HC Deb 21 March 1867 vol 186 cc363-71
MR. MACEVOY

said, he moved for leave to introduce a Bill for the repeal of this Act. As he understood no opposition would be offered at that stage, it was unnecessary for him to trouble the House with any observations.

MR. O'REILLY

said, no one could feel more strongly opposed to the Ecclesiastical Titles Act than himself—one of the first acts of his political life being to aid in depriving of his seat a personal friend who had not voted against that measure. He could not but ask, however, what would be the practical result of this Bill? If the hon. Gentleman were able to say that he had any assurance from Her Majesty's Government on the subject, or if he could hold out any hope of bringing the matter to a successful issue, he would have his best support and assistance. All, however, that the hon. Gentleman had stated was that the Bill would not be opposed at the present stage. He had been anxious to know what was the opinion entertained on this point by the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authorities in this country and in Ireland, who felt most sensibly the injustice and pressure of the Act. He had accordingly had communications from the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin, and also from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, and he had communicated personally with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. He was therefore able to say that, much as they felt the injustice of the Act—and Dr. Manning had remarked how hard he felt it on him, as a Christian Bishop and an Englishman, daily to be obliged by a higher duty to violate the statute law of this country—the present proposal was no suggestion of theirs, and they did not feel it part of their duty to raise the question at this time. They feared that to do so would only lead to an idle agitation which would hinder more practical and serious measures. He could not express this feeling better than in their own words, and he would therefore, with the permission of the House, read two very brief extracts. The first was from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, who said— This is not the time to ask for a repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. That question can very well wait for a while. At present the Irish Members ought to concentrate their energies upon the land, the Church, and the education question. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh said— It should be repealed; but if the discussion of it just now would have the effect, as I believe it would, of drawing off attention from matters of much more practical importance to Ireland, it ought to be postponed. In those sentiments he entirely concurred. The law was, he believed, useless and un just, and he hoped the good sense of this country would in time—and that a brief time—assent to its repeal. He saw, however, no good practical result which was likely to flow from raising the question at the present moment. If the hon. Gentleman could elicit from the Government a distinct expression of their opinion on the matter, then he might be doing good service. From those on his own side of the House, he required no such expression of opinion, because in 1851 they had the courage to stem the popular current, and to speak words of truth. If the Government were now merely to say that they would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, he held that such a statement would be no avail. He, under those circumstances, could see no advantage which was likely to arise from the hon. Gentleman's proposal.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he should rejoice to think that there was any prospect of success likely to attend the Motion of his hon. Friend at the present time. They must all do justice to the generous motives which impelled him to make this Motion, to undo a great wrong inflicted upon a mistake and a misunderstanding. The Roman Catholic hierarchy of England and Ireland were stigmatised as guilty of a misdemeanour in doing that which was only their duty in accordance with their religious convictions. He believed a great mistake had been committed in passing the Act which it was sought to repeal—a statement the justice of which he hoped the good sense of the English people would lead them before long to acknowledge. He did not, however, think that public opinion was ripe for the change proposed; and he therefore thought it was desirable that his hon. Friend should not press on his Bill at present.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he understood that Archbishop—he begged pardon, he meant—Dr. Manning had expressed his regret that he was obliged to break the statute law of the land every day, and if the House of Commons and the Government allowed the law to be so broken, he should be disposed to second the proposal for the introduction of the Bill. He wished to know whether the Government meant to support this Bill. He contended that the concessions which had been made by the present and previous Governments had never been fairly submitted to public opinion.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am only desirous of making remark which appears to me to be called for by the speeches which have proceeded from my hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly), and the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer). Primâ facie, this Motion is one for relieving from certain civil disabilities the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, and we have had rather a striking declaration on the part of Gentlemen, than whom no other two Members in the House can be better qualified to represent the opinions of those prelates—that although they are convinced that the law inflicts upon them a wrong, yet, in view of the public interests and of more pressing demands, they do not wish to see the time of this House occupied and the temper of parties embittered by discussions which may, after all, prove fruitless. And I will never sit still and hear a declaration so wise as that which the hon. Members have signified as proceeding from those affected by the Act, without doing them the simple justice of saying that it does them the highest honour both as regards their judgment and prudence. In respect to the Bill itself, I confess on this occasion, I have on one point the satisfaction of coinciding with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) who feels—and feels justly—that it is a very considerable scandal that we should have a law of this description, which law no man volunteers to put into execution. I do not depart in any particular from the opinions which sixteen years ago it was my duty to express in this House at the time of passing this Act. The question then was, whether what I, for one, thought was a grievance, should be inflicted. The question of grievance to the parties who were the objects of the Act was a very material point. Another material point was the evil which ensued when a law was permitted to exist, which law could not be enforced. But is the time favourable for the introduction of the Bill of the hon. Gentleman? That is the whole case I wish to represent to the House, and the point to which it reduces itself, For if the circumstances are not favourable, surely it is not to be desired by any rational man, whatever his views may be, that he should stir up controversy and animosity unless he thinks a practical object can be attained. I ask myself, Is it to be attained? I confess the answer entirely depends on another question—which there is no one here to reply to—What are the intentions and views of Her Majesty's Government? I am unauthorized to speak for Gentlemen on this side of the House, or to utter more than the opinions I venture to form; but I do venture to form an opinion that as far as this side of the House is concerned, the hon. Member who makes this Motion will find little difficulty in the prosecution of his enterprize to a successful conclusion. But what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government? Will the second reading of this Bill and its later stages be supported or not by Her Majesty's Government? If they will be, then I say, by all means let us go forward with the Bill. If it will not be supported by the Government, then, in my opinion, having such adversaries in his face, the hon. Gentleman's undertaking so opposed will be rendered hopeless by reason of that opposition. If there is not the assurance of support, let the hon. Gentleman make his Motion, and I am not the man to oppose it, but it will be singularly sterile in its practical results. We cannot ask any Gentleman opposite, who is probably not in possession of the views of the Cabinet, to speak for them; but it would be desirable that my hon. Friend the Member for Longford and his friends should make it their business to ascertain the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to the course they mean to pursue with respect to the ulterior stages of the Bill.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, that during the last two days there had been floating rumours about the lobbies that Her Majesty's Government would support the Bill, and one of the organs of the Irish Executive, The Irish Times, had stated, on information received from this side of the Channel, that they were determined to do so. Now, in the absence of ally Member of the Cabinet, he should be glad to hear from the Solicitor General for Ireland whether there was any truth in those rumours.

