LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 22 February 1869)

MR. MAC EVOY
, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of the 14 & 15 Vict., c. 60, intituled, "An Act to prevent the Assumption of certain Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of places in the United Kingdom," and of sec. 24 of the Act of 10 Geo. IV., c. 7, said, the House had, on two former occasions, allowed him to introduce a similar Bill, and the subject had been fully discussed and considered by Select Committees of; both Houses of Parliament. The present Leader of the House, and many of his Colleagues had given their most strenuous opposition to the Ecclesiastical Titles Act when it originally passed, and the Leader of the present Opposition was kind enough, on a former occasion, to allow the introduction of the Bill, which he now had the honour to submit to the House for the third time. The present political circumstances of the country justified him in the belief that the Bill would be received in a fair and candid spirit by the House. He did not propose to go into the policy of his proposal then, but only to ask the House to consent to: the introduction of the Bill, and read it a first time, and he would place the second reading on such a day as would give every hon. Member an opportunity of stating his views with regard to it.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the hon. Member for Meath had correctly stated that the late House permitted the introduction of this Bill; but he could not think that the few words which had fallen from the hon. Member would at all inform the new House of the importance of the measure which he had undertaken to introduce. He could scarcely account for an individual Member of the 187 House, unconnected with the Administration, undertaking so grave a constitutional question as was involved in this particular, unless it was that he represented something more than an ordinary constituency, for the House had been officially informed that the measure had received the sanction of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholics in Ireland and England. It was true, as the hon. Member had stated, that a Committee of this House was appointed in the Session of 1867, and went into the matter of this Bill; but he should not now allude particularly to the circumstances connected with the Bill further than to say that the House was kind enough to excuse him from serving, although he was nominated on the Committee, on the grounds that he did not think the Committee was fairly constituted, and also that there was not time to complete the investigation of so grave a matter. The Committee sat up to the end of the Session, and the result of its investigation was that the Report, with the hon. Member for Meath as the Chairman of the Committee, was carried by a majority of 1. In 1868, the House of Lords appointed a Committee to inquire into the subject-matter of the Bill, and he would beg to refer the House to the Report of that Committee and the most important evidence that was taken by it. The result of that Committee was entirely adverse to the hon. Member's proposal. The evidence tendered before the Committee of this House was rather of a remarkable character. Not one witness was examined in support of the existing law—an Act that was passed in 1851 by repeated majorities in this House, and supported by an overwhelming majority of demonstrations in the country. The House of Lords had decided that it would be unconstitutional and inconsistent with the supremacy of the law of this country that the Act declaratory of the Common Law of the country in maintaining the Supremacy of the Crown should be abrogated as proposed by the hon. Member. He was unwilling to detain the House long, but he wished to put one point before them. A most eminent Roman Catholic barrister was examined before the Committee of that House in 1861—namely, Mr. Hope Scott—and, by way of illustrating one portion of this subject, he would read an 188 extract from his evidence, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University embodied in his first Report, but which was rejected by a majority of 1. Mr. Hope Scott was asked, with reference to the relative position of the two Churches—the Established Church and the Roman Church—that, if a Bishop was intruded into the see of another Bishop in this country it would be, in the eye of that portion of the Church at all events which was in the country, a schismatical act? His answer was most remarkable— There can be no doubt about it. The fact is, that the Roman Catholic Church would not be justified in placing bishops anywhere in England or in Ireland, if it did not deny the authority, practically speaking, of the Bishops of the Establishment; it is, of course, an issue between the two religions, which it is of no use blinking. Then Mr. Hope Scott was further asked— But the Roman Catholic Church assumes that the English episcopate has no existence in England; and the answer was "Most undoubtedly." He (Mr. Newdegate) begged to call the attention of the House to this subject, because it was not merely a matter of religion, but the House would observe from the answer which he had read that it was a question of establishment and authority. It was the authority of the Established Church as charged by the State with the cure of all souls; that was with the function of extending to all the community its services if they would accept them. It was that function which the Roman Catholic Church disputed, and asserted its rights against the present position of the Established Church. A proposal was before the country to disestablish the Protestant Church in Ireland. Mr. Hope Scott had declared the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to establishment by claiming authority, not over persons of its own communion only, but over all baptized Christians; and that this should be sanctioned by law, and sanctioned by the repeal of the statute which forbade the exercise of that authority and jurisdiction. Therefore, the position was this, that when a proposal was before the country, and would soon be before the House, for the disestablishment of the Protestant Church in Ireland, an hon. Member of the House introduced a Bill which would virtually sanction the establishment of the Roman 189 Catholic Church throughout the United Kingdom. He did not wish longer to detain the House, but he would refer the new Members to two sources of information—the evidence and Report of a Committee of this House, presented in 1867, and the evidence and Report before the House of Lords presented last year.

MR. WALPOLE
said, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had stated very accurately what had taken place in 1867 and 1868, in reference to the proposal now made to repeal what was called the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. There was only one thing he (Mr. Walpole) would wish to add to the statement, and that was, in consequence of the observation which fell from his hon. Friend, that no evidence was taken against the repeal of the Bill by the Committee of the House of Commons, for some reasons unintelligible to his hon. Friend, and for some reasons which his hon. Friend thought ought to have operated on the minds of the Committee in a different way. And, now, what he wished to remind his hon. Friend of was, that what the Committee considered to be the case, as presented to them, was simply this:—A case of grievance was attempted to be made out, but the whole question of practical grievance was entirely refuted, and it then simply appeared to the Committee that it was not necessary to go into evidence. When the matter came on for discussion, these matters might be more fully noticed. He agreed that this Bill, having been already twice introduced into the House of Commons, it would not perhaps be courteous to the hon. Member, or altogether respectful to the House, to oppose the present Motion; but he must be permitted to observe that the measure, having been carried after the fullest discussion, proposed, as it had been, not by a Conservative, but by a Liberal Government; and having met the general consent and approbation of the people, the hon. Gentleman must expect that those who had seen no cause to change their opinions would continue to give their most strenuous opposition to the alteration of what they regarded as a most important part of the legislation of this country. He had no objection to the introduction of the Bill, but he hoped that due Notice would be given of the time fixed for its second reading.