ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Hansard, 3 March 1871)

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
Sir, I have on two previous occasions requested the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to defer this Bill on account of the lateness of the hour at which it came on; first, on Wednesday last, when it was a quarter to 6 o'clock, and the night before, when it was brought on at a quarter past 1 in the morning. It is now 35 minutes past 12, and I really think it would be but reasonable that the House should have an opportunity given it of considering the proposals which the Government have to make upon the subject. I will, as shortly as I can, place my reasons for holding that opinion, and for proposing the Motion, 1356 with which I shall conclude, before the House. I need hardly remind the House that the Bill was but little discussed on its second reading; except a short statement made by the Attorney General, the Members of the Government said nothing. It has since been understood that there is so much difference with regard to the legal construction of the Bill, that Her Majesty's Government wish to refer it to a Select Committee, in which they may have the advantage of obtaining the legal advice of certain Members of this House on the language and details of the Bill. But I would take the liberty of submitting to the Government that, although the principle of the Bill has been affirmed, there has been no inquiry by Parliament since two circumstances occurred which materially alter the subject-matter, to which it is intended that the Bill should apply. It was in the year 1868 that the House of Lords inquired into the operation of the law with respect to the assumption of ecclesiastical titles. That was the year preceding the passage of the Irish Church Act, which, of course, altered the bearing of the law, inasmuch as, having abolished the legal existence of the sees connected with the Established Church, the 24th section of the Belief Act of 1829, which prohibited any ecclesiastics from assuming the titles of the sees then occupied by Prelates of the Established Church, has ceases to be operative. But another circumstance has occurred since the Lords' inquiry in 1868—that was the last inquiry; for the committee of this House sat and reported in 1867. There has also been a Council held at Rome, called "Œcumenical," by which, avowedly, according to the statements of the Roman Catholic Bishops who composed the minority in that Council, their positions, and that of all Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, have been entirely altered. After January, 1870, the proceedings of the Council were secret by command of the Pope; but before the 14th of January, 1870, much information was published, which shows that the Bishops considered their position was to be materially altered by the proceedings of the Council. Notwithstanding the attempts to preserve secresy, much has become known of the latter proceedings of the Council, while the decrees, as published, prove the altera- 1357 tion in the position of the Bishops. The plea issued by the late Cardinal Wiseman in defence of the Papal Brief of 1850, which created in this country, and in Parliament, the feeling that subsequently took form in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, was that the Vicars Apostolic—the title by which the Roman Catholic Bishops were known previous to the publication of the Brief—had no canonical jurisdiction, and that they could not therefore assemble in synod, whether diocesan or provincial, and bring the canon law into operation; and it was pleaded that the English Roman Catholics would acquire certain rights and advantages for their Church, if the canon law were brought into free action. As far as I can gather, the recent decrees of the Council have not abrogated the jurisdiction over others, which the canon law vests in the Bishops who were appointed under the Brief of 1850; but it has done this—it has totally annulled all independent rights, all power of independent action on their part; and, therefore, whilst they are still invested with all the privileges and powers which the canon law confers upon them over others in their own community, or over any country, where that law is admitted, they have no right whatever as against the Holy See itself. So there is a distinct change created by the Irish Church Act with respect to the constitution of the United Kingdom; and, next, there is a still greater change in the constitution of the Roman Catholic Church itself, and in the position of those, who, by this Bill, would be permitted to assume titles, that have hitherto been by law prohibited. I will not now go into other circumstances, which might well induce the House to pause; but I will simply move by way of Amendment to the Motion of the Attorney General, the words of the Instruction, adopted by the House of Lords in the year 1868, for the guidance and direction of their Committee—namely, that all the words after the word "that" be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the words— A Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of any Law or Laws, as to the assumption of Ecclesiastical Titles in Great Britain and Ireland, and whether any and what alteration should be made therein, It should be remembered that in 1868, the Committee of the House of Lords inquired into the operation of the canon law as it affects Bishops, and with all 1358 respect for the learning of this House, I do believe, that there is at present a want of important information which has never reached the Members of this House generally. And, whereas, this very Committee of the House of Lords deemed it essential to ascertain the position of those Roman Catholic Bishops in their own Church, I think that, if their Lordships did not err, it must be still more the duty of this House to obtain information on the subject, considering that the position of these Prelates has been materially and recently altered, so far as the information goes which has reached this country. For my own part, I cannot conceive what objection the Government can have to allowing this House to obtain additional and necessary information upon this subject, since that information relates to facts and their effects, which are totally novel as respects both the laws of this country and the laws of the Roman Catholic Church. I will not longer detain the House; but I hope I have stated sufficient grounds to show that my Motion is neither factious, nor without foundation.

§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE
seconded the Amendment.

§ DR. BALL
said, he hoped his hon. Friend would see the expediency of not proceeding with the Amendment. The proposition to which it was an Amendment had already received the sanction of the House. He was a decided advocate for the Bill, having always considered the Ecclesiastical Titles Act as one of the most unstatesmanlike measures ever passed, and he should view its repeal with unqualified approbation. A Committee of the character suggested by the hon. Member was wholly unnecessary, seeing that the Committee of the House of Lords had fully gone over the ground. Was the Committee intended to stop the progress of a measure to which the House had already as- 1359 sented? The Bill had now arrived at a stage in which nothing but the settlement of certain legal points remained to be done. In his opinion the supremacy of the Crown was fully established by the common law without this Act. The hon. Gentleman would have other and ample opportunities of enforcing his views on the House, and he did trust that the hon. Gentleman would now withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. CHARLEY
was of opinion that further inquiry was necessary, and he reminded the House that penalties in reference to this subject were not new, having been imposed by Richard II. There could be no doubt that the Attorney General had refused to give Mr. Cobbett permission to proceed against Archbishop Manning.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
gave the statement that Mr. Cobbett applied to him a flat contradiction. He applied to his clerk, who told him he must memorialize in the usual way, but he declined to do so.