HC Deb 14 May 1909 vol 4 cc2155-231

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time".


In moving the second reading of this Bill, I should like to express my regret that the Member who introduced this Bill this year, Mr. Lundon, has unhappily passed away. Mr. Lundon was a very well-known Member of this House. He was highly esteemed, and I am sure that members of all parties will join with me in the regret which I express at his unhappy death. This Bill, although the contrary has been stated, is in all respects the same Bill that I introduced last year, which was carried by the large majority of 185 on the first reading. It is exactly the same Bill for the second reading of which the Prime Minister promised on 9th December last to vote. It will be within the recollection of the House that, in introducing the Bill in November, I delivered a speech in which I dealt with certain portions of the Bill affecting the position of the Catholic religious orders in this country. I do not think it necessary that I should again refer at length to that portion of the Bill. The measure may be described, I think, as having two parts. The first portion of the Bill proposes the repeal of all those old remnants of the penal times which place disabilities and restrictions upon the various Catholic orders in this country, and endeavours to carry out what Mr. Gladstone and the whole of the Liberal party endeavoured to do some years ago—namely, to throw open the offices of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and of Lord Chancellor of England to gentlemen of the Catholic faith. The second part of the Bill deals with the very offensive declaration which His Majesty is called upon by law to make upon the occasion of his succeeding to the Throne.

I will ask the leave of the House to address myself, as briefly as possible, to the reasons why we, representing the Catholic community, ask the House of Commons, in the interests of religious equality and general good feeling, to do away with that declaration, and so relieve the Catholics of this Empire, and, I may say, of the whole world, of the outrageous insult put upon them from time to time by it. I hope it is not necessary for me to say that in endeavouring to show why this Bill should be read a second time and the Accession Declaration altered, I shall not utter a single word that can even in the remotest degree give offence to the religious opinions of any person in or outside the House. I have had a somewhat long and stormy political career, and in the course of my life have had to take and to give many hard knocks, but this much I think I may say for myself with confidence, that I have never said one unkind or offensive word against any man because of his religious opinions. And though, of course, one cannot expect one's extreme opponents to agree with the statement, I declare most solemnly that in endeavouring to bring about this change we are actuated entirely by the desire to remove what is an undoubted cause of irritation, and to promote that feeling of friendship and toleration between men of all religions which is absolutely essential for the welfare and happiness of any country in the world. Everyone knows that when the Sovereign succeeds to the Throne of these realms he is called upon to make two declarations, or, more strictly speaking, as I think, to take publicly two oaths. In the first place he is called upon to take the Coronation Oath, which explicitly binds him to maintain the Protestant reformed religion as established by law? And he is required on accession to the Throne, either at the Coronation itself, or on the occasion of his first meeting Parliament—whichever event may first take place—to make a declaration, which really amounts to an oath, a declaration which is commonly described as a declaration against transubstantiation, a declaration which contains, as we consider most unnecessarily, most unwarrantably, an offensive denunciation of the Catholic religion, and which, specifically and in terms, describes those who belong to the Catholic Church as superstitious and idolators. With regard to the Coronation Oath, pledging the King to maintain the Protestant religion, by law stablished, we offer no objection. Catholics cannot be expected to agree with the terms of that oath, but I know no Catholic in this House, in this country, or in the world, who does not recognise that this, being a Protestant country, the people are entitled, if they so desire, to take every safeguard they may consider necessary to secure the Protestant succession to the Throne. We do not desire to object to the Coronation Oath. What we do object to most strongly and most urgently is a declaration which is so offensive to Catholics, and which really seems to have no object except that of wantonly insulting millions in this country who hold the Catholic belief.

I have, as carefully as I can, gathered up the opinions which have been expressed in this matter. As far as I can ascertain the chief objection to any alteration in the King's Accession Declaration rests upon the statement which is made that that declaration is essential for the Protestant succession to the Throne. Everybody who looks into the matter will find that that is not at all so. The Protestant succession is amply guaranteed by the Act of Settlement, by the Bill of Rights, and by the Coronation Oath, some of the words of which, in this very Bill which I am proposing, we propose to substitute for the offensive declaration. Therefore it cannot be said with any force whatever that this declaration, directed exclusively against Catholics, is necessary to safeguard the Protestant succession to the Throne, because it is amply done by the Act of Settlement, by the Bill of Rights, by the very terms of the Coronation Oath itself.

I do not think it is necessary for me to recite at length, or in full, the terms of the declaration that is so offensive and insulting to Catholics. It is sufficient for me to remind the House that at the most solemn moment of his life, when he succeeds to the Throne of the country, the King is required by law to stand up before his Parliament, in the presence of many gentlemen and noblemen who are Catholics themselves, and describe them as idolators and superstitious. I have heard it stated that Catholics should be satisfied if the language of this declaration is modified. In reply to that I say that we do not merely object to the vulgar violence of the language that is used against ourselves and our religion; we object to the fact that of all religions in this Empire, in this world, the Catholic religion, the ancient Catholic religion, once the religion of the people and the Kings of England, is to be singled out for special denunciation and repudiation. Why, can anybody say, is it the Protestant succession being thoroughly safeguarded, that the Catholic religion of all religions is singled out in this ostentatious way for denunciation and abuse? In the old days, in the penal times, when the frank object of the Government of this country was to stamp out Catholicism and to make it practically impossible—in those days one might have, in consideration for the spirit of the times, have understood the reason or the meaning of a declaration of this kind. But to-day nobody, I presume, desires to see the penal laws reestablished. Nobody desires to prevent Catholics from the full and free exercise of their religion. The penal days are surely gone for good and all. That being so, what is the reason that this old relic of the bad times of a century ago should be retained, especially when, we must all know that its retention simply has the effect of insulting and outraging the feelings of Catholics in every part of the British Empire and the whole world? I confidently appeal to Members of this House, at this stage in the world's history, to show to all men an example of broad-minded and generous toleration. I appeal to them to relieve Catholics from this intolerable insult, and I tell them that what they ask for themselves—that we give them—the utmost respect for their religious convictions, and we only desire to see granted for ourselves.

If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like, in as few words as possible, to glance at the history of this declaration which the King is pledged by law to take. It was never framed to be taken by the Sovereign at all. The declaration itself was made law in the reign of Charles II.—not with the object of securing the Protestant succession to the Throne—but it was imposed on public servants and on Members of Parliament with the frank and clear object of driving Catholics out of office and out of power, and destroying the Catholic religion. This declaration has long since been repealed in regard to Members of Parliament, of public officials, and the people, and is retained merely for the King. It was the Bill of Rights which imposed this declaration on the Sovereign, requiring that it be made at the Sovereign's first meeting with Parliament, or at the Coronation, whichever event happened first. Queen Anne was the first Sovereign to make this declaration, and she did so at her Coronation at Westminster Abbey, which for hundreds of years was, of course, the centre of Catholic England. The law required the Queen before the high altar to take an oath describing Catholics, many of them her own relatives, as idolators and guilty of superstitious practices.

What would be the feeling of indignation among Protestants if, by any extraordinary change in fortune, the King were called upon solemnly before God to revile the Protestant Church in St. Paul's Cathedral? The late Queen Victoria and the present King took the oath and made the declaration, not at the Coronation, but before, on their opening Parliament. I think everybody will admit that when, on the accession of the present King to the Throne, this declaration was published, and when people found that the law required the King on the very first day he spoke as Monarch of these realms to insult and to revile his Catholic subjects, a feeling of indignation was expressed everywhere, a feeling of indignation of the most intense kind was aroused, particularly in Ireland and in this country, and in every part of the whole of the world, and protests came from every part of the globe. The Canadian Parliament passed a resolution calling upon the Government to alter this declaration; the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth submitted a similar demand on behalf of the people of Australia; from India, from every part of the whole world within the Empire and without the Empire, protests were raised, and passionate—so passionate as to be almost pathetic—appeals were made on behalf of millions of Catholics in this. Empire and of the world that this declaration should be altered, and that they should be freed from this intolerable insult.

Naturally action was taken promptly in Parliament. Questions were asked in this House, and the subject was raised in the House of Lords. I have read recently all the speeches made in all the Debates on this matter in the House of Lords, and I can truthfully say not one single speech was made in the House of Lords in the course of these Debates which did not thoroughly agree that the retention of the present declaration was unjustifiable, and that it should be altered as soon as possible. In 1901, as everybody remembers, a Committee of inquiry was proposed into the subject of the alteration of the declaration. Originally the proposal was that the Committee should be a joint one of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. For some reason unknown to me that proposal was not carried out, and a Committee exclusively of the House of Lords was appointed to inquire into the matter. On that Committee not a single Catholic peer acted, and at once the point was taken that it was a strange thing that in this matter so vitally affecting the interests of Catholics the Catholic peers refused to act. They refused to act for the excellent reason that Lord Salisbury explicitly told the Duke of Norfolk that he thought it would be better if the Catholic peers did not act on the Committee, and, in their absence, the Committee would be better prepared to enquire, and to come to a conclusion. The Committee reported—I have its Report here. They recommended certain alterations, but these alterations did not in any sense meet the demands of the Catholic people. Nevertheless, a Bill was introduced into the House of Lords in 1901, carrying out the Report of the Committee, and that Bill, though it passed through the Lords, never came to this House, because, so manifest, from the declarations made by the Catholic peers and representatives did it become, that the Bill did not in any sense remove the grievances of which Catholics complained. Everybody agreed that the declaration was offensive and unnecessary, and should be altered, and yet, from that day to this, no step has been taken to carry out the clear desire of both parties in both Houses. I might at considerable length make many quotations from the speeches delivered on this matter in the House of Lords, but I will confine myself to two very brief quotations. I heard all the Debates. Any hon. Gentleman referring to Hansard will find that in the House of Lords men of all political parties spoke, and amongst them all there was a unanimous condemnation of the existence of the present declaration. What did Lord Salisbury say? Lord Salisbury, in introducing the Bill in the House of Lords, declared:— That the declaration denounced in the most offensive form the religion to which Roman Catholics were most passionately attached. And he went on to say that— it was natural that Catholics should look upon it as a real grievance that language of a most violent and objectionable kind should be used against the articles of their faith at the most solemn moment of his reign by the Sovereign when ascending his Throne. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in another Debate, said:— If some such declaration is necessary, as I think it is, it surely does not follow that it should be couched in insulting terms, and I do not think, strictly speaking, that it need denounce anything at all. Now in 1901, in March, I myself introduced in this House a Bill to alter the declaration, but I could not get time to go on with it. It then comes to this: in 1901 everyone in the Lords, and many people here, agreed that the declaration was wrong and should be altered, but the Lords failed to find words satisfactory to Catholic feeling, and so the matter rested till 1903, when Lord Grey introduced a Bill in the House of Lords to abolish the declaration altogether, and to Lord Grey for his noble speech on the occasion, which I myself heard, the whole Catholic world is for ever grateful. Again speeches were made from all parts of the House, and again not a single voice was raised in anything but condemnation of the strongest kind of a declaration calling millions of the subjects of the King in all parts of the world superstitious and idolatrous. A Division took place, and there voted for the Bill, 62, and against, 109, showing that even though the House of Lords were not prepared to accept that particular measure, that the feeling for a change was extremely strong, and that there was no feeling in the minds of any of the Lords that the abolition of this declaration would in any way impair the Protestant Succession to the Throne.

In 1904 the next Debate occurred about this matter in the House of Lords when the Duke of Norfolk, who is the brother of the Noble Lord now sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, brought forward a resolution asking the House to express a condemnation of the language and the nature of this offensive declaration. Again speeches were made, and all the leading Members of the House of Lords spoke, and expressed themselves anxious that some alteration and change should be made. The Duke of Norfolk's Resolution was not accepted, but a Resolution was accepted unanimously declaring that there should be a change in this declaration, provided always that the change was of a character which would leave absolutely untouched and unimpaired the provisions of the Act of Settlement, and the safeguards for the Protestant Succession to the Throne of this country. The Duke of Norfolk at once accepted that condition. More than once in the House of Lords and outside Parliament the representatives of Catholics have declared that they have no desire whatever to interfere with the Protestant Succession or with any of its safeguards, and that is exactly our position to-day.

The Bill which I propose seeks to substitute for these detestable and hideous words of insult in the Accession Declaration the very words of the Coronation Oath which will be found in the 5th clause of the Bill upon which, stands the real safeguard of the Protestantism of the Sovereign of this country. I do not say for a moment—and it would be perfectly absurd for me to do so—that the proposition which is made in this Bill is the best of all ways of meeting the difficulty and of solving the problem which is before us. I have inserted in the Bill in place of the declaration referring to idolatry and superstition the words of the King's own Coronation Oath binding him to maintain the religion established by law in these realms, and I did so because I believe by so doing I should be giving the very best proof I could to my Protestant fellow Members and my fellow countrymen that we were absolutely sincere in our desire to do nothing that they could object to in reference to their religion, and that our only object was to free our own belief from the insult that is put upon it. What does the second reading of this Bill mean? It means that hon. Members will give a vote "Aye" or "No" as to whether the present declaration is to continue, or whether it is not better, and nobler, and more generous and just, that it should be altered, and so relieve Catholics of the insult which is put upon them. Hon. Members who vote for this Bill will be affirming the principle which has been affirmed in the House of Lords and by every responsible speaker in both Houses, that it is a monstrous thing that the King of this country should be called upon to brand millions of his Catholic subjects as idolators in every part of the world. In Committee upon this Bill, if any section of this House are able to suggest better words than the words which I have proposed, if they can show that there is a more satisfactory way of meeting the grievance of Catholics, certainly I believe that my colleagues will be perfectly open to receive suggestions. We do not care how this thing is done, provided it is done. If you do not like our way of meeting the difficulty, then provide a way of your own, and so long as it gives us the substance of what we ask for, so long as it really and truly removes this grievance and leaves Catholics and their religion free from insult, we shall be satisfied with any proposal that may be made. I think I have said enough to show that nobody justifies the continuance of the present declaration, and I appeal to hon. Members to send to the whole world a message of broad-minded toleration to gladden the hearts of millions of Catholics in every part of the Empire who have thought themselves aggrieved and insulted ever since this declaration was first taken by the present King.

With regard to the other provisions of the Bill dealing with the religious Orders I have no doubt that some of my colleagues will speak at length upon them, but I would ask is there a Member of this House to-day who would refuse to agree with me when I state that at this time of the world's history it is unfair, unjust, and unwise that laws should continue to exist directed against men who are loyal citizens of this country, who have committed no crime against the State, and many of whom are engaged in performing the very highest work for the State which any citizen can perform in educating the youth of this country? There is hardly a Member of this House who turns to his constituency who will not find there educational establishments which are respected and admired by men of all denominations which are conducted by members belonging to these religious Orders. That being so, is it not monstrous that this last remnant of the old penal test should still be allowed to disgrace the Statute Book of England, and that these men should only be allowed to continue in this country on sufferance under Statutes which really place them almost in the light of ticket-of-leave men. I appeal to hon. Members to undo this injustice and to remove these old laws, which, although they may be dead letters and obsolete, are nevertheless in some instances cruelly unjust, and which in all instances are felt to be highly insulting to the members of the religious Orders of our Church. As to the provision for the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of England, surely no words are necessary to recommend that. The present Prime Minister, in one of the ablest and most liberal-minded speeches I ever heard, supported the Bill proposed by Mr. Gladstone to do away with the monstrous provision which makes it illegal for the chief of the Government of Ireland to hold the religion of the vast majority of the people. I was reading only the other day the declaration made by the Queen of this country in 1858 to the people of India when this country assumed the reins of government there. That declaration was certainly in strong contrast to the one of which we complain. It stated in so many words that while she was proud of her religion, it was her strict desire and resolve that no religion should be imposed upon any of her subjects in India which was distasteful to them, that there should be the fullest religious equality, and that every office under the Crown in India should be thrown open to men of all races and creeds as long as they prove themselves capable of performing their duties. The Prime Minister voted for Mr. Gladstone's Bill with reference to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Lord Chancellor of England. That Bill was defeated on a party vote only by a narrow majority of 35; and I am sure that every Member of the Liberal party will desire to follow in the footsteps of their great and illustrious leader—Mr. Gladstone.

