§ I [here insert the name of the Sovereign] do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful member of the Protestant Reformed Church by law established in England, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.
§ Mr. NIELD
had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out from the word "Sovereign" ["name of the Sovereign] to the end of the Schedule, and to insert "by the grace of God, King (or Queen) of Great Britain and Ireland, defender of the faith, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do believe 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 at or after the consecration thereof by any 2404 person whatsoever. And that the invocation of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are contrary to the Protestant religion in which I believe. And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do make this Declaration and every part thereof unreservedly."
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
I rise to a point of order. As I understood the ruling of the Chairman, it was that it would be for the convenience of the House that the Amendments on the Paper to omit the words "superstitious and idolatrous" and to insert words more convenient to the House, should be raised on the Schedule. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) would incorporate a large part of those Amendments. I wish to ask you whether, in the event of this Amendment being taken, the rest of the Amendments which we wish to move subsequently would be affected. The Amendment of my hon. Friend includes several points which appear subsequently on the Paper in separate Amendments. I wish to know whether, if we discuss this Amendment as a whole, we will afterwards be able to raise separate points by separate Amendments later? There may be Members in the House who would subscribe to one or two of these separate points, but who could not see their way to subscribe to the whole of them. I should like to know, in the first place, whether we shall be able to raise the Amendments spoken of originally as to the omission of the words "superstitious and idolatrous," and, in the second place, whether we will be able to raise separate points on these Amendments?
§ Mr. WALTER LONG
There does appear to be some difficulty about the taking of these Amendments. For instance, there is one standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir William Collins), which attracts a good deal of attention. Would it be competent for the hon. Gentleman to move that Amendment after the one which is now about to be moved has been put and negatived? I do not know that those who wish to amend the Bill are agreed about those Amendments. Some may prefer one and some another. The question I wish to ask is: Whether those different suggestions are in themselves sufficiently dissimilar to allow two or more of them being put, or whether the Debate will have to be taken on one?
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
The point which a considerable number of Members on both sides of the House are desirous of having discussed upon a specific Amendment is that the words "superstitious and idolatrous" should be left out and the words "contrary to the Protestant religion" substituted. If that were put, we could then get on with the general Debate on the Amendment containing words of that character, and I very respectfully submit that it would do a great deal to prevent a number of discussions later.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
I think there is great force in what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I imagine the substantial point raised by the great bulk of those Amendments is that we should retain the Declaration in a negative and in a repudiatory form. I do not suppose any great stress is laid on singling out this or that particular doctrine, so long as you single out some specific doctrine and require the Sovereign to repudiate it. I do not say there may not be some other point, but that is the main point. You propose to continue the Declaration in a negative form in what I would call civil language instead of vituperative language. On the other hand, the counter-proposition is that the Sovereign should no longer repudiate or negative any specific doctrine of the Roman Catholic faith at all, but can declare himself a Protestant affirmatively. Surely if that could be discussed it would get rid of an enormous amount of surplusage and we should have a clear issue.
§ Sir W. COLLINS
The Amendment which stands in my name differs from other Amendments in that it mentions no particular doctrine, but merely says that the Sovereign shall not be a member of a particular Communion. This, by my Amendment, is secured without the use of any offensive language, but by the language which is used in the Bill of Rights.
§ Mr. C. CRAIG
The Prime Minister is not quite familiar with our views on this subject, when it comes to the question of what is "civil language." We have two proposals. First of all, that the Declaration should stand with the words "superstitious and idolatrous" taken out and the words "contrary to the Protestant religion" inserted. I would like to know whether, if that proposition should be rejected, the Declaration contained in the Report of the Committee of 1901 will be substituted. It 2406 differs, of course, from the present not only in having the words "idolatrous and superstitious" taken out, but also in having the Declaration very considerably altered. I think it is, "I make the Declaration unreservedly," or something of that sort.
With regard to the various points of Order which have been raised, of course the ordinary rule of order is, if an Amendment like this of the hon. Member for Ealing is moved and settled, and if the various dogmas to which it refers are discussed, then clearly those various dogmas as different propositions cannot be debated again. In reference to the points dealt with by separate Amendments, of course, if it is necessary, those points can be raised separately, but only in the case of an Amendment of this kind, if the words which are proposed to be left out are left out. If the words proposed to be left out are kept in, then, of course, these different points cannot be raised separately, because the Amendment does not itself become subject to amendment. With regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long) as to the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir William Collins), I should say, without having heard the Debate, in all probability that would be in order, as its object would be somewhat different from that of the hon. Member for Ealing. But it has occurred to me that there is an objection to the form of the hon. Member for Ealing's Amendment, because it is really proposing a new Schedule altogether, and it will be much more convenient, I think, and more in order, indeed, to pass over this Amendment now and call on the others.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I beg to move, after the word "do" ["I do solemnly and sincerely"], to insert the words "without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever, and without any dispensation."
2407 I do not think that this Amendment trespasses upon anybody else's preserves, and I do not think it will give us any difficulty in discussing it. The old Declaration made it quite clear that the declarant stated that he had no dispensation.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
On a point of Order. We have passed the first clause of the Bill, and the First Clause declares: "The Declaration to be made, subscribed, and audibly repeated by the Sovereign under Section one of the Bill of Rights and Section two of the Act of Settlement shall be that set out in the Schedule to this Act instead of that referred to in the said Sections." I respectfully submit, now that we have carried that provision, that the Declaration in the Bill of Rights is gone, and that it would not be in order for my hon. Friend above the Gangway to move piecemeal to reinsert the whole or any part, any substantial part, of the Declaration of the Bill of Rights, which we have already negatived. We are upon the Schedule of the Bill, and the Schedule has never been regarded as the real operative part of the measure. The real operative part of a measure is the clauses. I suggest my hon. Friend is attempting to restore piecemeal and bit by bit, and that is the intention of the Opposition, the whole of this Declaration which we have by the Bill declared as gone.
I do not think that objection can arise to this particular Amendment. It is quite possible that a series of Amendments, if they were accepted, might eventually bring the form of Declaration in the Schedule very nearly back to the original form in the Bill of Rights. Provided those Amendments were in order, that is a result which would be arrived at in a perfectly orderly way. Of course, it would not be in order to propose that the form of Declaration in the Bill of Rights should be inserted in this Bill. On the other hand it is certainly not out of order to take individual phrases provided they do not put back the whole Declaration again.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
My Amendment does not come under the contention of the hon. Member, even if his contention were correct. The words of the original Declaration on this point are these: "I doe make this declaration and every part thereof in the plaine and ordinary sence of the words read unto me as they are commonly understood by English 2408 protestants, without any evasion, equivocation, or mentall reservation whatsoever and without any dispensation.…" We do not propose in this new form of Declaration that that elaborate form of repudiation of dispensation shall be inserted. At all events I do not, though some of my hon. Friends say that they do. What I am proposing is that there should he inserted the following words, "Without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever, and without any dispensation." I submit to the Committee that the idea and the motive at the bottom of the Clause in the Bill of Rights was correct. We do not wish to put it in an offensive way, or in a way that could reasonably be objected to, but I do suggest that the idea and the motive should be retained, and that in the clearest and most unobjectionable language that that object should be maintained. It is with that object I propose the Amendment.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
May I ask whether this Amendment, which includes the question of mental reservation as well as the question of dispensation, will have the effect of preventing us from presenting those words separately at a later stage, because a great many people are in favour of putting in some words in regard to the question of mental reservation and not as regards dispensation, and a great many in favour of the reverse?
My answer is the same as before. If this Amendment is moved and its points are debated, those points cannot be raised separately again. On the other hand, this being an Amendment to insert words, it is possible to amend the Amendment itself.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
I, of course, cannot agree to the insertion of these words, for two reasons. In the first place, they are wholly unnecessary. When the Sovereign solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, professes, testifies and declares, that ought to be sufficient. If you cannot believe him when he says that, put in any number of words. This addition seems to me to be totally unnecessary. The other objection is equally strong. It is this, that the real abject for which these words are inserted is, as anyone can see, to suggest that there is a power or a right claimed by the head of the Roman Catholic Church to absolve members of that Church who make Declarations, from their binding force. This is really, though it is not 2409 so phrased in its present sense, a repudiation, an express repudiation on the part of the Sovereign of a supposed claim of the Roman Catholic Church to enable people, to put it quite frankly, to tell lies, or make professions with the intention of not carrying them into effect. That, of course, goes to the very root of the change we propose in this Bill, that change being just as desirable in the interests of Christian charity as for a thousand other reasons, which I think have been generally agreed upon, and that it is desirable in these days in a matter of this kind to proceed without giving any unnecessary offence to the consciences of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. To make the suggestion that a Roman Catholic Sovereign of this country, seated upon his Throne, in the presence of his Parliament, and in the face of the Empire, could solemnly and sincerely profess before God that he was a faithful Protestant, having all the time in his pocket a dispensation from some foreign potentate, to make that suggestion is as injurious and as wounding to the consciences of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects as any suggestion that could be made. You may say you object to the Bill and that no change ought to have been made in the Declaration, but having once assented to the principle of the Bill to remove the cause of offence, while at the same time maintaining the repudiation as to the Sovereign's profession, you might as well make no change in the Declaration at all. Upon those two grounds I hope the Committee will negative the Amendment.
§ Mr. C. CRAIG
I am afraid, from our point of view, the position is very unfortunate. We understand clearly the point of view of the Prime Minister and the Government that they intend to change the character of the Declaration altogether from a repudiatory one to one affirming belief in the Protestant religion. While that is his view, and that of the Government, and possibly the view of the majority of this House, it is equally true that a large number of Members of this House are not prepared to go nearly so far as the Prime Minister, and yet are prepared to go some distance in modifying the Declaration as it stands at present. Why I say it is a most unfortunate position we find ourselves in, and perhaps we ought to have been a little more far-seeing as to the Rules of the House, is we are not able to take the old Declaration, I will not say piece by piece or in two or three stages, 2410 but in the first place to leave out the so-called offensive words, and then take the Declaration which was proposed in 1901. So far as I can see we will not be able to do that. I think, taking into consideration the gravity of this matter, which has been admitted by all parties in the House, that we ought to make an arrangement, and to be given an opportunity of making these two points, which I conceive to be the vital points. I suggest we should be allowed on some or other of the Amendments to discuss this question, taking the Declaration as it stands with the alteration of those two words and taking the proposed Declaration of 1901. Because if we are to take the Amendment that has just been moved and the subsequent Amendment the answer of the right hon. Gentleman will be precisely the same to each one of them. I submit we ought to be given the opportunity of taking Divisions on the two Declarations at any rate. I hope the Prime Minister will consent to allow of a general discussion on the two points.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
I have already indicated my opinion as to the most convenient way of getting a discussion. I think there are two points, as the hon. Member said, it is possible there may be three, but certainly not more, which govern the whole of these Amendments. I would have to repeat the same arguments in regard to each of them, as would other hon. Members, and nobody wants that on either side of the House. Therefore I shall be very glad to accede to the hon. Member's request if we can agree on what he calls typical Amendments in regard to the three points. As regards this particular Amendment we cannot assent to it in any shape or form.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I am very sorry at the order in which the Amendment has come on, because it would have been more convenient if we could have discussed an Amendment like this: "The Schedule shall be the old Declaration with the words 'idolatrous' and 'superstitious' left out and 'contrary to the Protestant religion' put in." If we could discuss an Amendment like that it might cover a large number of the other points. I think everybody is desirous, as the Prime Minister is, that that should be done. Should I be in order in proposing an Amendment of that kind?
I should be very glad to consult the convenience of the Committee in any way I could, and to assist 2411 them in arriving at an Amendment which would really raise those points which they desire to discuss; but in the circumstances in which I am placed I can only deal with the Amendments before me in the ordinary way. If the present Amendment was disposed of, perhaps some Amendment could be raised which would provide some way of meeting the difficulty.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
Might I suggest that a typical way of doing it would be by an Amendment concerning purgatory?
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I would rather not let the Amendment go to a Division if it will prevent the matter being discussed in the simple way which has been suggested. Between us we ought to be able to arrange such a form of Amendments as to enable two or three discussions to complete the whole matter. In order that I may not cause any difficulty or embarrass the Committee, however much I may support the proposal I have made, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
If the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Sir William Collins) moves his Amendment he will require to add the word "and" in order to connect it with the rest of the Declaration.
§ Sir W. J. COLLINS
I beg to move, after the word "declare," to insert the words "that I do not, and will not, hold communion with the See or Church of Rome."
Up to this stage I have loyally supported the Government in their endeavour to effect legislation upon this question. I entirely associate myself with those who wish to remove any cause of offence to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and, above all, to get rid of the irritating, grievous, and shocking words which at present are to be found in the Declaration. I voted gladly for the Second Reading, because I understood from the Prime 2412 Minister that an opportunity would be afforded freely to consider whether the particular form suggested by the Government should be adopted, or whether some alternative form such as I now propose might not be considered preferable. I understood you to say, Sir, that if this Amendment was carried it would be necessary to add words connecting it with the rest of the Declaration. I am not sure that if my proposal were adopted it would not render superfluous the additional words with reference to being a "faithful Protestant." I understand that there is general agreement that some form of Declaration should be required, although some of the arguments used in the Second Reading Debate rather served to show that a Declaration of any kind was superfluous. But if a Declaration be desired, if it is part of the machinery by which a disability is to be placed on members of the Roman Catholic communion to occupy the position of Sovereign of this country, I suggest that we had better follow, as far as possible, the wording found both in the Bill of Rights and in the Act of Settlement—words simply and explicitly disconnecting the Sovereign from a particular communion, which disability I again understand it is generally agreed, even by our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, should exist. I suggest that it should be stated as an explicit disavowal rather than an implicit disavowal by attempting to set up a profession of faith on the part of the Sovereign. For my own part, I should have thought the day had gone by for endeavouring by Act of Parliament to require compulsorily a profession of faith from either the highest or the lowest in the land.
In submitting this simple form of disconnecting the Sovereign from a particular communion from which, having regard to experience and to the particular claim of that communion to universal supremacy, it has been thought expedient to make that disconnection, I suggest that the simplest and most inoffensive words making that disconnection should be those which are put into the Sovereign's mouth. I propose also to put the Declaration in the form "I do not and will not," because it has been suggested as a weakness in the existing form of words that it is not an abiding Declaration. It is because I think it is impossible to set up a profession of faith for the Sovereign in the words "faithful Protestant," in regard to which probably no two persons in the 2413 Anglican community will agree, that I suggest it is better to take this form of simply disconnecting the Sovereign from the particular communion from which it is desired to disconnect him, than to attempt to erect a profession of faith upon which there may be great disagreement if anyone attempts to define it. I should desire to insert these words whether others are retained or omitted; and I put forward this humble contribution as a way out of the difficulty, and as containing not the least degree of offensiveness to my friends, of whom I have many, both inside and outside this House, belonging to the Roman Catholic communion.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
I quite agree that, as might have been expected, my hon. Friend has proposed this negative form of Declaration in a manner which could not give the least possible offence to those who are in communion with the Church of Rome. He does not select any specific doctrine for repudiation, but merely requires the Sovereign to state that he does not hold communion with the See or Church of Rome. Nevertheless I cannot consent to the insertion of these words. I have given reasons over and over again, and I think they are reasons which commend themselves to a large majority of the House, why, now we are making a change in the form of Declaration we should proceed by affirmation rather than by negation. Those reasons are obvious; they have been frequently reiterated, and for good or for ill all Members in all quarters of the House may now appreciate their value. This form of words, colourless as it is, is yet an express repudiation by the Sovereign of the particular form of religious belief held by a very large number of his subjects. If it were necessary for him to make a Declaration in order to safeguard his own Protestantism or the Protestant Succession to the Throne, I should agree it ought to be made and it could not be made in a less offensive way than that suggested by my hon. Friend. But in our view, and it is a view I think which is generally accepted, it is sufficient for the Sovereign to say, "I am a faithful Protestant." That is to say, "from my heart and in my conscience I hold those doctrines and believe in those practices which are associated with the term Protestant"—a term which in its origin and existence makes it impossible for anyone honestly to label himself a Protestant 2414 unless he dissents from the cardinal or some of the cardinal doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore you have all that you want when the Sovereign declares that he is a faithful Protestant, and on the other hand you avoid the express repudiation of any particular faith.
