which is satisfactory in the case of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and satisfactory in the case of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland not satisfactory in the case of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? But the noble Lord I stated pleas which, as he stated them, I 1119 have no doubt he thinks are reasons—although I should otherwise have thought that, with his acuteness of mind and liberal temper, he would have seen what I must, with every respect for him, call their shallowness and narrowness. What are the reasons, according to the noble Lord, why the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland should be regarded as one of the distinguished offices to which a Roman Catholic could not legitimately aspire? One of those reasons was, that the retention of this clause in the Bill would give rise to much debate and much dissatisfaction. But we sit here for the purpose of sifting those questions, and bringing mere feelings, mere instincts, mere prejudices to the bar of reason; and if it should be shown that there is no sound or satisfactory ground for treating this office as an exception, or for stopping short in the application of a principle now consecrated by the adhesion of all parties with respect to the disposal of civil offices—if it should be shown that there is no ground for our so stopping short—then, I say, that the very confidence which our constituents repose in us requires us to go fearlessly forward, and to do that which is reasonable in itself, trusting to the good sense of the people of England to recognise the wisdom of our conclusions. But the noble Lord gave other reasons, founded, as he thinks, not on the feelings of men, but on their intelligence. Now what are those reasons? They are two-fold. In the first place, he says that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has a certain amount of ecclesiastical patronage; and secondly, he observes that the Lord Lieutenant exercises a delegated power from the Crown in a way and in a degree that does not apply to the Viceroys of Canada or of India. But the first of these reasons is, as it seems to me, absolutely disposed of by the clause inserted in the Bill of my hon. and learned Friend, by which it is provided that no ecclesiastical patronage shall be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant in case he should be a Roman Catholic. The noble Lord, however, appears to think that there is something extraordinary in the nature of the powers delegated by the Crown to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and he gives a reason why, in his opinion, there is no parallel between the case of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Viceroys of India and Canada—that reason being that in the case of Canada there is a constitution, and in the case of India there is no constitution.
MR. GLADSTONEI do not see which of these reasons it is that bears upon the case in such a manner as to bias the judgment of the noble Lord. But let us grapple with this question of the power delegated by the Crown to the Lord Lieutenant. The noble Lord spoke as if there were some mysterious relations between the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Crown of this country, apart from the general machinery of our Constitutional Government. Now, if it were true that the Lord Lieutenant had some relation to the Crown outside of that machinery, and not subject to its control, then I could grant that the noble Lord might perhaps be able to establish some connection between the Protestant character of the Sovereign and the Protestant character of the Irish Lord Lieutenant. But is it true that that is the position of the Lord Lieutenant? Let us divest him of that robe of mystery which the noble Lord has cast around him. The Lord Lieutenant is nothing more or less than one of the numerous wheels of Government, subject to the same impulsion and the same control as the other wheels in our Constitutional system. He is not an independent agent acting apart, untrammelled by responsibility to Parliament or by the directions he may receive from the Cabinet. But more than that; who is the man in the Cabinet whose duty it is as the organ of the Government to direct the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Why, it is the Secretary of State for the Home Department—it is the very man who holds that very office which is at this moment open to the just ambition of Roman Catholics; and the law as it now stands, while it prohibits a Roman Catholic from attaining to the office of Lord Lieutenant permits a Roman Catholic to hold the office which would make him in a political sense the master of the Lord Lieutenant. Now, if that be the case—and it is impossible to dispute the fact—am I not justified in retorting on the noble Lord the appeal which he addressed to my hon. and learned Friend? He accepts the proposal to separate the ecclesiastical functions from the Lord Chancellorship as a satisfactory solution, and he is bound by his own principle to accept it in the case of the Lord Lieutenancy. He speaks of the power delegated by the Crown to the Lord Lieutenant as a reason why the Lord 1121 Lieutenant should be a Roman Catholic; and I ask him for an answer to my argument when I point out that there is not one of these delegated powers that is not subject to the direction and control of the Executive Government—of the Cabinet at home—exercised through the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the only Minister