I am afraid that I have spoken too long, and I thank the House for having listened to what I have to say. In conclusion, I do with all my heart and soul, sincerely and earnestly appeal to hon. Members in every quarter of this House, in the interest of good feeling and friendship, in the interest of the equal treatment of all religions, and in the interest of broad-minded toleration, to pass the second reading of this Bill, and thereby express the opinion that it is an outrage on millions of Catholic subjects that they should be branded as idolatrous by His Majesty on his Throne. I speak for one of the most Catholic Constituencies in the world—for a Constituency which returned to this House Mr. O'Connell, who refused at the Table to take the offensive oath from which Members are now relieved. On behalf of that Catholic Constituency, in the very Catholic country of Ireland, I may say that our one desire is to free ourselves from an intolerable insult and at the same time to promote that good feeling amongst men of all creeds which we desire as earnestly as any other hon. Gentlemen in the House.


I beg to second the Motion for the second reading of this Bill, and in a very few words I should like to recommend the Bill to the House. I am speaking as a Protestant, and I claim to be as strong a Protestant and as loyal and true to my religion as anybody who may to-day oppose this Bill. Speaking as a Protestant and representing many Protestants in my Constituency, I gladly join hands with my fellow countrymen in asking the House to pass this Bill to-day. Personally I do not think that any private Member ought to be obliged to introduce this Bill. I think that it ought to be the aim of any Government, Liberal or Conservative, to remove this last vestige of injustice on Catholics. The Catholic Emancipation Act was the work of the Government of the day. It left behind it certain injustices; and I think that the Government ought to have taken up this Bill, and not have allowed a private Member to do it. It remains for us to support it. If the House considers the matter, it will find that a great change has taken place on this Question during the last century. Hon. Members will find that step by step all injustices have been removed; but a few remain, and this Bill seeks to remove them also. The first real efforts to remove the disabilities from Catholics were made by the Irish Protestant Parliament. It was the Irish Protestant Parliament, elected by Protestants, which passed a measure giving to Catholics for the first time the right to vote at elections. I believe that if that Parliament had continued the work of Catholic emancipation would have been carried out by it. Everyone knows who has read the political history of Ireland that the Irish Parliament sold its birthright not for a mess of pottage, but for an Act of Union. After the Act of Union the work of Catholic emancipation passed from the hands of the Irish Parliament to the English Parliament. But it must always be remembered that it was the Irish Parliament that laid the foundation stone of Catholic emancipation. It was in 1829 that the Catholic Emancipation Act was passed giving the Catholics the full right of citizenship. It may be that the injustices that remain are very trifling and very few. They are, no doubt, few, but I will not say that they are trifling. I admit that some of them are obsolete. But that is not the question. There is a feeling of injustice that they exist. They ought not to exist, and it is because this Bill aims at removing them that I as a Protestant support it.

What are the exceptions which were left out of the Catholic Emancipation Act? In the first place no member of a Catholic religious order can legally reside in this country, or if he does reside he must register himself from time to time and report himself to the authorities. In fact he is treated like a ticket-of-leave man. There is an extraordinary prejudice in this country against the Jesuit order. People who entertain that prejudice cannot really put their objection into words, but they are prejudiced even against the word Jesuit. As one who has lived in Ireland all his life let me say one word on this subject. Whatever good education there is in Ireland it owes its growth to the Jesuit order. Let hon. Members who entertain the prejudice against the Jesuits put their prejudice on one side, and let them put on the other side all the good which the Jesuits have done in Ireland. You may say that this prejudice is obsolete and is never put in active force. But there it is, Sir, it is on the Statute Book, a menace to the Catholic community and a disgrace to this Parliament. It lays it down that no Jesuit or Catholic Community can own or succeed to any property. That actually appears on the Statute Book at the present moment, and it has been the cause of many lawsuits. No doubt in this case, as in the case of many other Acts of Parliament, it is possible to find means of evading the law, and it is done by investing property in one member of the community instead of in the community at large. But there it is, as I say, on the Statute Book, a menace to Catholic people, and I think every fair-minded man in this House will readily agree that it ought to be removed. In connection with this matter I should like to quote the opinion of a late Master of the Rolls in Ireland—Justice Porter—who, in giving judgment in a case in 1901, said:— As to the effect of the exemption in the Catholic Emancipation Act, that is, as to the bequest being contrary to the scope of the legislation of 1829, it is said that this is really a gift, the object of which is to be worked out by the Jesuits through schools managed by them. I have very often said that it appears to be a crying injustice that a system of law, depending on religions disabilities, should be enforced in this branch of the Courts in reference to property, and used as an engine for defeating the otherwise lawful intentions of the testators, when it is not directly intended for that purpose, and when the enactments themselves have been allowed to become a dead letter for the last 82 years. It is said that this college is illegal; that the institutions of the Jesuits are illegal; that the members of it are liable to indictment for misdemeanour by reason of their very existence in this country, though no statesman or public man dreams of putting this law into force directly, and in the only way specifically contemplated, it is left to the Judge of the Chancery Division to apply and enforce it in relation to a question of property, and questions of charity otherwise perfectly legal and praiseworthy, and thus indirectly to enforce a law which never is and never can now be, directly enforced. That is the opinion of a past Master of the Rolls in Ireland. He declares it to be a crying injustice, and a law which can never be directly enforced, and in view of that opinion, I think the House of Commons can have no hesitation in repealing this Act. The whole of the opposition to this Bill settles round the proposed alteration in the Declaration on the Accession of the Sovereign. The hon. Member for East Clare has gone so fully and so ably into that that I need not trouble the House with further argument on it, but I would like to say this on my own behalf—that I consider the language of the Declaration a gross blot on the British Constitution. Why should the Catholic religion, of all the religious sects in this country, be singled out for the use of such language, and why should words, which were considered so insulting and so unreasonable as to justify their removal from the oath administered to Members of this House, be retained in the Declaration of the King in this country? I believe the exact words, or at any rate, similar words, were actually contained in the oath formerly administered to Members of Parliament.


The exact words.


Yes, the exact words, and they were retained until Daniel O'Connell, coming from the Constituency of Clare, refused to take the oath; then it was changed under the Catholic Emancipation Act. I should have thought that, as a simple act of justice, this Bill would have required very little argument to recommend it to the acceptance of this House. It is a claim for justice and fair play, and it pleads its own cause. Whatever wrong this country has done to Catholics in the past the mistakes have been recognised. But those times are past, and I do hope that Members on all sides of this House will join in removing this last disability and this injustice under which the Catholics of this country so grievously suffer.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)

I may venture to congratulate the hon. Gentlemen who have moved and seconded the second reading of this Bill upon the ability and moderation of their speeches—an ability and moderation which I believe is universally recognised in all quarters of the House. The hon. Member who moved the second reading, has framed this Bill on such a scale, and it covers so exceedingly wide an area, that I do not suppose he will be surprised to find that in regard to some points in it there are differences of opinion even among those who are fully convinced of its justice and are ardently desirous of an extension of the application of the principles of religious liberty. But I do not doubt he has taken that course advisedly. I imagine his object to-day to be not so much to get this measure placed at once on the Statute Book as to elicit, as he will in the course of this afternoon, an expression of opinion from the House of Commons upon a matter of the utmost importance, which of late years has not been thoroughly debated at Westminster. In the few observations with which I am about to trouble the House I speak for myself, and I shall confine what I have to say to two provisions of this Bill. In the first place, I would say a few words with regard to the clause which seeks to throw open to Roman Catholic subjects of the Crown the offices of Lord Chancellor of Great Britain and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I believe the law on this subject is even now not altogether clear, and that there are high authorities—the late Lord Coleridge was one—who are of opinion that the effect of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill and subsequent legislation, if properly interpreted, is that these offices are really on the same footing as all others, and are tenable by our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. But there is at any rate sufficient doubt on the matter to render it highly desirable to ensure that any ambiguity with regard to the law should be cleared away by a distinct Parliamentary declaration. I speak on this subject with a record of my own, and I have here a copy of the Religious Disabilities Relief Bill, introduced, in 1890, with the very object of carrying this law into effect. I will read the names which are to be found printed on the back of that Bill. It was prepared and brought in by Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. John Morley, Sir Horace Davey, and Mr. Asquith. I will say nothing more about that in this Debate, except that I think that Bill would appear, primâ facie, to bear upon it the hall-mark of Liberal principles. No attempt has been made to answer the argument that it is absolutely impossible on the ground of logic or policy to justify the exclusion of Roman Catholics from these offices. You have thrown open every other office under the Crown, civil or military, to professors of the religion. Parliament exacted by the Relief Act of 1829 an oath from Roman Catholics who accepted office, but that oath has also disappeared with the wiser and more liberal legislation of recent years. On what possible ground of principle or expediency are you still going to retain the barrier in regard to these two offices? The Prime Minister of this country, who has more ecclesiastical patronage than the Lord Chancellor, may be a Roman Catholic; the Lord Chancellor or himself may be a man of any religion or no religion, provided he is not a Roman Catholic. We have seen in our own time a Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is also brought into constant relation with ecclesiastical matters, who was a Roman Catholic. We have seen a Governor-General of India who was a Roman Catholic. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has no longer any ecclesiastical patronage of any sort, and in view of these facts I appeal to any hon. Gentleman who is going to undertake an attack on this part of the Bill to explain to the House of Commons and his Protestant fellow-countrymen what reason there is, either of equity or of policy, to retain an invidious and unjustifiable discrimination. With regard to the other point what most of my Roman Catholic fellow subjects in England regard as more serious, the grievance which presses upon their minds and consciences much more than the exclusion from these two particular offices, is the form of the Parliamentary declaration which the Sovereign is required to take when he succeeds to the Throne. I think there is a great deal of misapprehension in some quarters as to the effect of this declaration as a security for the Protestant succession. It is one of the flimsiest and one of the most unnecessary safeguards for the Protestant succession which you could possibly imagine, quite apart from the question of its offensiveness.

The Protestant succession to the Throne, as every constitutional lawyer is aware, is secured not by this declaration, but by the express provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, which in terms provides that no person who is, or shall be, reconciled to the Church of Rome, or holds communion with the Church of Rome, or shall profess the Popish religion, or has married a Papist, shall be able to inherit the Crown, and that the Sovereign of this country shall join in communion with the Church of England. What is the history of the declaration? I do not think it is generally understood. The declaration dates to about the worst period in our history, the reign of Charles II., and it was exacted not from the Sovereign alone, but from all persons, including, I think, Members of both Houses, before they could exercise any office, civil or military, in the service of the State or the municipalities of the country. It was a universal test, with the object of excluding persons professing the Roman Catholic religion from access to any possible position of public trust in this country. It survived—I do not know how it survived—the Revolution, and it now only exists, for the form and purpose of this solitary Act, performed by the Sovereign immediately after his accession to the Crown. Apart from its somewhat discreditable history the declaration in itself has no effect of any sort or kind as a safeguard for the Protestant Succession. That is amply secured in other ways, and when you come to the nature of the declaration itself, speaking as I hope I am, and likely to remain, as a convinced Protestant, I do not think any of the epithets of the hon. Member for Clare are in the slightest degree in excess of the facts. Take the case of our own Gracious Sovereign. He succeeds to the Throne of this country, and succeeds, among other things, to the allegiance of from nine or ten millions of Roman Catholic subjects.


Twelve millions at least.


Twelve millions, then. They are not in Ireland alone, but in England, Scotland, Malta, and Canada; they are scattered, in fact, over the whole length and breadth of the British Empire. He succeeds to, and claims their allegiance, and it is an allegiance which we all know they are absolutely as ready and desirous to grant as any one of his Protestant subjects. And yet he is required to declare in the face of Parliament that certain of the doctrines, special doctrines, mind you, singled out for specially contumelious treatment—is required to declare that certain doctrines and certain practices cherished by all members of the Roman Catholic faith in matters of the highest reverence, is required to declare in the face of his people, his Empire, and the whole world that these doctrines are blasphemous and idolatrous. He is not required to say that of any other of the various forms of religion which his subjects profess. This survival of an obsolete state of things is retained only for the purpose of branding by the mouth of the Sovereign some of the most sacred beliefs of some of the most loyal of his subjects, at the very commencement of his reign, when they, like everybody else, are most anxious to welcome him as Sovereign. How is it possible to justify this state of things? For my part, as I say, speaking for myself, but I believe I speak also for the very large majority of those on both sides, the time has come to put an end to this declaration. Then the question arises—I hope the hon. Member will not think me hypercritical about the provisions of the Bill—what is the best way? Speaking for myself, I should prefer to see the declaration abolished, because I am satisfied that it is not needed in any way to safeguard the Protestant Succession, for which I am quite as anxious as anybody else, and because experience has shown the enormous difficulty of providing any alternative declaration which will be satisfactory to all the religious interests and susceptibilities involved. A Committee of the House of Lords sat on this subject, and they recom- mended an alternative form of declaration; but when it came to be subsequently scrutinised and discussed it was found to be on the one hand unsatisfactory to Roman Catholics—I am not surprised at that—and, on the other hand, unsatisfactory to what I may call the more extreme Protestants; and I am not surprised at that either, because it is extremely difficult to get a form of words which would not be on the one hand possibly offensive to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of the Catholic Church, and on the other would give satisfaction to those who desire to see the Sovereign declare himself as a Protestant. If the declaration is to be retained, and I daresay there will be many in favour of retaining some declaration, though I take a contrary view, it can only be retained in such a form as will avoid these two dangers and difficulties. I am not going to criticise the precise words which the hon. Gentleman has introduced in his Bill. I am quite sure we shall hear, in the course of the Debate, from other people more qualified than I am, how far it falls short of what a Protestant would wish. At any rate, if the matter cannot be settled in any other way, I shall be rather disposed to suggest that we might have a Committee on which all sides should be properly and fairly represented, which, taking as its basis the retention of the declaration in some form or other—I may assume that is the desire—should seek by mutual arrangement to find a form of words under which no reasonable objections could in any quarter be taken. After all, it is eight years now since our present Sovereign acceded to the Throne. The matter has been the subject of Debate, not in this House, but in the other House, and no one has attempted to defend the declaration as far as I know in the form in which it at present eists, and it is rather discreditable to Parliament that it should not more expeditiously and efficaciously have found a way of escape from a situation which no one defends, and which everyone who reflects upon it must feel to be intolerable to our Roman Catholic fellow subjects. I am, therefore, strongly in favour of dealing with the matter. I cannot commit myself to the precise proposals the hon. Member has, made so far as the form of words is concerned in these clauses of the Bill, but so far as the general principle is concerned I am heartily with him.


(who was indistinctly heard): The House has listened to three speeches in support of the Bill. I have now to ask them to listen to a speech against it. There is another side of the case which is not yet put before it—the Protestant side. We have heard from the Mover and Seconder and from the Prime Minister the Roman Catholic side of the case. I, in common with the Mover and the Seconder, earnestly desire to say nothing which would wound anyone's susceptibilities, yet at the same time it will be my duty to lay before the House, without fear and without qualification, the facts and considerations upon which these disabilities were originally based, which we think it necessary to retain. The Mover and Seconder have asked why should the Catholic Church be singled out among all other churches in the country for special restrictions. The answer I have to give to that is because the claims and pretensions of the Roman Catholic Church are different from those of any other church. Other churches are simply religious bodies. The Church of Rome is not only a great religious organisation, but a great political organisation. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I would remind the hon. Member of the words of Mr. Gladstone:— That the Pope of Rome had been, and was, a trespasser upon ground which belonged to the civil authority, and that he affected to determine by spiritual prerogative questions of the civil sphere. This fact, if fact it be…is the whole and sole cause of mischief…All other Christian bodies are content with freedom in their own religious domain. Orientals, Lutherans. Calvinists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Nonconformists one and all in the present day contentedly and thankfully accept the benefits of civil order; never pretend that the State is not its own master, make no religious claims to temporal possessions or advantages; and consequently never are in perilous collision with the State. Nay, more, even so I believe it is with the mass of Roman Catholics individually. But not so with the leaders of their Church, or with those who take pride in following the leaders. Indeed, this has been made matter of boast. That was the opinion of Mr. Gladstone and the opinion also of the Leader of the Opposition on the very nature of the constitution of the Church of Rome, which claims to be the universal Church, supreme over all things spiritual and temporal. The Pope of Rome at the Coronation is described as the ruler of the world, and we well know from the history of the Roman Catholic Church how that claim has been exercised. The Pope claims to be supreme over nations. It is in his power to ex-communicate Princes, to depose them from their thrones, take away from them their dominions, and substitute other Princes in their place. Has he ever relinquished that claim? Rome is semper idemand claims the same rights now as at the earliest period of the church. The pretensions and claims of the Roman Catholic Church are absolutely incompatible with civil and religious liberty. It is a remarkable thing that not so very long ago in the Encyclical of Pope Pius IX. he altogether repudiated the idea that any liberty could be tolerated, and it said liberty of conscience to worship was erroneous, pernicious, and an insanity. Only the other day we had a letter from the Archbishop of Malta to the Governor of Malta after the Archbishop had endeavoured to prevent the Rev. John MacNeill, the well-known missioner, taking a service in Malta, and when the missioner was sustained by the authorities the Archbishop wrote to signify— My deep displeasure and that of my diocesan at the freedom of religious worship in these islands. That is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore I think it is a complete answer to the statement that the Roman Catholic Church is to be dealt with, in a different manner from other Churches. We cannot forget the historical aspect of the question, and we cannot forget that for a long period of our history the Church of Rome was supreme in these islands, and when the Reformation came there was a conflict between the two bodies and since then we have had 300 years of unexampled prosperity, liberty, and welfare under the Protestant ascendancy. The hon. Member for Clare said a great deal about broad-minded toleration. That is a very fine phrase. Does the Roman Catholic Church act up to it? The Church of Rome, wherever it has the power, exhibits intolerance to all who differ from it. They ask toleration, but they will grant none, because it is inconsistent with their principles to grant any. The Church of Rome holds itself to be the one Church, and all who do not come within its pale are heretics who ought to be either convinced or punished, killed, and murdered. I say quite advisedly that that is still the doctrine of the Church of Rome. I have here a book written by a prelate of that Church in which he utters these very sentiments. He says that is the theory of the Church of Rome. These are the living sentiments which inspire the policy of the Church of Rome at the present time, and when you say that the claim of the Church is equality, I say that they do not want equality except as a steppingstone to supremacy.

