§ MR. GLADSTONE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent, for a limited time, new appointments in the Church of Ireland, and to restrain, for the same period, in certain respects, the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent, for a limited time, new appointments in the Church of Ireland, and to restrain, for the same period, in certain respects, the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
COLONEL STUART KNOXopposed the introduction of the Bill, and considered that he was perfectly justified in so doing after the opinion freely expressed by Members opposite that it was too late to proceed with Public Business. It was his full intention to oppose this Bill at every stage, upon the same grounds that had been put forward by a Gentleman long holding a great position in that House, and he could not do better than read these opinions, which were given many years ago—
One great part of the mission of the Irish Church was the instruction of those who belonged to it in the maxims of religion, loyalty, and truth. Has it failed in that respect; or are they not, on the contrary, to be reckoned among the most loyal and devoted subjects of the Crown? England is a Protestant State; it ought, therefore, to uphold the Protestant religion. What does that mean? That while we respect the antiquity and the practices of the Church of Rome, we also assert the right of private judgment and the independence of the human mind. I trust that a Church which retains the just authority of a Christian Church, which teaches the Scriptures and the unadulter- 315 ated truths of the Church of England, will never be overthrown by a House of Commons. It cannot be destroyed, except by the vote of a recreant senate and an apostate nation.
COLONEL STUART KNOXI am quoting from the right hon. Gentleman himself in 1835, speaking in the House of Commons upon the question of the Irish Church, in opposition to its persistent foe, Lord Russell. I move, Sir, that the debate be adjourned.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Colonel Stuart Knox.)
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that, when on the previous day he had called the attention of the House to the fact, that it wanted less than ten minutes to six o'clock, and that no time consequently remained for the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) to give any explanation of the contents of this Bill, he pursued no unusual course. There was an analogy between the manner in which what was termed the private business of the House—that which related to matters of detail, to personal or local matters—was conducted, and the practice of the House in Bills of the most important character. The 26th Standing Order related to matters touching such property as that affected by the Bill, when affected in detail by Private Bills. The 26th Standing Order directed that—
Previously to the deposit of a petition for leave to bring in a Bill relating to the Crown, Church, or corporation property, or property held in trust for public or charitable purposes, before the first reading of any such Bill brought from the House of Lords, notice in writing of such application to Parliament shall be served upon the owners or reputed owners of such property, and the lessees or reputed lessees of such property, holding leases for a life or lives, or for any term of twenty-one years or upwards.And further in certain cases by a subsequent Standing Order the publication of notice in the Gazette was necessary. These safeguards were insisted upon in the case of Private Bills, and they showed the deliberation, with which the subject ought to be approached. The Controller of the Household had scarcely had time to make his obeisance or to turn round after bringing up Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, when the right hon. Gentleman got up and gave Notice of this Bill. In taking the course he was doing with reference to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal he was only following Parliamentary prece- 316 dent. His object was to obtain information as to the scope and purport of the Bill. He should like to know whether it was proposed in the Bill to deal either with the Coronation Oath or the Act of Union, both of which had ever been regarded as fundamental portions of the Constitution? He should also like to know, who was to appoint to any incumbencies that might become vacant during the period that the Bill was to be in operation? [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Nobody.] He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire intended that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk should answer for him. He rather thought that was a more direct inspiration than the right hon. Gentleman would like to accept. Pie wanted to know, supposing any vacancy should occur during the operation of this Bill, either in a bishopric, cathedral, or in an incumbency, who was to appoint either to the bishopric, the chapter, or the parish? Again, was the person appointed to be put in the full enjoyment of the income and emoluments of the bishopric, chapter, or incumbency? He wished further to know, for what period the Bill, as it was to be temporary, was to remain in operation? he wished to know whether it purported to bind a future Parliament? He thought that in justice to their successors, who would be their legitimate children—the House should know for what time the Bill was to be in operation. Lastly, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposed to take the second reading? These were questions touching statutes of a fundamental character, touching the Constitution, the tenure of the Crown, and the duties connected with that tenure. There were some Members of the House, at all events, who did not think lightly of interfering with these fundamental statutes.
MR. GLADSTONESir, before answering the Questions of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, I wish to make a reference to the supposed quotations of the hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon, made from what he says was a speech of mine. I was desirous that without the least delay the hon. and gallant Gentleman should give me an opportunity of verifying those quotations; but he was unable to give me any information that would enable me to do so.