When my hon. Friend suggests, as I [...]ather gather ha did, that by requiring the Sovereign to declare himself a Protestant you are establishing a new religious test, that is not the case. As I pointed out yesterday, under the Act of Settlement no one can hold the Throne in this country who does not join in communion with the Church of England. I think the form of Declaration in the Schedule has been improved by the omission of those words, and by the suggestions generally accepted yesterday, that we should be content with requiring the Sovereign to declare that he is a faithful Protestant. You cannot get over the fact that by law, and until the law is altered, the Sovereign's religious faith is already prescribed for him by Act of Parliament. Under these circumstances, I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend might be content with the words we propose, the insertion of which covers the whole of the ground really requiring to be covered, which words could not be conscientiously uttered by any Sovereign who was holding communion with the Church of Rome, and which therefore sufficiently safeguard all the objects for which Declarations of this kind is required.
§ Mr. J. A. CLYDE
I propose to support the Amendment, because, consistently with my own obligation to those who sent me here, it represents the extreme limit of revisal of the form of Declaration to which I can give my assent. There is no length within that limit to which I would not willingly and gladly go for the purpose of securing a unanimous as well as a decent solution of an unpleasant controversy. But there does come to every demand for concessions a limit. The limit is reached, but not passed in this Amendment; it is reached and passed by the proposal to which the Government insist upon adhering. It has been said already that the Prime Minister has certainly nothing in the form of popular authority for his proposed change, and I would venture to say, from my own experience of the General Election, which experience I understand was not universally shared by Members of this House, that if he had gone to the people of the country and told them that 2415 the change which he wanted to make was the change upon which he insists to-day, he would have failed to win popular support for it. I do not think I was allowed to escape from a single public meeting in the course of the election without being questioned upon this matter; nor have I ever received in connection with any proposal before Parliament so many letters from members of both parties, many of them known to me to be moderate and reasonable people, so moderately and so insistently arging objections to the course to which the right hon. Gentleman says he is tied, and will adhere. I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman is acting in opposition to general popular sentiment and popular opinion in refusing even to consider—because that is what it comes to—even to entertain proposals which would preserve what he calls a repudiatory, but what I prefer to say is a negative, attitude against Roman Catholicism, and insists upon taking a course which it is somewhat difficult for anyone to define. I do not want to recur to topics which are more appropriate to a Second Reading Debate than to the present Debate, but I do want to say just a word upon the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has asked the House to take, on his advice, with regard to the form of Declaration. At the bottom of the advice which he has given to the House his suggestion is that, after all, the Declaration is a very immaterial matter; that it is not—so he said—really a part, or at least a substantial part, of what are called the safeguards of the Protestant Succession. That is one of those doses of anæsthetics which nobody knows better than he how to administer to his followers when their scruples make them hesitate on an occasion like the present. I agree that if the Declaration is a superfluity it will not matter very much whether you destroy it by abolition or destroy it by distorting it. In my belief, and the belief of those who sent me here, it is not superfluous. On the contrary, it is one of three things which constitute the fabric of what are called the safeguards of the Protestant Succession. These safeguards do not consist alone in a disability. I agree that disability is a very important element in them, but there are three things that compose these safeguards, of which disability is only one. The other two are Oaths taken, in England at the Coronation, and in Scotland at the Accession. Then there is the Declaration taken at the Accession. The Oaths 2416 relate only to the public policy of the King. They are political Oaths. He undertakes in both, so far as in him lies, to maintain the Protestant complexion of the Government of this country, to uphold the Church, and so on. He does that both in England and in Scotland. Those Oaths have reference entirely to public acts. A disability is incurred whenever a certain set of conditions are fulfilled.
The Declaration, and the Declaration alone, concerns the personal relation of the Sovereign to the particular matters of faith that are in question. It is, to my mind not maintainable to say that that Declaration is other than a material part of that structure. The fact is that it is the foundation of it. It is obvious that the Sovereign could perfectly well take the Coronation Oath, and loyally fulfil it, although he had any faith or no faith. I quite agree you would not ring down the curtain on the Protestant Succession if you were to abolish the Declaration, but most assuredly you would have dropped Hamlet out of the play. The truth is that the Declaration is very near the foundation of the whole structure. It does not therefore seem to me surprising, although I fully admit the changed importance which applies to these things owing to changed conditions, and to the lapse of time, that in the minds of the people of this country the Declaration is regarded as of importance, and that a material distortion of it does not meet with favour. It is perfectly true, I think, that to a very large extent the importance of this whole question is traditional, rather than actual. I do not, speaking for myself, believe for a moment that we would have a controversy such as this is if we were for the first time proceeding to define the conditions upon which the Succession to the Throne was to be regulated. Speaking for myself, I would have nothing to do with the erection of a Catholic disability at all if we were beginning with a clean sheet. But what has led me to say what I have about this matter is when you come to popular belief, and when you touch matters of public sentiment, you are inevitably and necessarily dealing to a very large extent with matters in which tradition plays a powerful part. Although it may be quite true for the Prime Minister to say that, after all, this is, comparatively speaking, unimportant from a directly practical point of view, it is not unimportant from a traditional point of view. On the contrary, you are tampering with what, although traditional, has come to be 2417 woven into the very texture of religious belief and religious adhesion in this country.
That is why public opinion dues not lightly accept the changes which the right hon. Gentleman proposes. I venture to suggest that there are two principles which the right hon. Gentleman might well have kept in mind. One is that if you are dealing with a Declaration of personal faith at all, it is far wiser to stick to unequivocal words and plain speaking than to seek refuge in the evasive verbiage of generalities. If one is called upon owing to necessity—which I am the first to admit—to revise the terms of this Declaration, if the Declaration be a document traditional in character, of historical importance, and both traditionally and historically of constitutional importance, the less you change its terms, consistently with adding the words necessary, the better, because you erect once more into importance things traditional which in many aspects I am sure we would far rather forget. You accordingly give importance to this traditional question, which, I am the first to admit, as a matter of practical politics it does not really bear. If these two principles had been generally more kept in mind, and if the right hon. Gentleman had applied his mind to purging this Declaration of everything that could give offence, and to maintaining in plain terms its real purpose without which its effect is gone, namely, the stating in definite terms that the articles of faith which find acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church are not the articles of faith of the Sovereign, he would have been, I think, far more likely to have secured what I am sure he would greatly desire—an absolutely unanimous solution of the present question. Therefore I support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman who puts in plain terms the fact that the Sovereign has to declare that he does not hold communion with the See or the Church of Rome. That is a plain fact. I wonder what they who drew up the Act of Settlement would have thought of the right hon. Gentleman's form? One of the eccentric things which might have formed a fitting adornment for the after-dinner oration which the Secretary for Ireland gave us last evening—one of the fantastic things about the right hon. Gentleman's proposals is that in a day, and at a time when liberty of religious thought and decay of religious authority are characteristic of the time he 2418 is actually proposing a restriction on the religious position of the Sovereign which did not exist in the Act of Settlement, and was certainly not in the minds of a great many of the Puritans who had a good deal to say with the course of legislation in those days. "Puritan" is a weighty word. There were a great many people who were Agnostics amongst the Puritans. I say it is fantastic that for the first time a Sovereign of liberal religious views, and, it may be, a Sovereign of Agnostic tendencies, will find himself in great difficulties when he is asked to take the Declaration that he has got to be a faithful Protestant. Many Agnostics—probably there are Members in this House who are Agnostics—are generally in communion with the Church of England from time to time. They might find it a little difficult to take a Declaration that they were faithful Protestants. In conclusion, it appears to me that if the right hon. Gentleman even now should revise his Resolution, and make it to the effect that the Sovereign's position is not the Roman Catholic position, I think he might even now secure practical unanimity in this House.
§ Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND
I think it may be useful if in a word or two I once more state perfectly plainly and frankly what the Catholic position in this matter really is. The hon. Gentleman who has last spoken says that if the Prime Minister had adopted another method, something akin to the Amendment which is now under discussion, that he would have received practically unanimous support. The first thing that the Prime Minister would have achieved, if he had done that, would have been to defeat the object of the whole of this movement, because he would have left the grievance of the Catholic population exactly where it was before. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway seem to think—and possibly sincerely—that the whole grievance in this matter is that, in the words of the old Declaration, Catholics are denounced in vulgar and violent terms. It seems to be considered that what we entirely complain of is that the words "superstitious" and "idolatrous" are directed against us. It has been stated more than once in the course of these controversies that the real Catholic grievance is not in connection with these words "superstitious" and "idolatrous" at all. It is offensive that terms of this kind should be directed towards one, but really it does not affect 2419 us or injure us in any way. It rather injures the people who use language of that description. The real grievance is, and it is a grievance which the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras would leave quite untouched, is that the King is required at the commencement of his reign, at the most solemn moment of his life, when the whole wide world is looking on and listening, to single out from the beliefs of the whole wide world the one belief of the Catholic Church, and to use in regard to it language of violence and bitter repudiation. That is the Catholic grievance; that is what the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman proposes to remove. I venture to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras that if his Amendment were carried it would still leave untouched our grievance, because it would still compel the Sovereign to select the Catholic religion of all the religions of the world for what really amounts to an insult as well as repudiation. The hon. Member for St. Pancras truly stated he has many Friends upon the Nationalist Benches and that he would be the last person to press anything which would be in the least degree offensive to the Catholic Members of this House or to the Catholic community. I am sure he has no such intention, but I impress upon him the fact that his Amendment would really re-enact the grievance which this Bill is proposing to remove.
It seems to me that underlying all these attempts to extend the Declaration of the King that he is a Protestant and maintains the Protestant religion, there is a spirit of distrust which I certainly, as an Irishman, should be very sorry to express in reference to the present King or to any King. One is almost driven to the belief that some hon. Gentlemen in this House do not trust the honour and integrity of their Sovereign. Many of the speeches delivered would lead one to the conviction that there was at the back of the minds of some hon. Members always the doubt and the fear that the King should not be trusted, and even though he said he was a faithful Protestant, in his Coronation Oath and solemnly swore to maintain the Protestant religion, he might perhaps break his word; he might by some extraordinary dispensing power not do what he has solemnly pledged himself before his people and before the world to do. That is a most unworthy attitude for English- 2420 men to take up in reference to their Monarch, and I cannot conceive it could be considered otherwise than a personal insult to the honour and integrity of the King not to be satisfied with the plain statement he makes as to his profession and belief.
Reference has been made to the fact that the King or anybody else might by this concession and favour from His Holiness the Pope or the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church say one thing and do the other. Well, I think it is a happy thing that even in these Debates there have been no very acrimonious references made to dogma or religion. Very few offensive things have been said with reference to the Catholic Church, and I certainly think Catholics have refrained from saying anything in the least degree offensive to Protestants in any shape or form. But I must be allowed to say, and I say it with some little indignation, that there is absolutely no warrant for the statement so frequently made that there is any power or intention whatever on the part of the Pope or the Church to dispense anyone in the sense that they are to be allowed publicly to make one statement, and then in secret to entirely belie what they have publicly professed. There is no foundation for any statement of that kind, and I must, without importing any heat into the discussion, be allowed to point out that assertions of this kind are most offensive to Catholics in this Empire and the world over, and I think they ought not to be made. But in any case, even though you believe in any such dispensing power, I certainly think we ought to have sufficient faith and confidence in the personal honour and public integrity of our Sovereign to believe that when he says he is a faithful Protestant, and swears, in Westminster Abbey, before the Crown is put upon his head, to maintain the Protestant form of religion, to believe his word, and not to nurse this haunting suspicion that the King may at some time break not only his word but also the solemn oath which he has taken.
I hope the Prime Minister will not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise if this Amendment is carried it will defeat the whole object of the Bill, and I impress not only upon the Prime Minister but upon every Member of the House that if this thing is really worth doing it is worth doing thoroughly and well. There is no use in half measures in the matter. It is a grievance not only 2421 affecting the Catholics of this country but it is a grievance which has moved the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia to pass strong resolutions praying the King to move in this matter. If you believe this feeling is genuine and is worth responding to, do not attempt to meet it in any half-hearted or niggardly manner. This Bill as it stands is satisfying; it was passed by a majority of very large dimensions; it was voted for by 410 Members in all parts of this House, because it was felt that the old Declaration, while not in the slightest degree needed as an historical guarantee for the Crown, it was an admitted grievance to millions of the Catholic subjects of the King. To remedy that grievance this Bill has been brought in, and for that reason I hope it will become law in its present form, and in no other, for as it stands it meets the objections for which it was intended.
§ Sir CLIFFORD CORY
While the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) is very indignant with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras for proposing this Amendment, I should like to recall to his mind the letter which he wrote the Prime Minister upon this very subject. The hon. Member wrote:—You may remember that upon the Second Reading of the Catholic Disabilities Bill, moved by me last year, you spoke very strongly in favour of removing from the Royal Accession Oath the words which are so offensive to Catholics. That view of yours so well expressed, met with. I believe, favour from all quarters of the House, with some few exceptions. Under the present sad circumstances the matter becomes immediately pressing, and I venture to ask you to take such steps as may be necessary to relieve the new King of such obligation.So that the hon. Member will see that at that time he seemed to be desirous of having removed from the Declaration those words which he thought objectionable.
§ Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND
I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not in the slightest degree wish to misrepresent me, but when I spoke in that letter of words I meant, as has been meant all along, the words not merely which are violent and offensive—namely, "superstitious and idolatrous," but the words as a whole, that single out the doctrines of the Catholic Church from all religions for denunciation.
§ Sir CLIFFORD CORY
This Amendment does not single out any particular religion for denunciation; it only declares that the King is not in communion with the See or Church of Rome.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEY
I am one of the Members who said they would resist any alteration in the formula of 1687. I feel myself now placed in circumstances in which the House made it necessary by a large vote that there should be some alteration. I have to choose between an alteration that seems to bring us more near or less near to that of 1687. The Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras does not seem to me to be exactly the form of words that I myself would have chosen. Still, his Amendment does bring us nearer to the old words than the Amendment submitted in the Schedule of the Bill, and on that ground I can support the Amendment of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I ask the attention of the Committee to what is really [...] critical point. As a Catholic I draw a distinction between two positions that have been set out. I fairly and absolutely accept the Protestant Succession; I accept the principle that the majority of the people in this country have a right to demand that their Sovereign shall be of the same faith as themselves, and I hope to show that that is fully carried out by the words of the proposed amended Declaration. But the position I will not accept is that one religion alone should be singled out for denunciation, whether in polite or in offensive terms. It cannot be denied that, whether under the old Declaration or under this Declaration, if the Amendment were accepted one religion is specially singled out. If the views I hold are to be set apart for repudiation, I confess I think I should like to be in some company, if only in the company of the Mahomedans and Buddhists. Some of my friends with whom I have often acted in other matters, and hope to act again, seem to regard the words as having something occultly dangerous about them. They seem to think there is something behind them to be guarded against. I think that view seemed to find expression in the speech of the hon. Member for North Down. I will not speak about theological matters in any degree similar to that in which they have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Down. He seemed to me to be suffering under one or two rather serious misconceptions. Either he or another hon. Member spoke about the infallibility of the Pope. That is a highly technical and complex matter—quite as technical and complex as the English legal doctrine of the impeccability of the King, and it certainly cannot have 2423 any bearing upon the present controversy. Whatever it may involve, it applies only to the foundations of doctrine, and not to any concrete political act, and to bring this doctrine in in connection with this Bill is entirely beside the mark. My hon. Friend referred to an old Bull of 1832, but I think he has entirely misinterpreted the sense of that. Others have referred to the temporal power of the Pope. There is a total verbal misconception in this matter. It is quite true temporal power is asserted, but the words "temporal power" mean the historical claim of the Pope to certain territories in Italy, not to temporal jurisdiction in foreign countries. It is not a matter of faith at all. As to the Deposing Power, I never met anyone who held this doctrine. It rested in former times on a jurisdiction of the Pope by consent. The people of Europe wanted an arbitrator, and they agreed that the Pope should be the arbitrator, but this was no part of his prerogative, and since this general consent has been withdrawn the jurisdiction falls through.