Now I come to the particular proposals in the Bill. The first and second clauses relate to giving to the Jesuits and other religious bodies powers to reside in this country and to hold property. These are powers which they do not possess now under the Act of 1829. That Act, which enables Roman Catholics to sit in this House, made it a condition that the members of religious orders, which were then very few in number, should be gradually removed, that religious orders should be suppressed, and finally extinguished in this country. Why did our forefathers arrive at that conclusion? It was felt to be necessary that the Jesuits and other Orders should be suppressed because they were dangerous to the peace of the realm. The Jesuits have, from our point of view, a dark history. Their system is associated with efforts to subjugate the human mind. Their system is one that teaches that any vice, whatever it may be, and that any crime, however atrocious, is to be justified if it is performed in the interests of the Church. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is a fact. I think hon. Members will see that there is something in what I say if they remember that the doctrines of the Jesuits have been condemned by the Popes themselves. The Jesuits Order has, been condemned at one time or another in every country in Europe, because it was a danger to the peace and tranquility of these countries. Notwithstanding that they have increased and multiplied. There were only 16 monastic and conventual institutions in this country in 1829, and there are now 1,125. [Cheers.] Well, of course, this is a great triumph over the law, and I am not surprised that all who take pride in lawlessness should cheer that statement, but I for one think that by the promiscuous admission of these monks and nuns—many of them foreign, and many of them persons who have been turned out of houses in France—we are laying up a store of very great trouble for the future. I am not one who in these advanced times would say that the law in this matter should be put in execution. What I mean to say is that before we condone such wholesale disregard of the law, and before we consent to the legalisation of these Orders, we should have full inquiry into the character of the persons who have been imported, and into the nature of the institutions. It is well known that on the Continent cases have arisen in which gross scandal has been discovered in some of these houses, and while I am bound to hope that that is not so in this country, yet we do not know what takes place behind closed doors, and I say there ought to be no house, whether reli- gious, or secular, which should be a prison. Every young person who goes into a house and takes vows should have the right at stated periods of reconsidering his position, and, if he chooses, of walking out. [An HON. MEMBER: "So they have."] I come now to clause 3, which provides that all subjects of His Majesty shall be qualified to hold the offices of Lord Chancellor of Great Britain and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I listened to the scathing words of indignation which the Prime Minister used when referring to the prohibition which prevents Roman Catholics from holding these offices, and it occurred to me to ask—Why throw these offices open to Roman Catholics and not the Crown? If it is right that either of these offices should be held by a Roman Catholic, why should not the same reasoning apply to the Crown? In regard to these two offices there is the idea that something special is to be said. If it is desirable that the Sovereign of this country should be a Protestant, then I think that the Lord Lieutenant, who represents him in Ireland, and the Lord Chancellor, who advises him in matters of conscience, should also be Protestants. What sort of King can we expect to have if he is surrounded by Roman Catholics? There is a clause in the Bill to repeal the provision in the Act of 1829 which prohibits any Roman Catholic priest or member of the Roman Catholic Church from doing certain things in public except in case of emergency. I think that is intended to make possible such a procession as was contemplated in London not long ago and the carrying of the Host. I should be sorry to see that done. We should not forget that this is a Protestant country. There are countries where Roman Catholic opinion reigns supreme, but this is a Protestant country, where Protestant opinion reigns supreme. I think it would be an insult to see the Host carried in public through the streets of London, and the public bowing down and worshipping it. I should like to see the law strengthened in the other direction. The streets are not intended for these things. They are intended for the ordinary purposes of life.

There is a clause dealing with the Royal Declaration. There is a distinction between the Royal Declaration and the Coronation Oath. The Coronation Oath is a declaration of policy on the part of the Sovereign, and nothing more. The Royal Declaration is a declaration of his personal belief. This Bill substitutes the declaration in the Coronation Oath for the declara- tion in the Royal Declaration. Therefore it simply repeals what we have already, and deprives us of the guarantee that the Sovereign is personally a Protestant. The Prime Minister has said that there is ample security for the Protestant succession. I would remind the House that a promise is no guarantee for the Protestant succession. James II., at the commencement of his reign, made a declaration in which he promised he would maintain the Church of England. At his Coronation he took an oath which is not identical in terms, but is practically the same thing. No sooner had he taken that oath than he began to break it. He began to upset the established order of things in the country and to replace Protestants with Roman Catholics in various high offices of State, to dispense with the laws, and to take all those other steps that brought about his speedy downfall. The Prime Minister referred to the clause in which it is proposed that the King will maintain the Protestant Reformed religion as established by law. But those terms are ambiguous. He might easily subscribe to that and yet be eligible as a Roman Catholic. Who can say what a Papist is and what a Protestant is? Particularly after the speech of the hon. Member who seconded this Bill, I do not know what a Protestant is. I think a great many people who call themselves Protestants certainly would not be recognised as such by the majority. The hon. Member referred to the matter, and he said that care was taken in the Bill of Rights to correct the omission that had been made in not taking adequate means to insure that the King was personally a Protestant.


That is true about the Act of Settlement.


The Act of Settlement is not anything different from that.


Oh, yes.


That I think I may leave to the House. Objection is made chiefly in this declaration to these words, "superstitious and idolatrous," which are described as insulting to Roman Catholics. I have no great love for those words. They were inserted at a time when people used very plain, strong language, and they were adequate for their purpose, and I for one would not be sorry if it were possible to find some words which would be less irritating to Roman Catholics than those words if it be pos- sible to do so without weakening the guarantee of the Protestant Succession. But I think that the language of reproach which has been used with regard to these terms has been rather exaggerated. I think that the hon. Member for Clare said that the King describes his Roman Catholic subjects as superstitious and idolatrous. I do not think he does anything of the kind. It is as a Protestant, from the Protestant standpoint, that he regards these doctrines as superstitious and idolatrous. He does not say from the Roman Catholic standpoint. Probably he would be the very first to admit that he did not make any such charge, and I do not think our Roman Catholic friends ought to be so very thin-skinned in the matter, considering the terms of reproach that they have used in their official documents, their Papal Bulls, and decrees of councils with regard to Protestants. They are not content with doing simply as the King does, declaring certain doctrines to be untrue, but they anathematise Protestants—for instance, the declaration that Princess Ena made when she joined the Roman Catholic Church. With regard to the Roman Catholic bishops in this country, they are forced to take a vow to persecute and assail all heretics wherever they may be. I do not think that my Roman Catholic friends are any more moved by these fulminations about them than we are moved by theirs about us. We certainly are perfectly indifferent to what they say about us, and I am inclined to think that they are equally indifferent to all we say about them, and this is simply brought forward as a stalking-horse with some ulterior object, and that ulterior object is the removal of the guarantee of the Protestant Succession in order to throw the Throne open to Roman Catholics.

In proof of this, I may ask what occurred in 1901? In that year the late Lord Salisbury, who was then Prime Minister, brought in a Bill to modify the terms of the declaration, and he took out those words "superstitious and idolatrous," which were so objectionable, and he put in "that these doctrines are contrary to the Protestant religion, in which I believe." What was the fate of the Bill? It passed through all its stages in the House of Lords, and when it came to the third reading all the Roman Catholic Peers voted against it, and, although none of them spoke, yet they made it known that they would rather retain "these words of vulgarity," as they called it, than have the declaration which I have just quoted. Lord Salisbury said:— The attitude of Roman Catholic opinion in this House, and of Roman Catholics outside, appears to have modified considerably as the Debate went on. At first it was generally understood—I do not say we were given intentionally to understand—that Roman Catholics would look upon it with favour in Parliament if these offensive words were weeded from the declaration. Since that time it appears that they would rather perpetuate the offensive words unless we consent to do something else which we never indicated the slightest intention of accepting. They do not wish these offensive words to be withdrawn unless at the same time there is withdrawn that declaration for the security of the Protestant succession which we never for a single moment indicated we had any intention of abandoning. On account of that the Bill was dropped. Is not that a proof it is all moonshine to talk here with great warmth and indignation of these insulting words as if they were the great moving power which dominates this Bill? What have you got to do? You have words that are historic, and the Prime Minister has very carefully not pledged himself on this subject. He has gone so far as to offer a Committee for its consideration, but he was very careful to say that the Committee would proceed on the assumption that some declaration would remain. I ask the House to look the matter fairly in the face, and to agree with me that it is necessary for the preservation of the Protestant faith in these islands, and for the maintenance of the Protestant constitution, that this declaration should at any rate remain as it is. I think that every clause of the Bill is objectionable, and I appeal to the Protestants of this House and this country to withstand any attempt to tamper with this fundamental law, and surely such an hour as this, on a Friday afternoon, and on a private Member's Bill, is not the occasion for dealing with a solemn and fundamental doctrine of our Protestant constitution. I for one wish to live on terms of amity and peace with my fellow-citizens, but I am here to state the Protestant side of the matter, with which I most cordially agree. It is my conscientious conviction that if such a Bill as this were passed it would strike a fatal blow at our Protestant constitution, which has conduced so much to the prosperity and greatness of the Empire. I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."


In rising to second the rejection of the Bill, I need hardly say that I personally regret very much that the discussion of this matter should be forced upon the House of Commons, for, from what I know of the House, a discussion of a theological character is one for which it does not very much care. But since the Bill is brought forward we, who are opponents of it, feel obliged to meet the arguments which are urged in its support. The hon. Member who brought in this Bill is an Irish Member, and it has the support in this House of practically the whole of the Nationalist party. I think it will be agreed that while the Irish Members are at all times ready to hit hard at their opponents, they are at the same time ready to receive the hard knocks given in return. Therefore I hope whatever may be said this afternoon on the subject will lead to this—that if we cannot agree, at any rate we can part with mutual respect for one another's opinions. With regard to the Bill itself it proposes to alter the Constitution of Great Britain by omitting certain words from the Declaration in the Bill of Rights. That declaration was passed in the reign of Charles II., and the Act of Settlement and Habeas Corpus Act along with it form the written part of the Constitution of this country. We are able to agree at any rate on this point, that these Acts are the three great charters of the British Constitution. This is not a Bill which ought to be introduced on a Friday after noon by a private Member, and to be passed the second reading after a few hours' debate. I personally am no such believer in the British Constitution as to say that it should not be altered, but I do think that when we come to alter it, even in a minor degree, it ought to be done by a Minister responsible to the country. If we look at the Bill for a moment, we find that its proposal is to strike certain words out of the declaration. What are the reasons and the motives which prompt the promoters of this Bill? Why are they so sensitive about these words? I cannot but express my astonishment that there should be this extreme sensitiveness on the part of hon. Members, when we remember the phraseology and the extremely harsh words used and sanctioned by the high authorities of the Roman Catholic Church towards the Protestant religion. This sensitiveness on the part of the promoters of the Bill I must say seems a little strained—


On a point of order. May I ask the hon. Member where those strong words are—when and where they are used?


That is not a point of order. That is a matter of argument which the hon. Member can raise later in the Debate.


I must say I do not think these words, seeing they were inserted in an Act of Parliament hundreds of years ago, should cause any soreness at the present time. But is there anything else behind this? Is there not something in this point, that the Roman Catholic Church still hopes that some day the disqualification of being a Roman Catholic will be removed altogether from England? They still hope for the conversion of England, or what was the meaning of the proceeding which took place at their abbey in Westminster last year? What was the meaning of the prayers which were offered there for the conversion of England? While I do not think that this is at all possible or even probable, at any rate so far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, it still looks forward to the time when the Crown of England will be once more worn by a Roman Catholic monarch, and when the Roman Catholic religion will be the religion of this country. The hon. Member for Clare, in a letter which he wrote yesterday to the daily Press, took exception to these words of the declaration, because they were directed against the Roman Catholic religion. He asked what would be said if the religions of India were condemned in like manner. On the face of that, it is not an unreasonable thing to say, but let me ask hon. Members has the liberty of this country or the Constitution of this country ever been put in danger by any other religion save that of the Roman Catholic? That is the question we have to ask when we are asked why the Roman Catholic religion is specially singled out. Has the hon. Member forgotten the history of this country, has he forgotten, to go back to the old days, the threatened invasion of this country by Philip of Spain, an undertaking which had the express blessing of the Pope? Has he forgotten the revolution of 1688? Those are the things which prompted the authors of this declaration to insert these particular words. Now, with regard to this vexed question, it may be said that those things are of the long ago. But has the Roman Catholic Church changed since those days? That is the point. For instance, there is the special supremacy of the Pope of Rome. Is not the Pope of Rome to-day, in theory at any rate, a greater being than he was in the days of the Spanish Armada? The powers the Church of Rome have ceded to the Pope are greater now than they were 250 years ago. Has the Pope abandoned his claim to supremacy and world-wide dominion, has the Pope given up this claim to be a temporal as well as a spiritual ruler? The whole history of the Roman Catholic Church says no. And that the Pope of Rome claims the right to interfere with the internal Government of the British Empire? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I have some authority for saying that within the present generation at least the Pope of Rome has claimed the right to interfere with the internal Government of the British Empire.

That brings me to a case which I am going to bring before the attention of the House—rather not a case, but an Act of Parliament. Let the House recollect the case of the Jesuits' Estates Act in Canada. That is a case within the last 21 years. I would just like to remind the House of what were the facts that led up to that great agitation in the Dominion of Canada. I may just say, by the way, that we, here in England, do not see, fortunately, any active or partially successful attempts made by the Roman Catholic Church to control the destinies of the country, because this country is so overwhelmingly Protestant that no attempt of the kind could have any success. In Canada it is different. The Roman Catholics have considerable power in the Province of Quebec, being in a very large majority. Take this agitation with regard to the Jesuits' Estates Act in 1888. The House will remember from history that the Jesuits were a very powerful body for hundreds of years past. In Canada—in the time of the French régime—they possessed very large estates, which they held until the reign of George III., when the Jesuits were suppressed in Canada by the Pope. What happened was this with regard to the Jesuits in Canada: Under the Constitutional Law, as lawyers know, when a corporate body ceases to exist, at the time of the cessation of the existence of the body the property goes to the Crown, in the same way as in the case of a person who has no relatives. In Canada the estates belonging to the Jesuits reverted to the Crown when the Papal Bull suppressed the Order.

Then, coming on down to 21 years ago, or some time preceding that, the Jesuit Order was revived by Papal authority. In 1888 the Roman Catholics of Quebec, having a majority in that province, incorporated the Order of the Jesuits. Immediately after that the Jesuits in Canada laid claims to those estates that hundreds of years before had passed into the possession of the Crown. Now this is an interesting question from a lawyer's point of view. If the Jesuits had laid claim in accordance with the laws of Quebec to those estates it would have been possible later on for our own Privy Council to give a final decision. What happened was, the question was made political and not legal. It illustrates my point that the Roman Catholic Church is not only a religious but also a political body. In 1888 Mr. Mercier, the Premier of Quebec, took up this question. He was pressed to do it by the agitation of the Roman Catholics of Quebec. He wrote a letter to the Holy See. Correspondence took place between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Holy See, and this correspondence was afterwards incorporated into the preamble of an Act of Parliament.