who is officially entitled to direct the Lord Lieutenant, and who himself may be a Roman Catholic. And surely it cannot be consonant to reason—it must be a more tribute to prejudice and nothing else—to hold a proposition so paradoxical as that, while we permit a Minister to be a Roman Catholic, we should pretend that some sacred constitutional principle forbids us to allow the same privilege, the same openness of access, to an office which, in a political sense, may strictly be designated a subordinate office, however dignified it may be. These are the grounds of my appeal to the noble Lord; I make it seriously and earnestly, because I think that the general tone of his speech warrants it. I must say, however, that whatever may be the answer of the noble Lord to that appeal, I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend would be justified in withdrawing this provision from the Bill. I am not prepared to stand in the face of the people of Ireland, of whom the vast majority belong to the Roman Catholic religion, and impose on the professors of that religion any disability which I am not able to justify, and which I cannot maintain by strong and cogent reasons. There are, in my opinion, no such reasons in the case we have now before us. The noble Lord, who was so well qualified to show them, if they could be shown, has adduced no such argument. The principles which he laid down are the principles on which this question ought to be handled, and those principles are fatal to the unworthy application of them which he has been led to make in this particular instance.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he protested against the religion and Constitution of England being subjected to these annual attacks; for he believed there was something in the Constitution of this country which it was not competent to Parliament to disturb, except under the pressure of some great emergency, such as that which arose in the year 1688, and which ended in the establishment of the House of Hanover on the throne. He would not presume to argue the question with the right 1122 hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House (Mr. Gladstone), who was so great a master of the art of rhetoric, and who displayed an ingenuity and an eloquence such as had never before, perhaps, been used for the purpose of deceiving and misleading Parliament. But he (Mr. Whalley) felt it his duty to protest against those continual concessions to that foreign Power, the Roman hierarchy, and against the transfer of his allegiance by Parliament to any foreign Power. In conjunction with others he had sanctioned an attempt to enlighten the people of England on the effects of granting £1,000,000 per annum for the propagation of Romish doctrines; but they had been met by a counter organization of priests, and their meetings were interrupted and put down by clamour and violence. It had been stated in that House that his mission was to make Protestantism ridiculous. Now, he accepted that mission, and he should more than succeed in all that he aimed at if that should prove to be so. For what could be more ridiculous than that a Protestant assembly should vote £1,000,000 a year to promote Popery, and still further exhibit itself in thus preventing even the discussion of such a question as this. It seemed to him that when the House was asked to make another concession in favour of the Papacy, it was a fitting time to take occasion to meet the challenge thrown out to him to prove the assertion which he made on a former occasion—namely, that Fenianism had been originated, organized, and entirely sustained by the Roman Catholic priesthood. ["Order!" and "Question!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERAfter the terms in which Fenianism has been described by this House, "a conspiracy adverse alike to authority, property, and religion, and condemned alike by all who are interested in their maintenance," for an hon. Gentleman to say that the Roman Catholic clergy are the originators of Fenianism is a statement which cannot but be offensive to this House, and cannot be permitted to pass.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he bowed to the decision of the Chair, in declaring—no doubt with perfect propriety—that the line of argument he was pursuing was not in order. There was another way which would' be equally serviceable to him for the purpose of exhibiting what he desired to make plain. He would ask the House whether they did not consider that this country was rendered ridiculous in the 1123 eyes of all other nations which contemplated their proceedings with regard to those matters of Irish disaffection, when the people of those countries rend such letters as one that had appeared in what is called "the lending journal" of England. That letter which he had cut out of The Times was written by Mr. John Healy, parish priest of Cahirciveen, and this was the statement which that clergyman made in exculpation of his co-religionists from the imputation of being connected with Fenianism ["Order!"]:—"Is it necessary to mention that during the twenty-one years I have had the charge—
§ MR. BAXTERSir, I rise to order. I wish to put it to you whether such observations as these have any reference whatever to the subject of our deliberations?
§ MR. SPEAKERI cannot restrain the fair limits of discussion. A good deal has been said by the hon. Member which is totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion; but I cannot say that his present observations are irrelevant.
