SECOND READING. ORDER POSTPONED. (Hansard, 14 May 1867)

§ MR. MACEVOY
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that on a previous occasion he had been charged with bringing in this measure without consulting any of the Bishops or authorities of his own Church, and that by the course he was pursuing he was throwing obstacles in the way of a more pressing measure being passed, and acting in a manner calculated to injure the interests of the country with which he was connected. He was, at all events, on the present occasion, open to neither of those charges. He had consulted with the Archbishop of Westminster on the subject, and the Motion he now made was made with the approval and sanction of that Prelate. He might also remind the House that the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) had given notice of an Instruction to the Committee on this Bill considerably extending the scope of the proposal. He thought, therefore, that he was fully justified in assuming that the hon. Member no longer felt any alarm at the extent of the proposal contained in the Bill. He might also state that since the subject was last debated in this House a discussion had taken place "elsewhere," which showed that we were living in more serene times. On that occasion, Lord Derby had said that if any real inconvenience could be shown to press upon the Catholic prelates in this country in consequence of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, he felt sure that every person would be anxious to remove the cause of that grievance and 565 inconvenience. Another noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), who was remarkable for his strong common sense, said that when he had the misfortune to vote for that Bill he was a young man. Earl Grey also acknowledged that the Bill was a mistake, and said that he would not have voted for it if he had not known that it would have been without any practical result. Earl Granville said— Many persons were quite delighted to give that kind of sop to the people of this country, in order that they might have time carefully and seriously to consider the real merits of the question. Other noble Lords expressed opinions equally indicating the change that had come over the spirit of the times. The evidence before the House justified him, he believed, in stating that no extraordinary amount of agitation had been exhibited by the country upon this matter. Only twelve petitions, containing 2,000 signatures, had been presented in reference to this matter; while on a Gas Bill, which affected the interests of a portion of the metropolis, there were as many as 3,000 petitions presented, signed by 45,000 persons. He understood that the Government, recollecting what Lord Derby had said upon the subject, and having fully considered the question, were prepared to allow a Select Committee to be appointed to inquire into the practical working of the Act. He had no hesitation in accepting the offer, and proposed to defer the Motion for the second reading until this day fortnight, and on Thursday next to move for the Select Committee, which would also inquire into the working of the 24th section of the Relief Act, 10 Geo. IV. He felt sure that when the Report of that Committee was before the House, all who were satisfied of the necessity for getting rid of that most obnoxious Act would join with him in urging its repeal. He concluded by moving that the Order for the second reading be postponed until that day fortnight.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
Sir, the course of proceeding in reference to this Bill having taken such an unexpected turn, I cannot now move the Amendment of which I have given notice—that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. No one can look around him upon the empty state of these Benches at the present moment and suppose that this is the sort of House in which the great and important questions which are involved in the Bill can be fairly 566 discussed. I must say that there appears to be a carelessness and indifference with respect to the subject of this Bill on the part of the Government and of the Members of this House, especially the Conservative Members, which is not creditable, which is unworthy of the House. The proposal to refer the question to a Select Committee may be excused on the score of the ignorance that has supervened during the last sixteen years with respect to the premises upon which the Ecclesiastical Titles Act was founded. I know that the utmost pains have been taken on the part of the supporters of the Papal pretensions to confuse public opinion upon the subject. I shall therefore, notwithstanding the absence of the great majority of the House, re-state some of the grounds upon which Parliament founded this Act. I feel that it is my duty to remind the House of the expressions used by Her Majesty in her Speech from the Throne on the 4th of February, 1851, in referring to the then recent Papal aggression, and calling upon Parliament to legislate on the subject. I will read a short extract from Her Majesty's Speech— The recent assumption of certain ecclesiastical titles, conferred by a foreign Power, has excited strong feelings in this country, and large bodies of my subjects have presented addresses to me, expressing attachment to the Throne, and praying that such assumptions should be resisted. I have assured them of my resolution to maintain the rights of my Crown and the independence of the nation against all encroachment, from whatever quarter it may proceed. I have, at the same time, expressed my sincere desire and firm determination, under God's blessing, to maintain unimpaired the religious liberty which is so justly prized by the people of this country."—[3 Hansard, cxiv. 4.] Now, I should not have thought a few years ago, that the House of Commons would ever consent to refer such a subject as Her Majesty described in the few words I have just read to a Select Committee upstairs. I certainly should not have expected this. At the same time it would be idle for me, in the present state of the House, to resist the proposal. I see the possibility of advantage from this course being taken. For I know that dense ignorance prevails with regard to the merits of the question. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Hear, hear!] Yes, Sir, I repeat it, a dense ignorance. In the first place, I believe very few Members of this House have ever taken the trouble to read the Act which the Bill proposes to repeal, and that still fewer of those Members who have been 567 elected to this House since the year 1851, have taken the trouble to read the debates which were then carried on in this and the other House of Parliament on this subject. With the permission of the House, I will read another extract, and it is from the letter which was written by Lord John Russell to the Bishop of Durham. [An ironical cheer and laughter from Irish Members.] I quite understand that laugh of the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk. Well, Sir, this letter was dated the 4th of November, 1850, and in it Lord Russell said— It is impossible to confound the recent measures of the Pope with the division of Scotland into dioceses by the Episcopal Church, or the arrangement of districts in England by the Wesleyan Conference. There is an assumption of power in all the documents which have come from Rome — a pretension to supremacy over England, and a claim to sole and undivided sway, which is inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of our Bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of the nation, as asserted even in Roman Catholic times. I confess, however, that my alarm is not equal to my indignation. There was a warm response to that appeal on the part of the country, and the Act which we are now asked to refer to a select Committee was the reply to the agitation which ensued. But there is yet another extract which I should like to read to the House. The hon. Member for Meath has referred to the authority of some Peers upon this subject. Permit me to take this opportunity of referring to the opinion of one Peer, of stating the opinion of the late Duke of Wellington, respecting the necessity for the Act which the House is asked to repeal. In the debate that took place in the House of Lords on the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill, the Duke of Wellington said that he had been a party to proposing the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act—that the object of that Act was to remove all political restrictions which were enacted against Roman Catholics after the Reformation, at the time of the Popish Plot, and in consequence of the Popish reign of James II., and of the War of Succession in Ireland; but, to do this without tampering with the laws on which the Reformation was founded. The illustrious Duke used these expressions— We have had a good deal of experience of the effect produced in Ireland by measures passed by the Legislature. There was the Relief Act. A great deal was expected from that, and it was 568 said that it would put an end to agitation in Ireland for ever. But in the very year—nay, I believe, almost in the very month in which it became the law of the land—Irish agitation re-commenced. How often since then has the Crown from time to time had occasion to complain of agitation in Ireland? How often has the Crown come to Parliament to demand additional powers for the purpose of putting down the agitation, or worse than agitation, existing in that country, the Relief Act notwithstanding? My advice to your Lordships is to do that which is just and necessary to maintain the power and prerogatives of the Crown, and to protect the subjects of this country, and no more; and you may rely on it you will have the support and good wishes of the loyal people of Ireland as well as of this country. Having the misfortune on this occasion to differ from my noble Friend the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen), who addressed your Lordships second in the debate, I felt it necessary to trouble you with these few words to show on what grounds I intend to support the Motion for the second reading of this Bill."—[3 Hansard, cxviii. 1116,] It seems, Sir, to be perfectly obvious that it is intended that the Act contemplated by this Bill shall be dealt with in the same mode as those penal Acts to repeal which the Relief Act was passed; and it is hoped the Committee will devise some means by which a termination of agitation on this and similar subjects may be brought about. I remember that the same hope was held out with respect to the passing of the Maynooth Act. But what was the fact? Why, that agitation increased tenfold, and that agrarian outrages in Ireland doubled during the next two years — the years 1846 and 1847. I am quite convinced that the majority of the people in this country are labouring under a deep delusion. They cannot bring their minds to believe that Dr. Manning and Cardinal Cullen, both high Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, will perpetuate agitation, no matter what concessions are made to them short of granting the supremacy of their Church—the supremacy of Rome in the United Kingdom. That is what honest Englishmen cannot bring their minds to believe, although they have had proof of it over and over again, and have found themselves constantly deceived. What was the reason for passing of this Ecclesiastical Titles Act? What was it that caused the aggression of which the nation complained? Why, the immediate cause of the aggression in 1850 was that in the year 1846 Parliament swept away the penalties which enforced the legal provisions left us by our Catholic ancestors in restraint of the introduction into this country of Papal bulls and Papal agents. In that year this House was in the same state of careless 569 Liberalism that it presents at this moment. And what was the result? We swept away some of the enactments and many of the penalties which our Roman Catholic ancestors had found necessary to meet the aggressions of the head of their own Church, aggressions the nature of which is so correctly described in the extracts which I have read from the Queen's Speech, and from the letter of Lord John Russell, and in the extract which I have also read from the speech of the Duke of Wellington. It