I have the correspondence here in the preamble of the Act of Parliament, and I propose to read one or two very short paragraphs in order that you may see the claims the Pope still makes to interfere in the internal government of the British Empire. Here is the letter which is written to the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred College of the Propaganda, written by her late Majesty's Prime Minister of the Province of Quebec. It is unnecessary to read more than the passage on which I found this argument. After reciting the facts with regard to which I have told the House, the letter went on to say:— Under these circumstances I deem it my duty to ask your Eminence if you see any serious objection to the Government selling the property pending a final settlement of the question of the estates of the Jesuits. The Government would look on the proceeds of this sale in accordance with the agreements, which will only be entered into with the sanction of the Holy See.


How much did they get for about fifty millions' worth of property?


Instead of fifty millions, it is two.


That is what they got.


Their own valuation was two millions, and they got half a million, so that you are exaggerating the figures put before us. However, the question of valuation is a very small one after all. The facts I consider and I think support my theory. The answer of the Cardinal to the Prime Minister of Quebec was as follows:— I hasten to inform you that, having laid your request before the Holy Father, His Holiness was pleased to grant permission to sell the property which belonged to the Jesuit fathers before they were suppressed, upon the express condition, however, that the sum received be retained by the Government as a special deposit to be at the disposal of the Holy See. The Pope of Rome grants his permission to one of His Majesty's Governments to sell land which belongs to the Crown. If that is not a claim to interfere in the internal government of the British Empire I should like to know what is. Then there is another passage—that the Pope allows the Government to retain the proceeds of the sale— as a special deposit to be disposed of hereafter with the sanction of the Holy See. Land belonging to the Crown is allowed by the Pope of Rome to be sold and the proceeds are to be held at the disposal of the Pope. These letters are incorporated in the preamble of an Act of Parliament, and the Legislature of the province then goes on to say that Her Majesty, by and with the consent of the Legislature of Quebec, enacts as follows, etc. That is an illustration, I think, showing that today, not 200 years ago, where it has the power, the Roman Catholic Church does claim the right to interfere in the government of the country. I have lived a good many years in Canada, and know what the Roman Catholic Church is where it has the power. For a generation at least the people of Canada have had no peace with regard to the question of education, and the latest and successful claim the Roman Catholic Church has made in Canada has been to fasten on the prairies of Canada a system of separate Roman Catholic schools. That is done at the instigation of the Roman Catholic Church, and I say that it is an interference with the government of the country.


As the hon. Member is referring so much to Canada, may I ask if it is not the fact that the Canadian Parliament passed a Resolution in favour of this Bill?


Certainly, and it only goes to show the political influence of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not say that a Roman Catholic citizen is not entitled to influence his Member of Parliament, but it is the Church I am speaking about; and when the Church through its officials fulminates against one political party, as it did ten or fifteen years ago in Canada, that is a direct instance of an attempt by the Church to influence the Government of the country. I think I can appreciate the point of view of my Roman Catholic friends. They regard the question of education as one of the utmost importance, and from their point of view I do not blame them for trying to bring this political pressure to bear upon Governments. But I contend that these things prove my argument to this extent, and we, the people of this country, who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church, have to beware of what we are doing when a Bill of this nature is brought before the House. It is very difficult to say exactly what a Protestant is.


That is the strength of Protestantism.


My hon. Friend says it is the strength of Protestantism. At any rate, Protestantism is a most difficult thing to define, and I do not think that this House or any other body could draw up a declaration which would state beyond question what a Protestant is. Those who oppose this Bill feel that at any rate the King shall not be a Roman Catholic. The hon. Member for Clare wants to amend the Accession Declaration. That declaration contains words which the hon. Member considers offensive; at any rate, they are words which it is impossible for a Roman Catholic to utter, and, as far as that goes, it is a safeguard that the King shall be a Protestant. What is suggested to take the place of those words? I think the hon. Member for Clare will agree that the words in the declaration which are in the Bill of Rights constitute a test which it is impossible for a Roman Catholic to go through. I myself do not admire the particular wording, and if we could come to some agreement as to inserting words that would be actually effective, I should be disposed to vote for the amendment of the declaration. But the difficulty is that it is humanly impossible to frame a declaration of that kind which will be effective and yet acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill recited what took place in the House of Lords. There an honourable attempt was made by the Marquis of Salisbury to come to some arrangement on this question, and certain words were finally proposed by the Government to be inserted in the declaration in lieu of those which give offence. But the Roman Catholic peers would not agree to them, and the proposal was dropped. What, then, will they agree to? All they will agree to is to do away with the de- claration altogether. The Prime Minister said he was in favour of that course. I feel very diffident about entering into argument with the Prime Minister on a question of law, but I think he made a false point when he said that a complete guarantee for the Protestant Succession was contained in the Act of Settlement. All the Act of Settlement provides is that the Crown shall only be held by a Protestant; it does not apply any test. But in the declaration, the wearer of the Crown has to make a statement himself at the time of his Accession, which puts it beyond all dispute that he is not a Roman Catholic. If it were not for that declaration, we should be thrown back on the Act of Settlement, which simply says that the Sovereign shall be a Protestant, but applies no test. Now we come to the words which it is proposed to substitute. The hon. Member in his Bill says that he will leave out these objectionable words, and he gives words to take their place. But the words of the Coronation Oath do not go to this extent of saying, "I am not a Roman Catholic." The words are these: "I will maintain the Protestant religion as established by law in this country."


But no Catholic could possibly solemnly swear to maintain the Protestant reformed religion.


Why not?


Because he could not get Confession and Communion.


Then it only shows how intolerant the Church of Rome may be. I I am not at all sure that my hon. Friends are right in their assumption. I believe the King of Saxony is a Roman Catholic, and at his accession he swears to maintain the Protestant religion in Saxony—


That is all right for Saxony.


He has to conform to the constitution in Saxony.


He makes no declaration.


I am not so sure that he does not. But if a man is pledged to the law and the Constitution to maintain the Protestant religion, I say that he is then in just the same position as if he made the declaration. He has to act according to the Constitution. I do not think that the people of this country are prepared to do away with the test altogether. I believe myself that the Roman Catholic Church is seeking to attain the abolition of religious tests on the Sovereign, and the abolition of the declaration, and because I believe that I second the rejection of this Bill.


The hon. Gentlemen who oppose this Bill are, I am sure, sincere, and personally respected. They would have opposed Catholic emancipation. I never think of them but that I think of what Sydney Smith said of their predecessors: "We respect you very much indeed, but we are astonished at your existence." That there should be at the present day hon. Gentlemen seriously rising in the House, moving the rejection of the Bill, and using arguments appropriate to the times of 80 or 90 years ago is indeed a phenomenon. There was some excuse in those days—not very much—but more excuse than now. I am more than ever astonished at the existence, the mere existence, of conscientious people, who entertain and express these opinions.

There are, of course, others of a different class. I do not like to say that their expressions of opinion are not sincere. I do not like to describe their motives at all, or hint at them; but I repeat when I heard the hon. Member for Liverpool using arguments of nearly, or more than, 100 years ago, more than 100 years after the Protestant Parliament of Ireland had repealed the worst of the penal laws, I must say that I was entirely astonished at his mere existence. He, and the hon. Member who spoke last, asked why the Catholic Church should be singled out for these repressive and insulting laws, and they professed to answer the question. The hon. Member for Liverpool said the Catholic Church was unlike any other communion in the world. Both referred to one or more of the Church's supposed doctrines. The hon. Member who has just sat down referred to the Church's interference in the affairs of the secular government of Europe. As I listened to these excuses I thought really that these Gentlemen, courageous though they appeared, are altogether in the last analysis mere cowards, because if they believe all these things of the Catholic Church they stop lamentably short of the logical conclusion. They ought to propose the repeal of the Emancipation Act of 1829. It is dangerous to allow our religious organisations and the Church any more authority or power. Why have they not the courage to say, "We have made a mistake in passing the Act of 1829, and the only logical thing to do is to repeal it," and not only to repeal it, and deprive the Catholic subjects of the King of their civil rights, but re-enact the penal laws of Elizabeth and Cromwell? Their logical course, I submit, is to set up the gallows again, and shoot or hang Catholics. The idea of stopping short at this half-way house of refusing to the full simple civilian rights is a mere miserable makeshift, and proves to my mind their absolute cowardice if they are really sincere. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that the Catholic Church interfered with the civil Government of this country. I do not think it lies with any Protestant in this country, Unionist or Liberal, to touch upon that dangerous subject. Within the last fifty years successive Governments of this country have endeavoured to procure the interference of the Pope in Irish affairs. First the Liberal Government sent two or three missions to the Vatican. Then the Tory Government followed with a secret mission.

And, after all this unacknowledged traffic with what they call Rome, the spokesmen of the Protestant feeling of this country, forsooth, who support this Government time after time and on both sides, come forward and denounce the interference of Rome in the civil Government of this country. I wish they would keep their hands off Rome, and cease to send the Erringtons and others of that class to conspire to secure an aid of their Government decrees against certain organizations and certain campaigns planned in Ireland by the popular party. They do not scruple to set this machinery on foot, yet their most extreme supporters on both sides of the House do not at all consider it inconsistent or illogical now to come forth and declaim against the interference of Rome in the civil Government of this country. What an absurdity the whole of the opposition to this Bill is! It is necessary not only for the King to make a declaration that he will maintain the Protestant religion, but it is also necessary, according to the last speaker's notion, for him to make a personal declaration of his own faith. I suppose the reason is to make sure he is a Protestant, and that he is not surrounded by any bad influence. But what happens year after year under successive Governments? At the present moment one of the personal attendants upon the King, the Earl of Granard, is a Catholic. If he does not keep the King's conscience, I believe he keeps his purse—

Captain CRAIG

No, he keeps his horses.


Well, the King has very valuable horses, and probably a good Protestant ought to be set over them to keep them safe. What humbug it is to pretend while all this is going on, while Unionist Government after Unionist Government had Catholic noblemen attending upon the King, and while Liberal Governments follow their example and wink at all these things day after day in the practical life we have, that when it comes to a question of removing from the legislation of this country and constitution a thing offensive to these very Catholic nobleman, this pretence is got up that the Crown is in danger. The folly of this position has been demonstrated by the figures given by the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill. All these restrictions have been in force since 1829, and what has been the result? An enormous and an overwhelming increase in the number of Catholic organisations in this country. What worse could happen, I ask, if they were removed? It appears from the hon. Gentleman's speech that these restrictions have not affected in one single degree the object for which they were imposed. If that is the case, what is the use in keeping them on the Statute Book, especially when, by keeping them there, you deliberately insult millions upon millions of your Catholic fellow-subjects. I heard to-day that the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland could not be safely filled by a Catholic, by a Roman Catholic, if you prefer the term. The holder of the office must be a Protestant. The Lord Lieutenant at the present moment is not a Protestant; he is a Presbyterian. I asked an hon. and learned Friend to explain if they were the same, and he did not do so. That office is open to a Presbyterian, a Methodist, a Hindu, a Buddhist, an avowed atheist, a worshipper of idols in the East, but it is not open to the Catholics of this country. I confess that all this opposition to this Bill seems to me to be the purest humbug. I daresay it gratifies some extreme Protestant fanaticism, but beyond that I do not see it is of any use at all. As for the first and second clauses of the Bill allowing the religious orders to exist in this country, I have not heard much criticism, nor indeed has much notice been taken of them, for it seems to me that to all right-minded Englishmen the very terms of these clauses are a perfect satire upon the Constitution. It means this, that notwithstanding that in an Act of Parliament it should be illegal for the members of these religious orders to reside in the United Kingdom, they are residing there at the present moment openly. Not only are they residing there openly, but for the last few years one or two—at least one—distinguished member of the Jesuit Order has been selected to sit upon various public boards with great advantage to the whole community—


Who is he?


The Rev. Father Finlay, a gentleman well known, of the greatest possible ability and capacity, who has served the country with the most distinguished success on public boards, and who is a member of the Senate of the Royal University as well. Is it not an astounding thing that men should be found at this time of day to say that an Act of Parliament should not be passed enabling, in terms, the Rev. Father Finlay to continue to reside in his native country? The thing is so nakedly absurd that it is unnecessary to add anything to the bare statement of it. I do not know what the fate of this Bill will be; I suppose it will take a good while to pass, but I venture to say this: That those who oppose it, and will continue to oppose it to the last, will occupy at no distant date an unenviable place in the history of this country.


I am as anxious as anybody to remove from the Catholics of this country any legitimate grievance or any suspicion of insult, but preservation is the first law of nature, and we are bound to protect ourselves, our children, our nation, and our Empire against dangers like those which happened in the reign of James II., and which proved not to be imaginary. The hon. Member who spoke last admitted that those restrictions were not out of place 100 or 90 years ago.


I did not say that, and I made no such admission.


The hon. Member said those restrictions would be more appropriate at that period.


No, I did not say that.


Rome claims to be the same now as in the time of Queen Mary, and not to have changed at all, and we fear that our liberties might suffer in the hands of a Popish Sovereign. Therefore we are justified in doing what we can to guard against that danger. The declaration which is objected to, and which is sought to be altered, is the operative part of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. It is the test, and the only test, remaining on our Statute Book of the Protestantism of this realm, and even Roman Catholics admit that it is an effective test. We have been asked why should we protect ourselves in this way against one religion. It is because no other Church or religious organisation has ever made such claims as those which are made by the Church of Rome to supremacy over all constituted authority civil or ecclesiastical. It will be said that these claims are in abeyance. I cannot find, however, that they have ever been repudiated; indeed, in the present century only a few years back, Father Luca published a Roman Catholic text book entitled "Institutes of Public Ecclesiastical Law," which was specially approved by Pope Leo XIII., in which it was laid down that the Church of Christ possesses legislative power, and is quite independent of civil society, directly or indirectly, and claims the right to exercise coercive powers. Rome is the same now as it was then, and the words of Cardinal Manning, spoken a few years before his death, came as a caution and warning which we are bound not to neglect, and they have sunk deep into the minds of the people of this country. Addressing the Bishops, Cardinal Manning said:— Yours it is, right reverend fathers, to subjugate and subdue, to bend and break the will of an imperial race; England is the keystone of the whole position of modern error; it is the head of Protestantism and the centre of the movement and the stronghold of Protestant power. Those words showed that an attempt is being made to subjugate and subdue an Imperial race, and we are bound to resist a spiritual invasion of that sort just as we are bound to protect ourselves against an invasion by foreign Powers. We believe that Romanism, politically, ecclesiastically and spiritually, is again endeavouring to obtain that supremacy, and we had evidence of that in the attempt to organise a great and, I believe, an illegal procession through the streets of London last autumn, which would have led, in my opinion, to bloodshed and the most disastrous consequences if it had not been stopped by the wise co-operation of the heads of the Roman Catholic Church and the Government of this country. It is because we believe that the attempt to obtain supremacy is still alive that we must resist it. The facts of the present and the lessons of the past call aloud for the preservation of the Protestant Declaration and of everything else which expresses and maintains the Protestant religion and the religion of the people.