§ MR. WHALLEYAs he was saying, this was the statement made by the parish priest of the place he had referred to—
Is it necessary to mention that during the twenty-one years I have had the charge of this parish the people never heard from the altar any other doctrines proclaimed but those of peace and obedience to the civil authorities such as have been inculcated by our Church in every ago?That was so gross an insult to the common sense and to the knowledge of all mankind, and was so different to the actual conduct of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in reference to Irish affairs, that he maintained the time had come for the House and the country at large to rouse themselves as to the relations between themselves and the hierarchy of which he was speaking. He had had some acquaintance with this parish of Cahirciveen. On one occasion he was present and heard a priest deliver a sermon. He had been in Ireland during the famine of 1847, and along with many other gentlemen had exposed his life; and was happy to say (seeing he had so often been accused of being inimical to the rights of Roman Catholics) that he had received a testimonial on the occasion for having done more to mitigate the famine and fever that prevailed than any other Englishman. Returning home from his labours he passed through the village of Cahirciveen, and there entered the Roman Catholic Chapel. He was not aware whether the priest, who was in the place then, was 1124 the same as wrote to The Times the other day; but apart from that, he heard him declare, in the course of his sermon to the people, that of all the outrages, wrongs, and insults which England had ever perpetrated against Ireland, the grossest she had ever attempted was to bribe Ireland to surrender her undying sense of wrong and to endeavour to make her sell this for the mess of pottage which those who had been labouring for the alleviation of distress during the time of famine had offered. That was the return which they had received on that occasion for their attempts to conciliate Ireland. What, then, was to be thought of the statement of Mr. Healy—that nothing but peace and goodwill had been preached in his parish? Facts like these were important at the present time when they found the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland saying that he did not require to add a word to the curse which had been pronounced against Fenianism by Bishop Moriarty. ["Order, order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is referring to a speech of the present Session, which, according to the rules of the House, is out of order.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had some more remarks to make upon this topic; but, considering what had been said from the Chair, he would not intrude them. Proceeding to the general subject, he argued that, considering all that had lately transpired in Ireland, there was as strong reason as ever for preserving the safeguards and protections against the encroachments of Romanism, which were considered so necessary at the time of the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act. To show what need there was that the hierarchy to which he was referring should be watched, he would quote a few sentences from a book entitled The Letters of Runnymede, in which were expressed the opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. ["Order!"] In that book the right hon. Gentleman said that Roman Catholicism
Was a power before which the proudest conqueror has grown pale, and by which nations the most devoted to freedom have become enslaved.…The Papacy is as rampant now in Ireland as it was in Europe in the time of Gregory, and all its energies are put forth for our humiliation.[The House, which had for some time evidenced a desire for a division, now became so impatient that the hon. Member's further remarks were only occasionally heard.]
§ MR. PIM,who also rose amid loud cries of "Divide!" said, that both as an Irishman and a Protestant, he had listened to the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland with much satisfaction, and he had no doubt that it would give satisfaction both to the Catholics and a large portion of the Protestants. He himself was extremely desirous for perfect equality among the people of Ireland. He believed, moreover, that a large portion of the Protestants were willing to get rid of their Protestant ascendancy, and to have the people placed upon one level.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHATTERTON)said, he could not give a silent vote upon this occasion, because he entertained a strong feeling that this Bill should not be read a second time. He quite concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) that discussions of this kind were, if possible, to be avoided; and he was the more unwilling to speak upon this question, as he had to go beyond the opinion expressed on the subject by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland. He (the Solicitor General) could not, consistently with his own feelings on the subject, avoid protesting against the reading of a Bill a second time which would throw open the offices of Lord Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor. He would, however, be sorry to resist that part of the measure which did away with the prohibition of officials attending places of worship with the insignia, or in the costume of their office. He felt further bound to protest against the second reading of the Bill, because he was convinced it would be highly inexpedient to open up the solemn compact entered into in 1829; and if, on some future occasion, there should be a revulsion of feeling in this country, in an opposite direction to that taken by the House in 1829, those who now wished to re-open the compact would have to thank themselves for what might occur. He should be sorry to see the question re-opened in any way calculated to prejudice the existing rights of the Roman Catholic population. He desired that his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen should enjoy free and equal rights with the Protestants, and he was ready to admit Roman Catholics to all places under the Crown, except those reserved by the Act of 1829. That Act worked well. At present there were fourteen Judges in the