COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 12 June 1871)

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that on a former occasion, and even at a later hour of the night than that, he had endeavoured to induce the House, before it proceeded further with the Bill, to pause and to inquire; and he then stated the reasons why he was opposed to the measure. That question had now been in agitation—as everything connected with the Roman Catholic Church in that country and in Ireland always was—for the last four years. A Committee was appointed by the House in the year 1867 to consider the whole subject-matter of that Bill; and that Committee reported in favour of the abolition of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851 by a majority of 1 only. In the next Session of Parliament the House of Lords appointed a Committee, and they went more fully into the subject, and reported directly against the repeal of the Act of 1851. Again, the question was mooted in the last Session; but the Bill, after passing through that House, was lost in the House of Lords. The House of Lords, in fact, adhered to the Report of their Committee. Now, what he wished the House to consider was this—They had it announced to the world, that a great change had taken place in the constitution and in the probable action of the Papacy, as regarded the whole of the Roman Catholic Church, and with reference also to the relations of the Roman Catholic community towards their fellow-subjects of other denominations. 1951 On a previous occasion, he had asked the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the probable consequences of that great change which had been effected by the Council which sat at Rome last year. It was the pleasure of a very thin House, however, to reject that proposal; but the House decided—that was to say, the Government decided—that they would send the Bill itself to a Select Committee. There was very great difficulty in getting hon. Members who agreed with the House of Lords in adhering to the policy of this country, confirmed in 1851, with respect to the status of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this country, to serve on that Committee. He himself declined to serve on it, because the principle of the Bill was a principle to which he objected. Other hon. Members refused to serve, because they did not wish to be closeted in a Select Committee for the purpose of formulating, gilding, or commending a principle to which they were opposed; and the consequence was, that upon that Select Committee there was a great preponderance of hon. Members who were favourable to the repeal of this statute. No practical difference had been made by the labours of that Committee save this—that in the Bill which was before the House previous to the appointment of the Select Committee, the declaration that the assumption of territorial titles by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, or other ecclesiastics, not sanctioned by the Crown, should be void in law, was set forth far more distinctly than it was in the Bill now on the Table of the House. Well, that was no small matter; because, what was the purport of the Bill? It was this—that, although the Bill forbade the assumption of jurisdiction in the sense of a right to revive the obligation on the temporal Courts of the country to enforce the decrees of the Roman Catholic hierarchy representing the Pope, still it would permit the assumption of those territorial titles by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, which are inseparably connected, according to the decisions of several Popes, and especially of the present Pope, with territorial jurisdiction and power over the temporal goods, as well as the spiritual interests of the whole Roman Catholic community; and by the decisions of the recent Council obedience in these matters had become 1952 a matter of faith. Now, it was no trifling measure that they were asked to pass. They were asked to sanction, indirectly, at all events, by the removal of prohibitions, the whole jurisdiction of the Papacy over the property, and over the actions, social, and political, of every Roman Catholic, which the Pope had declared it to be his right to exercise, and which he had enjoined, as a matter of faith. Thus they were asked to carry out the object of the Brief of 1850, which Cardinal Wiseman, in a lecture which he delivered in 1851, and a copy of which he had there, stated to be this—to organize the whole of the adherents of the Roman Catholic Church in that country as a separate and distinct community; and he assigned as a reason for the Brief of 1850, constituting the hierarchy with territorial titles, that according to the Roman Canon Law the Bishops, previous to the issue of that Brief, could not assemble in synod, and therefore had not, according to that Canon law, which was now to be a matter of faith with every Roman Catholic, the power of organizing the Roman Catholic community, as separate and distinct from all other religionists—as separate and distinct from their fellow-subjects in this country. He would beg the House to remember that that was no new notion, and no new idea, with the Papacy. It had ever been the object of the Papacy to obtain those territorial titles; not from a mere antiquarian fancy, but as symbols at once of the dependence of the hierarchy upon the Pope, and of the power of the Pope, through them, over matters temporal within the United Kingdom. If the House would permit him, he could not illustrate that better than by reading a few lines from Milton's great Epic poem—and Milton, the House would bear in mind, was secretary to Cromwell, and the writer of the correspondence with foreign powers, the object of which was to stay the persecution of the Vaudois. Not long afterwards he wrote these lines— Then shall they seek to avail themselves of names, Places and titles, and with these to join Secular power; though feigning still to act By spiritual, to themselves appropriating The Spirit of God, promised alike, and given To all believers; and from that pretence, Spiritual laws by carnal powers shall force On every conscience. 