The arguments of the right hon. Baronet appear to me to be an objection to the existence of the Catholic religion at all. The King of this country reigns, but he does not govern. The right hon. Baronet seems to forget that a Catholic Home Secretary governed this country for many years, and if the position taken up by the hon. Baronet is correct it was a monstrous invasion of the rights of Protestants that Lord Llandaff, then Sir Henry Matthews, should have conducted the Government of this country for so many years under a Tory Government. That is what shocks me. During that time all this sentiment about what is alleged to be found in some Catholic books—which are generally mistranslations of the Latin with a "not" left out—was never mentioned. Why did the right hon. Baronet remain content under a Catholic Home Secretary? What about Lord Russell? He was the Lord Chief Justice of England, and why was he tolerated? Why was all this allowed without a single murmur? What about the Whip of the Tory party at present? Is it safe to have a Papist as the Whip of a great party? I tremble for the fate of England when I remember that the right hon. Baronet is often nodded to as he goes in at the door of the Division Lobby by a Papist Whip. What about the King? Is he safe with all these Catholics about him? The Duke of Norfolk held the King's Crown before he put it on. Was that a safe thing? Did the hon. Baronet not feel some alarm under those conditions? I should like to say a few words on this question, not from a Catholic, but from a Protestant point of view. I should like to ask you Protestants to make up your minds what it is exactly that you do believe. We are now in the reign of King Edward VII. Has the hon. Baronet who has just sat down ever read the Statute of King Edward VI.? Some one has said that it is very hard to know what a Protestant is. If I had to speak as a Protestant I would not have said that. We must bow in submission; but it is not hard to understand what the Church of England is. The Church of England is a body of which His Majesty, the Sovereign of this realm, is bound to be a member of. He is the head of the Church; he is the Defender of the Faith. We find that on the halfpennies. When the hon. Member asks what safety he has, I wish to ask him as a Protestant whether he would subscribe to the King's oath himself. That is a matter apart altogether from the point whether or not the Act has been repealed. I am referring to the religion of Edward VII. and the religion of Edward VI. We all know the great services which the hon. Baronet has rendered to his Church. We all know his efforts in missionary labour. I wish to ask him whether he would sign this declaration as a member of the Church of England; and, if so, I would ask him how he would reconcile this Statute with the first of Edward VI. It has not been repealed; and it is under this statute that the Church of England performs its service, and daily gives its ministrations. Supposing the hon. Baronet was speaking at one of those great meetings over which he frequently presides. I wish to ask him would he say: "I, John Kennaway"—that is the position you put King Edward in—"solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is no transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatever." Is that the doctrine of the Church of England? Let any member of the Church of England say that he is prepared in the presence of holy and solemn people to make that declaration. That is the declaration of King Edward VII. Let us turn to King Edward VI. It was the first statute of Protestantism, and it was under this statute that Communion in both kinds Is administered in the Church of England; and I say that His Majesty, in making the declaration under the so-called Bill of Rights, is in absolute defiance of the law as passed in this country. Mark the title of it. It is the revised edition of the statute, and is as living and effective as any of the statutes you passed last year. It speaks of that "whiche dothe appeare in no thing more or soner than in matters of religion and in the great and highe misteryes thereof as in the most comfortable Sacrament of the bodye and bloude of our Savyor Jesu Christe comonlie called the Sacrament of the Altar and in Scripture the Supper and Table of the Lorde, the Comunion and partaking of the bodie and bloude of Christe."

This is the religion established by law. This is the religion which the King says he will uphold. But how do you reconcile it with the declaration? It goes on: "What sacrament was instituted of no lesse authority than of our Saviour both God and Man, when at His last Supper amongst His Apostles He did take the breade into His hollie handes and did say Take youe and eat this is my bodye which is given and broken for youe and taking upp the chalice or cupp did give thanck and saie This is my bloude of the Newe Testament which is shede for youe and for manny for the remissyon of synnes, that whenever so ever we shoulde do the same we shoulde do it in the remembrance of Him and to declare and sett furthe His death and moste glorious passion until His coming, of the which breade who so ever eateth or of the which cupp who so ever drynketh unworthelie either and drinketh condemnation and judgement to himself making no difference of the Lordes bodye; The institution of which Sacrament being ordeyned by Christ as is before said and the said wordes spoken of it here before rehearsal being of eternal infallible and undoubted trewthe, yet the said Sacrament all this notwithstanding hath ben of late mervelousie abused by such manner of men before rehearsal who of wickydnes or else of ignorance and want of learninge for certain abuses heretofore committed of and of me in misusing thereof have condemned in their harte and speche the whole thing and contemptuouslie depraved despised or reviled the same most holy and blessed Sacrament and not onlie disputed and reasoned unreverentlie and ungodlie of that most high misterye but also in their sermons preachings readings lectures comunicacons arguments talks rymes songs plays or gest name or call it by such vile and unseemly wordes as Christian eares do able or to heare rehearsed: For Reformacon whereof be it enacted by the King's Highness with the assent of the lords spiritual and temporale and of the Comens in this present Parliament assembled and by the auctoritie of the same, that whatever so ever persone or persones from and after the first daye of Maye nexte cominge shall deprave, despise, or contempne the said most blessed Sacrament in contempt thereof by any contemptuouse wordes, or by anny wordes of depravings despisings or reviling or what persone or what persones shall advisedlie in anny otherwise contempne despise or revile the said most blessed Sacrament contrary to the effect and declaration above saide; that then he or these shall suffer imprisonment of his or their bodies and make fyne and rannsome at the King's will and pleasure."

You have the consolation of knowing—the Protestants of this island have the consolation of knowing, that, whichever doctrine is false, there is statutory authority for it. That is the law, as I understand, of the Church of England at this moment. Is it not an appalling thing that an Act which was passed, not for the King at all—because that is the extraordinary point about the Act of Charles II. That Act had no reference to the King. It was an Act passed to prevent Catholics becoming Members of Parliament. They picked out, not as an expression of Protestant doctrine, but as representing a central fact in Catholic doctrine, something that Catholics could not subscribe to. It was not a definition of Protestantism: it was only an attack on Catholicism. Mark what the statute was. It was "an Act for the more effectually preserving of the King's person by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament." And, therefore, in order to prevent Catholics from coming to the Bar of the House, and for no other purpose, they make this declaration: "I do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, etc., at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever."

Then how did it get into the Bill of Rights? First, let me recall the facts to the House. I expressed great doubt when the late Government was in office whether this oath was in force at, all. What has happened? The Act—the whole of the Act and the whole of the oath—was repealed generations ago. What happened was that by the Bill of Rights it was provided that the King should take the oath which is to be found in 30th Charles II. What is the Act of Charles II.? Under it Members of Parliament and everybody else are relieved from taking the oath, and, a fortiori, the King is relieved, and so am I. I do not say there may not be something to be said on the other side, but when the Bill of Rights specifically refers back to a repealed Act, and says an oath shall be taken which is in a repealed Act, it may be argued that the oath still remains in force. But is that course taken with that other declaration in the Bill of Rights, which is fiercer and still more strong? Let me point out what that other oath is: it is far more effective for the preservation of the Protestant position than the oath I have referred to. The King was bound by the Bill of Rights to take this oath:—"I doe sweare that I doe from my heart abhore, detest, and abjure as impious and hereticall this damnable doctrine and position that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare that noe forreigne prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authoritie, ecclesiasticall or spirituall, within this realme." That is an oath if you like for the protection of Protestantism, and for the prevention of Popery. It is virtually repealed. Did the late Government present that oath to His Majesty? They did nothing of the kind. They treated it as repealed, and I venture to say that if the law officers of the day had said the same thing with regard to the oath of Charles II. the common sense of Parliament would have upheld them in the view that it was obsolete. But they did not do that, and we are consequently bound to bring in Bills of this kind for the purpose of, I might even say, decency. I suggest to the House that if the Act of Edward VI., which I have read, be still operative, and of good effect, then for the sake of the Church of England itself you are bound to make this repeal.

What more is there? I should have thought that a Protestant Parliament anxious for the loyalty of the Catholic people would remove this cause of offence. You boast of Colonial co-operation of your Colonial conferences, and I believe the Conservative party wants to have a Customs Union. Well, bear in mind, that every Colonial Parliament has passed a resolution calling for the repeal of this declaration. Are you only friendly with Canada when she offers you a "Dreadnought"! Will you give her no response except when it is a question of fiscal preference? In this case the people of Canada have by the unanimous resolution of their Parliament called upon this House to relieve His Majesty of this abominable oath. May I say this? There is something to be said for it. You want to repeal this as a whole, although there are certain parts of it which we would like to let stand. Why not leave this matter to the Protestantism of the Sovereign when he makes his declaration? Will it not be easy to enact that a declaration in conformity with the Protestant constitution of this realm shall be framed by the Archbishop of Canterbury or by Convocation, or that it shall be left to his own Royal pleasure. If you leave it to us to frame an Act which would please the Protestant conscience, it would be rather hard for me to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast as to what would be the proper form. Furthermore, the Nonconformists of England might strongly object to a phraseology which would only be suitable for members of the Church of England, whereas if you leave it to the Sovereign himself on coming to the Throne to make a declaration suitable to his people, I have not the smallest doubt that the good sense of the monarch and the good counsel he would get from his Ministers would easily induce him to make a declaration satisfying to the Protestant people. In other words, we have heard the phrase, "Trust the people." What about the words, "Trust the King?" Do not you trust your King? Will not he be a good enough Protestant for you unless he makes a declaration offensive to 12 millions of his subjects? He is not the King of Sandy Row or the Orange Lodges, he is King in Quebec as well as in Connemara, and I should imagine in regard to this "Far flung line," I think the phrase is—this great range where you expect allegiance and loyalty to him—I should have expected that this House would have been anxious to have brought the Catholic subjects of His Majesty into touch and unison with his Throne. What reason is there for fear? We understand the fear of Germany. One Englishman is no longer a match for six men of any other nation, and perhaps I should put it this way, two Protestants are only a match for one Catholic, especially when they have got the largest ships and the largest provision for war the world has ever seen at their backs. Are you going to bring this physical funk and make it into a spiritual funk as well? That is what it amounts to. You have assured to His Majesty and have assured to yourself the fact that the King must be a Protestant, and all that is asked for is that doctrines which are, I venture to Bay as offensive to Protestants themselves in large numbers as they are to us—that this declaration shall be stricken from the Statute Book.

Can you get any Protestant in the Church of England, at all events—can you get the Archbishop of York or the Arch- bishop of Canterbury to take it? Will Convocation take it? Would the Noble Lord the late Prime Minister of England—that high and great man, Lord Salisbury—would he have taken the declaration that he presented to His Majesty the King? Would it be taken by his honoured sons in this House, or is there any Protestant adhering to the Church of England except the King himself upon whom you would impose such an appalling outrage upon his feelings? I therefore say in point of technique I believe it was wrong for the late Government to have imposed the duty of taking that declaration upon His Majesty. I think it is virtually repealed. At any rate it is not of any force, and if it be not repealed I say it is not in accordance with the Church of England, with the Statute of King Edward VI., with Church of England doctrine, and I would venture to say more—I would venture to say it is not in accordance with Church of Ireland doctrine. There was a revision of the Prayer Book when the Irish Church was disestablished. Did you take the words out of the Book of Common Prayer about which you have so much dispute—"the comfortable sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ"? No, you did nothing of the sort. You let those high and awful words remain in your formularies, whether you belonged to the Church of Ireland or of England, and, therefore, not only in the name of Roman Catholicism, but in the name of Protestantism I ask this House to repeal this declaration.


I heard the speech of the hon. Member who moved the second reading with profound sympathy, and I observed that he confined it almost entirely to dealing with the Royal Declaration, the language of which I do not profess to defend. But there is more in the Bill than the question of the Royal Declaration, and it is as to what is more in the Bill that I have great hesitation, not only as to its form, but as to its substance. I do not desire to take up the ultra-Protestant position in regard to Roman Catholicism, as if the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act ought never to have been passed, but I seek to clear my own mind, if I may do so, by a closer analysis of the subject, and I trust that I shall not be chargeable with bigotry because I venture upon a little criticism. I should find it much easier to gain approval by a cheap liberality, but Roman Catholicism as a religion, and in itself is not the whole matter. It is not only a religion, it is a system. I do not speak of individual Roman Catholics, but of the system, when I say that it asks for religious liberty for itself, and, by its very genius, because it is an exclusive religion, it refuses it to others. You know the old quotation. They are supposed to go to a Protestant and say, "On your principles we ask for religious liberty for ourselves; on our principles we refuse it to you." And why? Because Roman Catholicism is not only religion, it is also politics. I sometimes wonder, and I may be forgiven for wondering, in what way Roman Catholics in England manage to serve two masters. So far as any religion or denomination uses its religious liberty for its own political aggrandisement it does not deserve that religious liberty. If any Nonconformist denomination were to set before it such an aim it would deserve to forfeit the religious liberty that it already possesses. It is because the Established Church is not free from this defect that we seek to free it from its political connections. In saying that I hesitate as to certain parts of this Bill—I have the Jesuits chiefly in my mind—and I beg to say that I am not one of those who see a Jesuit in every bush. I recognise the educational work—the great educational work done by the Jesuits as a body; I remember also that the education of the young is part of their policy, I do not forget that the Jesuits are by no means universally popular in their own community. I do not confuse Jesuitry and Roman Catholicism, but at the same time I do not sever them. As a system Roman Catholicism has its political side and the Jesuit body is the right arm of that political side, and that is why they have been excluded by law from every country in Europe. They strove to sap the Republic of France, and the Republic of France, from the instinct of self-preservation, has found it necessary to banish them. If they tried it on in France, why should not they try it on here? The process would no doubt be much more protracted, and I doubt whether it would end in success, but it does not follow that some generation after ours will not have to fight a pitched battle with ecclesiastics in the cause of political freedom. The first two clauses of this Bill propose to abolish, root and branch, certain laws which have become obsolete. Jesuits with other religious orders do now reside in England. The law winks at it. They do hold property, and the law winks at it. The Bill argues from the legal permission that females; in such orders may hold property and reside in England. I was not aware that there are any female Jesuits, though I am quite prepared to believe there are. But if there are not, as I believe is the case, then the analogy from the female to the male does not stand on all fours. The history of the Jesuits should warn us that even though certain laws against them are obsolete it is not well that they should be root and branch abolished. It is easier to abolish than to re-enact, and if the nation has learnt the lesson of history it will not easily let go some such restrictions as are in the old laws, especially when foreign religious orders are flooding our country and adding house to house and field to field from their ample resources.

A word as to the words proposed as the substitution for the objectionable part of the Royal Declaration. I would entirely acquit the hon. Member who moved the second reading and the other Catholic Members of the House of any disingenuousness as to these words; but if they are closely studied they must be taken as insufficient as an equivalent for the words for which it is proposed they shall be substituted. The words "to the utmost of my power" could be accepted by a Jesuit according to his code of morals. It could be accepted by anyone whose will had been tamed by Jesuits, and the basis of their teaching is the surrender of the will to the spiritual director. Let us do justice to our forefathers. They have been blamed enough. The objectionable words, which I for one am entirely ready to abrogate, were chosen because no Catholic could abjure in these terms the central doctrine of his religion and be a Catholic still. But the words, "to the utmost of my power," are quite indeterminate. They are open to the restriction of power. Morally, I might even say immorally, the King might be powerless in the hands of his spiritual directors. In themselves the words are not efficient as a substitute for those which no Catholic could take. I lay no stress whatever on the religious value of the declaration. I only look at it from the political point of view.

But, after all, my chief objection to the Bill is that which I have previously referred to. I am perfectly ready to agree to the modification of these objectionable words in the declaration if only the effect of them can still be retained. As to the rest of the Bill, I feel that we are abroad on a wide sea, and I should like to know more fully whither the compass of the Bill will lead us. I am not prepared in the name of religious liberty to do anything which may tend, even in the distant future, to hand over religious freedom to a system to which religious freedom is by its genius unknown.


The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has expressed his own willingness to modify the declaration contained in the Coronation Oath, but objects to the words proposed to be put in its place. The hon. Member for Clare has already stated that he and those for whom he speaks lay no special stress on these particular words, and are willing to consider any other alternative which may be put forward, and, therefore, I hope it may not be impossible to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. But with reference to this Royal Declaration, I regard it as a matter of real Imperial importance that this question should be dealt with speedily because it seriously affects the position of our Colonies. There are many millions of Catholics now in the Empire. Canada alone has over 40 per cent, of its population Catholic. The Australian contingent that fought for us in the late war contained, I believe, no less than a third of its strength belonging to the Catholic faith, and it would be wise statesmanship for any Government to consider whether the time has not arrived for some action with reference to this question Lord Spencer, reference to this question. Lord Spencer, of the then Opposition, said:— A delay in the alteration by statute at the present time should not be incurred. It is obvious that a question of extreme delicacy arises if any proposition is made for an alteration of this declaration at a time when there might be the slightest apprehension of any possible change pending in the occupancy of the Throne. Happily, at this moment, whatever our views on this question may be, we may all be united in grateful recognition of the fact that there is no anxiety on that score. But the fact remains that, in my opinion, it is the duty of the Government seriously to take up this question. Lord Spencer, on the same occasion, used these words:— The words of this oath should be modified so as not to give any offence, which it does give, and rightly gives, to the consciences of many of our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. These words to us Catholics are not only painfully offensive and painfully insulting, they are worse, because, according to our faith, the words themselves constitute a blasphemy. That is the point. Do not let me be misunderstood. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Sovereign himself, being a bonâ fideProtestant, in making use of these words, is himself guilty of the sin of blasphemy. The words, of this declaration would, of course, be taken with perfect sincerity in the morning and evening prayers of hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Protestant faith without committing the sin of blasphemy. But to us Catholics the words themselves constitute blasphemy, and I suggest that the Sovereign of this country ought to be relieved from the painful duty of having to utter these words in public. It will be admitted that the duty thus imposed by the law as it now stands on the Sovereign of the country must be painful and distasteful. He not only painfully offends the feelings of many millions of his subjects, but he insults the most sacred religious feelings of many of his relations and practically the majority of the Royal families throughout Europe. Even more than that. He himself is allied to one belonging to the Greek Church, and these words to the members of that Church are blasphemy in the same way as they are to us. And I submit that if only as an act of loyalty to the Sovereign of this country, it is incumbent on hon. Members who sincerely believe the retention of these words still to be necessary, to seriously look into the question with a view of seeing whether they could not come to some alteration of them. I admit, of course, that if it is really essential to the safety and the preservation of Protestantism in this country, there is very much to be said for the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. But I think that is a point which has been already disproved, not only by the speeches of Catholics who have spoken, but by the speech of the Prime Minister himself. The Act of Settlement absolutely safeguards the Protestant succession to the Throne, and if it be the fact, as it is the fact, that no Catholic could possibly take and make this declaration, and if that stood alone, then there would be something to say for it from the Protestant point of view. But when we know that the Protestant succession is absolutely safeguarded, and that no Catholic can not only not come to the Throne, but if, being a non-Catholic, he became a Catholic, he must cease to reign, surely these are sufficient safeguards, without adding this painful insult to the majority of Christians throughout the world. As has already been said, this oath was only made applicable to the Sovereign of the country to keep out the descendants of Charles I. At that time and later, it is quite true, there were pretenders to the throne who were Catholics, and that was undoubtedly a danger to Royalist Protestants. Can it be said now that there is any Catholic pretender to the Throne of this country? And even if there are, I say that the Act of Settlement is sufficient to keep them out.