Most of these matters seem to me to be entirely irrelevant, because everybody fully accepts the proposal that the Sovereign must be a Protestant; the point is whether the proposed definition is sufficient to that end. As far as I understand theology, I am absolutely convinced that it would be impossible for any Catholic to make this new Declaration. It could not be done. It could no more be done in the case of the old form than in the new form. You might find an unscrupulous Sovereign who would be willing to make either Declaration or both of them, but against a man like that you cannot have any safeguards. In this respect the two Declarations are absolutely on a par, because no Catholic could take either. With regard to dispensations they are only valid as against ecclesiastical law, and not against the moral law. To take either of those Declarations in the case of a Catholic would be perjury, and no question of dispensation could be raised. I confess it is rather against the grain with me to support the Government, but on the present occasion I feel bound to do it. I think they have done right. I am not dealing with the narrow point about the Establishment, but I think they are right in their general formula. It is without offence, and I hope the House will see its way to discontinue imposing a stigma on a reli- 2424 gious body to whom loyalty to their Sovereign is not only compatible with, but expressly enjoined by their religion.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY
As I have an Amendment on the Paper almost in similar terms to the one under discussion, I wish to say a few words on the Amendmend moved from the opposite side of the House. I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench as to this really being the minimum which is desired by the people who take an interest in this matter. If this proposal is accepted I shall be very glad, and so would all my hon. Friends, to refrain from moving those Amendments on the Paper which pick out special dogmas and matters in connection with the Roman Catholic religion. I think it is far safer to follow the lines of this Amendment. The hon. Member for East Clare says he cannot accept the position that one special religion should be picked out, but may I point out that this Declaration of the Government picks out one special religion quite as much as the Amendment we are discussing. You make the Sovereign declare he is going to secure the Protestant Succession, how can anybody possibly say that the Declaration is necessarily against one particular form of religion? That is what the country desired, and that is what we are willing to accept because it is desired by the majority of the people. I do not think it can be said, as the hon. Member for East Clare asserted, that the terms of this Amendment are violent or in any way insulting. It merely states the definite fact as stated in the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Act of Union, and all the other great Acts of our Constitution. I think what is proposed is the easiest way of securing our object. It is certainly the clearest and most definite way, and it avoids those difficulties which we are landed in when you begin to discuss what the word "Protestant" means. I hope our discussion may be centred in this Amendment as being the best form in which we can obtain that distinct repudiation from the Sovereign. If any other words can be proposed to secure this object which will not arouse any feeling of injustice on the part of Roman Catholics, I shall be perfectly willing to consider them. I believe what we suggest is something which the country will say is the best course to take, and for those reasons I put down the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
The Prime Minister referred to the question of dispensation. I have here a book which I think is authentic which gives a specific instance of the Pope giving a dispensation to an Oath. It is a quotation from Dr. Michael Gedde's "Miscellaneous Tracts."Charles V., in the coronation oath of Aragon made a certain declaration. He was absolved by Pope Clement VII. The words were: 'And we do further release your Majesty from the obligation of the oath which we are informed was taken by you in the General Estates of the said Kingdoms and Principalities, never to expel the said Infidels; absolving you from all censures and penalties of the guilt of Perjury, which you might incur thereby, and dispensing with you, as to that promise, so far as it is necessary.'
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I think my hon. Friend opposite has fallen into a mistake. The question is not one of absolving a person from an Oath which, in the opinion of the absolving authority, he ought not to have taken. The question now is whether the Pope can give a dispensation to break a promise before the promise is made. I do not think there is any authority quotable to show that the Pope has ever given a dispensation to break a promise before the promise was undertaken.
§ Mr. C. CRAIG
I do not think the point which the Noble Lord made covers all the cases which could possibly arise We do not suggest that any King should go to the Pope beforehand and say, "I am going to take an Oath; give me a dispensation from it." We think it is quite possible, though not probable, that a King might take the Oath and go to the Pope afterwards and ask for absolution. If that cannot be done, I am glad to hear it. I am afraid, however, that I shall retain that idea. With regard to the speech made by the hon. Member for East Clare, he argues that we ought to have sufficient confidence and trust in our King to believe that if he says he is a faithful Protestant we ought to rest satisfied that he is not going to be a Roman Catholic. In this matter I do not feel we are legislating for the present King or the next King, but we are legislating for all Kings for all times. We have heard of many of the bad qualities which have distinguished a number of Kings in the past, and it is against such a contingency that we are now trying to safeguard ourselves. Therefore it is quite beside the question to say that we ought to have sufficient confidence in the present King when he subscribes to this particular form of words. The hon. Member for East Clare said the objection of the Roman 2426 Catholic community in this matter was not confined to the objectionable words which have been referred to, but to the whole repudiatory character of the Declaration. I state most emphatically that when this matter was before Parliament in 1901 it was to the two words which have been singled out that the Roman Catholic community objected. Lord Llandaff in another place said that he preferred the old form rather than consent to a form which it would be impossible to get rid of. What he meant was that if a less strong Declaration was introduced he feared that Roman Catholics would be unable to remove the injustice altogether. I believe that the object of the Roman Catholic community is to do away with this Declaration altogether. After the statement of the Prime Minister and other hon. Members, that they see no usefulness in this Declaration, I venture to predict with considerable confidence that very few years will elapse before another agitation is got up by the Roman Catholics to do away with this Declaration altogether. The reply of the Prime Minister was, of course, exactly what we expected. He has taken up his stand against a repudiatory Declaration, and, therefore, it is not to him we appeal when we go to a Division on this Amendment. It is to that other part of the House which is not satisfied in its mind that we should give up everything in the shape of repudiation, be it strong or mild, of the Roman Catholic religion that we have to appeal for assistance in the Lobby. The Amendment is the very minimum of what those who are still in favour of a repudiatory Declaration in some form or other could possibly accept, and, of course, while supporting the hon. Member in his Amendment, it must not be taken that I and some of my Friends around me consider this is by any means as strong a repudiation as we would like to see, but, inasmuch as it does contain the germ of that repudiation which we hold to be absolutely necessary if the Declaration is to be of the slightest use at all, we shall vote for it.
I still maintain that repudiation is necessary, and we consider the expression on which the right hon. Gentleman has pinned most of his faith in this revised Declaration, namely, "a faithful Protestant," is not worth the breath with which it is spoken, because, as has been said innumerable times, it would pass the wit of any man in this or in any other Assembly to 2427 say exactly what a faithful Protestant is. I ventured yesterday to disagree with both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in their view of what a faithful Protestant was. They said it is obviously an expression which meant a man disagrees with and repudiates the whole or, at any rate, many of the chief points in the Roman Catholic religion. That is a very broad description of it. There are a great many people who, though not particularly fond of the word, call themselves Protestants and yet believe in transubstantiation. We have chosen transubstantiation as one of the things we desire our King to repudiate, and how can you say that any person who believes in transubstantiation is such a Protestant, at any rate, as the Protestants of the whole of this Kingdom desire to see on the Throne. There are High Churchmen who believe in some of the other leading tenets and doctrines of the Church of Rome in which by far the larger proportion of the Protestant community do not believe, and I say it would be dangerous to allow a person to become the occupant of our Throne who believes in such tenets. We know perfectly well that hardly a week passes without some member of what we call the High Church in this country going over to the Church of Rome. Sometimes they go over in whole batches I am told.
I have always said that it is not the Roman Catholic religion, from a religious point of view, to which I object in the slightest degree; it is simply to the Roman Catholic Church as a political machine, and we should be very glad indeed if this political machine could be excluded absolutely from having any interference in our civil affairs without introducing religion in any shape or form. Unfortunately, what is primarily, I suppose, a religious body and a Church takes upon itself powers which we consider no Church ought to take upon itself. I believe a very superficial reading of history will show that the Roman Catholic Church has for centuries interfered in civil and political matters in a way in which we Protestants do not think any Church ought to be allowed to interfere. It is because of that and because of the probability which I hope will never come that the Roman Catholic Church may some day acquire some of the powers it used to have in days gone by, and which, if it did, it would assuredly seek to exercise by an interference in our civil and political 2428 affairs precisely as in days gone by, that we desire to make it absolutely plain our Sovereign is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. We believe we can only do that by making him repudiate some of the essential doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. I regret we are not going to have what I may call graduated Divisions on this point, but I support the hon. Member opposite because his Amendment certainly approximates more to what we desire than the emasculate and futile Declaration which the Government seek to enforce upon the House. The beet proof, I think, that it is emasculate and futile is that the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary have both declared they consider no Declaration at all is necessary. It therefore does not matter very much to them what Declaration we pass. For those reasons it will give me great pleasure to support the Amendment.
§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT
I have one small piece of evidence supplementing that given by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down which I think is worth the attention of the Committee, from the point of view that apparently, on the face of it, the claims of my hon. Friend the Member for East Clare (Mr. William Redmond) has advanced in recent years. I take from Hansard, 18th February, 1901, the following question he asked the then Leader of the House:—Mr. William Redmond to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to eliminate from His Afajesty's Coronation Oath that portion which describes the religion of His Majesty's Catholic subjects as idolatrous and superstitious?That seems, on the face of it, to bear out the contention that at that time the claims made—subsequently they developed—were narrowed to the leaving out of the offensive words, and at that time went no further. The Leader of the House gave a certain answer, and my hon. Friend put a somewhat vigorous supplementary question:—Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg respectfully to point out that as long as this Oath is in existence and His Majesty swears that Catholics are idolatrous—There, again, the point is the narrow one:—I will for one oppose His Majesty's salary.I put it to my hon. Friend that, on the face of it, he appeared to be confining himself to that very narrow point.
§ Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND
As a matter of explanation and as the hon. Gentleman has referred to me and has been good enough to give me notice, 2429 I may be allowed to read the following two or three words, which, I think, will clearly explain the position I have taken up and the position, as far as I know, which all Catholics have taken up. Speaking on the Bill I introduced on 14th May, last twelvemonth, I said: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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1909, col. 2160.]I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding the words he has quoted, there has from the very beginning been a grievance in Catholic circles, not merely because they were called "idolatrous," but because their religion was singled out in this manner. If the word "idolatrous" appears more frequently than any other phrase, it has been because it is a strong one. Still, the grievance has always been there. The House of Lords introduced a Bill with the very object of leaving out the words "idolatrous and superstitious," but that Bill never became law, because it was rejected as wholly insufficient by the Catholics.
§ Mr. GEORGE FABER
I cannot but regret that the Prime Minister has found himself unable to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member on his own side of the House. I have voted for the Bill up to the present because I have come to the conclusion that, in a matter of this momentous importance, it is highly desirable, in the interests of the House and of the country generally, we should find—I will not say some common ground, but some spot approaching nearly to that most desirable consummation. Opposition would, no doubt, not have been altogether removed from this Bill if the Prime Minister had found it possible to accept the words of this Amendment, but I will say with a certain amount of confidence that there would have been comparatively little soreness left behind in the country if the words of this Amendment had been accepted. Surely it is not desirable that there should be any soreness such as there will be if the country is made to be content with the words which I understand the Prime Minister is going to move later on this evening—the words "faithful Protestant." I think that they are not a desirable alternative to the words proposed by this Amendment. Let us look at the history of this Declaration. For the last 200 years or 2430 more one particular form of religion has been singled out for condemnation by the Sovereign on his accession to the Throne. I realise times have changed, and that we do not now stand where we stood 200 years ago. The Sovereign is nowadays a Sovereign with a widely extended Empire, and with millions of loyal Catholic subjects, and therefore it is most undesirable that any words which can give pain to those subjects should be put into his mouth. But there is a middle course, and that is to avoid words which give pain or offence to Roman Catholics, but at the same time to retain words in some form which will meet the views of the millions of Protestant subjects. That is what I mean when I suggest that this Amendment seems to have struck the golden middle line. It can legitimately give no offence to Roman Catholics and neither will it offend Protestants. There is not a word in it against the Catholic religion, because it simply provides that the Sovereign shall say he does not and will not hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome. The word Protestant, of course, means that you protest against something, and, read in the context of the Acts of Parliament passed in connection with this matter, it means that you protest against the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. Would it not be much better from the point of view of the country generally, and would it not give more general satisfaction, if you were to translate that indeterminate phrase "faithful Protestant" into something that he who runs may read? Would it not be better for the Sovereign to say in so many words, "I do not and I will not hold communion with the See or Church of Rome"? This does not need further argument. The whole matter has been thoroughly gone into. I may have given offence to many hundreds of my Constituents by the course I have taken in so far voting for this Bill, but we do not want to give offence, and I, at any rate, as a humble and loyal subject of the King, would not allow the Sovereign by his Declaration to give offence to any man's religious opinions, legitimately held. I think it is fair, however, in considering the history of this question to ask that the Sovereign should, as far as possible, preserve the continuity of the Declaration.
§ Mr. SANDERSON
I am sure the Prime Minister must recognise the earnestness with which this Debate has been carried on and the moderation of hon. Members 2431 who have spoken. It has not been conducted in a party spirit. Neither should it, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give Members a free hand in regard to this matter, and enable them to come to a decision in accordance with their feelings without the intervention of the Government Whips. As this Amendment only appeared on the Paper this morning we have not had much time to consider it. I propose to support it, however. Nobody wants in any shape or form to be in the least antagonistic to the Catholic community. But the law of this country is that nobody who is in communion with the See or Church of Rome shall be capable of wearing the Crown. That is the law of the country which is contained in the Bill of Rights. The person who is to wear the Crown has to make a Declaration. Is it not therefore reasonable that it should contain a statement that he does not hold communion with the See or Church of Rome, which is the one object against which this statute is directed? As I understand this Amendment that is all that is proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He, like myself, is most anxious to avoid every particle of offence to the Roman Catholics, and I will put it to the Prime Minister, with the greatest possible respect, why in the world should not this proposal be accepted? Nobody can deny that the reason why the existing Declaration had to be altered was because it was felt that the form of it unnecessarily gave offence to a great number of His Majesty's subjects, both in this country and abroad. Can anybody deny that that was the reason? Does anybody suggest that the proposal of my hon. Friend opposite can give offence to anybody, when you remember that the words of the statute provide that a person who is in communion with the See or the Church of Rome shall not sit upon the Throne? If it were not the law, of course nobody would suggest that these words should be put in, but it is the law, and as the Declaration has to be made in accordance with that law I should have thought that these words should be put in.
There is another point I should like to allude to. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said last night that the main object—or, at any rate, one of the main objects—of the Government was to see if they could not get a very large majority of opinion in the country to agree with them, 2432 but I am informed that at the present moment there are a very large number of people in this country who are not satisfied with the form of Declaration which the Prime Minister has brought before this House. It is all very well for my hon. Friend behind me to get up and say that no Catholic could possibly take the form of oath which is now proposed. I dare say it may be so. I am not in a position to say whether it is so or not, but a great number of people throughout the length and breadth of the country believe it is possible, and we are not legislating for ourselves, but for the whole of the people of this country, and as the form of Amendment is not open to doubt and can not give offence, I will again ask the Prime Minister what can possibly be the objection to it. It is said that those who are supporting this Amendment are not trusting in the honour of His Majesty the King. With the greatest possible respect to the hon. Member below the Gangway who made that statement there is no foundation for it, we are the last persons to think anything of that kind. We are only asking for this Amendment to carry out the law of the country. That is the whole point, and we believe it will carry out the law of the country without any offence to any single one of His Majesty's subjects. I for one do not see why it should not do it. I want to end as I began by assuring hon. Members that I am perfectly certain that those of us who support this Amendment are as anxious as anybody in this House to make it plain that we do not want to be offensive to the Roman Catholics at all, and from the information which I have I believe that the Roman Catholics would not, as a body, object to this form when they recognise that it is simply in accordance with the law of the land.
§ Mr. VERNEY
I certainly had intended to vote for this Amendment was it not for one fact, and that is that it is practically repudiated by the Roman Catholics. There is no desire to offer the slightest reasonable offence to Roman Catholics, and I utterly repudiate any words which would offend them, and in the Amendment which stands in my name any words which can be properly indicated as offensive I should like myself to withdraw them, and I should be the first to do so. It is, however, almost surprising to hear a Roman Catholic Member get up in this House and say that the real grievance was in the use of the name Roman Catholic. It seems to 2433 me far from being intentionally offensive, and that faith is named because their are many millions of Roman Catholic subjects in the Empire. All other forms of religion may go without being named. Why? Because, comparatively, there are so few British subjects who belong to other faiths other than the Protestant and the Roman Catholic. I should have thought it anything but offensive to the Roman Catholics that their faith should be named in the way in which it has been in this House. I quite agree with those who have said that the tone of this Debate has been on a very high level, and no one on either side has attempted to cast the slightest slur upon the faith which is professed by so many, not only Englishmen, but by so many of the finest minds in the whole of Europe, and not only in this age, but through very many centuries past. I think those of us who have studied at all the effects and influence of the Roman Catholic faith must, at all events, acknowledge its wonderful power over the human race, and those of us who have studied history would not say one single word which would be in any way reasonably offensive to that creed. But there is one thing which strikes me as absolutely essential if we are going to make this Declaration final and effective, and that is that the common people of this country should thoroughly understand what the Declaration means.