1953 He (Mr. Newdegate) knew that hon. Members who were imbued with the idea that they could establish religious equality by merely declaring their own adhesion to the principle, would turn their eyes away from the dangers and difficulties which might ensue, if the Legislature of England withdrew its prohibition against the exercise of that power. They had had that, as applied to matters temporal, considered by previous Houses of Commons. In the year 1844, as touching the property, the charitable property, the property for the religious uses of Roman Catholics in Ireland, after a Committee of that House had investigated the subject, the Legislature deliberately decided that it would appoint a Commission, which should virtually act as trustee, and hold all this property for religious uses in Ireland. And what proved the wisdom of that decision? Why, that a Petition was presented after the passing of the Act, signed by a considerable number of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and many of the priesthood, but none of the laity, condemning the statute of 1844, and for this reason—that it directly intercepted the action of the Canon law, through the hierarchy, in the disposition of this property, and because it was at variance with the Roman Catholic system, whereby the dying were enjoined to commute their sins in this world by gifts of property to the Church. That Petition he had quoted to the House three years ago, as illustrating the objects of the Papacy, which the Bequests Act intercepted, and was condemned for intercepting by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. He knew that Her Majesty's Government had some reasons for their confidence, that hon. Members of that House had not studied the subject; and that, therefore, they would give a blind and an implicit support to the Government in the promotion of that Bill. But there was another reason alleged, besides the desire to gratify the Roman Catholic hierarchy throughout the United Kingdom, and it was this—It was said that, in the Irish Church Act of 1869, there was an omission or oversight, in consequence of which, if the successors of the present Bishops of the disestablished Church in Ireland should assume the titles of their predecessors, every one of those titles having been granted by the Crown, they would be liable to prosecu- 1954 tion under the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851 for having assumed those titles The fact was, that in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851 a clause was inserted, which relieved from the penalties of that Act the Bishops of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. When that subject was before the House on the second reading, he (Mr. Newdegate) had suggested that, unless it was the object of the majority of the House to establish the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and of the Papacy in a manner which he would afterwards describe; if the only object were to relieve from the possibility of prosecution the Bishops of the disestablished Church, they needed but a Bill of one clause, which should include, under the exemption contained in the 3rd clause of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851, the Bishops of the disestablished Church in Ireland, together with the Bishops of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. When speaking on that occasion, he had stated that the present First Lord of the Treasury had, in 1851, suggested that that provision should then be introduced into the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and the right hon. Gentleman contradicted him. He had since had an opportunity of referring to Hansard's Debates, and, with the right hon. Gentleman's permission, he would show him that although he (Mr. Gladstone) did not himself undertake to extend the terms of the 3rd clause of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, so as to include other Bishops of voluntary Churches, besides the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, he had blamed the Government of that day for not having introduced such a provision. He (Mr. Newdegate) had found in Hansard that Lord Arundel and Surrey had raised the question, and complained that whereas— It was true that the Bishops in Scotland were appointed by a native power, while the Catholic Prelates derived their authority from a foreigner, yet as the statute law of the country now permitted Catholics to acknowledge a foreigner as the head of their Church, it was absurd to legislate for them on a different principle from that applied to other Churches."—[3 Hansard, cxvii., 1024–5–6.] Sir George Grey, who was then Home Secretary, remarked— That the Scotch Bishops stood upon a totally different footing, inasmuch as they did not hold their office from the appointment of a foreign Power. There was nothing in this clause, however, which gave them a right to assume these 1955 titles. The right had been denied by the Court of Session in Scotland, and this clause left them just as they were before. Mr. Gladstone said— He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that there was a distinction between Bishops holding office by foreign authority and those who did not so hold it. But the question which he wished to put to Her Majesty's Government was of a different description. He wanted to know why this clause was not to extend to other Bishops who might choose to hold territorial titles, but might not hold them under the authority of a foreign Power. Perhaps the answer would be, that there were no such Bishops. The right hon. Gentleman himself had since provided not only that there should be, but that there were, and he might have said there would be such Bishops. He went on to say— There were some persons in Scotland professing to be Episcopalians, who were dissatisfied with the arrangements of the Scotch Bishops, and who had taken steps to obtain the appointment of a Bishop of their own. Why should they be prevented from doing this? Then, why should not the Wesleyans, if they chose, call their superintendents of circuits Bishops with territorial titles? If they were going to lay down this restrictive law, they ought to tell them why they did it. He, himself, with the views that he entertained with regard to this Bill, certainly would not undertake the responsibility of attempting to