There is another point which must be remembered, namely, that in those days, the executive power of the King was far greater than it is now. As has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member below the Gangway, the Sovereign of this country must now act upon the advice of his Ministers, and I fail to see how the most extreme Protestant can feel that Protestantism is in any danger simply if these words were abolished. It is sometimes suggested that the retention of this declaration is now insisted upon by a section of the Church of England not so much against my co-religionists, as against another section of the Church of England. I respectfully demur to my faith being used as a handle for one section of another religious community to beat another section of the same, and I would suggest that some better means should be devised by which the Church of England should settle its own quarrels. To us Catholics, the Pope, the chief Bishop of our Church, to us God's Vicar upon earth, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, in his official position as head of the Church, and speaking only on matters of faith and morals, is infallible. Is the King infallible? Is it part of the law of the Church of England that this declaration when it is made by the King is binding on every member belonging to the Church of England? If not, what is the value of it? It is nothing more nor less than his personal opinion at the time at which he makes it. It has no binding force on any other member belonging to the Church of England, and I submit that if it be the fact, as it is the fact, that its binding effect is only personal to himself, and that it is not binding on him in the future, he may take this declaration and afterwards he may recant it. In that case he would have to resign the Throne, so that the value of the declaration made is valueless for the future.

I must say one word with reference to what fell from the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has rather, if I may say so with all respect, gone back again slightly on what was said by Lord Crewe in another place not very long ago. Lord Crewe in December last made no promise whatever. He gave no pledge at all, but in the statement he made, speaking on behalf of the Government in another place, he distinctly held out to the Catholics of this country that the Government hoped to be in a position to make a change with reference to this declaration. About a fortnight ago Lord Crewe dashed these hopes to the ground, and stated that the Government could not, and would not, legislate on this question, at any rate this Session. He suggested that the reason which had compelled the Government to come to that decision was that, having made inquiries in many quarters, they could not find that there was any general agreement on this Question. If the Government are going to legislate on all their measures until they can find general agreement they will have to wait to be very old men, and I venture to say that it is not a proper idea of responsibility of the Government or of any statesman to suggest, as the Prime Minister did, not legislation, but the prospect of a Committee to inquire into this Question. I want to speak with all possible respect, but I should very much like to know whether that statement of the Prime Minister means business, or whether it is not simply putting off the Question. As the Archbishop of Canterbury said a few years ago in his place in the House of Lords, the Government of the day ought to take upon itself the responsibility of dealing with this Question. It is ridiculous in a Question of this kind to suppose for one moment that it can possibly be settled by going about asking the man in the street what his opinion is. The Government must take the matter up, and take upon themselves the responsibility of giving a definite and distinct lead to the country, and I hope they will.


I have followed this Debate with much interest, I may say with much surprise. I do not think any Member has yet spoken in this Debate on either side of the House save those who are entirely and without any limitation supporting the Bill. No Member has spoken out boldly in regard to what their own views are. Everyone has favoured a change in this Declaration Oath. Both parties have been challenged by an hon. Member to state what has taken place with regard to secret missions to Rome in reference to political changes in Ireland. By a section of this House the Tory party is known as the Protestant party. It is not generally known that they sent a secret mission to influence dealing with political questions. In listening to the Prime Minister's speech I came to the conclusion in regard to the Bill that he suggested that the matter was too long delayed, and that he suggested to the hon. Member for East Clare that they should agree to form a Committee for the purpose of trying to find out whether we could or could not come to some agreement on words that would suit the Roman Catholic representatives of this House, and also the Nonconformist, or what is known as the Protestant party. I agree with the learned Member for Louth that it is an impossibility. In my opinion we cannot mix light with darkness. Some hon. Members want to know on which side is the darkness. I do not believe that you could under any circumstances deal with this question in any qualified terms. I am fully convinced of this fact that the Declaration Oath must be left as it is or abolished altogether, and no Committee of this House and no influence that can be brought to bear upon it could ever be satisfactory to the House and to those outside. In discussing a matter of great Constitutional importance such as this we should keep before our minds those whom we represent. After all, the Liberal party may be a little England or a little Navy party, and may be trafficking with the Nationalists for the undermining of Ireland and for the ruin of Protestants there, but my experience for a number of years in this House is that there are Protestants even in the Liberal party just the same as there are Roman Catholics in the Tory party. I am sure that the Noble Lord who leads the Tory party as one of the Whips would agree with me that he would not sacrifice his conscience for 20 seats, and would not give up his religion for the gratification or satisfaction of any section of the community.

An hon. Member opposite spoke in reference to the Jesuits. I can hardly tell what a Jesuit is myself, because I have been taken for one myself. I have been accused of trafficking with traitors; I have been accused of being a renegade who was trying to undermine, not the Constitution, but trying to undermine his political party. All I can say is that my own conscience tells me to disregard both political parties in this House on matters of conscience, and if it is a question of the undermining of Protestant principles or for the abolition of the Declaration Oath I do not see what political party is going to support or oppose it. It is sufficient for me that my mind is made up already, and if I vote for anything for the good of Ireland, apart from religious convictions or Protestantism, I do not regard whether it is introduced by the Liberal or the Tory party. My object is to try to do as much good and as little harm as possible; and when I am told, because I am trying to do that, that I am a Jesuit, I am at a loss to know what a Jesuit is. The statement has been made here to-day that it is necessary in this twentieth century to be sufficiently tolerant to view this thing in a righteous and, I was going to say, a liberal spirit. I do not like giving everything and getting nothing. If you are going to demand something, we want to know what you are going to give. Suppose that this Committee agreed on a modification of the oath as suggested by the Prime Minister—who, from the first, I understand, is a whole-hearted adherent to this change—will you also agree that every religious institution, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, shall be open for Government supervision? You have got your Roman Catholic University, which, strange to say, the great Protestant Nonconformist and Liberal party gave. I abhor the principle of giving one kind of education to one section and another to another section, but I say that this never could have happened but for the assistance of the Tory party. If this Committee is going to sit, are you going to take into consideration public opinion? Have you made up your minds that outside this House there is an overwhelming majority of public opinion against any alteration of this oath? If you are going to make any further important concessions to Rome we must really get the control of that which we have asked for. At present you cannot go up and down this country without viewing with great alarm the establishment of institutions which have been really exiled from Roman Catholic countries for the good of the country itself, and which are allowed without any check or investigation to establish themselves here, and do as they like. I am not saying that they are doing any wrong. I am not going to inquire or to have the slightest suspicion of a bad intention. But this is a free country, and this country ought to know what is being done in these institutions. You ought to deal with this Question on a broad platform, where we could all be on an equality. You ought not to ask for everything and give nothing in return.

I desire to refer to another point, and to point out that a little Roman Catholic tolerance might be shown in Malta. I am not going into the case of the Rev. John McNeill, who was prohibited from holding a religious service by the Governor on the application of the Roman Catholic bishop. I should like to know whether attention has been called to the fact of the recent pastoral letter of the Bishop of Malta, threatening to excommunicate any person who erected a Protestant building. You have these threats against "heretics," whom I call Protestants. When the Princess Ena became Queen of Spain, before she could enter into the Holy Communion of the Roman Catholic Church, she had to declare that she detested and abjured heresy and sect that is in opposition to the Catholic Apostolic Roman Catholic Church. Will you remove these things from us, since you ask us to remove what is intolerable to you? That would be only fair. This is a matter not of party, but of conscience with me. I am not taking my present action for any political purpose, and I should be very sorry that any man should feel himself insulted because of any course I take with regard to his religion in dealing with this Bill. But if this country is going to give away bit by bit the whole of the Protestant constitution, it will not be long before there will be nothing left, and it will be merely the minority who will rule the roost, and we shall have to do as we are told. That may appear to be a foolish thing to say at the present time, but it is none the less a fact that inch by inch the Protestant constitution is being undermined, and if we do not control our own affairs, and pay heed to what is coming within the borders of that constitution, the result will be very serious indeed. I warn hon. Members of this House not to take too lightly the speeches of hon. Members in support of the Bill. The hon. Member for Clare has that magnetic influence which would almost convince a man against his will; but sentiment must be put on one side, and a stand must be taken on principle. The Members below the Gangway sent over from Ireland, whether we agree with them or not, fight for their own corner; they attach themselves to no other political party. But in dealing with this question I would point out to them that while they are asking for the omission of these words from the declaration there are Roman Catholic institutions in this country which it is necessary to put under supervision, if they are to comply with the law of this country. The law is being broken every day. For myself, I think this declaration should remain as it is, for I am convinced that you cannot find words to take the place of those which it is proposed to omit. While I feel very strongly on this matter, I have no feeling of animosity against any sect or community. I am sure my hon. Friend when he rises to speak will exonerate me from having any personal animosity against his Church. I do think, however, that in a Protestant country you are asking for what would not be granted in a Roman Catholic country. If you demanded the same thing in Spain I do not know what would happen, and in France you would be put in a lunatic asylum. For these reasons I enter my protest against this proposal, and oppose the second reading.


There is but little real division of opinion in this House upon this measure, but I may be excused if I take a somewhat different attitude with regard to the Bill than any speaker has yet taken. That attitude is this: Were I asked as a member of the general public to attend a public meeting in favour of the Bill, I should attend such a meeting as a Catholic, and I should speak in favour of the Bill, but I should say that on the face of it, only on the face of it, it was a matter of title, and a matter to me somewhat indifferent. I am not at issue with the Noble Lord, who spoke so strongly with regard to the words in the oath of the King at the time of the Coronation. They are, to my point of view, a blasphemy, but they have an historical place; their presence in the ritual of the Coronation is, historically, perfectly easy to understand: It is the custom of things which have a strongly rooted historical origin to continue beyond the time in which they might be of practical use. Personally I confess that things of this sort do not greatly move me. If a judge does not wear his wig in hot weather it does not matter. At one time the wig conferred social position, and I should say the same with regard to the wearing of the sword. And in reference to this declaration, it is something like a historical relic, and it does not move me so strongly as many other matters concerning my faith- In regard to the Lord Lieutenancy and the Lord Chancellorship, it does seem to me that in reference to the latter there is a hardship, because the Bar is a profession not only very much favoured by members of my community, but it is almost the only profession in which it is not even grievously handicapped. The House may not like to hear that, but it is the truth. It is quite possible in the near future some other man of eminence may rise to the position of Lord Russell of Killowen, and, owing to an historical accident, may find himself debarred from the highest legal position. As to the Lord Lieutenancy, I do not hold the same views. It is not an office to which many men aspire, and no one would like to say how many more years it is likely to last. Things are moving so fast with regard to Ireland ever since the land settlement. It is a mere technical matter, and if you did abolish it the first thing the English Government would do would be to send a kind of Catholic who, from what I know of Irishmen, would not be very popular. I think you had better have things as they are now. The Lord Lieutenancy is a very small matter, and only concerns a little group of very rich men. The Catholic Church in this society, as in every modern society, has to meet the forces against it with very different weapons than the repeal of ancient constitutions. My reasons for voting for this Bill, though I have been emphasising the unimportance of some of its details, are very grave ones. In the first place, for a reason which has become less popular and may sound a little doctrinaire, I do not see how a man, consistently democratic or liberal, can help voting for the Bill. If I heard of a community of two or three millions of people in England or Scotland, and if I heard that their opinions were permeating the social life of the community and there lay against it specific disabilities such as do still exist against those of my faith, I would vote, whether I was a member of the Communion or not, for the removal of those disabilities.

That is the spirit in which Mr. Gladstone acted, in which Mr. Asquith acted in former years, that is the spirit in which I would imagine John Bright would have acted. I could imagine no old name in the Liberals of the past in which this principle has not been accepted. I can imagine no man who would have repudiated the principle underlying this Bill. That is probably a small point as modern thought goes, but to me a very grave one. I would just say, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Cricklade Division, whom I have respected for many years, I can give him the origin of the phrase which he quoted. It was supposed to have come from a militant Catholic, who never said anything of the sort. I can further tell him what the doctrine of all Catholics is as to toleration, and must be, and I give it on no less an authority than St. Thomas Aquinas. Where you have a united society holding one united philosophy, whether Catholic or not, there is a civic right to attempt to extinguish the beginning of changes which will disturb the old tradition of the State. That is the Catholic position, and it is the position in every land of Catholic theology and Catholic philosophy. The conception that you can take an existing minority—if it be any reasonable minority—oppress it and attempt to destroy it, when its established rights become a regular part of the State you will find repudiated by all Catholic authority whatsoever, and I will give you the best possible example. During those centuries in which the Church had control there was the small and intensely antagonistic body of the Jews, and in every Catholic country they were left their authority. Whether the duty has always acted upon, that is the principle upon which every Catholic is told to act.

The conception that the Catholic Church denies religious liberty is simply a conception drawn from the sixteenth century. Take the case of the Catholic priest as against the Huguenot at any time between the sixteenth century and the French Revolution. In England for the Catholic priest death was the penalty, and in France a much milder punishment for the Huguenot, and at last no punishment attached to the Huguenot party in France. The Jesuits do not differ from any other order, except that their organisation is a little more rigid, and as far as I know there is no female order corresponding to them. The Jesuit was at one time the light army endeavouring to reconquer for the faith parts of Europe that were lost. It was very largely successful in the German case; but the Jesuit to-day is an order in the Catholic Church precisely as the Dominican or Franciscan or any of the other orders.

The second reason that would cause me to vote for this Bill, quite apart from my religion, is that if there is one thing which should impress itself on the statesmanship of any responsible Englishman at the present moment it is the necessity in every point you possibly can of securing the support of Ireland. I do not believe that there is any Englishman with any knowledge, certainly not any responsible English statesman, with any knowledge of the perils in which England is likely to find herself in the near future, who does not think the support of the Irish race is a matter of supreme importance to England. That note is running through both political parties as strongly as it can at the present day. You have here a matter which, in a temporal sense, and as a matter of expediency, is entirely an Irish matter. Those Catholics resident in these islands who are not Irish are a mere handful. If the majority of them were not very wealthy, they would be an insignificant handful. It is the Irish race that forms the bulk or kernel of Catholic feeling throughout the Empire—in England as elsewhere. But you must remember that the oath to which objection is taken, the disabilities of religious orders, and all these points, on account of the Act of Union, apply to Ireland precisely as they apply to England. I would even go so far as to say that, if they did not apply to Ireland as they apply to England, those Members who have opposed the Bill, eloquent and excellent as many of their speeches and arguments have been, would have had a stronger case. If they could have spoken for a united Protestant nation there would have been much more force in what they said. If any man says that this is an attempt to destroy what is already dead, or that there are points in this Bill which need not be mentioned, because the restrictions attacked are already obsolete, I would ask him to remember what happened in London last autumn. There was then brought up against the Catholics a legal point, and a restriction was imposed with regard to the proposed procession in connection with the Eucharistic Congress. Whether it was wise or unwise, if you could do it in that vitally important instance, where you prevented the chief subject of our faith appearing publicly, you would be able to do it with regard to religious orders. I have seen the religious flame lit on two occasions, each time calling itself by a different name, and, under certain circumstances, nothing would be easier than to raise a popular outcry against the presence of the numerous religious orders which have taken refuge in these islands, and the prejudice already existing might leap into flame. If it did, I believe the most drastic provisions of these laws, which are now said to be obsolete, might be called into operation, precisely as similar provisions were enforced last autumn. On these grounds I shall vote for the Bill.