MR. REARDEN

said, ho had not expected to hear such expressions as had fallen from the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) with regard to an Act which would be a disgrace to Roman Catholics as long as it remained unrepealed. He had more confidence in the support of Her Majesty's Government to this Bill than some Members on that side of the House. He could remember a time when the throats of Roman Catholic Members were very near being cut in the streets of London. From that time the Liberal party under Earl Russell had never been a strong one, and but for the influence of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), it would have been smashed up. They were as much buried politically as Lazarus was bodily, and the right hon. Gentleman accomplished their resurrection. If Roman Catholic Members did not support this Motion they would have a sorry account to give to their constituents.

COLONEL GREVILLE

said, he agreed in the opinion that the action of the hon. Member for Meath on this occasion would lead to no result. After the opinion expressed by the Roman Catholic prelates, who had taken a part on the side of law and order, he thought that the House had a right to know what course the Government—of whom he saw two Members though not members of the Cabinet present—would pursue in respect to the Bill.

MR. M'KENNA

trusted that nothing which had been said or quoted by the hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to the introduction of the Bill would prevent its being read a, first time. It was not usual at this stage to press the Government for an expression of opinion; but as hon. Members had it quite in their power to elicit the opinion of the Government at another day, he hoped that they would not prevent the Bill from reaching the point when all would be able to test the disposition of Her Majesty's Government. For his own part, he could not help believing that much of the indisposition of hon. Members to the introduction of this Bill arose from tenderness of feeling towards the head of the late Government, whose supporters they were. The noble Lord the head of the late Government, who now sits in "another place," was the author of this disgraceful Act, now sought to be repealed, and it was perhaps a pardonable consideration for his feelings which induced the hon. Member, who had quoted letters from distinguished prelates, to write to them in such a strain as to elicit their most commendable postponement of their own case to that of the laity; but for his (Mr. M'Kenna's) part, not having before him the communications which elicited these letters, he thought he would show greater consideration for the distinguished writers by giving his heartiest and most unqualified support to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath, and by doing his utmost to remove from the statute book an Act which was not only a perpetual insult to Catholics, but a reproach to any Administration which permitted it to remain on the statute book simply to offend the well-disposed, and to be violated openly.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the Bill would be very important. Those who valued the independence of the country, and the declaration made by Lord Russell on this subject, must object to the repeal of this Act. It was to assert that independence that the whole of the nation was roused. The people were most tolerant, but he believed it would be a rash act to repeal this law. The thirty Irish Roman Catholic Members were representatives of a foreign power in that House, and the people desired a reform of the House of Commons mainly because they found one party pitted against another, who were ready to throw out any bait to secure the votes of Irish Members. The feeling was growing strong in the country against that course of proceeding, and it was prudent on the part of the hon. Member to seek the repeal of this statute before the House of Commons should be reformed.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, that no one would support the Motion of his hon. Friend sooner than he would, if he thought that his hon. Friend was the authorized representative on the occasion of the Roman Catholic body, or, if he saw any chance of its obtaining the support of Her Majesty's Government; but, in the absence of any Member of the Cabinet, be did not think it would be right to call upon any Member of the Government present to express any opinion on it. One of the most unhappy recollections of his Parliamentary life was connected with the passing of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which he had, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend near him, resisted. He would suggest that the second reading of the Bill should be fixed for the earliest day possible, in order to give the Government an opportunity of stating their views.