Up to this time it has been considered necessary that there should be a repudiation of the chief doctrines of the Roman Catholic faith, not, as I interpret it, that we doubt the honesty and the honour of at all events by far the greater majority of the Sovereigns of this country, still less because any of us doubt the honour
§ of our present Gracious Sovereign the King, but because we wish that the Declaration should be so worded that there should be no doubt whatever in the minds of everybody who reads it as to its meaning in regard to the Roman Catholic religion. It does seem to me that that point is of extreme importance. It is not, as an hon. Member said a few moments ago, for ourselves that we are legislating, but we are legislating for every subject of the King, and for a great number of people who have not had an opportunity of studying the meaning of theological phrases. At all events, however, they understand the English language, and they understand the meaning of the words "repudiate" and "disbelieve," and if you take some of the chief doctrines of the Roman Catholic faith which are best known and considered the most sacred, and put the words of repudiation into the mouth of the Sovereign, our object will be achieved. It seems to me that the words used should be clear and well understood.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)
I think the hon. Member is discussing, or attempting to discuss, the next Amendment on the Paper.
§ Mr. VERNEY
I will not go further on the subject. I will merely say that if the Amendment had been accepted by the Roman Catholic Members of the House I should have been inclined to vote for it.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 108.2437
|Division No. 146.]||AYES.||[8.50 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Brocklehurst, William B.||Cullinan, John|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Bryce, John Annan||Dawes, James Arthur|
|Agnew, George William||Burke, E. Haylland-||Delany, William|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas|
|Allen, Charles Peter||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Devlin, Joseph|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Dillon, John|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Byles, William Pollard||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Doris, William|
|Barclay, Sir Thomas||Cawley, H. T. (Lance. Heywood)||Duffy, William J.|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott||Chapple, Dr William Allen||Edwards, Enoch|
|Barnes, George N.||Clancy, John Joseph||Elibank, Master of|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)||Clough, William||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Elverston, Harold|
|Beale, William Phipson||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Falconer, James|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Fenwick, Charles|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Ferens, Thomas Robinson|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Ffrench, Peter|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Crean, Eugene||Field, William|
|Brigg, Sir John||Crosfield, Arthur H.||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|France, Gerald Ashburner||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Robinson, Sidney|
|Furness, Stephen||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Gibson, Sir James||Puckering MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Gill, Alfred Henry||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Glover, Thomas||M'Callum, John M.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Mallet, Charles Edward||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Greenwood, Granville George||Marks, George Croydon||Schwann, Sir Charles E.|
|Griffith, Ellis John||Meagher, Michael||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Guest, Major||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Gulland, John William||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)||Sheehy, David|
|Hackett, John||Middlebrook, William||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Millar, James Duncan||Shortt, Edward|
|Hancock, John George||Molloy, Michael||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Muldoon, John||Snowden, Philip|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Munro, Robert||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Muspratt, Max||Sutherland, John E.|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Nannettl, Joseph P.||Sutton, John E.|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Neilson, Francis||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Nolan, Joseph||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Norton, Capt. Cecil W.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Hayward, Evan||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Thomas, James Henry (Derby)|
|Hazleton, Richard||Nussey, Sir T. Willans||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)||Nuttall, Harry||Toulmin, George|
|Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Brien, William (Cork)||Twist, Henry|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Henry, Charles S||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Verney, Frederick William|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)||O'Doherty, Philip||Vivian, Henry|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Wadsworth, John|
|Hindle, Frederick George||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Hodge, John||O'Malley, William||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Hogan, Michael||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Shee, James John||Waterlow, David Sydney|
|Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Watt, Henry A.|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Parker, James (Halifax)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Pearce, William||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Isaacs, Sir Rufus||Daniel Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Pointer, Joseph||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Jowett, Frederick William||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Joyce, Michael||Power, Patrick Joseph||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Keating, Matthew||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Kelly, Edward||Pringle, William M. R.||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|King, Joseph (Somerset, North)||Radford, George Heynes||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Lambert, George||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Rainy, Adam Rolland||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)|
|Leach, Charles||Raphael, Herbert H.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Lehmann, Rudolf C.||Reddy, Michael||Wing, Thomas|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Wood. T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Lundon, Thomas||Roberts, Charles H. (Llncoln)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Soares and Mr. Illingworth.|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Adam, Major William A.||Colefax, Henry Arthur||Gilmour, Captain John|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)||Goldman, Charles Sydney|
|Ashley, Wilfred W.||Cory, Sir Clifford John||Gooch, Henry Cubitt|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Grant, J. A.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Gretton, John|
|Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor||Craik, Sir Henry||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)|
|Barnston, Harry||Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Croft, Henry Page||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Dalrymple, Viscount||Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)|
|Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)||Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.|
|Boyton, James||Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)||Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter|
|Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon||Duke, Henry Edward||Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)|
|Carlile, Edward Mildred||Faber, George D. (Clapham)||Horner, Andrew Long|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Fell, Arthur||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Cave, George||Felherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Hume-Williams, William Ellis|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W||Fletcher, John Samuel||Kimber, Sir Henry|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)|
|Clyde, James Avon||Gardner, Ernest||Kyffin-Taylor, G|
|Coates, Major Edward F.||Gibbs, George Abraham||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Llewelyn, Venables||Nield, Herbert||Stewart, Gorshom (Ches., Wirral)|
|Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)||Ormsby-Gore, William||Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Parkes, Ebenezer||Sykes, Alan John|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)||Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)|
|MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Peto, Basil Edward||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Mackinder, Halford J.||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Macmaster, Donald||Primrose Hon. Neil James||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|M'Calmont, Colonel James||Quitter, William Eley C.||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Magnus, Sir Philip||Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan||Ward, A. S. (Hems, Watford)|
|Moore, William||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Rutherford, Watson||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Sanders, Robert Arthur||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Mount, William Arthur||Sanderson, Lancelot||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Newdegate, F. A.||Stanley, Hon. G. F (Preston)|
|Newton, Harry Kottingham||Starkey, John Ralph||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr H. Barrie and Mr. Bridgeman.|
|Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."2438
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 250.2439
|Division No. 147.]||AYES.||[9.0 p.m.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Falle, B. G.||Mount, William Arthur|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fell, Arthur||Munro, R.|
|Baird, J. L.||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Fletcher, J. S.||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Baring, Captain Hon. G.||Gardner, Ernest||Nield, Herbert|
|Barlow, Sir John E.||Gibbs, G. A||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Barnston, Harry||Gibson, Sir James P.||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Gilmour, Captain J.||Primrose, Hon. Neil James|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Quilter, William Eley C.|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)||Goldman, C. S.||Rice, Hon. W.|
|Beale, W. P.||Grant, J. A.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)||Gretton, John||Rutherford, Watson|
|Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Boyton, J.||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Brunskill, G. F.||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hickman, Col. T.||Starkey, John R.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Cave, George||Horner, A. L.||Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirrall)|
|Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbrightsh.)|
|Clay, Captain H. Spender||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Sykes, Alan John|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Kimber, Sir Henry||Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)|
|Coates, Major E. F.||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Colefax, H. A.||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Tryon, George Clement|
|Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)||Llewelyn, Venable,||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent. Mid)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Wiles, Thomas|
|Cripps, Sir C. A.||Mackinder, H. J.||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Croft, H. P.||Macmaster, Donald||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Dairymple, Viscount||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)||Moore, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir W.|
|Duke, H. E.||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.||Collins and Mr. Bridgeman.|
|Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Burke, E. Havlland-||Crosfield, Arthur H.|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Cullinan, J.|
|Agnew, George William||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Dawes, J. A.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)||Delany, William|
|Allen, Charles P||Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Buxton. Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Devlin, Joseph|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Byles, William Pollard||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Dillon, John|
|Barclay, Sir T.||Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Chapple, Dr. W. A.||Doris, W.|
|Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)||Clancy, John Joseph||Duffy, William J.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Clough, William||Edwards, Enoch|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Collins, G. P. (Greenock)||Elibank, Master of|
|Bentham, G. J.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Elverston, H.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Esmonde, Sir Thomas|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Falconer, J.|
|Brady, P. J.||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Brigg, Sir John||Craig, Norman (Kent)||Fenwick, Charles|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Crean, Eugene||Ferens, T. R.|
|Ffrench, Peter||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Field, William||Lundon, T.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|France, G. A.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Furness, Stephen||Lynch, A. A.||Robinson, S.|
|Gelder, Sir W. A.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Gill, A. H.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Glover, Thomas||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Gooch, Henry Cubitt||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||McCallum, John M.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)||M'Curdy, C. A.||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Guest, Major||Mallet, Charles E.||Schwann, Sir C. E.|
|Gulland, John W.||Marks, G. Croydon||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Hackett, J.||Meagher, Michael||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Sheehy, David|
|Hall, Frederick (Normanton)||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Hancock, J. G.||Middlebrook, William||Shortt, Edward|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||Millar, J. D.||Simon, John Allsebrock|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Molloy, M.||Smith, H. B. (Northampton)|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Morpeth, Viscount||Snowden, P.|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Muldoon, John||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Muspratt, M.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Hasiam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Sutton, John E.|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Neilson, Francis||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Nolan, Joseph||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hayward, Evan||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Hazleton, Richard||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Thomas, J. H. (Derby)|
|Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E)||Hussey, Sir Willans||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)||Nuttall, Harry||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Toulmin, George|
|Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Brien, William (Cork)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Henry, Charles S.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Twist, Henry|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Doherty, Philip||Verney, F. W.|
|Hindle, F. G.||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Vivian, Henry|
|Hodge, John||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Hogan, Michael||O'Malley, William||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Shee, James John||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Palmer, Godfrey||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Hughes, S. L.||Parker, James Halifax||Watt, Henry A.|
|Hume-Williams, W. E.||Pearce, William||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Peto, Basil Edward||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Jowett, F. W.||Pointer, Joseph||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Joyce, Michael||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Keating, M.||Power, Patrick Joseph||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Kelly, Edward||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Kilbride, Denis||Pringle, Wiliam M. R.||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)|
|King, J. (Somerset, N.)||Radford, G. H.||Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Lambert, George||Rattan, Peter Wilson||Wing, Thomas|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Rainy, A. Rolland||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Raphael, Herbert H.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Leach, Charles||Reddy. M.|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Soares and Mr. Illingworth.|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Lewis, John Herbert|
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment, I understand, is ruled out by the decision at which we have just arrived. I understand that the Committee desire to have a Debate on the question whether the old Declaration with verbal amendments would be the alternative to the one proposed in the Bill. I notice an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) which raises that point, and I would suggest, if it is 2440 agreeable to hon. Members of the Committee, that a short Debate might be allowed on that.
§ Captain CRAIG
I may point out, on a point of order, that the next Amendment to the Amendment just dealt with which stands in my name does deal with this particular point, and covers the first point of the right hon. Gentleman's longer Amendment. I think it was understood, and the right hon. Gentleman agreed, that we might have a Debate on this par- 2441 ticular point, and I respectfully say that the Amendment of mine is on one of the important points upon which so much depends.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
On a point of Order. It is quite true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that we are on both sides quite agreed that there should be an opportunity for discussing, I think he said, two or three points. One of them has been discussed just now on the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me. There still remains the question of the particular doctrines to be singled out for repudiation, which is the question, I think, raised by the next Amendment, and there is the further question as to what I may call reservation, equivocation, or dispensation forming part of the Declaration. If we can come to an agreement to have those two points settled by discussion of selected Amendments, I think it does not much matter which particular ones are taken as subjects of discussion.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
There are several broad points to be discussed, and one of them undoubtedly is in the first part both of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Verney) and the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind (Captain Craig), namely, the transubstantiation question. We undoubtedly should like a discussion on that. We should also like a discussion on the next point, not so much upon whether that particular doctrine should be referred to specifically as whether the words "superstitious and idolatrous" should be taken out and the words "contrary to my belief" substituted. That raises quite a distinct and separate point, and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said, these, with the question of reservation, are very large points on which we should like discussion.
§ Mr. VERNEY
On a point of Order. I would call your attention to the fact that in my Amendment there is another point made, the question of temporal supremacy, which many of us think perhaps looms larger than anything else, and which Members of this House would like to see discussed and properly considered.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I would respectfully submit, before the Amendment dealing with transubstantiation is taken, you and the House should look at the Statute of the first of Edward VI of England.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is reflecting both on the Chair and on the decision which has been come to.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
I never move the closure until I have satisfied myself that the discussion has, in fact, been exhausted. Since I have been Leader of the House I have always heard both sides; I have been very slow in moving the closure, and I never do it, I think, without a considerable amount of reason.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
On the various points of Order I would suggest that the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised the specific question, and although the Debate could not cover the whole ground covered by the last Amendment, I should be inclined to allow it with the repudiation of its specific doctrine.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
On points not covered by the last decision of the House the hon. and gallant Gentleman may move the whole of his Amendment.
§ Captain CRAIG
I understand there was to be a separate discussion as to "superstitious and idolatrous" later on.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
We do not propose to discuss the doctrinal matter on what follows about invocation and adoration of the Virgin Mary, as I understand there are some words in the Clause in the present Declaration dealing with that matter which are specially objected to by hon. Members below the Gangway. If we took the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend as a whole, would it have the effect of excluding the discussion of other Amendments to leave out the words "superstitious and idolatrous" and insert "contrary to the Protestant religion"?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
There is to be a discussion on these two matters with the separate Declarations taken together.
§ Captain CRAIG
I beg to move, after "I," at the beginning of the Schedule, to insert the words "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, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are repugnant to me and against my religious belief, and that."
In moving this, according to the ruling from the Chair, as it appears on the Paper, I would like to say, first of all, that since I addressed the full House on the First Reading of this Bill, I have taken particular pains to ascertain in various parts of the country, and in town here, whether it was possible in any way to substitute for the words of the old Declaration taken by the Crown another form of words. I have consulted some old Parliamentary barristers, and I asked them what new Declaration could be drafted that would not hurt the susceptibilities of our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and in every instance I was told by those to whom I put the problem that it was practically impossible to secure the object by altering the terms of the Declaration, excepting with regard to the two or three words "superstitious and idolatrous." It will be seen I have taken the precaution, at all events, of consulting those learned in the law in order to be able, if possible, to draft something which would be acceptable to those who desire a change of some sort, and at the same time not in the slightest degree to weaken the old form of Declaration, which has stood us in such 2444 good stead for a couple of hundred years. Every one of them said it was impossible to do it. In the course of these discussions, to which I have listened carefully, in my opinion not one argument has been advanced in any quarter of the House, no substantial argument, at all events, for making the slightest alteration in the old Declaration. I have listened to hon. Members and right hon. Members on both sides, and I may say that my attitude would be exactly the same, no matter which party in power proposed to alter this Oath. The Chief Secretary for Ireland made a speech last night on the subject. I have heard a great many of his speeches, and after I heard that which he delivered last night I was more strongly than ever impressed by the necessity of maintaining the old Declaration. In fact, from what the right hon. Gentleman said one would have actually thought he was advocating the maintenance of the old Declaration. All his arguments went to strengthen the view which some of us hold upon the matter. The hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) especially complimented the House on the tolerance with which they approached this subject. I do not think he was quite sincere in that—[HON. MEMBERS "Oh, oh!"]—because he knows perfectly well that there is not one Member from Ulster, not an Orangeman in Ireland, who desires in the slightest degree to interfere with the Roman Catholic faith. We desire to view the question in a spirit of tolerance, but as far as Protestants are concerned, the whole quarrel in this matter arises out of the temporal power claimed by the Roman Catholic Church, and it is with the very object of meeting that claim that we insist on the strongest Declaration, in order to prevent the spread of Roman Catholic temporal power. I should like to quote a small article which puts this matter in narrow compass, as to why the Roman Catholic Church is anxious to maintain the old form. It is written by a Roman Catholic who is vice-president of St. Edmund's Roman Catholic College. He says:—When the last vestiges of disabilities are removed, and the restrictions on the Sovereign and those in direct line of descent are abolished, we shall enter upon one full inheritance of freedom.I do not say that particular argument has any great weight with Roman Catholics, but everywhere you go, and to whatever literature on this subject you refer, you find that Roman Catholics hold unalterably to the opinion which was held 200 years ago, when this Oath was 2445 framed, and they still claim this temporal power in England, just as in Italy, Spain, or any other Roman Catholic country. First of all I ask this question, Will any Roman Catholic in the House rise up in his place and say that the Roman Catholic Church has ceased to make its temporal claim just as it was made 200 years ago? Failing an answer to that, we say that any other form of Oath, such as is suggested by the Prime Minister, will not secure what we desire. I need hardly say that I am not referring to the present Sovereign, or to any Sovereign in particular. But we have handed down to us this trust, a trust which has been maintained so far faithfully by the Protestants of this country, and, indeed, the most grave reasons should be given before any step is taken to alter it. The Chief Secretary last night said a man in the street might jump up and say, "I am a Protestant."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the discussion must be limited to the two forms of Declaration which it is agreed are to be debated.