I wish to bring before the House the sentiments and feelings of those who are so often persistently ignored by speakers on the other side when reference is made to Ireland and the Irish people. I hope I shall be able to express the opinions which I have always held without giving offence to hon. Members below the Gangway. I shall certainly speak what I believe to be true, honest, and of good report, without any desire to give offence, but I have no doubt that I shall be described as an intolerant bigot before I am halfway through. But I am accustomed to that. After all, we in the North of Ireland ought not to be left out of consideration when Imperial questions arise, because we take our part as far as we can in all Imperial matters, and the question arising here, which is one of the Protestant succession or the Protestant nature of the Constitution of the country, affects us very closely.

It is our history. Because only two centuries ago we were the outposts of Empire, and had to bear the brunt—I wish to say it without offence—of the political Roman Catholic tyranny, headed by the last of the Stuart kings. If they had succeeded, if Derry had fallen, if James II. had been triumphant in Ireland, there would have been no Protestant religion there to-day. When you think of the Protestant masses in the North of Ireland—they are jeered at by some Members in this House for their devotion to Protestantism—but they can put up with it—you see that they are loyal to the Empire because the Constitution represents to them the Protestant succession which two centuries ago overcame that tyranny which they feared, and which, had it been successful in Ireland, would have swept Europe. We are loyal to the Constitution because it is a Protestant Constitution. Therefore, in proportion to our loyalty to the Protestant Constitution it is our duty to resist and defend any effort, legislative or otherwise, which is made to weaken the Protestant nature of that Constitution. When you find, as one of the fundamental safeguards of the Protestantism of the Constitution a Declaration which ensures, if the Monarch is a truthful man and has religious convictions and feelings, that the Constitution must be Protestant—I say, if you attempt to injure or interfere with that safeguard, you attempt or you injure the Constitution, and you will find our people at home feeling it deeply and opposing it by every means in their power. It could not be otherwise, having regard to all the circumstances.

What is the present position? We are, thank God, still living under a Protestant Constitution. That is a fact which I think is not sufficiently taken to mind by hon. Members in this House who represent the Roman Catholic Church when they talk about their grievances under this Bill. What grievances have Roman Catholics got in this country? The only material grievances that legislation can remedy are those set up by this Bill. Long ago all posts in the learned professions were thrown open to Catholics, with the single exception of the Lord Chancellorship of England. Long ago every administrative office in the country was thrown open to them, with the single exception of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. Long ago they were admitted to seats in this House. I think there is not a single disqualification attached to Roman Catholics now in the United Kingdom or throughout the British Empire, except the two particular offices which are mentioned in this Bill. And the only matter in which I have found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Carlow, an isolated Protestant, whom I venture—


He is by no means isolated.


Well, he perhaps expresses the convictions of half a dozen Protestants.


There are thousands of Protestants.


I am at liberty to express my opinion about the hon. Member, whose opinions I believe to be absolutely sincere. I agree with that sentence in which he said, candidly enough, that the disqualifications attaching to Roman Catholics are in his own words, "Few and trifling." Few and trifling! Well, then, the other matter which has been complained of is not disqualification for these offices, but it is all summed up in the words, "Monstrous insult." It is not a legal disqualification. It is because the terms of the Coronation Oath have words which loyal members of the Roman Catholic Church say are offensive and insulting to them. The House will recollect that we are not asked now, after 200 years, to frame a new declaration. We are asked now to remove the old one. We are asked now to alter the handiwork of our fathers, which has stood as a safeguard for these 200 years! The words are not our words, but theirs. We are asked to wipe them out. I prefer to stand by the old landmarks. They were not without good cause in those days, and that cause has been expressed by hon. Member after hon. Member in the Debate to-day. What was the condition of things in the country then? There were living at the time the grandsons of men who remembered the Armada, who had seen the Court of James II., who promised to support the Established Church, and supported it by appointing Catholic bishops to what were Protestant bishoprics. I believe James II. was a devout Roman Catholic, but he sat upon the British Throne as the head of a Constitution supposed to be Protestant, and it was absolutely necessary to the history of those times that although you had an Act of Settlement which said that the man who occupied the Throne was to be a Protestant, that there should be some touchstone to apply to the conscience of the candidate to see that he came up to the statutory description of Protestant. I agree with what the Prime Minister said when he stated that the Protestant Succession is settled by Act of Parliament, but how are you going to know a man who comes forward is a Protestant if you do not put to him this Royal Oath and conscience test—it was well described as a test—to see whether in his opinions and beliefs he conforms to the requirements of the Act, which says there shall be a Protestant Succession under the British Constitution? It has been proved in our experience of the last seven or eight years in this House the only way you can test the opinion of the Successor to the Throne is by putting to him in some form—make it as little offensive as you can—this test. I do not see how you can alter what we have got. We have here the form which must be one of repudiation of the essential differential doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. When this Question came up in 1901, and went to the House of Lords Committee, they took the same view. They said if you apply a test as to a man's qualification make it as little offensive as you can, but it must be a repudiation of the Roman Catholic religion upon which we took our departure, and this form the Roman Catholic peers refused to accept. But we are told about the monstrous insult, and how Roman Catholics are suffering, and it is even hinted that their loyalty to the Empire might be impaired if the House did not give this Bill a second reading. I maintain that is a very poor compliment to the loyalty which Roman Catholics have always shown to the Throne and Constitution.

I cannot help thinking what the history of the legislation which has now been brought forward to remove these grievances has been. There was a Bill brought forward in 1901 and another in 1904, but all the time hon. Members on both sides of the House—hon. Members from Ireland below the Gangway, and the hon. Member for Salford opposite—were smarting under this monstrous grievance, and yet from 1904 to last November they never brought in their Bill again.


It was brought in in the House of Lords—


That is not always accepted as an answer on other matters. What happened in the meantime? The Home Secretary gave express authority to the London Police to permit a Roman Catholic procession—and I wish to speak of it with the utmost respect—in one of their Church mysteries through the streets of London. I think it is a great tribute to the Protestant feeling of the country that its existence operated so far upon the mind of the Prime Minister that at the last moment he had to intervene—I do not think it was a fair intervention, after what had happened at the last moment to intervene—but he did intervene, and threw over the Home Secretary and withdrew the permission which the Home Secretary and the police had granted to the Roman Catholic Archbishop, and the procession was put down. I have not heard a single word of criticism directed at the Prime Minister for his action on that occasion, although it was very germane to this Bill. This Bill was brought in in last November. Why? Because the feelings of Roman Catholics at their treatment over that procession had been so aroused—I do not say from their point of view improperly aroused—that once more it was said legislation was necessary. The Bill was brought in in November last, not to remove the insult to Roman Catholics or to alter the declaration, but to allow Roman Catholic processions to pass through the streets of this Protestant country and to get over the difficulty which led to the prohibition of the one in the previous September. That is the history of it, and when one looks at those facts one is tempted to ask can the grievance be such an acute one; can it be such a rankling sore as hon. Members would have us believe when we find that this dog has been allowed to lie sleeping for four years and was not wakened for legislative purposes until after that procession had been proclaimed? The Prime Minister did not say that the Government would take up this Bill. He spoke with great difficulty on that head, because it is common knowledge that the leader of the same party in another place announced that the Government could not see their way to give any facilities for this Bill, nor did the Prime Minister give any indication as to whether the Government whips would be placed on the door in regard to the Division on this Bill. Neither has it been suggested whether there will be a division or not. Probably some faithful follower of the Government will talk this measure out, to save hon. Members the trouble of going into the Division Lobby, with the inevitable result that they will be censured by the Free Church Council.

There are two particular posts from which this Bill proposes to remove the disqualification as applied to Catholics. There is also the right claimed for processions through the streets, and the claim of Jesuits to hold property and land in this country. I think it is a great credit to the toleration of Protestants that with the law as it is by the unanimous consensus of public opinion this law has been allowed to drop into abeyance, and these foreign communities are allowed to hold property I think it is a great tribute to the feeling of the public that this law has not been put into force. What is the history of this question? France was a free country in which monastic institutions flourished under successive Governments since the time of Napoleon; but even France got tired of them within the last five years, because they found that the Church would not confine itself to questions of morality and religion, but would interfere in politics. Jesuits have a genius for politics and political intrigue in the interests of their Church, and consequently it dawned upon the people of France that their monastic orders had become a danger to the State. A big mansion is left derelict. What happens to it? It is unsaleable. The next thing you hear is that some community from France, the Benedictines, or the Franciscans, or the Jesuits, or some of the lady orders are in possession of the mansion. This happens all over the country. I do not complain of it. But that is what they are doing. Sooner or later you will have the same difficulty that you had before—as soon as these orders are strong enough to become a political power. If that danger should come it would be useful to have on the Statute Book these measures, which have remained there generation after generation, and then the law can be put into force. I do not believe public opinion would require the law put into force until the necessity called for it. We have heard a great deal this afternoon about the penal laws. The Member for North Dublin suggested that we ought to re-enact the penal laws. That is a travesty of sarcasm in which the Nationalist Members always apply to those who differ from them. You might search Ireland from south to north, and not find a man in favour of the reenactment of the penal laws. It is true that the penal laws were directed against Catholics, but they were directed against French Catholics who went to Ireland. The moral of the penal laws was the moral of the French laws. Any student of history will find that the Irish penal laws were, measure for measure, infinitely more lenient and more merciful to the foreign Roman Catholics entering Ireland than were the laws of France against the French Huguenots. This is a matter vital to us, and therefore I shall not support the second reading.

There has been in existence during the last seven years a committee of men who have been trying to devise some alternative. You may take it from the experience of 1901 that no satisfactory solution will be found. We had a declaration in November last in this House that an alternative declaration would be found. Great minds have been at work to see what alternative could be found, and it was admitted in another place the other day that it is impossible to find such a solution. Now we have this Bill, which proposes to leave out the words in the declaration in which the Sovereign is asked to express his disbelief in the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I could understand a Bill to leave out the words "idolatrous and superstitious," because they are regarded as an insult. He wishes to remove any terms from the declaration of the King's disbelief in this substantial tent of the Roman Catholic Church. But it goes a great deal further than the mere wiping out of an insult. What are the words he proposes to substitute? He proposes that the King should say that he "will, to the utmost of his power, maintain the laws of God"—any Roman Catholic would say that—"the true profession of the Gospel"—I am sure every Roman Catholic believes he can say the same—"and the Protestant reformed religion established by law." It may be asked, "What would a Roman Catholic say about that?" He could say, "I may be bound by my office to maintain that Church as established by law, but I am not prevented, as James II. was not prevented, from maintaining the Roman Catholic religion. I do say this, if you construe that Amendment sentence by sentence, there is nothing in it which a loyal Roman Catholic—I mean one loyal to his own Church—could not take, and at the same time support his own Church, just as James II. supported the Established Church of this realm. The test is what the words mean in plain English, and on that test the Amendment is just as unsatisfactory as the other Amendment which the House of Lords arrived at as a solution, and which failed within the last few months. Therefore I say that any alteration of this old landmark must be dangerous and disappointing to all those who wish to see the Protestant nature of the Constitution of this country maintained We here cannot be taunted or twitted with inconsistency on any Protestant issue. We have been called intolerant, but it cannot be said that we are inconsistent on these issues. We cannot accept this Bill, and I hope the House will support us when it gives its decision in the Lobby.

Mr. EDMUND LAMB (Hereford, Leominster)

I have no desire to taunt the hon. Member who has spoken and his friends with inconsistency. But I should like to point out that throughout this Debate there has been a curious and extraordinary suspicion—never expressed in words—as to what the Roman Catholic Church is. Still I thank the hon. Member who last spoke for saying that he has faith in Catholic loyalty. That I think cannot be disputed, for English, Irish, and Scotch Catholics have bled for England and for the Empire for many generations. That point is conceded. Now, I have not time to go into the history of the Reformation, but I am confident it would not have succeeded unless it had some political backing behind it I am an English Catholic. I have heard it said all the Catholic Members come from Ireland, but though I associate myself with my Irish Friends, I am not sent from Ireland. I am sent here by a Nonconformist Constituency in England. I am a Nonconformist. I do not conform, and I object, as I hope people in this world may be allowed to object, to being labelled as superstitious and as an idolator. I am neither, but if I were a high caste Hindu or Brahmin I might be eligible for the office of Lord High Chancellor of England, and I now am not. I have no desire to occupy the office, but still I should be eligible. I am told that the Queen of Spain had to take an oath, but I presume she made a declaration when she was admitted into the Church, into which, I believe, for many years she desired to be admitted. That would be a Church matter and not a political matter. This question of the King's Declaration, however, is a political matter, and it affects the whole of the Empire. It is a monstrous thing, and hurts a great many people's consciences, and I think ought to be omitted, and because Spain is wrong are we also to be wrong? That is the point. If His Majesty the King has to take this oath and denounce us who are Catholics, ought he not to be forced also to denounce Secularists and Socialists? Why should we alone, who are his loyal subjects, be specially denounced? Then the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken talked about 200 years' penalisation. I have 250 years of penalisation behind me. I cannot forget it, and neither can he. What I want to do is to wipe the whole thing out and start on a clear—absolutely clear—line of simple religious equality, and I ask my Nonconformist Friends here who fought the battle of religious equality beforehand—I ask them to support us in this attempt. The feeling about this is really the recollection of a nightmare. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to forget that nightmare, and not to think of the past, but to think of the future, and let us all be equal and free.


I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Armagh in the interests of what he has called intoleration on being the only Member of the House on either side who has spoken—even by inference—one word of praise or commendation of these terrible words in the King's Declaration. As regards his compliment to Irish Catholics on their loyalty, I believe it was well deserved. I cannot compliment the Ulster Protestants—I mean the Ulster Protestants of the political order, for I am an Ulster Protestant myself, and represent more Ulster-Protestant opinion than they do—on their loyalty. If my memory goes back to the Gentleman who threatened to kick Queen Victoria's Crown into the Boyne. I hope I am a loyal man, but my loyalty is not measured by the cheque, either actual or potential, that I expect to get from Dublin Castle. I can tell the House a little about this Act, which the hon. and learned Member for Armagh said was passed by his forefathers. I am sorry he has had such extremely inferior antecedents. This Act of 1678 is most extraordinary, and was passed under most extraordinary circumstances. It was a statute to deprive Members of the Catholic faith of the right to sit in either House of Parliament or get any position of trust under the Crown. It was passed in a time of panic, and Titus Oates was its author. The Popish plot was raging at the time. It was when juries and judges both lost their heads, when they sent innocent men time after time to the scaffold, and when all England was convulsed. The Act was passed, as was well said by a great English historian, by no means a friend to the Catholic cause, owing to the perjuries of an impostor and the madness of a nation, but it had nothing to do with the Crown. James II., who was then Duke of York and heir-presumptive to the monarchy, was excluded from the purview of the statute. It was only after the Revolution, with the fear of a Catholic pretender, that this was incorporated into the declaration used by the King at his Accession. We have had an object-lesson of the repeal of this declaration. It was exempted from the operation of the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. It was exempted also, not only in the case of the Sovereign, but in the case of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Lord Chancellor of England, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Chancellors of both Universities. In 1867, although these offices were held by Protestants, that declaration was repealed, and on that occasion it was repealed by practically the unanimous vote of this House of Commons. On the third reading in the House of Lords, Lord Kimberley, who had been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and had been obliged to take that oath, said he felt humiliated by taking it; that it was hurtful to his own feelings to the last degree, and must have been intensely insulting and painful to the Roman Catholics. There is no benefit in it, and I if there were, do hon. Gentlemen realise that certainly for a decade since the Revolution the occupant of the Throne was an occupant of the Throne without ever having made that declaration at all. The fact that a monarch has sat on the English Throne without ever making the declaration shows the absolute futility of the declaration. It is only maintained as a relic from a bad old time. Anyone who takes the trouble to look over the Statute Books of the realm will find they are full of strange survivals of past times, and that they are by no means a reflex of the opinions of the people of the present day. This declaration is undoubtedly one of them. I have always regarded the hon. Member for Liverpool as the greatest amateur theologian of his time. I have seen many anachronisms in the Statute Book, but the hon. Gentleman is an anachronism in the House of Commons. He represents past time, past feeling, and past history, and his entire environment is of the mast. The mantle of the late lamented Mr. Whalley and the cap of Mr. Newdegate have fallen on him. But the hon. Gentleman might have modified some of his convictions if he had been in the House to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Louth. He might have been interested in some of the things which were said by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend cited a Statute of Edward VI., in which the doctrine of transubstantiation was enunciated as clearly as any doctrine could be. I would suggest that the hon. Member for Liverpool should leave the question of the Throne and devote his attention to certain other Statutes which he might consider ought to be repealed. It is not very long since the hon. Member wanted Parliament to take some action in regard to the Archbishop of York. The Archbishop had not passed the catechetical examination according to Liverpool principles. The hon. Member ought to leave the question of the Church of Borne and turn his attention to other matters. I do not think the House of Commons is a place for the exhibition of these doctrines. We are not a theological council. We would make a very bad theological synod. I hope and trust the House of Commons will pass the second reading of this Bill, so that we will not perpetuate on the Statute Book the work of an Act which was really composed by Titus Oates of infamous memory.