is a difficult matter to persuade the English people of these facts. They think themselves to be uncharitable if they admit or enunciate the truth in this matter. And they proceed, from a feeling of honest benevolence, in a course which entails the constant renewal of agitation and the periodical renewal of those safeguards which our ancestors found to be necessary in order to secure the independence of the national religion and of the Government of this country. I lament that Her Majesty's Ministers should have adopted the course they have announced, unless it is upon the conviction that nothing but an inquiry by a Select Committee, or an inquiry of some kind, will break through the state of delusion into which the people of this country appear again to have fallen upon these subjects. Whether we look back to the history of our own country, or whether we examine the modern history of the nations around us, who are equally opposed with ourselves to this system of Papal agitation and aggression, some such enactment as that before the House is evidently necessary. Let any man read the documents which have lately been laid on the table of this House, giving an account of the reasons which compelled the Emperor of Russia to break off relations with Rome. What was the demand of the Papacy in that instance? Why, that a Nuncio from the Papal Government should be received at the Court of St. Petersburg. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: No!] Sir, the document is on the table of the House, and I hold a copy of it in my hand, and the interruption of the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk appears to me unseemly. What is the substance of this document? That the Emperor of Russia expressed his anxiety that a Nuncio should reside at St. Petersburg. Will the hon. Baronet deny that? And the Emperor adds this—that the terms upon which he is willing to receive the Nuncio at St. 570 Petersburg are the same as those on which the accredited agents of the Papacy are received in France. I do not like to trouble the House with reading long extracts, but I hold the document in my hand. The Papacy refused these terms; and the consequence was that the Nuncio was never sent to St. Petersburg. But there is yet another reason for this rupture of the relations between Russia and the Papacy. It was at that very time, while these negotiations were pending, the Papacy was engaged in secretly fomenting a rebellion in Poland. Owing to the unanimity of the expression of public opinion which is embodied in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, it has been talked of by Gentlemen opposite as the product of a sudden ebullition of Protestant fanaticism. Let me re-call the circumstances connected with the passing of this measure to the recollection of the House. The Papal brief which constituted the aggression was issued on the 29th of September, 1850. During the month of October it became known in this country, and on the 4th of November following Lord Russell, the then Prime Minister, wrote the letter from which I have quoted. From that time to the beginning of February, 1851, when Parliament met, this subject was canvassed, not by a Select Committee of this House, but by the Universities and all the learned bodies of the kingdom, and they laid the result of their investigations at the foot of the Throne. This measure was recommended from the Throne as the result of these investigations. In its passage through Parliament I never knew a measure that was more ably or keenly disputed. It was introduced early in the month of February, 1851; it did not pass the third reading in the House of Lords until the 29th of July, and it did not receive the Royal assent until the 1st of August. This Act, then, was the result of great deliberation, commencing with the learned bodies of the country and the public generally, afterwards conducted in debate through the two Houses of Parliament. From that day to this no prosecution has taken place under the provisions of this Act. Not a single person has been prosecuted under the enactment. Why, then, I ask, is its repeal demanded? I will tell you why. It is because in the recitals of that Act are embodied references to the provisions of the ancient laws, which, ever since the Conquest—aye, and even before the Conquest—have been found essential 571 for the maintenance of the national independence, for the maintenance of the independence of the Crown, and for the maintenance of the freedom of this country from that system of aggressive tyranny which has always marked the conduct of the Court of Rome in every country that has been under its sway or accessible to its agency. If the House is now inclined to grant an investigation, let me remind you of part of the subjects investigated in 1851. In the Library of this House you will find documents which describe the restrictions against Papal aggression that were found to be necessary, and were in existence in every country on the Continent at that period. And not only have these restrictions been since retained, but in Italy in particular their force has been greatly strengthened, and stronger measures have been adopted. Moreover, at this moment, in the French Empire—in France, a Roman Catholic country—restrictions exist upon the exercise of the Papal power there, which are fully equivalent, though in their nature different, to those contained in the Act, which we are asked to repeal. It was my intention to have moved the rejection of this Bill, but seeing the course which the Government have determined upon pursuing in the present empty state of these Benches, I will not attempt to take the opinion of this skeleton of the House. I only trust that the investigations of the Committee will be wide enough, will embrace the subjects to which I have referred, and be extended fully to the question in what respect the measure, which is now condemned, is either oppressive, or, considering that this is a Protestant country, is unfitted to be maintained as a safeguard against the continued Papal aggressions, to which we are exposed.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
rose to address the House, when—