§ Captain CRAIG
What I wish to point out is that it is of no use the Sovereign simply saying, "I am a Protestant," because in our opinion the Crown in future might possibly devolve on somebody who would be quite ready to take the Declaration, and at the same time be hand-in-glove with the Roman Catholic Church. That is the whole matter in a nutshell. By simply saying, as we propose to do here, that the Crown is not in agreement with those doctrines, leaving out the words idolatrous "and" "superstitious," it seems to me that we make a positive certainty of the change in the direction suggested by this new Bill. Without that we are running very grave risk indeed.
The reason I have picked out these two particular parts, that as to transubstantiation, and that as to the invocation and adoration of the Virgin Mary, is because we know that no form of dispensation can be given by any authority whatever, by the Church of Rome, or the Pope himself, to excuse any person for having taken that particular form of cath. I do not quite agree with the view of the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy), because I have got as much literature here as would bury him on the subject of what the Pope can give a dispensation for. If his own writers are to 2446 be believed he can readily give a dispensation if what is aimed at is for the good of Holy Mother Church, as it is called, but he cannot give it in this particular instance where these two doctrines are picked out and fixed upon, that is the two I have referred to here. No Roman Catholic could take that oath and remain a Roman Catholic; it is that particular point which makes us positively safe and secure. As the Chief Secretary said last night, people in the country do not perhaps understand the various forms which secure the Protestant Succession, but they do surely understand that we are proposing to tamper with these two particular Oaths, and that we are taking them off the Statute Book. The issue is a perfectly simple one, and I am very pleased to be in a position to get a vote of the House upon it, because I fear not only Roman Catholics, but others of the Anglican Church who are gradually approximating to a point in which they also will believe in this thing. Therefore, this makes it perfectly sure that in any High Church, in any Anglican Church having reached a state in which it is the accepted belief of their Church that these doctrines are the same as those of the Roman Catholics at the present time, this also debars the Crown to any person who thinks so. I hope there will be some Members bold enough to stick up for the old form and go into the Lobby with us for what has been good enough for two hundred years for our forefathers, and what is perfectly safe for this generation and for the future, instead of this milk and water and wretched substitute which has been brought forward by the Government.
It is with very considerable reluctance I find myself on this point not in agreement with hon. Gentlemen whose views I usually share in political questions and with whom I am in the habit of voting. I do, however, venture to submit in this matter what is really raised by this Amendment is the question whether on this Declaration, on a change in favour of which this House has decided by a very large majority, that change should take the form of a simple avowal of Protestant faith, or whether there should be combined with that avowal a repudiation of certain Roman Catholic doctrines, the form of which would cause real pain to many Roman Catholics here and throughout the King's Dominions. That is the question at issue, and speaking as a member of the Church of England, and as a 2447 Conservative, I am bound to say that I believe that the truest cause of Christianity, in any of its forms, will be served by the simple form of Declaration, which merely avows Protestantism in the simplest terms that can be used. I would venture with all deference to point out to hon. Members who take a different view, and I know a very large number of people in the country feel very strongly on this question, that it is perfectly obvious that this avowal of Protestantism does necessarily include, I was going to say to any sane man, but certainly to any honourable man, a repudiation of those other doctrines. That being so, I think there is every reason why this Committee should decide in favour of the more moderate and the simpler form of Declaration, the mere avowal, which will have this advantage, that it will on the whole meet the sentiments of a larger portion of His Majesty's subjects than any other form of declaration which could be adopted. I venture to say if we follow this course we shall be taking what I regard as a step forward in the path of civilisation, we shall be promoting that charity which it is the boast of both sections of Christianity to promote, and we shall be doing something which will meet and satisfy the sentiment of many conscientious and loyal subjects of His Majesty now resident within the British Empire.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I should like to say one or two words on this point, because, as I understand your ruling, Sir, you have decided that what I may call a capital question shall be selected for Debate so that our Friends above the Gangway, whose convictions I sincerely respect, though I entirely differ from them, that they may have the opportunity of debating this question from what is called the ultra-Protestant point of view. The hon. and gallant Member who has moved this Amendment, and who, if he will allow me to say so, and all his Friends I regard with entire esteem, and with nothing in the nature of what I may call political or national or racial feeling—the hon. and gallant Member, if he will allow me to say so, I think has spent too much of his life on the battlefield to be entirely competent to deal with this question. It is a question of enormous difficulty, even from the Protestant point of view, and if I take it from the international point of view I am quite sure that his researches have not gone sufficiently far to entitle him 2448 to declare himself a maestro on the subject. He first said that this Declaration had served our forefathers in good stead. Whose forefathers? If he is speaking of himself as an Irishman, and I am sure he is, I assert that this Declaration was never taken by the King of Ireland in right of his Irish Crown. No doubt when you made the English Monarch King of Ireland, you may say that he took it in respect of his Irish Crown. I deny it. It is a matter that must be considered when you are dealing with the question of the Crown of these Realms. Remember what the Scotch did. They at one time, in the reign of Queen Anne, die-severed the Crown of Scotland from the Crown of England, unless they got certain concessions; thereby asserting that the Scotch were entitled, as of right by their Parliament, to declare the Crown of Scotland to go, in a sense, antagonistic to the Succession to the Crown of England. That was after the Bill of Rights. That is the important point.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is now dealing with a question which is not open on this Amendment. We are dealing here with the repudiation of two doctrines.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I am coming to the point I was about to make. I propose to show that this is a Declaration which the hon. Gentleman himself (Captain Craig) could not take. I question whether any man above the Gangway would take the Declaration. I have watched quietly through the whole of the proceedings, and there is not a single Member of the Conservative party who has declared that he himself would, upon his own honour and conscience, take the Declaration.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
The King must be a Member of the Church of England. That is admitted. He is bound to be a Member of the Church of England in accordance with the Bill of Rights. What is the doctrine of the Church of England? It is settled by law, by 1 Edward VI., and 1 Edward VI. remains the law of England and the law of Protestant England. I do not know to which Communion of the Protestant faith the hon. Member belongs: it is not for me to inquire. But you must remember that the King of England is by law a member of the Church 2449 of England. In England, at all events, he has to be a member of the Church of England, and I am dealing with this matter from the English point of view. The awful words of the Act of Edward VI. seem to me to be entirely forgotten by hon. Members. It is natural that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, being a Scottish Member, should not be acquainted with the English Statutes in this behalf. The Committee will pardon me for recalling what those words declare to be the faith of the Church of England. Though it is painful to have to read them in a lay and mundane Assembly, yet it is essential that those who declare themselves to be in favour of this Amendment should be taught what the doctrines of the Church of England are. I am about to read from the Act of] 547, which has never been repealed, which is the law of the land, which binds every communicant of the Church of England, which binds every English clergyman and every English, bishop, and which bind the English King. I will omit the preamble:—Yet considereth and perceiveth that in a multitude all be not on that sort, that reason and the knowledge of their duties can move them from offence, but many which had need have some bridle of fear, and that the same be men most contentious and arrogant for the most part, or else most blind and ignorant: By the means of which sort of men many things well anti godly instituted, and to the edification of many, he perverted and abused, and turned to their own and others great loss and hindrance, and sometime to extreme destruction: The which doth appear in nothing more or sooner than in matters of religion and in the great and high mysteries thereof, as in the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar, and, in Scripture, the Supper and Table of the Lord, the Communion and partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ: Which Sacrament was instituted by no less Author than of our Saviour, both God and Man, when at His last Supper amongst His Apostles He did take the bread into His holy hands, and did say, 'Take you and eat, this is My Body, which is given and broken for you.' And taking up the chalice or cup, did give thanks, and say, 'This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins"—and so on, taking the words of Scripture. Then it goes on to provide for those "blind and ignorant" persons of whom, perhaps, some are not absent from this House:—That whatsoever person or persons, from and after the 1st day of May next Coming, shall deprave, despise or contemn the most blessed Sacrament, in contempt thereof, by any contemptuous word, or by any words of depraving, despising or reviling; or what person or persons shall advisedly in any other wise contemn, despise or revile the said most blessed Sacrament. … he or they shall suffer imprisonment of his or their bodies, and make fine and ransom at the King's will and pleasure.That prescribes the law of the land for England and for Orangemen. Remember the time when this Declaration was made. 2450 It was a time of great strife and commotion. We are now in a time of learning and calm. We are in a time when the Dominions of the King are spread far and wide, and when this Parliament has renounced the right to legislate for any Colony or district outside the United Kingdom. You cannot, legislate in this House for Australia; you have renounced the right. You do not legislate in this House for Canada; you have renounced the right. You do not legislate any longer in this House for Africa; you have renounced the right. Yet, having renounced dominion over these different places, in the teeth of your own Statute, which is in existence, and at a time when the bishops of your Church in Australia are practically bound by the Statute still, the hon. and gallant Member, with, I assume, an entire unacquaintance with what is the Statute law governing a member of the Church of England, proposes this Amendment by which the King is to say contrary to the Statute, that he does believe that in the Sacrament of the Last Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements. I know what will be said. The casuist may say that they were referring to consubstantiation and not to transubstantiation. Will any man tell me that a judge would not be entitled to pronounce that the words I have read cover transubstantiation equally with consubstantiation. It is perfectly plain. No lawyer would assert differently. Therefore I say, and say it with confidence, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in suggesting that the King of this realm is debarred by Statute, or should be debarred by Statute, from a Declaration in favour of transubstantiation, is contravening the law as laid down for the last 300 years. One other remark, and my last. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not know the Statutes of the realm of which he is so proud, it would, of course, be too much to expect that he would know anything of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Well, the humblest Catholic in this House is as good a Catholic as the Pope. There is no difference. The humblest Catholic that says his rosary in Ireland is as well entitled to know what are the doctrines of the Catholic Church as all the Popes and Cardinals that ever lived. It is an insult to these humble Catholics—of course, you can insult the Pope in Porta-down if you like; that is a matter of your own amusement—but it is an insult to say that the Pope or any dignitary can give any dispensation, release, or indulgence 2451 from any form of lying, blasphemy, perjury, or any other sin. These are the delusions upon which you have fed for hundreds of years. But when you take into your Armies Catholics, when you take into your Navies Catholics, when you make Catholics Privy Councillors and Governors, it does not occur to you at the same time to question their honour, their dignity, and their truth. Yet you intend to level these insults at your own King who is a Protestant. What a conception you must have of Protestantism! What a conception you must have of your own King! Why, in this House you are obliged to accept the word of any hon. Gentleman, even of an Irish Member, even of a Labour Member. But the whole process of this evening's Debate has gone upon this: there is only one man on earth that a loyal Orangeman would not trust, and that is his own King!
§ Captain CRAIG
If I may interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would just like to give that an emphatic denial. I thought I made it very clear to-night that I was speaking in the abstract, and as regards the Crown in general, and that I was not referring to any particular King at all. I do not want the hon. and learned Gentleman to misconstrue what I said. There is no more loyal body in the whole Empire than the Orangemen.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I do not in the least intend to be offensive to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in this matter, but he must allow us poor Catholics, who have been under the harrow for three centuries, a little amusement at him and his Friends. For the first time in three centuries you are relieving your King—I would not call it an obligation—of making a most humiliating and offensive Declaration from his own point of view. You must allow us some little freedom, when you charge our Pope—that is, charge ourselves—for there is no difference between the Pope and the humblest Catholic as far as doctrine is concerned. We know what the Pope can do just as well as the Pope knows what he can do. I will not go further, but the suggestions contained in this Amendment are contrary to Catholic doctrine, are false to Catholic doctrine, and are absurd from every point of view. We have been taught if there was one thing of all others that Protestants were proud of it is what is called the right of private judgment. John Mitchell, a well-known Irishman of long ago termed it "the right of private 2452 stupidity." I will not label it by that offensive expression. But now we Catholics this Session are being taught by two Acts of Parliament, one of which I believe is already law, the Regency Bill, and now by this Bill as regards the King, that there are two persons in Great Britain to whom Protestants absolutely decline to concede the Prostestant right of private judgment. Those persons are no less than the King and Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. These are the only people you would not trust. You propose to tie them up in a black knot, and you are not satisfied—at any rate, the Government are not satisfied—with the Declaration. It is not enough for the King to say, "I am a true and faithful Protestant." He must declare in addition, not a disbelief in Mahomedanism, Buddhism, or any other religion or person connected with religion, but that the great doctrine of the right of private judgment must, as regards the King, be put on one side. You compel him, by this Amendment, to deny doctrines made Statutory by the King's own laws in the time of Edward VI.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his speech, has put forward a proposition which I dispute absolutely and entirely. I say that at once, because while it is rather a difficult thing to go into questions of doctrinal theology in this House—it is not the place for those questions—the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman makes it necessary for me at once to say that I do not accept in the slightest degree his reading of the Statute of Edward VI. The hon. and learned Gentleman has cited that Statute before now. I remember him reading it in the House once before. He knows what our answer will be: that to the doctrine of transubstantiation that Statute does not refer at all. I will prove that, and at once. The hon. and learned Gentleman says: "It is no use singling out the doctrine of transubstantiation and taking that as a decisive test, because the doctrine of transubstantiation is not a distinctive test, it is a doctrine which may be admissible, and," he says, "it is actually by Statute imposed upon the Church of England." My answer to that is that neither upon the Church of England nor upon the Presbyterian Church is the doctrine of transubstantiation imposed. I go further; I say that the foundations of the doctrines of these churches essentially repudiates transubstantiation in any form. 2453 Here is my authority. As regards the Church of England my authority is the 28th of the Articles of Religion.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
They are the general Articles of the Church. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless concede this, that at the time these Articles were framed it is highly improbable that the framers would have any intention of expressly flying in the face of the Statute to which he referred. The Article reads:—Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but it is repugnant to the plain words of Holy Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and bath given occasion to many superstitions.That is what the Church of England says. Now what about the Presbyterian and Nonconformist Church? Here is the 29th Chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith:—That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the Sacrament; and hath been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea of gross idolatories.I never like to refer in this House in explicit terms of repudiation, which would give offence to the susceptibilities of other hon. Members, but the action of the hon. Member and learned gentleman who has just sat down for the second time, citing the Statute of Edward VI., made it necessary for me to make those two references from statements of authority which are the foundation of the Church of England and the Presbyterian Churches in this country, and according to the plain meaning of the English language both these repudiate precisely anything in the nature of transubstantiation. The hon. and learned Member has dogmatised to some extent about the Protestant religion. I will not retaliate by attempting to dogmatise about a religion which I do not practise myself. I think it is always wearisome for one to dogmatise about one's own religion, but to dogmatise about someone else's religion is wearisome both to oneself and to those who have to listen.
There is good ground, if I have portions of the canon law of the faith to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, for believing that in the past, whatever may be the case in the present day, high dignitaries of his Church have maintained the power in the head of the Church of releasing by dispensation both from vows and 2454 oaths. They have also maintained quite explicitly that they could not give a dispensation against anything which denounces the articles of their faith. That is the real reason why my hon. Friend and I am anxious to secure that there shall be repudiation of one at least of the particular doctrines of the faith which are comprehended in the articles of that faith. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a rather unfair attack upon us. He has charged us with want of belief in the faith of our King. I had occasion to say on a former occasion, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, we were arguing in point of fact not with any applicability to any particular individual, but to all who come under the description of abstract sovereignty as a whole. I say therefore, to the hon. Gentleman, what a King has done in the past a King may do in the future, and therefore we are bound to take that case into consideration. I hope the hon. Gentleman will at least acquit us of any charge of commenting upon any possible action of the present occupant of this Throne, or any possible occupant of the Throne so far as we can see at present. We are bound to provide against contingency, and we are doing our best to keep out the name of the Sovereign, and I think it is a little unfair that the hon. Gentleman should bring against us such charges as he has brought.
§ Mr. MACKINDER
I have reason to know that in expressing the view which I propose to express I am stating the views of a great number of people and of a very considerable majority of my Constituents. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh said a short time ago that no question was more pressed upon him at the General Election than this question. The Prime Minister said he was not pressed at all on this matter, and therefore I think it is pertinent for me to say that in my Constituency in Glasgow there was no question upon which I was more sincerely pressed than upon the question of the Royal Declaration.