MR. ESMONDE

said, he would ask the representative of the Dublin University (Mr. Chatterton) to express the opinion of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. BRYAN

said, he hoped to hear what was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the question.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, he thought the Act wrong in its inception; but he doubted whether the Mover of its repeal was not unhappy in his selection of a time for proposing it.

MR. MACEVOY

said, he had not anticipated that the Bill would have met with such a reception from his friends. One hon. Member (Mr. O'Reilly) had brought down upon him the authority of the Church, but, as far as one prelate was concerned, He believed his opinion had been somewhat exaggerated by the hon. Member [Cries of "Name!"]—he referred to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. He had had no opportunity of testing the views of the other prelates referred to. He still clung to the hope that the House would be prepared to allow the Bill to pass a first reading. He joined with every other hon. Gentleman who had spoken in the expression of anxiety to learn from the Government what course they would pursue when the Bill cause on for a second reading. The measure seemed to have fallen on hon. Members like a shell, almost like a Reform Bill. They all knew that there was no anxiety in the House so great as the anxiety lest the occupants of the Treasury Bench should introduce a satisfactory measure of Reform; but suppose the Government should take larger views than they were believed to entertain with regard both to Reform and this question, and deal with them in a liberal way. He had seen some changes in the opinions of Members of the House; and he was much inclined to think that the Government would disappoint the Gentlemen who had now made such telling speeches against him. ["Oh, oh!"] As far as he could judge, the speeches appeared to be directed against the course he had taken, and nothing had been left undone that could embarrass hint in what he had undertaken. He certainly did not expect that at that hour (twenty minutes past one) a debate would be got up against the wishes of the Mover of a Bill like that, when it was well known to hon. Gentlemen that the Government had no intention of opposing its introduction, and when it was well known that in all probability no Members of the Government would be in the House, seeing that the first reading of the Bill was a mere matter of form. He was, however, willing to join them in expressing a desire to learn what course the Government would pursue, and he should be disappointed if the answer of the Government did not disappoint hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House.

MR. BRADY

said, he did not think this subject should be allowed to be dormant, and he gave the greatest credit to his hon. Friend for the introduction of the Bill. He disapproved the way in which this Bill had been met by the Irish Members, and complained of the silence of the Government.

COLONEL GREVILLE

said, he thought the statute not only obsolete now, but obsolete from the time it passed.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHATTERTON)

said, that the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), and the right hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue), understood his position better than to expect him to express any opinion upon a question like this. All that he could say was that he had no special communication with the Government on the subject. The only intimation be received was that the Bill would not be opposed on the first reading, and it was not expected that any discussion would take place. The question was not peculiar to Ireland; certainly, it was not in his department.

MR. COGAN

said, he thought it was due to the House that some Member of the Cabinet should have been present. He did not think that discussion was desired, and perhaps this was another part of the "organized hypocrisy." He hoped the Bill would be withdrawn. He believed it to be a political sham, though not so intended by his hon. Friend, likely merely to delude the country. He called attention to the opinion expressed by the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics on the subject.

MR. WHALLEY

I rise to order. I wish to know whether the hon. Member is not out of order in quoting a Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority.

MR. SPEAKER

The interruption of the hon. Member seems to me without foundation.

MR. WHALLEY

Is it in order to mention these ecclesiastical authorities?

MR. SPEAKER

There was nothing out of order in the speech of the hon. Member, and nothing to justify interruption.

Motion agreed to. Bill to repeal the Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter sixty, intituled "An Act to prevent the Assumption of certain Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of places in the United Kingdom, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MACEVOR, Mr. M'KENNA, and Mr. LEADER.