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, he would take the liberty of reminding the House that this was not the proper occasion for discussing the Bill upon its merits. The discussion should more properly take place upon the Motion, "That the Bill be now read the second time." That Motion had not been made that evening. On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill stated that his intention was to put off the Bill for a fortnight; and in the meantime a Committee is to be appointed to inquire into the working of the Act involved in the Bill. On the Motion 572 for the appointment of the Committee the question as to the propriety of referring the question to a Committee may be properly discussed; and on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill an opportunity will be afforded for discussing the merits of the Bill. The question now was simply the postponement of the Motion for the second reading. He therefore took leave to invite the House not to enter into the discussion of the measure itself.

§ MR. WHALLEY
said, with the utmost deference to the opinion of the Speaker, he wished to explain the reasons which urged him to address some observations to the House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I have already stated that it is not according to Parliamentary practice to enter upon a discussion under such circumstances as the present.

§ MR. WHALLEY
said, it was not consistent with his sense of duty to lose any opportunity of calling public attention to the general character of those attempts to alter, as it appeared to him, the fundamental constitution of the House—[Loud cries of "Order!"]

§ MR. O'REILLY
rose to order, and submitted that the question was that the Motion for the second reading of the Bill be postponed to that day fortnight.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member who has introduced this Bill gave some reasons for the course he was pursuing; and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had also some reason for addressing the House, inasmuch as he had given notice of an Amendment on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, though in doing so he perhaps entered into a discussion rather beyond what the ordinary rules of this House justified. But I strongly advise the House to consider the present position of the question.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
hoped he had not travelled beyond the ordinary rules. He certainly had not done so intentionally, for he had given formal notice of an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

LORD NAAS
hoped the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) would yield to the suggestion made by the highest authority in that House. Numberless opportunities for discussion were sure to present themselves hereafter.

§ MR. WHALLEY
entertained profound respect for any observation falling from the Chair; but had not understood the Speaker to prescribe any rule of debate compelling 573 him to forego his privilege of speech. Dr. Manning had over and over again declared—["Order, order!"]

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
hoped that the hon. Member would not be allowed to proceed. He himself had resumed his seat as soon as the Speaker intimated that there was anything irregular in continuing the discussion.

§ MR. WHALLEY
said he should only detain the House a few moments. It was notorious that in violation of the law Roman Catholic prelates—["Order, order!"]

§ MR. COGAN
rose to order. The decision of the Speaker had prevented the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) from being heard, and it should now equally prevent the hon. Member for Peterborough from persisting in his present course.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member for Dundalk has described his position differently and more correctly than the hon. Member who has last spoken. I suggested to the House that under the circumstances it would be extremely inexpedient to enter on the merits of the Bill when it was a mere question of the day to which the further progress of the measure should be adjourned. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk for the manner in which he acquiesced in that suggestion. I have not said that I have power or authority to forbid any observations on the question that this postponement should be agreed to; but I am sure the hon. Member himself (Mr. Whalley) will see that the whole feeling of the House is entirely in accordance with the suggestion which I made.

§ MR. WHALLEY
said, he had no desire to place himself in opposition to the feelings of the House, and if the House would only allow him to proceed they would find he had some grounds for endeavouring to press his observation on their attention. Dr. Manning had constantly stated that the Act placed him and other Roman Catholic prelates in a position of constantly violating and disregarding the law of the country, which was in accordance with their views of their interests—that of giving a practical illustration of their supremacy over the authority of that House. That fact had been made use of in reference to the Fenian movement. So long as this law was allowed to be violated by the Roman Catholic prelates, it would be useless to attempt to enforce the laws against 574 Dr. Manning's followers. Let the law be repealed, or give it practical effect.