It is very remarkable that that should have been the case, for there was no obvious reason for urgency for the question at that time. There is complete evidence that, so far at any rate as certain parts of Scotland are concerned, the question was before the electorate at the time of the General Election, and upon it we who represent such constituencies speak with something of the strength of a mandate. This demand for including specific 2455 doctrines in the Declaration is based, I frankly admit, upon distrust. There is very prevalent distrust, and I ask hon. Members to look at the matter from the point of view of those who distrust, and not merely from the point of view of the Sovereign on whom the Declaration is imposed. We have heard a great deal from the point of view of the Sovereign who is called upon to take this Declaration. We heard it suggested that we are throwing upon him an obvious indication of distrust, but I venture to point out it would be a far more serious thing if any large number of the subjects of that Sovereign felt distrust in the position he might take up. My hon. Friend who spoke last, spoke of not having to legislate for the present King or for any special tenant of the Throne, but for a Sovereign who might come to the Throne. Obviously if you once dispense with the safeguard that has come down to us from history you would find it impossible at the moment when it was necessary to avail yourself of that safeguard to reintroduce it. Therefore we are bound to consider possible eventualities. Speaking for those whom I represent I feel certain they would take the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Louth as reinforcing the view which they hold of the necessity of the repudiation of specific doctrines. The hon. and learned Member read what he called a fundamental Statute governing the Church of England, and he interpreted it in the sense that at any rate the large number of Presbyterians in Scotland believed, and in the sense that some of the members of the Church of England would interpret it. In other words, he showed that from outside the Church of England the same meaning was attached to the words that many of those whom I represent believe that the High Church party attach to those words. I can only say from the speech he has made that his words will be taken as reinforcing the opinion held by Presbyterians and other strong Protestants as to the necessity of not trusting to any vague form of words. It is because I feel it is essential that you should not only have no real ground for mistrust, but that you should not have any large body of people in the country liable to mistrust that I put forward this view. The point has been urged that we are repudiating the doctrines of one Church only. I confess myself that I would not have chosen this particular form of words for this particular purpose. I 2456 have an Amendment down which comes under the same category as the one we are now discussing, on page 47 of the Amendment Paper, which I believe would accomplish the same end without doing injury to the tender feelings of those who hold Catholic views. No doubt it would have been legislation by reference, but if ever legislation by reference was allowable it should be on a problem of this kind. It is the principle that is in question and is raised by this Amendment, although myself I would have chosen other words and other methods of putting the point. The question has been asked, Why should you repudiate the particular doctrines of this particular Church? Simply because in the repudiation of those doctrines you are really seeking a political end. It is no use talking to us of Mahomedanism and Buddhism and other creeds of the world, because this is a historical question. All the forms of faith which are grouped under the word "Protestant" in this country are in one form or another derived from the Church of the West of Europe in the Middle Ages, and it is because that Church has never forsaken her claims that it is felt to be necessary to maintain the repudiation of those claims. There being deep distrust on the part of those I represent, even as against the Church of England, it is felt that there is no alternative but to press for the repudiation of definite doctrines. You cannot substitute any new form which will have the same effect.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
This is the first time I have had an opportunity of taking part in this Debate, and I approach the question as one totally unpledged by any electioneering promises, and as one who has found the greatest difficulty in deciding which is the right way to vote on this very difficult question. I have followed the Debate with some care, and I voted for the Second Reading of this Bill because I felt if I voted against it I should have declared myself opposed to any change whatever in the Declaration. I confess that I find myself in a difficulty on the Committee stage by the very stiff action which the Government have adopted with regard to any Amendments on this question. As far as I can understand the arguments of the Debate yesterday they all tend to prove, if they proved anything at all, that the Declaration is not necessary. The Prune Minister said himself that he is not able to dispense with the Declaration because the people of this country require it, 2457 and because it would be misunderstood if the Declaration was dispensed with altogether. Therefore we are in the position that we have got to decide that there shall be a Declaration, and what form the Declaration shall take. It appears to me that if we are to have a Declaration which is to be reassuring to the public, as the Prime Minister seems to think, it should be perfectly plain and clear, and should declare either for some great principle or doctrine or against it. The Government have thought fit to give way to the pressure of some of those who sit behind them, and they have watered down the original form of the Declaration. In my opinion, a Declaration in favour of any particular faith is less offensive than a Declaration against any faith. I confess that I should have preferred a Declaration in favour of the faith for which the King is bound by law to belong. That would have been a very simple thing and it would have caused no offence, and in my opinion would have been a better solution of this question. That being out of the question, we have now to decide whether the Declaration shall take the very nebulous form which it possesses now or whether it shall be in the form of a distinct repudiation of certain doctrines with which those of us who call ourselves Protestants disagree. I for one must confess that I think this Declaration should be clear and should therefore repudiate the doctrine which it is really intended to repudiate. A great deal has been said about the offensive words, but except the words "superstitious and idolatrous" I can find nothing offensive in the old Declaration. I cannot see anything offensive in the statement of those who believe in one particular faith that they disbelieve in any other particular faith on certain definite points. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will not regard me as an advanced or bigoted Protestant. We have fought together for religious liberty on educational questions many a time, and a few years ago we had to fight against the present Chief Secretary, who last night posed as an apostle of tolerance, and who then said:—Minorities must suffer.Therefore, I am sure they will acquit me of any desire whatever to take an offensive line if I say I think this should be made more clear than it is. Tolerance to my mind does not rest on trying to deceive people as to what your own views are, but in stating your own views and in understanding the views of those who differ 2458 with them and allowing them full opportunity to indulge in their views in return for the liberty which you expect for your own. I think it far better to speak plainly and be tolerant than to try and invent a form of words which apparently is intended to deceive somebody who may disagree with you. We are told these words, "a faithful Protestant," are really meant to convey that the Monarch of this country is a believer in the doctrines of the Church of England as by law established, and a disbeliever in doctrines such as those which are mentioned in the Amendment now under consideration. If that is so, then what is the harm of saying so plainly? If it is to be, as the Prime Minister seemed to suggest, a Declaration for the benefit of the public, I venture to think the public would prefer it to be shed of any offensive words, but perfectly clear and plain, either for the doctrines in which the King is supposed to stand, or against the doctrines from which, not for religious reasons but for reasons of public policy, we wish to dissociate ourselves.
§ Mr. RUNCIMAN
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has delivered a speech which would be more appropriate to the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister a little later down on the Paper, but the point we have been discussing for nearly an hour really bears on the kernel of the whole principle of this Bill. The suggestion has been made that the Declaration should be denunciatory and repudiate some of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. In so far as repudiation is concerned, I would point out to those who wish to maintain the Protestant Succession, what ought to be clear after the Second Reading Debate, that this Declaration has no value and cannot bind. The security for the Protestant Succession is not to be found in a Declaration at all, but in the enactments. The safety of the Protestant Succession would no more be secured if the Sovereign every day in his life were to publicly and solemnly make the denunciatory Declaration. The Declaration may be a comfort to a great many of the hon. Member's Friends, and I would not wish to deprive them of any comfort it may afford them, but I assert there is no more suitable time than the King's Coronation for the Sovereign to solemnly announce to the whole world the Protestant character of the Throne. The whole of the arguments which have been used to-night were fairly summarised in one respect by the hon. and 2459 learned Member for Louth (Mr. Timothy Healy) when he said the only reason put forward for asking for a denunciatory Declaration was that the Sovereign, in the abstract could not be trusted, and that, having made the Declaration, he might prove deceptive, unless the nation was secured against repudiation of Protestantism by his having put himself completely out of court with the Church of Rome. But such a thing is beyond all the realms of reason. The truth is the Sovereign is secured to the Protestant faith so long as the enactments are sufficient for that purpose. The reason why the Declaration is being amended is apparent to the whole House—even to the hon. Members from the North of Ireland. It is that we wish to remove from the Declaration those portions which are really offensive, not only to Nationalist Members, but to a very large number of our fellow-subjects in other parts of the Empire. Hon. Members talk of this matter as if it only concerned the South and West of Ireland. Let me remind them that there are far more Catholics in the Dominion of Canada than there are in the United Kingdom. The form of the Declaration has given offence in Canada, and no one can wonder at it. All of us who hold to special forms of religion would be grossly insulted if our doctrines were gibbeted in the same way. We want to relieve our fellow-subjects from that strain on their feelings, and therefore we are proposing a new form of Declaration. Nothing which has been said in these Debates has shown that any greater security is obtained by denouncing these doctrines as proposed in the Amendment which we cannot accept. Let the committee adopt the more affirmative form suggested by the Government.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
The Amendment before the Committee does not contain any denunciation of any doctrine. It declares simply that the Sovereign believes, "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, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are repugnant to me and against my religious belief." I confess I cannot see how anybody can take exception to that, particularly after the speeches yes- 2460 terday of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, as, according to their view, the use of the term "faithful Protestant" involves equally the denunciation and repudiation of those doctrines. When it is said that what is objected to is the selection of the Roman Catholic religion for special treatment, the same argument would apply, not only to the Declaration, but also to the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, because in both of those that religion is selected for special treatment. [An HON. MEMBER: "It does not apply to Ireland."] I am speaking mainly for those on this side of the Channel, and if that argument is sound at all for abolishing the Declaration it is just as sound for a radical change in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. I confess I am amazed at the argument put forward that when we are asking for a Declaration of this kind it involves a want of confidence in the word of the Sovereign, as the whole force of the Declaration is because we believe in the word of the Sovereign so far as we are dealing with these three matters—transubstantiation, the invocation or adoration of saints, and the Mass. Nothing more is asked for than the word of the Sovereign, and we are content to take his word. The truth of the matter is this, that we are now recognising what the position involved in this alteration of the Declaration means. It means that from this side of the House below the Gangway we are now told that the Church of England possesses as one of its doctrines the doctrine of transubstantiation and you are also compelled to say that we do not want the Sovereign to say he does not believe in transubstantiation, in the invocation and the adoration of the Saints, and in the mass. I think that will startle a great many people in this country. There are those who say they do not want any such Declaration from the Sovereign, and let me remind the Committee that the reason why we have the day after the Second Reading been engaged in considering these Amendments instead of having time to think over them is because the apologists of the Government say—although I do not know that they say it themselves—"we want this thing hurried through before the country has had time to think over it." They do not want, it is said, to discuss the matter because they see the discussion would be inconvenient and there would be a great rousing of public opinion upon it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I carefully said that I did not know that any Member of the 2461 Government had said it; but is it, not a fact that their apologists in the Press have said it, and that the leading organs which support them have put that forward as a reason why this matter should be hurried forward, because you are afraid to have a discussion in the country for fear that the volume of public opinion might be such that you would not be able to carry the Bill——
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
I accept your ruling, Sir, and will only say this, that the principles which have led to the repudiation and the refusal to accept this Amendment are akin to those which led to the present form of the Declaration. For my part I cannot understand how many Gentlemen opposite, who, I suppose, are going into the Lobby against the Amendment, will be able to meet their constituents, and say, "We sat in the House of Commons, we heard the discussion, and we voted that we were not willing to put it upon the Sovereign of these lands that he should say he was against transubstantiation, against the invocation of the Saints, and against the Mass." I hope one can say all that. I say it in all seriousness, without in the least desiring to offend the sympathies of any of my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. I differ from them toto cœlo in these matters, just as I know they differ from me. They can express their views, and I hope I can mine, without any offence, and I shall vote in favour of the Amendment with a clear conscience. and I believe that in so doing I am representing the views of the vast majority of my Constituents.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I oppose this Amendment as strongly as it has been supported by the right hon. Gentleman, because I think any denunciation of purely theological doctrines is ridiculous unless you define those doctrines. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should have launched forth into such violent invective against transubstantiation without telling us what transubstantiation really is. That applies to the other doctrines in this Amendment. To show how ridiculous it is to have any specific denunciation of purely theological doctrine we have but to look at the old form of the Declaration, where it began in denouncing transubstantiation, and then in that Declaration the Sovereign was made 2462 to say that he understood every word and every part of the Declaration as it is commonly used by English Protestants. What is the English Protestant's idea of transubstantiation? I contend that it is fundamentally different from the idea of transubstantiation as defined either in the thirteenth century or by St. Thomas Aquinas. I do not want to go into the whole gamut of mediæval philosophy, but it is absolutely necessary when you are carrying invective against a particular doctrine that you should know substantially what the doctrine is. This Amendment does not denounce the Mass, it denounces the sacrifice of the Mass. I believe a few English Protestants believe in the sacrifice of the Mass. I do not personally, but I know some faithful members of the Church of England, in communion with the Church of England, who believe in it. In the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. you had "the Holy Communion in English, the revised Protestant Liturgy, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass." That is why I say it is singularly absurd to denounce particular doctrines without defining them. If the House accepts the Prime Minister's Amendment precisely the same difficulty will occur. What is the definition of a Protestant? And the whole of this discussion, after all, is a discussion of the definition of words, and that is why we have had a very long and a very difficult discussion. I oppose this Amendment strongly because it is a denunciation of specific theological doctrines without defining those theological doctrines and stating what they mean in plain words as commonly understood by Protestants.
§ Mr. C. CRAIG
The logic of the hon. Member (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) holds good not only against this Amendment, but against the whole Bill. He says his reason for voting against this Amendment is that it is foolish to condemn a doctrine unless you define what that doctrine is. The sacrifice of the Mass and transubstantiation are doctrines of which I think we have all a less hazy idea than we have of the Prime Minister's expression "faithful Protestant." Therefore the hon. Member must take his choice of the lesser of two evils. I think the House will agree with me that they ought to repudiate the doctrines of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass. There is a certain amount of certainty about that, but I venture to repeat for about the tenth time in these Debates that nobody either in 2463 this House or anywhere else can define what a faithful Protestant is. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, in answer to an interruption of my hon. Friend, said it was perfectly well known why the Government was having a Declaration at all. He said it was to give some comfort to persons like my hon. Friend and myself who thought a Declaration of some sort was necessary. He said that in one breath, thereby meaning in reality that there was no necessity for a Declaration at all. In the next breath he told us that there was no time when it was more necessary, solemn, and impressive than the time when the King
§ was crowned that he should state once and for all that he was a Protestant and a believer in the Protestant religion. A moment later the right hon. Gentleman informed us that the Declaration was only binding on the Sovereign at the time he made it. If that is so—and I admit that it is so, and that he can go back on the Declaration at any time—it proves what I have said, that it is absurd for the Government to propose a ridiculous Declaration like this when they believe it is useless and in no way called for.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 291.2465
|Division No. 148.]||AYES.||[10.45 p.m.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Armitage, Robert||Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)||Mount, William Arthur|
|Bagot, Captain J.||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)||Munro, Robert|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gilmour, Captain John||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott||Grant, J. A.||Primrose, Hon. Neil James|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)||Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)||Rutherford, Watson|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Salter, Arthur Clevell|
|Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon||Hickman, Col. Thomas E.||Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)|
|Bryce, John Anna[...]||Horner, Andrew Long||Starkey, John Ralph|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Houston, Robert Paterson||Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Keswick, William||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Clay. Captain H. H. Spender||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Clyde, James Avon||Llewelyn, Venables||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude|
|Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Willoughby de Ereshy, Lord|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||M`Calmont, Colonel James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hugh Barrie and Mr. Mackinder.|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Moore, William|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Bytes, William Pollard||Elibank, Master of|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward|
|Agnew, George William||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Elverston, Harold|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas|
|Allen, Charles Peter||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)||Falconer, James|
|Ashley, Wilfred W.||Chancellor, Henry George||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Ferens, Thomas Robinson|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Clancy, John Joseph||Ffrench, Peter|
|Balcarres, Lord||Clough, William||Field, William|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||France, Gerald Ashburner|
|Barclay, Sir Thomas||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Furness, Stephen|
|Barnes, George N.||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Gardner, Ernest|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Gelder, Sir William Alfred|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd|
|Beale, William Phipson||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Gibson, Sir James Puckering|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Gill, Alfred Henry|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Crean, Eugene||Glanville, Harold James|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Croft, Henry Page||Glover, Thomas|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish||Cullinan, J.||Gooch, Henry Cubitt|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Dawes, James Arthur||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Delany, William||Greenwood, Granville George|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Gretton, John|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Devlin, Joseph||Griffith, Ellis Jones|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Guest, Major C. H. C.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Dillon, John||Hackett, John|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Donelan, Captain A.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Doris, William||Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)|
|Butcher, John George (York)||Duffy, William J.||Hancock, John George|
|Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)||Duke, Henry Edward||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)||Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Edwards, Enoch||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Middlebrook, William||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Millar, James Duncan||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Molloy, Michael||Schwann, Sir Charles E.|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Sheehy, David|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Morpeth, Viscount||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Hayward, Evan||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.||Short, Edward|
|Hazleton, Richard||Muldoon, John||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)||Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Muspratt, Max||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Soares, Ernest Joseph|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Neilson, Francis||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Henry, Charles S.||Newdegate, F. A.||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Stanley, Hon. G F.(Preston)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter||Nolan, Joseph||Sutherland, John E.|
|Hindle, Frederick George||Norton, Capt. Cecil W.||Sutton, John E.|
|Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Hodge, John||Nussey, Sir T. Willans||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Hogan, Michael||Nuttall, Harry||Tennant, Harold John|
|Holt, Richard Durning||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (She[...])||O'Brien, William (Cork)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Thomas, James Henry (Derby)|
|Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Doherty, Philip||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||O'Grady, James||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Toulmin, George|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel||O'Malley, William||Twist, Henry|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmer (Swansea)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Ormsby-Gore, William||Verney, Frederick William|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Vivian, Henry|
|Jones, William (Cernarvonshire)||Paget, Almeric Hugh||Wadsworth, John|
|Jowett, Frederick||William Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)|
|Joyce, Michael||Parker, James (Halifax)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Keating, Matthew||Pearce, William||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Kelly, Edward||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Peto, Basil Edward||Waring, Walter|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hu[...])||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|King, Joseph (Somerset, North)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Waterlow, David Sydney|
|Lambert, George||Pointer, Joseph||Watt, Henry A.|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||White, Major C. D. (Lancs. Southport)|
|Lardner, James Carries Rushe||Power, Patrick Joseph||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Lehmann, Rudolf C.||Pringle, William M. R.||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Radford, George Heynes||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsay)||Rainy, Adam||Rolland Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Raphael, Herbert H.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lundon, Thomas||Reddy, Michael||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Randall, Athelstan||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Ridley, Samuel Forde||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|M'Callum, John M.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)|
|M'Curdy, Charles Albert||Robinson, Sidney||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Mallet, Charles Edward||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Wing, Thomas|
|Marks, George Croydon||Roche, Augustine (Cork)||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Meagher, Michael||Royds, Edmund|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.|
|Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
§ Mr. BRUNSKILL
I beg to move after the word "am" ["am a faithful Member"] to insert the words "and will remain."