amend it; but he thought Her Majesty's Government on their own principles — not on his principles, because that would not satisfy him with the Bill—but on their own principles, they ought not to make the assumption of titles unlawful, except they were derived from a foreign authority. The Chairman was putting the clause, when Mr. Gladstone said, "He hoped there would be some answer to the question." Sir George Grey said— The right hon. Gentleman asked why this clause should not extend to the Wesleyans. His answer was, that the Wesleyans, as a body, supported this Bill. They did not ask for any indulgence of the kind, and that their cause was an imaginary one, put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government had dealt with the bodies of religionists they found in existence, and had not found themselves bound to provide against supposititious cases. It was only within the last few years, that the Scotch Bishops had partly assumed these titles; he said partly, because in legal documents they did not assume them. Those titles were not legal. At the same time, it was totally unnecessary to subject the Bishops who assumed them to penalties. Mr. Gladstone said— It was perfectly true the Wesleyans had no Bishops, and he did not point out the discrepancy as an immediate evil to anybody; but they were introducing a restriction against civil and religious liberty without giving the slightest reason for it. He wanted to know why these persons who had just as much right as any Scotch Bishops, to assume titles, were to be precluded from so doing? 1956 He (Mr. Newdegate) would ask the right hon. Gentleman now, seeing that he thus insisted upon the duty of the Government to include other Bishops, or those who might wish to be Bishops, under that clause, why he had not performed the duty which he enjoined upon the Government of 1851, and simply introduced a Bill, including under the same category, and the same provisions, the Bishops of the disestablished Church of Ireland with the Bishops of the Episcopal Church in Scotland? There was another reason—there must be some other reason for this Bill, besides the difficulty in the Irish Church; and it was this—that the right hon. Gentleman at the Head of the Government had determined to promote the assumption of territorial titles by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland; and he would say, that that was the first step towards the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, because they were taking it without reference to the organization already provided in Ireland for the administration, to use a technical term, of the temporal accidents which were incident to religious life in the case of Roman Catholics, and because they were sanctioning in the minds of the Roman Catholic hierarchy the idea that they had a right to control the property of their co-religionists, devoted to religious purposes, which he could show the House they could do through contract. For what was the reason adduced to account for the difficulty, said to have been created by the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851, jointly with the operation of the Irish Church Act of 1869, in the case of the successors to the present Bishops of the disestablished Church in Ireland? It was this, that unless they were permitted to assume the titles of their sees, they could not enter into contracts in virtue of the office that they held; and he argued from that, that the intention of the Bill before the House was to arm the Roman Catholic Prelates with a like power of dealing through contract, with the property devoted to religious purposes in Ireland, exactly on the terms in which they wished to validate the action of the successors to the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. If he was wrong in that supposition, all he could say was, that he had taken good advice upon it—advice which he doubted any lawyer could defeat. He 1957 would say again, that the meaning of that Bill was to contravene the intention of the Legislature in 1844 and 1851; that it invalidated the safeguards which those measures contained against the exercise of a temporal jurisdiction by the Roman Catholic hierarchy; inasmuch as that, although they closed the Courts against them by process of Common Law, they opened the Courts to their jurisdiction through contract by process of equity. He would ask the House whether that was the time, when, before that country or any other had had full experience of the altered constitution of the Papal Church—for it was now a strictly Papal Church—you should proceed to break up a settlement, which had at once guarded the peace of the country, and, he spoke it advisedly, the liberties of the laity of the Roman Catholic persuasion. There had been a good deal of controversy upon that question, and he held in his hand a copy of an able letter from the pen of Dr. Döllinger. No one could say that Dr. Döllinger was a mean authority upon the operation to be expected from the decisions of the recent Council at Rome. He reviewed them throughout, and he would beg the House to allow him to read to them the concluding passages of that eminent man's wise letter on the subject. Dr. Döllinger said— He who wishes to measure the immense range of these Resolutions [of the Council] may be urgently recommended to compare thoroughly the third chapter of the decrees in Council with the fourth; and to realize for himself what a system of universal government and spiritual dictation stands here before us. It is the plenary power over the whole Church, as over each separate member, such as the Popes have claimed for themselves since Gregory VII., such as is pronounced in the numerous Bulls since the Bull Unam Sanctum, which is from henceforth to be believed and acknowledged in his life by every Catholic. This power is boundless, incalculable; it can, as Innocent III. said, 'strike at sin everywhere;' can punish every man; allows of no appeal; is sovereign and arbitrary, for, according to Bonifacius VIII., 'the Pope carries all rights in the shrine of his bosom.' [That is, the Pope is made supreme over all Canon law and universally absolute.] As he has now become infallible, he can in one moment, with the one little word orbi; [that is, that