ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES AND ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF ACTS—NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 30 May 1867)

COLONEL GILPIN
objected to the nomination of the Committee. The Reform Bill had taken up so much time that this question had not received the consideration to which it was entitled. This was not an Irish, but a national question, and, knowing that the Act to which it related had been passed with the general approbation of the country, he begged to move that the Committee be appointed that day six months.

COLONEL STUART KNOX
, in seconding the Amendment, said, that in the early part of the evening he had asked the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. MacEvoy) whether he would not consent to have the Committee nominated by the Committee of Selection; and the hon. Gentleman, in- 1364 stead of replying to the question, asked him whether he could speak for hon. Members on his side. Of course he could not do that, so the only thing left for him to do was to oppose the hon. Gentleman's Motion.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the House had a right to know the opinions of the Government on the matter. He did not think any good would come of the proposed Committee; if he did, he should be quite willing to serve upon it.

LORD NAAS
said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night had explained the reason why the Government had consented to the appointment of the Committee. It was that this question, the agitation of which might otherwise excite much angry feeling, might be discussed quietly, and the House had generally concurred in the arrangement.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that if the Government intended to repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Act they ought to state their intentions to the House. He had been named as one of the proposed Committee; but he could not consent to serve unless the Government should take care to have one of their Law Officers, who, he understood, was willing to serve, appointed on it, and also the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Moncreiff), who was also willing.

§ MR. VANCE
condemned the proposed Committee as unfair, consisting of ten in favour of the Mover's view and five against, instead of eight on one side and seven on the other, which was the usual proportion.

§ SIR BROOK BRIDGES
moved the adjournment of the debate.

LORD NAAS
hoped that if any objections existed to the constitution of the Committee, they would at once be stated, it being the wish of the Government that it 1365 should be composed of Members likely to give an unbiassed opinion, and that all opinions should be fairly represented. Of the fifteen Gentlemen proposed, seven sat on that (the Ministerial), and eight on the opposite side of the House, and two were Gentlemen professing the Roman Catholic religion. He had no objection to two names being added; but with regard to the Solicitor General, it must be remembered that the Law Officers of the Crown had their time very much occupied, and it was doubtful whether he could give sufficient attention to the matter. If it was desired that the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Moncreiff) should be placed upon it he would offer no objection. The Government simply desired that a question likely to provoke considerable animosity if discussed in the House should be calmly considered by a Select Committee.

§ MR. VANCE
expressed his belief that ten Gentlemen of those proposed would report for the repeal of the Act, and five against it.

§ COLONEL W. STUART
contended that some of the Legal Advisers of the Crown ought to be placed on the Committee.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
hoped the Motion for adjournment would be pressed.

COLONEL STUART KNOX
could not understand why a reference to the Committee of Selection should be objected to, if it were desired to have a fair Committee.

§ MR. MONK
thought a judicious selection had been made, two-thirds being English Members.

§ MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTIN
thought it useless at that late hour to resist the Motion for adjournment.

§ SIR HENRY EDWARDS
said, it was now half past one o'clock a.m., and the Speaker had to take the Chair at two o'clock p.m.; he therefore moved that the House do now adjourn.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that hon. Members opposite might not be aware that they were making a most novel proposition. He could not remember that on a public matter of this kind the Committee of Selec- 1366 tion had ever been called upon to nominate a Committee.

MR. LOWTHER
thought the course suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman was a most invidious one. He was anxious that all grievances of the Roman Catholics should be redressed, but that it should be done in a legitimate manner.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, this was really an English question, and Dr. Manning was moving in it exactly as Cardinal Wiseman had done.

§ MR. PIM
said, the question was neither an English nor Irish question exclusively, but an Imperial question.

§ MR. MACEVOY
said, he moved in this matter solely through his own feelings, and not by the instigation of Dr. Manning or any other Bishop.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
apologized to the hon. Member for Meath if he had said anything offensive to him; but having looked through the usual channels of in formation, he—["Order!"]

COLONEL STUART KNOX
suggested that if the hon. Member for Meath had no confidence in the Committee of Selection, he should allow the Committee to be appointed by the Committee of Elections.

LORD NAAS
advised the hon. Member for Meath to consent to an adjournment, and hoped that, if objection was entertained to the constitution of the Committee, another list of names would be laid on the table, and that they would be able to come to some satisfactory arrangement on the matter.

LORD NAAS
said, it was evident no conclusion could be come to that night, and he advised the hon. Member for Meath to consent to the adjournment.

§ MR. VANCE
said, the names he objected to were those of Gentlemen on his side of the House, who were supposed to be favourable to his views, but were not.