What is the use of the declaration, "I am a faithful Protestant," if it is quite possible five minutes afterwards, or a day afterwards, that the Sovereign might change his mind? According to the Act of Settlement and the other Acts it is necessary that the King not only should be at the time he takes the oath a Protestant, 2466 but that should he afterwards become a Roman Catholic he would forfeit his right to sit on the Throne. I cannot, therefore, see that there is any objection whatever to these words, and I ask that there should be added to the Declaration that "I am" the words "I will remain a Protestant." If the Declaration is to be of any value at all it should be a Declaration which would show at any rate that the Sovereign is not a member of the Roman Catholic 2467 Church. Consequently I ask the Prime Minister to accept this Amendment. A number of Members speaking here last night said that no Declaration was worth anything, because the Sovereign who made the Declaration might change his mind a few hours afterwards, and though it was a perfectly good Declaration at the time it was made, that it would be of no use if he became a Roman Catholic. I think the words I propose will strengthen the Declaration, and that consequently there should be no objection whatever to asking the King to make the Declaration.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
I think a moment's reflection will satisfy the hon. Gentleman that this Motion could not possibly be accepted. It is something entirely new and not required in the old Declaration. Even in the old Declaration all the Sovereign was required to do was to declare that he did believe "I do believe." He was never required to make any profession as to what might happen in the future with regard to his own convictions. If those convictions should change, a sufficient security against the imaginary dangers that the hon. Member has depicted is to be found in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. If, having made the Declaration in good faith and being a Protestant at the time he made it, he subsequently, by the operation of religious conviction, becomes a member of the Roman Catholic Church, though he is not debarred from doing so in the exercise of his religious convictions, he thereby forfeits his right to the Crown and vacates the Throne of England, and all his subjects are immediately absolved from allegiance to him. So that there is absolutely no necessity for this.
§ Mr. MOORE
I must say I cannot understand the Prime Minister's argument. His argument is based on the form of the old Declaration, and that because this is not in the old Declaration we ought not to put it in the new. I cannot understand the Prime Minister's argument seeing that he is proceeding to abolish that Declaration. The present Bill is called a Bill to Amend the Accession Declaration or to alter it. It does more than alter it, it abolishes it. Yet the Prime Minister asks the House to follow a Declaration that is deliberately abolished in order to combat the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I understand the Prime Minister's attitude is that we have drawn a sponge over the slate on which the old Declaration was written, and that we are starting de novo. If we are starting de novo, as the Liberal Government are fond of doing in all matters affecting the Constitution, I do not see why there should not be in the Declaration a safeguard as to the future as well as regards the present. The fact that there are penalties in the Bill of Rights and in the Act of Settlement if the Monarch changes his mind, is beside the point entirely. They are there whether the Amendment is accepted or not. The Amendment has been treated by the representatives of the Government in the cursory way in which they treat all Amendments from this side, trying to impose safeguards for the Protestant religion, in favour of the preservation of which the Chief Secretary admitted last night there was a strong feeling in the country. I shall gladly support my hon. Friend if he goes to a division.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 282.2471
|Division No. 149.]||AYES.||[11 p.m.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.|
|Ashley, Wilfred W.||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)|
|Bagot, Captain J.||Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Horner, Andrew Long|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Croft, Henry Page||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Balcarres, Lord||Dalrymple, Viscount||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)||Kyffin-Taylor, G. (Liverpool)|
|Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor||Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)||Llewelyn, Venables|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott||Fell, Arthur||Lloyd, George Ambrose|
|Barnston, Harry||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Lansdale, John Brownlee|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Fletcher, John Samuel||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh|
|Bird, Alfred||Foster, Harry Seymour (Lowestoft)||Mackindier, Halford J.|
|Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)||Macmaster, Donald|
|Bryce, John Annan||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Carlile, Edward Hildred||Gilmour, Captain John||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.|
|Cave, George||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Grant, J. A.||Munro, Robert|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Gretton, John||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Clyde, James Avon||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Colefax, Henry Arthur||Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)||Nield, Herbert|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Primrose, Hon. Neil James|
|Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Sykes, Alan John||Wiles, Thomas|
|Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude|
|Rolleston, Sir John||Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Rutherford, Watson||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Sanders, Robert Arthur||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Brunskill and Mr. Moore.|
|Sandy,, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Gibbs, George Abraham||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Gibson, Sir James Puckering||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Agnew, George William||Gill, Alfred Henry||McCallum, John M.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Glanville, Harold James||M'Curdy, Charles Albert|
|Alden, Percy||Glover, Thomas||Mallet, Charles Edward|
|Allen, Charles Peter||Gooch, Henry Cubitt||Marks, George Croydon|
|Arbuthnot, Gerald A.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Armitage, Robert||Greenwood, Granville George||Meagher, Michael|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)||Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim, N.)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Guest, Major C. H. C.||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Hackett, John||Middlebrook, William|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Barclay, Sir Thomas||Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Millar, James Duncan|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Mitchell, William Foot|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Hancock, John George||Molloy, Michael|
|Beale, William Phipson||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Muldoon, John|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Muspratt, Max|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Neilson, Francis|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Nolan, Joseph|
|Burke, E. Hayiland-||Hayden, John Patrick||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hayward, Evan||Nussey, Sir T. Willans|
|Butcher, John George (York)||Hazleton, Richard||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)||Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)||O'Brien, William (Cork)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)||O'Connor, John(Kildare, N.)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Helme, Norval Watson||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Grady, James|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Henry, Charles S||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)||O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)||Higham, John Sharp||O'Malley, William|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Hindle, Frederick George||Ormsby-Gore, William|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Clough, William||Hodge, John||O'Shee, James John|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Hogan, Michael||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Holt, Richard Durning||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Pearce, William|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)|
|Cowan, William Henry||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Crean, Eugene||Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Cullinan, John||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Pointer, Joseph|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Delany, William||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B.(Bradford, E.)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Jowett, Frederick William||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Joyce, Michael||Radford, George Heynes|
|Dillon, John||Keating, Matthew||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Kelly, Edward||Rainy, Adam Rolland|
|Doris, William||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Raphael, Herbert Henry|
|Duffy, William J.||Keswick, William||Reddy, Michael|
|Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Redmond, John E.(Waterford)|
|Edwards, Enoch||King, Joseph (Somerset, North)||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Lambert, George||Rendall, Atheistan|
|Elverston, Harold||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Ridley, Samuel Forde|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Lardner, James Carrigo Rushe||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Falconer, James||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Lehmann, Rudolf C.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Ferens, Thomas Robinson||Levy, Sir Maurice||Robinson, Sidney|
|Ffrench, Peter||Lewis, John Herbert||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Field, William||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|France, Gerald Ashburner||Lundon, Thomas||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Furness, Stephen||Lyell, Charles Henry||Royds, Edmund|
|Gardner, Ernest||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Scanlan, Thomas||Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Schwann, Sir Charles E.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Thomas, James Henry (Derby)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Sheehy, David||Toulmin, George||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Trevelyan, Charles Phillps||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Shortt, Edward||Twist, Henry||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Simon, John Allsebrook||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)||Verney, Frederick William||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Vivian, Henry||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Soares, Ernest Joseph||Wadsworth, John||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Spicer, Sir Albert||Walters, John Tudor||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)||Wilson, J. W.(Worcestershire, N.)|
|Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Waring, Walter||Wing, Thomas|
|Sutherland, John E.||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)|
|Sutton, John E.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Talbot, Lord Edmund||Waterlow, David Sydney|
|Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)||Watt, Henry A.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master|
|Tennant, Harold John||White, Sir George (Norfolk)||of Ellbank and Mr. Gulland.|
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY
I have an Amendment on the Paper, but as part of it has been disposed of, I propose to move in this form, after the word "am" ["and declare that I am"] to insert the following words: "In communion with the Church of England by law established, and a." The object of the Amendment is to try and restore the words of the Act of Settlement instead of the new Declaration.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I think the general understanding was that if the Amendment we have discussed was given ample time that was to dispose of the larger question.
I was not in the chair when that arrangement was made, and I do not understand that it covers this particular point. The hon. Member for the Ashford Division now desires, instead of the words proposed by the Prime Minister, to add the words, "And am in communion with the Church of England by law established, and a." I think the hon. Member can move his Amendment at this point.
I do not know what the hon. Member means. This is the very next Amendment after the one we have just disposed of.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I understand that you rule out of Order the Amendment of the hon. Member for the West Derby division of Liverpool, "Joined in communion with the Church of England as by law established within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act of Settlement, and." Surely there is no difference between this and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ashford.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
There are two Amendments down in the name of the hon. Member for Ashford, and we are in doubt which one he is going to move, because there are two papers of a different colour.
At first I thought both these Amendments were in the wrong place, but the hon. Member for Ashford pointed out to me privately that he would be prevented from moving his Amendment if the Prime Minister's Amendment came before his. I admit that both the Amendments are the same, and had the hon. Member for West Derby appealed to me I should have allowed him to move.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
Would it not be better that the words proposed by my hon. Friend should be moved after the words of the Prime Minister have been moved? I think that would be a more natural and smooth way of dealing with it.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY
I am willing to bow to your decision. I only wish to protect myself in regard to the moving of my Amendment.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
I beg to move to leave out the words "Member of the."
I beg to move to leave out these words with the object of subsequently moving to leave out the words "Reformed Church by law established in England," so that this part of the Declaration will run: "I 2473 do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant." The schedule, as originally framed, contained the words which I am moving to omit and which required that the Sovereign should declare himself "a faithful member of the Protestant Reformed Church by law established in England." That is not, as I pointed out yesterday, going beyond the requirements of the existing law. By the Act of Settlement the Sovereign is required to join in communion with the Church of England. The reason I am proposing to the Committee to alter the form in the schedule and to substitute for it this simpler expression is that the Government have satisfied themselves during the considerable time which has elapsed since this Bill was first introduced that in various quarters and, indeed, in all quarters except the Roman Catholics themselves, objections were taken to the form of words which we had put down in the Schedule. Objections were taken to the words, "By law established in England," because they seemed to give some Statutory colour to the notion that the Church of England, as a church, owed its existence to some Act of Parliament, and did not possess or claim to possess historic continuous identity. They were objected to by my Nonconformist friends because they excluded a large number of Protestants, and singled out the Church of England as entitled to be regarded as the Protestant religion, and they were objected to still more strongly by Presbyterians in Scotland because they appeared to put the Church of England in priority to the Church of Scotland and other religious communions in Scotland and other parts of the kingdom as the foremost type and symbol of Protestantism. It was in deference to those convergent views, convergent in their end though, as the House and Committee will see, directed in their initiative to totally different points, that the Government have been led to adopt the simpler formula which I now propose, and which, as I gathered yesterday, meets with general acceptance from all quarters of the House. The only objection which I know or have heard of as capable of being suggested against the simpler formula I am now suggesting is that it is indefinite. It requires the Sovereign simply to declare he is a faithful Protestant. There are some hon. Gentlemen, with whose views about the errors and the imperfections of the doctrines and practices of the Church 2474 of Rome I am myself in entire agreement, who think this is too vague, too equivocal, or, at any rate, too indefinite a form. What does Protestant mean? Is there any difficulty about that?
§ The PRIME MINISTER
Does the hon. and learned Member suggest he does not know what it means? He will have a bad time of it in Ulster if that view gets abroad. What is its historical origin? It may mean, as between two different Protestant communities of this and other countries, a considerable divergence in theology, in ceremonial, in ritual, in ecclesiastical discipline and organisation, but wherever the word "Protestant" is used, and to whatever religious community it is applied, it is a protest against certain distinctive doctrines of the Church of Rome. Therefore a man cannot be a faithful Protestant within the meaning of this Declaration if, in his heart, he entertains and believes in the doctrines which have been mentioned in the course of these Debates, and which are characteristic of the essential and discriminating teachings and ceremonial practices of the Church of Rome. Here you have a simple and most compendious, and yet least offensive form of Declaration on the part of the Sovereign, that he is prepared to defend the Protestant successia—a position which, in his heart and conscience, he shares to-day with the majority of his people. What more can any reasonable man desire? If I may venture to make an appeal to hon. Members whose opinions I entirely respect—hon. Members for Ulster and other parts where Protestantism is deeply engraved and where Protestant sentiments are jealously cherished—what more, I ask, can they desire than that a Sovereign, speaking on the most solemn occasion of his life, solemnly and sincerely before God and in the presence of the people of his Empire, declares himself to be a faithful Protestant?
§ The PRIME MINISTER
I have endeavoured to explain what everybody means by Protestant: that it is a person who, whatever his beliefs, protests against certain distinctive doctrines and practices and, as he thinks, errors of the Church of Rome. No man could make this Declaration who, in his conscience and heart, is a 2475 member of the Church of Rome or in sympathy with its essential characteristics and discriminating doctrines.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
Could a man be a faithful Protestant who was in communion with the Church of Rome? It is a contradiction in terms—it is an absurdity. In fact it could never occur except in the case of a man whose life gave the lie to his professions. In our opinion this is a simple form, adequate for the purpose, and satisfactory to the highest authorities—the Church of England. It is certainly not repugnant to the views of English Nonconformists, it is accepted by the Presbyterians of Scotland, and it unites Protestant opinion in this country in its support. I therefore ask the Committee to accept it.
I am not an Ulsterman, I am not an Orangeman, and I think that hon. Gentlemen behind me will admit that I am not in the habit of using any language offensive to the feelings of those who disagree with me, either in religion or politics; but in this matter I feel in a position of very great difficulty. Like many of my co-religionists in Ireland, I am not opposed to altering language which appears wantonly offensive to Roman Catholics, and if it had not been for the fact that the Prime Minister more or less suggested this change in the Bill, I do not think I should have opposed the Measure on the Second Reading; but when the Prime Minister announced these very momentous views I felt, without consultation with anybody, but simply from respect to my own views, that I was bound to oppose the Bill, because he disclosed that the Sovereign was to declare himself "a faithful Protestant." What does that mean? He has explained that as meaning that he is a man who protests against certain doctrines of the Church of Rome. Are the Greek Church Protestant? They protest against the Church of Rome. The late Mr. Bradlaugh also protested against many errors of the Church of Rome and also of the Church of England. I think this Declaration should be one which should be clearly understood by people, and there is no clear way of understanding what the word Protestant 2476 means. I know what a member of the Church of England believes. He believes the Thirty-nine Articles. I should not object to "a faithful Presbyterian" because I think a Presbyterian believes the Westminster Confession, but no man can say what are the dogmas of a Protestant. There is no known code by which you can ascertain what the views of a Protestant are. Therefore, I am compelled not only to vote against this Amendment, but against the Bill as well, because I believe that this Amendment shows that the Prime Minister attaches no importance to the Declaration or to the form of words, and is prepared to adopt any form which will meet with the least resistance in the House.