In the few minutes that remain for this Debate I cannot venture to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Donegal in his excursion, into Constitu- tional history from Titus Oates vidthe Prince Regent to more recent times, but I would remind him of this, that even though this declaration perhaps first appeared upon the Statute Book somewhat closely in point of time to the infamous doings of Titus Oates, nevertheless whatever the tainted source from which it came it was incorporated in the Bill of Rights by the considered judgment of the revolutionary Parliament. I would regret any enactment which disqualified my hon. Friend the Member for the Leominster Division of Herefordshire—I am sorry not to see him in his place—from high office; and if this Bill did nothing more than make him eligible for the post of Lord Chancellor of England or Lord Lieutenant of Ireland I should support it with the greatest possible pleasure. But larger issues than that are involved. I submit to the House that the issues involved are too large to be settled off hand on a Friday afternoon in a House which is very considerably depleted by Budget weariness and golf competitions. The important features of this Bill, as it seems to me, fall into two parts. The first is that part which deals with the removal of certain disabilities from religious orders, and in particular the Jesuits. I am not one of those who, when they hear of a Jesuit, or even when they see one, are affected with alternate fits of rage and terror. I neither get hot with anger nor do I fall into a cold sweat. I have met Jesuits, and I have even dined with them—and very pleasant dinners they were—but, although I do not shudder with terror at the name of Jesuit, yet I know the condition of things in those countries where their activities are most pronounced. I confess that I regard these orders with suspicion. This Bill is called the Roman Catholic Disabilities Removal Bill. To the outside public not reading these Debates, and not reading the Bill, it might appear that there would be removed by this Bill some disabilities affecting our Roman Catholic fellow citizens. It is nothing of the sort. It is rather a Roman Catholic Religious Orders Bill. The Bill does not propose to remove disabilities from individual Catholic citizens. What it does propose is to remove certain, as I think, salutary restrictions from members of orders who, at the present time owe a higher duty to these orders than they do to the State of which they are the citizens. Furthermore, these gentlemen who are proposed to be favoured under the first two sections of this Bill are, to a very large extent, aliens. The present position, as I understand it, is this: that their legitimate activities have not been interfered with. That is admitted as part of the argument for the Bill by the hon. Member for Clare. He pointed to the great influx of religious bodies into the country at the present time and during the last few years as a reason why these laws, being a dead letter, should be repealed.


I never made any such reference.


I beg the hon. Member's pardon; it was perhaps said by the hon. Member for Louth.


May I ask of what the hon. Member accuses me?


I make no charge against the hon. Member save that of his having brought up something as an argument on this Bill. It has been argued by some supporter of this Bill that this is a reason why these statutes referring to the Jesuits and other orders should be repealed, that, in fact, they are absurd and obsolete and dead letters—indeed, shown to be obsolete and dead letters by the influx of members of those orders in recent years. I submit that is an argument for letting these statutes alone, because it shows that as long as those orders confine themselves to legitimate limits those statutes which still remain on the Statute Book do not in the least interfere with them. It has been shown again and again that these orders may become the centre of intrigue and disturbance, and I can conceive circumstances in which these very statutory provisions might be of the greatest possible value in the interests of public order. There has been no need to put them into operation of late years. But many a man finds it useful to keep a pistol in his house, although he is not always

firing it off. There may be coming an occasion when he will want to use it. Therefore it seems to me that so long as these orders confine themselves to their proper activities the Statutory provisions which it is suggested should be repealed do not interfere with them. Our suggestion is to let well alone.

One word as to the proposal to alter in a very considerable degree the Royal Declaration. Hon. Members who are supporters of this Bill claim that all they desire is to remove the insult which is contained in the words the Sovereign is made to speak as to certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. If that be so, why is it that they do not content themselves with removing those obnoxious expressions? Why do they also take out the declaration against Transubstantiation, which has no language of this nature applied to it, but which is merely a denial by the Sovereign making the declaration of a fundamental doctrine which marks the difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Church? If hon. Members who support this Bill are really in earnest and are really sincere in what they tell us, that all they desire is to remove something in the nature of an insult which is contained in this Declaration, why, I ask again—and we have had no answer to it—if they are anxious only to take out that part which contains the obnoxious words, do they also insist on taking out that which alone secures that the Sovereign, in his personal belief, shall be a Protestant?


rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 113.

Division No. 103.] AYES [5.10 p.m.
Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) Brodie, H. C. Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)
Ambrose, Robert Burke, E. Haviland- Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)
Astbury, John Meir Byles, William Pollard Crean, Eugene
Banner, John S. Harmood- Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Crosfield, A. H.
Barnard, E. B. Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Crossley, William J.
Barnes, G. N. Clancy, John Joseph Curran, Peter Francis
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Clark, George Smith Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Cleland, J. W. Delany, William
Beale, W. P. Clynes, J. R. Devlin, Joseph
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Condon, Thomas Joseph Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-
Benn, W (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Cooper, G. J. Duffy, William J.
Boulton, A. C. F. Corbett, C. H. (Sussex. E. Grinstead) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Bright, J. A. Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Elibank, Master of Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Philips, John (Longford, S.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Ferguson, R. C. Munro Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Pirie, Duncan V.
Ffrench, Peter Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Pointer, J.
Field, William MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Power, Patrick Joseph
Flynn, James Christopher Mackarness, Frederic C. Raddford, G. H.
Gardner, Ernest MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Ginnell, L. MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Reddy, M.
Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) M'Callum, John M. Rees, J. D.
Grant, Corrie M'Kean, John Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Griffith, Ellis J. Maddison, Frederick Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Gulland, John W Marks, H. H. (Kent) Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Meagher, Michael Roche, John (Galway, East)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Halpin, J. Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Mooney, J. J. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Moore, William Seddon, J.
Hart-Davies, T. Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Hay, Hon. Claude George Morpeth, Viscount Sheehy, David
Hayden, John Patrick Muldoon, John Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Hazleton, Richard Murnaghan, George Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Healy, Maurice (Cork) Murphy, John (Kerry, East) Starkey, John R.
Healy, Timothy Michael Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.) Steadman, W. C.
Hodge, John Nolan, Joseph Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hogan, Michael Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)
Hudson, Walter O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Thorne, William (West Ham)
Hunt, Rowland O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Toulmin, George
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Jowett, F. W. O'Doherty, Philip Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Joyce, Michael O'Donnell, C. J (Walworth) Watt, Henry A.
Kavanagh, Walter M. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. O'Dowd, John White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Kettle, Thomas Michael O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Young, Samuel
Kilbride, Denis O'Malley, William Yoxall, James Henry
Laidlaw, Robert O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) O'Shee, James John TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt. Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Lamont, Norman Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Acland, Francis Dyke Fletcher, J. S. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Gibb, James (Harrow) Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)
Agnew, George William Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Arkwright, John Stanhope Gordon, J. Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Gretton, John Raphael, Herbert H.
Baldwin, Stanley Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) Ridsdale, E. A.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) Rogers, F. E. Newman
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N.E.) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Berridge, T. H. D. Harwood, George Rowlands, J.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Haworth, Arthur A. Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hedges, A. Paget Sloan, Thomas Henry
Black, Arthur W. Hobart, Sir Robert Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Bowerman, C. W. Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Soares, Ernest J.
Bowles, G. Stuart Holden, E. Hopkinson Stanger, H. Y.
Bramsdon, T. A. Houston, Robert Paterson Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Branch, James Hyde, Clarendon G. Thornton, Percy M.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Jackson, R. S. Tuke, Sir John Batty
Brooke, Stopford Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Bryce, J. Annan Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Carlile, E. Hildred Kekewich, Sir George Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Castlereagh, Viscount Keswick, William Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Kimber, Sir Henry Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Clough, William Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Weir, James Galloway
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Lonsdale, John Brownlee White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Cory, Sir Clifford John M'Calmont, Colonel James Whitehead, Rowland
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Manfield, Harry (Northants) Wiles, Thomas
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Marnham, F. J. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Massie, J. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Micklem, Nathaniel Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Essex, R. W. Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Esslemont, George Birnie Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Everett, R. Lacey Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Dr. Hazel and Mr. G. Baring.
Fell, Arthur Parkes, Ebenezer
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Paulton, James Mellor

Question put accordingly. The House divided. Ayes, 133; Noes, 123.

Division No. 104.] AYES. [5.17 p.m.
Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)
Ambrose, Robert Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tdyvil) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Astbury, John Meir Hay, Hon. Claude George O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Balcarres, Lord Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Barnes, G. N. Hazleton, Richard O'Doherty, Philip
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Healy, Maurice (Cork) O'Donnell, C J. (Walworth)
Beale, w. P. Healy, Timothy Michael O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Hodge, John O'Dowd, John
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Hogan, Michael O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Bright, J. A. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Burke, E. Haviland- Hudson, Walter O'Malley, William
Byles, William Pollard Hunt, Rowland O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cameron, Robert Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Shee, James John
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Jowett, F. W. Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Joyce, Michael Philips, John (Longford, S.)
Clancy, John Joseph Kavanagh, Walter M. Pointer, J
Cleland, J. W. Kennedy, Vincent Paul Power, Patrick Joseph
Clynes, J. R. Kettle, Thomas Michael Radford, G. H.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kilbride, Denis Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Cooper, G. J. Laidlaw, Robert Reddy, M.
Crean, Eugene Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Crosfield, A. H. Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Crossley, William J. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Rotson, Sir William Snowdon
Curran, Peter Francis Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Delany, William Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Roche, John (Galway, East)
Devlin, Joseph Mackarness, Frederic C. Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Duffy, William J. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Elibank, Master of MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Seddon, J.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas M'Callum, John M. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Esslemont, George Birnie M'Kean, John Sheehy, David
Ferguson, R. C. Munro Maddison, Frederick Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Ffrench, Peter Marks, H. H. (Kent) Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Field, William Meagher, Michael Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Flynn, James Christopher Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)
Gardner, Ernest Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) Thorne, William (West Ham)
Gibb, James (Harrow) Micklem, Nathaniel Toulmin, George
Ginnell, L. Mooney, J. J. Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) Morpeth, Viscount Watt, Henry A.
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) Muldoon, John White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Grant, Corrie Murnaghan, George White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) Murphy, John (Kerry, East) Young, Samuel
Gulland, John W. Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Nolan, Joseph TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt. Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Halpin, J.
Acland, Francis Dyke Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Kimber, Sir Henry
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Agnew, George William Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Ashton, Thomas Gair Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Essex, R. W. M'Calmont, Colonel James
Banner, John S. Harmood- Everett, R. Lacey M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Fell, Arthur Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Marnham, F. J.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Massie, J.
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Moore, William
Berridge, T. H. D. Gordon, J. Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gretton, John Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Black, Arthur W. Griffith, Ellis J. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Bowerman, C. W. Hamilton, Marquess of Paulton, James Mellor
Bowles, G. Stewart Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Bramsdon, T. A. Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Branch, James Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Brodie, H. C. Haworth, Arthur A. Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Bryce, J. Annan Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Carlile, E. Hildred Hedges, A. Paget Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Hobart, Sir Robert Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Clark, George Smith Holden, E. Hopkinson Raphael, Herbert H.
Clough, William Houston, Robert Paterson Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Hyde, Clarendon G. Rogers, F. E. Newman
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) Jackson, R. S. Ronaldshay, Earl of
Cory, Sir Clifford John Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Rowlands, J.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Kekewich, Sir George Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Sloan, Thomas Henry
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Keswick, William Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Soares, Ernest J. Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) Wiles, Thomas
Spicer, Sir Albert Walrond, Hon. Lionel Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Stanger, H. Y. Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Starkey, John R. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Steadman, W. C. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Thornton, Percy M. Weir, James Galloway Yoxall, James Henry
Tuke, Sir John Batty White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Valentia, Viscount Whitehead, Rowland TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. C. M'Arthur and Mr. Boulton.
Villiers, Ernest Amherst Whitaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time.

Mr. A. E. Dunn


the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House"

Question put.

The House divide: Ayes, 124; Noes, 121.

Division No. 105.] AYES. [5.25 p.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Agnew, George William Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Pirie, Duncan V.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Gordon, J. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Baldwin, Stanley Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gretton, John Ridsdale, E. A.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Griffith, Ellis J. Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Hamilton, Marquess of Rogers, F. E. Newman
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Berridge, T. H. D. Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) Rowlands, J.
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) Harwood, George Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hedges, A. Paget Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Black, Arthur W. Hobart, Sir Robert Soares, Ernest J.
Boulton, A. C. F. Holden, E. Hopkinson Spicer, Sir Albert
Bowerman, C. W. Houston, Robert Paterson Stanger, H. Y.
Bramsdon, T. A. Hyde, Clarendon G. Starkey, John R.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Jackson, R. S. Steadman, W. C.
Bright, J. A. Kekewich, Sir George Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Brodie, H. C. Keswick, William Thornton, Percy M.
Bryce, J. Annan Kimber, Sir Henry Tuke, Sir John Batty
Carlile, E. Hildred Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis Valentia, Viscount
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Clark, George Smith Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Clough, William Lonsdale, John Brownlee Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.) MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. M'Arthur, Charles Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) M'Calmont, Colonel James Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Cory, Sir Clifford John M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Manfield, Harry (Northants) Weir, James Galloway
Crosfleld, A. H. Marnham, F. J. White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Massie, J. Whitehead, Rowland
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Moore, William Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Wiles, Thomas
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Essex, R. W. Paulton, James Mellor Yoxall, James Henry
Evans, Sir S. T. Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Everett, R. Lacey Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. A. E. Dunn and Mr. Sloan.
Fell, Arthur Pease. Rt. Hon. J. A. (Staff. Wald.)
Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) Cooper, G. J. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius
Acland, Francis Dyke Crean, Eugene Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Ambrose, Robert Curran, Peter Francis Halpin, J.
Astbury, John Meir Delany, William Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Barnes, G. N. Devlin, Joseph Hayden, John Patrick
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Duffy, William J. Hazleton, Richard
Beale, W. P. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Elibank, Master of Healy, Timothy Michael
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Esmond, Sir Thomas Hodge, John
Bowles, G. Stewart Falconer, James Hogan, Michael
Burke, E. Haviland- Ferguson, R. C. Munro Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Byles, William Pollard Ffrench, Peter Hudson, Walter
Cameron, Robert Field, William Hunt, Rowland
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Flynn, James Christopher Joyce, Michael
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Ginnell, L. Kavanagh, Walter M.
Clancy, John Joseph Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Cleland, J. W. Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) Kettle, Thomas Michael
Clynes, J. R. Grant, Corrie Kilbride, Denis
Condon, Thomas Joseph Gulland. John W. Laidlaw, Robert
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) Nolan, Joseph Redmond, William (Clare)
Lamont, Norman Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Rees, J. D.
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Roche, John (Galway, East)
Mackarness, Frederic C. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift O'Doherty, Philip Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E) O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Seddon, J.
M'Callum, John M. O'Dowd, John Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
M'Kean, John O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Sheehy, David
Maddison, Frederick O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)
Marks, H. H. (Kent) O'Malley, William Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Meagher, Michael O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) O'Shee, James John Thorne, William (West Ham)
Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) Philips, John (Longford, S.) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Micklem, Nathaniel Pointer, J. White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Mooney, J. J. Power, Patrick Joseph White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Morpeth, Viscount Radford, G. H. Young, Samuel
Muldoon, John Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Murnaghan, George Reddy, M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Capt. Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Murphy, John (Kerry, East) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Bill committed to a committee of the Whole House for Monday next.