COLONEL STUART KNOXI have reason to believe that the first part of my quotation was from the speech made by 317 the right hon. Gentleman in 1835, when in Office. The latter part, I believe, was from the fourth edition of his work published in 1841—nine years after his entry into Parliament, when he could not be regarded as a boy — ["Oh, oh!"] — and when his views might be regarded as constitutional.
MR. GLADSTONEWhat I want is a reference. I wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman to observe the mode of procedure he has adopted. He produces passages of which I have no recollection, of which I can find no trace, and which I do not believe ever proceeded from my mouth or from my pen. I asked him from what he quoted? He says—without giving any particulars—that the first part of his quotation was from a speech I made when I was in Office, and the latter part, he believed from a work in two octavo volumes, published twenty-seven years ago, which do not seem to have attracted him sufficiently to induce him to read them for the improvement of his mind or for any other object. Till the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives me a reference, I must ask the House to suspend their judgment as to the authorship of those remarkable passages. I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting assistance from the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord Claud Hamilton).
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman has no right to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. GLADSTONEAs the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given me no reference, it is not in my power to deal with his quotations; but I must say that I do not think any Member of this House has a right to use passages, on which he intends to found a charge, without at the same time naming the source, so as to give the person to whom those passages are attributed a means of verifying the quotations.
Now, in answer to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, I wish to say that I did not explain the contents of the Bill for this reason—that I think they were explained, as far as was necessary and convenient, for hon. Members in the speech I made when proposing the second Resolution. Indeed, that Resolution contained the whole substance of the Bill. Exclusive of the preliminary recitals and the subsidiary provisions, the enacting part 318 will not be found to proceed beyond the second page. The Bill first of all provides for the stoppage of any new appointments in the Church in Ireland. Secondly, it restrains the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland, except so far as regards the necessary and current purposes for which the Commission exists. It restrains them from all serious outlay of money, and all arrangements which would unnecessarily complicate the future. The Bill contains no provisions whatever touching the Coronation Oath or the Act of Union, nor does it appear to me to be necessary or suitable that it should contain such provisions. Whether it would be necessary in more permanent legislation—in final legislation on this subject — to introduce provisions touching the Act of Union is another matter: but I do not think there is anything in this Act which either states that Parliament has carried the first Resolution which has been adopted, or declares in any manner that the Established Church in Ireland should cease to be an Established Church. That is declared by the first Resolution; but it is not declared by this Bill. Therefore I do not think that there is any question of the Act of Union in the Motion for leave to introduce this Bill. The time during which; the Bill will be in operation I stated before. It will continue in force till the 1st of August, 1869. As to the methods of procedure to be adopted with regard to those offices not to be filled up, they are substantially described and provided already in the Irish Church Temporalities Act of 1833. The measures then taken with respect to the bishoprics proposed by Lord Derby to be abolished are the measures which will serve for the purpose now. With regard to benefices, the only difference it has been necessary to make I described in proposing the second Resolution. The Bill of 1833, contemplating only parishes in which there was but a very limited number of Protestants, provided for only a small remuneration to the clergyman who might be appointed. This Bill provides that in fixing the salary of the officiating minister regard is to be had to the nature and extent of the duties to be discharged. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's question about the manner in which vacancies are to be dealt with, I have only to say that the arrangements will be precisely the same as they were under the Act of 1833 in the case of suspended benefices. If the hon. Gentleman refers to the clauses in that 319 Act referring to bishoprics to be abolished and benefices to be suspended, he will find that the framework of legislation is already in action, and only requires to be extended in order to meet the case with which we have now to deal. There are subsidiary provisions in respect of minor offices in the Church in Ireland—lay offices of a minor character. Persons taking such offices are to take them subject to the pleasure of Parliament. I think I have now described the provisions of the Bill. If I decline to enter into arguments on those provisions at present, it is because I think I am consulting the convenience of the House by so doing, as I believe hon. Members will be better able to discuss the Bill when it is in their hands than they can be now before it is laid on the table.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, that although the right hon. Gentleman had thrown a doubt upon the accuracy of the passage quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon, yet he could not deny that he had made the strongest appeals from time to time, to that House, in favour of the Irish Church. He thought that the course now adopted by the right hon. Gentleman cast a grave imputation on his consistency. He believed that if the right hon. Gentleman had been in Office the House would not have heard of any attack upon the Irish Church. He believed that had Lord Derby been in Office they would not have heard of it. He believed that its object was to crush the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), who had risen to the post he occupied by his own talent and industry, and to prevent his obtaining a fair trial from that House. According to precedent, they had every right to oppose, if they pleased, the first reading of the Bill. They knew its contents; and its contents were such that he apprehended they were entitled to oppose it. He remembered that more than once a Bill for securing vote by ballot had been successfully opposed on the first reading. This was, therefore, not an unprecedented and unusual course. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire state that, after the reception of the Queen's Message, he had a right to introduce the Bill; but, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman had introduced it, and they had a right to treat it as they pleased. As they bad not seen the Bill, and as it was desirable they should be in possession of that most pernicious document, he should recommend his hon Friends to reserve their 320 opposition until the second reading. ["No, no!"] Then he should recommend his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stuart Knox) to take any course he thought proper.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ VISCOUNT INGESTREsaid, he thought in this important crisis he should be warranted in moving that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire should be read by the Clerk at the Table. ["Oh, oh!"] He was sure the House would give him credit for saying that he would not do anything factious, or in the spirit of party. It would be most advantageous to hon. Members—anxious as he believed they were, on both sides of the House, that the Bill should be fairly discussed—to know what were the motives of the right hon. Gentleman in bringing forward the Bill. A perfect understanding of what was about to be done would very much facilitate matters. He did not know that he was quite in order in moving that the Bill be read by the Clerk at the Table; but many of those who were accustomed to pin their faith to the principles of the maintenance of Church and State peculiarly advocated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) would be glad to know why he had changed his opinions.
§ MR. SPEAKERI understood the noble Lord to move that the Bill be read by the Clerk at the Table.
§ VISCOUNT INGESTREagain rose to address the House, but being met by loud cries of "Order," resumed his seat.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEcomplained that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his Question as to when he proposed that the second reading should be taken.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid it had escaped him to answer the Question; but he might now state that, presuming he obtained leave to bring in the Bill, as the Bill was short, and as he hoped it would be in type to-morrow, he proposed to fix the second reading for Friday, the 22nd.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. GLADSTONE, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Mr. LAWSON.
MR. GLADSTONEI have to ask the permission of the House to make an explanation of a matter which has occurred in the course of this debate. ["Hear, hear !"] Aided by my Friends—for I, also, have Friends as well as the hon. and 321 gallant Gentleman — I have discovered a passage which bears a remarkable resemblance to that which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Stuart Knox) described as coming from me in 1835. The passage is this—
By all that we see and know of the history of the country, this is—and I glory in the thought— a Protestant State. What does that mean? That while we respect the antiquity and the authority of the Church, we also assert the right of private judgment and vindicate the independence of the human mind. I trust that a Church which retains the principle of a Christian Church—which teaches the Scriptures and the unadulterated truths of the Church of England, will never be overthrown by a British House of Commons. It cannot be destroyed except by the vote of a recreant Senate and an apostate nation." — [3 Hansard, clxxxii. 1008.]But, upon running my hand up to the head of that speech, I find that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman attributed to me as having been uttered by me twenty-seven years ago, was really delivered on the 10th April, 1866, and that the author of it was Mr. Whiteside.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he would be happy to obtain a hearing for the hon. and gallant Member if the ground on which he claimed to be heard could be admitted.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman obtained a hearing in order to make a personal explanation.
COLONEL STUART KNOXI do, also. I wish merely to thank the right hon. Gentleman for corroborating my words; and to say that, when I have an opportunity of referring to the documents as he has had, I have no doubt I shall be able to answer him.
§ MR NEWDEGATEsaid, that, in the confusion which prevailed, he could not hear the day proposed for the second reading.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that when a Bill was brought in and read the first time the second reading was then fixed.
§ COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTI wish to ask the hon. and gallant Member upon what grounds he attributed the speech of the Right Hon. Mr. Whiteside to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire?
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr.Verner.)
§ MR. NEWDEGATEhoped that the usual fortnight would be allowed for the consideration of so important a measure.
COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, he admitted the Government was in a minority upon this subject; but that was no reason why they should not have sufficient time to consider the provisions of the Bill before they were called upon to pronounce an opinion upon it. Time was not pressing, and there was plenty of business to transact in the meantime. Their being in a minority was no reason why they should not have fair play and endeavour to defend themselves.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he was sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would wish the Business of the House to be conducted in its regular course. The practice was, on every occasion that a Bill was brought in, to fix the second reading after it had been read a first time. That, be presumed, would be the course adopted on the present occasion. He wished to ask the hon. Member if he intended to press his Motion for the adjournment of the House?
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.