superior courts in Ireland, and eight of those Judges professed 1126 the Roman Catholic religion. One of the first fruits of the measure was to place on the bench of Ireland the father of the hon. and learned Gentleman who brought in this Bill—Sir Michael O'Loghlen—a Judge whose impartiality and integrity had not been exceeded by any man who had ever graced the judicial bench—and he rejoiced at the opportunity which that Act afforded of placing such a man on the bench; and he had not a word to say against any gentleman who since that period had been raised to the Irish judicial bench, nor did he doubt in the slightest degree the integrity and loyalty of his Roman Catholic countrymen in Ireland. But there were other grave considerations, which should be weighed before the settlement of 1829 was broken through. The Act of 1829 was framed by men of great wisdom and experience, and they restricted the appointments within the present bounds. And why were these particular cases excepted? Because the office of Lord Lieutenant was one nearly connected with the Sovereign of these Realms, who, by the Act of Settlement, must necessarily be a Protestant. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was not merely a delegate of the Home Office, he was the representative of the Sovereign. The Lord Lieutenant possessed a great amount of Church patronage, which the Lord Chancellor did not; and therefore, he admitted, the reasons for insisting that the Lord Lieutenant should be Protestant were greater than those for restricting the office of Lord Chancellor to Protestants. But the holders of that office in England and Ireland were more closely connected with the Crown by the theory of the Constitution than any other Member of the Government, and hence, in their wisdom, the framers of the Bill of 1829 provided that the holder of it must be a Protestant. He hoped that no outcry would induce Parliament to re-open the great compact which had been then entered into. He expressed this opinion with great reluctance and difficulty; but he should not have discharged his duty if he had not recorded his opinion against all the proposed changes, except as regarded the permission to Roman Catholic civil functionaries to attend their own places of worship in their robes of office.
§ MR. LAWSONsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who bad just spoken was, like himself, a Protestant member of the bar of Ireland; and he confessed 1127 he was struck with astonishment and surprise that a person who pleaded at the same bar with his Roman Catholic brethren should advocate in that House the continuance of their exclusion from the highest honour of the profession. Within the last few days there had been some peculiar revelations of the differences between the Members of the Executive Government, but none exceeded the revelations of that evening in singularity. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had dissented from one provision only of the Bill, and had given the remainder his assent; while the hon. and learned Gentleman, in direct opposition to his Chief, dissented from the whole Bill, except one fragmentary portion which the hon. and learned Gentleman thought might be conceded without infringing on the prejudices which he represents, and that was that a Mayor might appear, on certain public occasions, in the insignia of his office. The Bill of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) proposed to throw open to Roman Catholics the offices of Lord Lieutenant, the Chancellorship, and to remove an absurd restriction upon municipal and judicial officers. The hon. and learned Solicitor General would lop off the two first, and leave the Bill a miserable remnant of legislation. But the Solicitor General had really furnished a most powerful argument against himself, for he referred to the revered name of Sir Michael O'Loghlen, and said that he was an ornament to the Bench as Master of the Rolls, yet he could not have been elevated to the Lord Chancellorship—an object of legitimate ambition to those who practised at the bar. His colleagues at the Irish bar almost unanimously repudiated this as an unjust exclusion, and maintained that there was no reason why the highest posts in the kingdom should not be as open to their Roman Catholic brethren as to Protestants. With respect to the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) had so completely disposed of the argument of the opponents of the Bill that he need not touch upon it.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Lawson) had made allusion to some trifling difference on the Ministerial Bench as to portions of the Bill before the House, but he forgot that such differences of opinion were not peculiar to the present Administration. There was, then, a difference of opinion, not of degree, but of 1128 essence. In this case he thought there should be a right of private judgment, without hon. Gentlemen being subjected to the censorious observations of their opponents. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, that there was no danger in permitting the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to be filled by a Roman Catholic, would apply equally to the succession to the Crown. The Lord Lieutenant was clothed with regal power; he exercised all the patronage of the kingdom; and was the real head of the Church in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) said that toleration was the offspring of intelligence and education. Now, he believed that the Sovereign Pontiff was a highly educated and intelligent person; but with all his intelligence the Pope would not allow the Presbyterians to hold their unostentatious meetings in Rome. He (Mr. Vance) agreed that it was more essential to have the Lord Lieutenant a Protestant than a Lord Chancellor, but he would not give up the point in either case. Whatever might be the result of the division, he was satisfied the House would not permit the Bill to pass into a law. In Committee an Amendment would be proposed to make it indispensable that a Lord Lieutenant should be a Protestant, and he believed such Amendment would be carried.
§ Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 195; Noes 93: Majority 102.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 14th March.