he addresses himself to the whole Church] make every thesis, every doctrine, every demand an unerring and irrefragable article of faith. Against him there can be maintained no right, no personal or corporate freedom; or, as the Canonists say, the tribunal of God and that of the Pope are one and the same. This system bears its Romish origin on its forehead, and will never be able to penetrate 1958 in Germanic countries. As a Christian, as a theologian, as an historian, as a citizen, I cannot accept this doctrine. Not as a Christian, for it is irreconcilable with the spirit of the Gospel, and with the plain words of Christ and of the Apostles; it purposes just that establishment of the kingdom of this world, which Christ rejected; it claims that rule over all communions which Peter forbids to all and to himself. Not as a theologian, for the whole true tradition of the Church is in irreconcilable opposition to it. Not as an historian can I accept it, for as such I know, that the persistent endeavour to realize this theory of a kingdom of the world has cost Europe rivers of blood, has confounded and degraded whole countries, has shaken the beautiful organic architecture of the elder Church, and has begotten, fed, and sustained the worst abuses in the Church. Finally, as a citizen, I must put it away from me, because, by its claims on the submission of States and Monarchs, and of the whole political order under the Papal power, and by the exceptional position which it claims for the clergy, it lays the foundation of endless ruinous disputes between State and Church, between clergy and laity; for I cannot conceal from myself, that this doctrine, the results of which were the ruin of the old German kingdom, would, if governing the Catholic part of the German nation, at once lay the seed of incurable decay in the new kingdom which has just been built up. Hon. Members should consider that the Empire of Germany is similar to that of the United Kingdom. The numerical population of Protestants and Roman Catholics were much the same; and if Dr. Döllinger, who was acknowledged to be one of the highest authorities on the subject to which he referred, saw reason to warn his country against the danger that was threatened by the despotic innovations carried out by the Jesuits; if he felt that danger to be so great, why should that House, which was only last week engaged in passing a measure to deprive Irishmen of their liberties on account of the disturbances in that country; why should that country be indifferent to the prospect of disturbances similar to those which Dr. Döllinger declared were now threatening Germany? Was there anything in the aspect of the world; was there anything in the opinion of those who were competent to form an opinion which could commend to them the innovation they were now asked to make upon the settled policy of this country for centuries; and for what purpose? They thought to do a complaisance to the Roman Catholic hierarchy. They thought of gratifying a mere fancy of the Pope. He would tell them, on the authority of those who, like Dr. Döllinger, had studied the subject, that they were striking at the prin- 1959 ciple which, by guarding the independence of this country, had enabled them to preserve to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects the opportunity, and he trusted the capacity for freedom, which their co-religionists did not enjoy in other countries. He thanked the House for having allowed him thus briefly to state the objections which had weighed with statesmen now gone to their rest, which prevailed last Session in the House of Lords, and he hoped would not be thrust aside in that House as a matter unworthy of its attention. He begged to move that this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee.

§ MR. M'LAREN
, on the part of the people of Scotland, objected to the Bill. He thought it was an intolerable thing that in every large town in Scotland they should have two Bishops—one Bishop of the Episcopalian Church, which was not recognized by the law, and one Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. The people of Scotland held that every minister was a Bishop in the New Testament sense of the word, and they objected to a man being set on a pedestal as if he were above others. The existing law, he thought, ought not to be altered.

§ DR. BALL
said, the Bill did not make any alteration in the law except with regard to the power of enforcing penalties. He had always thought it was a very undignified proceeding to assert a great constitutional principle by the action of common informers.

§ MR. CHARLEY
said, that the Bill had been proposed solely in the interests of Ireland, and he contended that in Ireland there was no conflict of jurisdiction, as there was no State Church; but, in regard to England, there was such conflict of jurisdiction, and therefore he proposed that the recital should be amended so as to apply the Act only to Ireland.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
repeated the arguments so frequently urged in favour of the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and pointed out that it was wholly unnecessary also to repeal the 24th section of the Catholic Emancipation Act. That section, he again stated, was not applicable to Ireland.

§ DR. BALL
concurred in the opinion expressed by the last speaker.

§ MR. T. CHAMBERS
said, he saw no reason for repealing the Act. This was a Bill to establish the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, and to enable them to take territorial titles.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, he accepted the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone as a specimen of peculiar Liberalism. The Act was the offspring of panic and of political trickery, and he trusted that it would be swept from the Statute Book.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone involved the principle of religious liberty. He was himself one of the strongest opponents of the original enactment. The Act was not and could not be enforced, and was a mockery and a pretence.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
contended that the Bill was operative, and asked why, if it was not, there was all this agitation to repeal it?