1130| AYES. | |
| Acland, T. D. | Bowyer, Sir G. |
| Adam, W. P. | Brand, hon. H. |
| Agar-Ellis, hon. L. G. F | Bright, Sir C. T. |
| Akroyd, E. | Bright, J. |
| Amberley, Viscount | Bruce, Lord C. |
| Andover, Viscount | Bruce, rt. hon. H. A. |
| Antrobus, E. | Bryan, G. L. |
| Ayrton, A. S. | Buller, Sir A. W. |
| Bagwell, J. | Buller, Sir E. M. |
| Bailey, Sir J. R. | Butler, C. S. |
| Barclay, A. C. | Candlish, J. |
| Barron, Sir H. W. | Capper, C. |
| Bass, A. | Cardwell, rt. hon. E. |
| Baxter, W. E. | Cavendish, Lord E. |
| Bazley, T. | Cavendish, Lord P. C. |
| Beaumont, W. B. | Cheetham, J. |
| Berkeley, hon. H. P. | Childers, H. C. E. |
| Biddulph, M. | Clay, J. |
| Blake, J. A. | Clement, W. J. |
| Clive, G. | Layard, A. H. |
| Cogan, rt. hon. W. H. F. | Leeman, G. |
| Colthurst, Sir G. C. | Lefevre, G. J. S. |
| Courtenay, Lord | Lewis, H. |
| Cowen, J. | Liddell, hon. H. G. |
| Cox, W. T. | Locke, J. |
| Craufurd, E. H. J. | Lowe, rt. hon. R. |
| Crawford, R. W. | Lusk, A. |
| Crosland, Colonel T. P. | Mackinnon, Capt. L. B. |
| Crossley, Sir F. | M'Lagan, P. |
| Davey, R. | Mainwaring, T. |
| Denman, hon. G. | Martin, C. W. |
| Dent, J. D. | Merry, J. |
| Devereux, R. J. | Milbank, F. A. |
| Dilke, Sir W. | Mitchell, A. |
| Dillwyn, L. L. | Moffatt, G. |
| Dowdeswell, W. E. | Monk, C. J. |
| Duff, M. E. G. | Monsell, rt. hon. W. |
| Earle, R. A. | More, R. J. |
| Enfield, Viscount | Morris, rt. hon. M. |
| Esmonde, J. | Morris, W. |
| Evans, T. W. | Morrison, W. |
| Eykyn, R. | Murphy, N. D. |
| Fawcett, H. | Naas, Lord |
| Fildes, J. | Neate, C. |
| Fordyce, W. D. | Nicol, J. D. |
| Forster, C. | O'Beirne, J. L. |
| Forster, W. E. | O'Brien, Sir P. |
| Fortescue, rt. hn. C.P. | O'Donoghue, The |
| Foster, W. O. | O'Reilly, M. W. |
| Gaselee, Serjeant S. | Osborne, R. B. |
| Gaskell, J. M. | Otway, A. J. |
| Gavin, Major | Pease, J. W. |
| Gilpin, C. | Peel, A. W. |
| Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E. | Pelham, Lord |
| Gladstone, W. H. | Peto, Sir S.M. |
| Glyn, G. G. | Philips, R. N. |
| Goldsmid, Sir F. H. | Pim, J. |
| Goschen, rt. hon. G. J. | Pollard-Urquharl, W. |
| Gower, hon. F. L. | Portman, hon. W. H. B. |
| Gregory, W. H. | Potter, E. |
| Greville-Nugent, Col. | Potter, T. B. |
| Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. | Power, Sir J. |
| Gridley, Captain H. G. | Pritchard, J. |
| Grosvenor, Lord R. | Read, C. S. |
| Grosvenor, Capt. R. W. | Roebuck, J. A. |
| Grove, T. F. | Russell, A. |
| Guinness, B. L. | Russell, H. |
| Hadfield, G. | Russell, F. W. |
| Hanbury, R. C. | St Aubyn, J. |
| Hankey, T. | Salomons, Mr. Ald. |
| Hardcastle, J. A. | Samuelson, B. |
| Harris, J. D. | Scholefield, W. |
| Hay, Lord J. | Seely, C. |
| Hay, Lord W.M. | Shafto, R. D. |
| Hayter, Captain A. D. | Sheridan, H. B. |
| Headlam, rt. hon. T. E. | Sherriff, A, C. |
| Henderson, J. | Smith, J. |
| Henley, Lord | Smith, J. B. |
| Hesketh, Sir T. G. | Speirs, A. A. |
| Hibbert, J.T. | Stacpoole, W. |
| Hodgson, K. D. | Stanley, hon. W. O. |
| Holden, I. | Stansfeld, J. |
| Holland, E. | Steel, J. |
| Howard, hon. C. W. G. | Stone, W. H. |
| Hunt, G. W. | Stuart, Col. Crichton- |
| Ingham, R. | Sturt, Lt.-Colonel, N. |
| Kavanagh, A. | Synan, E. J. |
| Kennedy, T. | Tottenham, Lt.-Col. C. G. |
| King, J. G. | Tracy, hon. C. R. D. Hanbury- |
| Kinglake, A. W. | |
| Knatchbull-Hugessen, E | Trevelyan, G. O. |
| Lawson, rt. hon. J. A. | Vandelcur, Colonel |
| Vanderbyl, P. | Winnington, Sir T. E. |
| Vivian, H. H. | Wynne, W. R. M. |
| Vivian, Capt. hn. J. C. W. | Wyvill, M. |
| Western, Sir T.B. | Young, R. |
| White, hon. Capt. C. | |
| White, J. | TELLERS. |
| Whitworth, B. | O'Loghlen, Sir C. |
| Williamson, Sir H. | Gray, Sir J. |
| NOES. | |
| Adderley, rt. hon. C. B. | Hotham, Lord |
| Agnew, Sir A. | Jolliffe, hon. H. H. |
| Annersley, hon. Col. H. | Kendall, N. |
| Archdall, Captain M. | Ker, D. S. |
| Arkwright, R. | King, J. K. |
| Bagge, W. | Kinnaird, hon. A. F. |
| Baillie, rt. hon. H. J. | Knox, hon. Major S. |
| Barnett, H. | Lamont, J. |
| Barrow, W. H. | Laugton, W. G. |
| Bateson, Sir T. | Lanyon, C. |
| Beach, Sir M. H. | Lefroy, A. |
| Beach, W. W. B. | Lindsay, Colonel R. L |
| Bowen, J. B. | Lloyd, Sir T. D. |
| Bruce, Major C. | Long, R. P. |
| Bruce, Sir H. H. | Lowther, J. |
| Cartwright, Colonel | Mordaunt, Sir C. |
| Chatterton, H. E. | Morgan, O. |
| Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B. | Morgan, hon. Major |
| Cole, hon. H. | Neeld, Sir J. |
| Conolly, T. | North, Colonel |
| Cooper, E. H. | O'Neill, E. |
| Corrance, F. S. | Darker, Major W. |
| Du Pre, C. G. | Repton, G. W. J. |
| Dutton, hon. R. H. | Robertson, P. F. |
| Dyke, W. H. | Selwyn, C. J. |
| Dyott, Colonel R. | Severne, J, E. |
| Edwards, Sir H. | Stanhope, J. B. |
| Egerton, Sir P. G. | Stronge, Sir J. M. |
| Egerton, E. C. | Stuart, Lt.-Colonel W. |
| Eliot, Lord | Surtees, H. E. |
| Fane, Colonel J. W. | Taylor, Colonel |
| Feilden, J. | Tollemache, J. |
| Fellowes, E. | Tomline, G. |
| Forde, Colonel | Treeby, J. W. |
| Forester, rt. hon. Gen. | Trevor, Lord A. E. Hill |
| Gallwey, Sir W. P. | Vance, J. |
| Garth, R. | Verner, Sir W. |
| Getty, S. G. | Waldegrave-Leslie, hon. G. |
| Goldney, G. | |
| Goodson, J. | Walker, Major C G. |
| Gore, J. R. O. | Waterhouse, S. |
| Grey, hon. T. de | Whalley, G. H. |
| Griffith, C. D. | Wise, H. C. |
| Gwyn, H. | Woodd, B. T. |
| Hamilton, I. T. | Wynn, C. W. W. |
| Hardy, J. | |
| Henniker-Mjr., hn. J. M. | TELLERS. |
| Heygate, Sir F. W. | Newdegate, C. N. |
| Hildyard, T. B. T. | Schreiber, C. |
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.