§ Mr. MOORE
I should like to say a few words upon this matter, because the Prime Minister has gone out of his way, quite unnecessarily, to cast reflections upon the devotion to Protestantism which is felt among my colleagues. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I take it in that way. He has suggested that we do not know what Protestantism is. I wish the Liberal Government knew what it is. It is perfectly well understood by those whom I represent. Our definition of Protestant is that which is found in many important works and authorities. He is a Protestant who denies the temporal and spiritual authority of the Pope, and when we try from these Benches this evening, without any offence to my countrymen below the Gangway, to put into the words of the Bill what the word Protestant means, and only to carry out the dictionary meaning, which is that the person who professes himself to be a Protestant shall not be in communion with the Church of Rome, that is rejected by the Government, and I ask what does the Government understand by the word Protestant? I agree that if you take the word Protestantism strictly or technically it is not any religion; it is negation of certain doctrines which are held by the Church of Rome. In all Christian religions there is a great deal in common with the Church of Rome, and the Protestant community and any Christian religions have much in common with the Church of Rome, but what distinguishes them from the Church of Rome is this, that in regard to certain ideas and dogmas they protest against what they call the errors of the Church of Rome, and as long as I live I shall always protest against them. When we try to make that position clear, which is a historical and a logical 2477 position, the Government, which professes itself anxious to make a Protestant Declaration for a Protestant Sovereign, says, "That is not what we mean by Protestanism, the words 'faithful Protestant' covers everything. It is perfectly well understood by the Protestants." We have no doubt about our position, but after this Debate there will be the gravest doubt about the position of the Government.
These are new words only introduced to-day. They were brought forward in a night as the settled and matured considerations of the Government which introduced the Bill so long ago as 28th June, with words which the Prime Minister said could not be altered because they were in the Act of Settlement. These words are sprung upon us at a moment's notice, and we are asked to make what we can out of them, having nothing in the Statute but merely a declaratory statement last night by the Chief Secretary, whom in Ireland we do not accept as an exponent or defender of Protestantism, or a statement from the Prime Minister that in his opinion "faithful Protestant" meets the whole difficulty of the situation. It might have met the difficulty if we had not had these Amendments so rudely and abruptly rejected by the Government, who are pinning their faith to this word "Protestant" as if it were a sort of talisman or password. We want something more than that. We want these limitations set forth in the Statute to provide that a Protestant will be a man who is not in communion with the Church of Rome, and thereby protests against these doctrines which the Prime Minister did not hesitate to call errors. I did not hear any challenge below the Gangway that that was offensive. All the offensive remarks are from this side. A Liberal Prime Minister can say what he likes about it. The Prime Minister says the word "Protestant" covers everything and we are not allowed any limitation. I hope my hon. Friend will move one which will make clear exactly not what the Government mean, but what the House of Commons means by the word "Protestant." The Chief Secretary made a reluctant admission that after all the country behind the House was entirely Protestant, and wants to secure a Protestant success, as far as the declaration is concerned. I therefore object very strongly to the Amendment as inadequate in view of all circumstances which have occurred and of the great uncertainty in which the Government have left us.
§ Mr. PETO
It seems to me that there is a little difference of opinion among one or two hon. Members as to what this word "Protestant" means and what the people of the country understand by it. I am entirely in accord with the Amendment which leaves out the words in the original Schedule of the Bill, because as the Declaration will remain it will be an absolutely simple, sufficient, efficient, honest, plain, English Declaration, something which I believe the people, be they high or low, as soon as the turmoil of this present moment has passed, will understand and will agree with, and if there is some doubt in the minds of some hon. Members above the Gangway as to what the word "Protestant" means, that doubt will not be shared to any general extent by any part of His Majesty's dominions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow said that if these words were in the Bill of Rights they must be in the Declaration. I entirely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I say there is a place for everything.
There are times and seasons, and what is in perfectly good taste and perfectly correct in one situation may in another situation be altogether out of place. There is a time to reap and a time to sow. The moment of the King's Coronation is the most solemn of his whole reign. It is a time not to sow discord or anything which, be they Roman Catholic subjects or Nonconformist subjects, shall place in their minds the slightest feeling of estrangement or want of union between them and their Sovereign. Any such thing is absolutely out of place. It is a time to reap the harvest of unbounded loyalty which finds its greatest expression in the loyalty which is due to the Crown at all times and which particularly goes forward at that moment. Therefore I am entirely in accord with the cutting out from the Declaration not only of anything regarding the belief of Roman Catholics, but also of anything which would identify the Sovereign, surreptitiously even as it might appear to some people, with the Church of England as by law established. I believe the Establishment is perfectly safe. At any rate, I do not believe that by putting words into the mouth of the Sovereign we shall gain anything whatever. I think a plain simple declaration as it will be understood throughout the length and breadth of the Empire that the King is a "faithful Protestant," is amply sufficient, and all that is either necessary 2479 or suitable on the great occasion. There should be no single word or syllable which would indicate that there is any difference between the King and his subjects.
From the discussion on the first Amendment this afternoon I found that the acute legal minds in the House were at variance. I think, therefore, that in a Bill of this sort we should take the greatest care as to its legal significance and meaning. I venture to think that the Prime Minister in his speech fairly contradicted himself. He first of all said that the repudiation was unnecessary, because in the original form of the Declaration in the Bill the Sovereign declared himself a member of the Church of England, and that that entailed belief in the Thirty-nine Articles, and then by the Amendment he has cut out—quite rightly in my view—the words "member of the" and left the word "Protestant" alone. Therefore, by his own confession, there is no corresponding denial of the doctrine of transubstantiation. That point was raised yesterday, but the Chief Secretary for Ireland never dealt with it. He dealt with the Declaration as if it were a sort of Aunt Sally, having a shot at it on every possible occasion. I do hope that to-night we shall have an answer to some of the issues raised in the Debate. I should like to make a quotation from the late Mr. Gladstone There seems to be a general opinion that the word "Protestant" is not sufficient. That apparently was the view of the late Mr. Gladstone as appears from an extract from one of his letters which has been published. The word "Protestant" was, he held, not sufficient, but necessarily entailed some repudiation of the doctrine of the Church of Rome. I have no doubt that a large majority in this House is in favour of the Government proposal, but I do hope that Members, before they give a final vote to decide the fate of this Bill, will realise, whatever their views may be, that their constituents are of a different opinion.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I voted loyally for the Second Reading of this Bill, and I voted against every Amendment moved to-day, and I shall also vote against this Amendment, because I suport the Declaration as introduced by the Government and laid on the Table. It seems to me that the original form of the Declaration that was proposed was definite. It was accepted by 2480 the Roman Catholics, and I cannot understand how it is offensive to the Nonconformists to whom the Prime Minister's Amendment is a mere sop. When it is laid down in the Act of Settlement that the Sovereign of this country is to be in communion with the Church of England, as by law established, I think that we members of the Church of England have the right to say that if the Sovereign is to be in communion with us he shall be a faithful member of the Church of England. Change the Statute if you like, and then I will consider changing my opinion on this Amendment of the Prime Minister, but until then I cannot understand the volte face of the Prime Minister when he tears up his own definite declaration supporting the Church of England as by law established. The Act of Settlement there introduces a phrase which is definite. We have heard from various quarters of the House that they are not satisfied with the word "Protestant" standing alone; and I think that there is something to be said for that. Is not an Agnostic a Protestant? Is not an atheist? We do not want an Agnostic on the Throne of this country.
I say emphatically when you have in the Act of Settlement a law which says that the Sovereign of this country shall be in communion with the Church of England it is a mockery to come to the Church of England and say, "the Sovereign shall be in communion with you, but he may be an Agnostic or an atheist"; and I think that the argument is entitled, therefore, to some consideration. I respect the opinions of the Agnostic. I do not set up to be infallible; but as long as you have an established church the Sovereign must be a faithful member of that church, and there should be no possibility of his being an Agnostic, an atheist, or a member of any other sect. With regard to the word "Protestant," the Prime Minister did refer to what he said was the historical origin of the word. I submit to him that the historic origin of the word "Protestant" does not support his contention. The first mention of the word "Protestant" was at the Diet of Spires about the year 1529. Certain German princes, some of whom were faithful Roman Catholics, or believed in the dogmas of Roman Catholics, protested against certain restrictions passed by the Diet of Spires against private worship in their own chapels. That protest was the origin of the word "Protestant," which, as left by the Prime Minister, may mean something 2481 perfectly clear to him, but we know very well how words change, and therefore I shall, as I have done throughout, vote loyally for the Bill and against the Amendment.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURST
The value of this amended Declaration depends, in my opinion, partly on the fact that the word "Protestant" is spelt with a capital P, and possibly also on the fact that it is to be not merely orally uttered but also subscribed, and therefore, I presume, it is to appear in writing with a capital P. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member has said as to the meaning of the word "Protestant." The Prime Minister speaks with confidence as to the meaning of "Protestant," but I wonder whether he has conducted any research in the dictionaries or elsewhere as to its meaning. I have done so, and I find in all the English dictionaries that there are two important meanings attached to the word "Protestant." One is positive and affirmative in character, and the other is negative and repudiatory. I find from the dictionary that the negative meaning of the word which the Prime Minister led us to believe was its only possible meaning, has no greater force than its positive and affirmative meaning. The Protestant Dictionary, the great authority among Protestants on the subject of religious phraseology, by the Rev. Charles Bright and the Rev. Charles Neil, leaders of the Protestant Reformed Church of England, points out the following facts. They say, first of all, that a Protestant means one who makes a protestation or declaration of belief or opinion or resolution. The second meaning it has is that of protest against the declaration of any belief or opinion or action—that is to say, the first meaning is positive, and it is only the secondary meaning which is negative. They say the positive and affirmative meaning of the word "Protestant" is too much ignored and forgotten, and that it is its primary signification. They go on further to say that German theologians and parties of reform used the word in its positive sense. Their protestation was not a string of negatives, but a declaration of their faith, positive and negative. From them the word and its meaning passed into England. The word was not originally used in contrast with the word "Catholic," nor, at first, with "Popish." The seventeenth century divines all unhesitatingly 2482 called themselves Protestants. It must be a fact perfectly familiar to all those who have studied history at all that a very large number of the seventeenth-century divines in this country were not such persons as we now call Protestants. I say the word "Protestant" standing by itself, without some such explanatory words as it is now endeavoured to introduce into the Declaration, renders it impossible for us to realise exactly what is meant by the Prime Minister's amended formula.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I wish to explain why I support the Prime Minister on this Amendment. There are two objections raised to the Amendment. In the first place it is said the word "Protestant" is vague, and they do not know what it means. The answer I make to that is that it is quite true we do not know what it means, but we do know what it does not mean. We know who is a Protestant and who is not a Protestant. We know a Roman Catholic is not a Protestant. The purpose of this Declaration is to give some security that the Sovereign is not a Roman Catholic. It is quite sufficient for us that he should say he is not a Roman Catholic. My hon. Friend said that he objects to this Amendment because it excludes the mention of the Church of England. Of course, this Declaration, as has been repeatedly pointed out, makes no difference as to the statutory requirements on the Sovereign. He is exactly in the same position as he was, and, therefore, he must still join in communion with the Church of England, and when he partakes of the Sacrament he certainly must not be an atheist or Agnostic, but must be a faithful member before he can properly receive the Sacrament. Therefore, I do not think any words are required in the Declaration in reference to the Church of England. I should have preferred that the words of the Act of Settlement should have been exactly copied. That is declaring, "I am a Protestant and do join in communion with the Church of England." I greatly prefer that there should be no mention of the Church of England than the mention in the original draft of the Bill. I think there was much more serious objection to that, and, on the whole, the Prime Minister's Amendment is a decided improvement. This will still have to go to another place, and it will be open to the Bishops to say whether they think the 2483 Church of England is badly treated or not. I see no reason why this House should not accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. MORTON
I think this Debate ought to satisfy the mind of the Government that they ought not to have brought in this Bill at all. Even if that is not so they ought certainly to have given the country more time to consider it. We have a right to complain of how this Bill is being rushed through, and I make that complaint especially with regard to the altered Declaration we have before us. The Prime Minister has told us that the Church of England and the Roman Catholics are in favour of this and support it, and that the Nonconformist bodies in England are satisfied that it is throwing the Church of England overboard. Therefore I am not surprised that the Nonconformists of England are satisfied, but I am rather surprised that the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) should also be satisfied with the Church of England being thrown overboard. The Prime Minister seemed also to suggest that the Presbyterians in Scotland were in favour of this. How can he suggest they should be in favour of something they had never seen I cannot understand, unless some of those people had second sight. I venture to say we have evidence of the Petitions presented right up to to-day from Presbyterians that they have not gone in favour of this thing that they have never seen. There is a large body of Presbyterians in England now and they have not said anything in favour of it either as it originally appeared or as it is altered. Nobody has a chance to consider this new form of Declaration. There is no mandate from the country for this Bill.
The hon. Member is not confining himself to the Amendment, but is talking about the Bill.
§ Mr. MORTON
Several hon. Gentlemen spoke about the Thirty-nine Articles. One hon. Member said, and of course I am in order now, because he was allowed to say it, that the Members of the Church of England did not believe in the Thirty-nine Articles. A so-called Churchman who does not believe in the Thirty-nine Articles cannot be an honest member of the Church of England.
If the hon. Member refers to me, I said a faithful member of the Church of England did believe in the Thirty-nine Articles.
§ Mr. MORTON
That is what I believe myself. The Thirty-nine Articles are in support of Protestantism from beginning to end, and that is why a certain view is taken of them by people who are called Anglicans at one time, High Churchmen at another, and Ritualists at another. I once asked an educated Roman Catholic, not a wild Irishman, what he thought of a Ritualist, and he simply said "mock-turtle." In the City of London we do not believe in mock-turtle. That is why the City is so strongly Protestant. It is said that there are some offensive words in the old Declaration.
Will the hon. Member apply himself to the Amendment? He is saying nothing whatever about it at present.
§ Mr. MORTON
The Prime Minister is proposing to insert the words "faithful Protestant," and it is to the word "Protestant" I wish to refer. We are told that the words "idolatrous" and "superstitious" are offensive. But they are not nearly so offensive as the word "Protestant." The word his Holiness the Pope does not like is the word "Protestant," which means one who protests against the errors of Rome. Presently we should be asked to take out that word, and then to take away a good many of the Thirty-nine Articles. It is much to be regretted that this matter should have been brought forward. It is not fair to the people in the north of Scotland, whom I represent, and who have had no opportunity of considering this proposal. It is not fair for any Government to spring these things on the country. The Government has no mandate from anybody, except, I suppose, the Pope, and that is what we object to in this country. I trust that even now the Prime Minister will allow the matter to go over, at any rate, until November, so that he can say and we can say that he is neither ashamed nor afraid to allow the people of the country to consider the measures he brings forward.
§ 12.0 M.
§ Mr. J. G. BUTCHER
I rise for the purpose of expressing my hearty agreement with the Amendment of the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed" and "Divide"]—for this simple and sufficient reason, that it follows the words of the Act of Settlement. Some hon. Members who object to the word "Protestant" forget that it is taken from Section (1) of 2485 the Act of Settlement itself, so that when the King is asked to make a declaration that he is a Protestant he is simply saying that he is, on his accession to the Throne, complying with one of the conditions of the Act of Settlement. I confess I wish the Prime Minister could see his way to go a little further and follow the Act of Settlement, Section (2), which declares that the King must join the Church of England. I am not quite in agreement with my friend the hon. Member for Denbigh in saying that joining in communion with the Church of England means the same thing as being a member of the Church of England. I do not think it does. So far as this Amendment is concerned it is absolutely unanswerable.
Question, "That those words stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I put down an Amendment on the Paper in order to try and obtain some further definition of the word "Protestant" from the Prime Minister, but I do not wish to press it.
§ Mr. BRUNSKILL
I beg to move, after the word "Protestant" to insert the words "meaning thereby a Christian who denies the authority of the Pope in matters temporal and spiritual."
We know very well the meaning of the word "Protestant" in Ulster, but we want to know what the Prime Minister means by the word "Protestant" in his Amendment. There is no doubt, judging from the Prime Minister's original draft Bill, that he did not believe the word "Protestant" by itself was a sufficient term to use in the Declaration, for he added on to it the words "faithful member of the Protestant Reformed Church by law established in England." He must have felt if something else was not added to the word "Protestant" that it would be quite possible for an atheist to say, "I am a Protestant," though he protested against the doctrines of the Church of England just in the same way as he protested against the doctrine of the Church of Rome. I think the words as they stood in the Prime Minister's original Schedule were far better than the word "Protestant" by itself. It was only under the pressure of the Nonconformists and the Presbyterians who sit upon the other side of the House that the Prime Minister jettisoned the Church of England. It was owing to that pressure that he eventually found salvation in the use of 2486 the term "Protestant." In Acts of Parliament, when you use a loose term like "Protestant," you require to have a Definition Clause. I think the Definition Clause which I am now proposing is one which the Prime Minister cannot object to, and I do not believe that any Roman Catholic Member of this House will object to it. It has been pointed out that a Protestant is one who denies Roman Catholic doctrines. If that is so, why is the Prime Minister afraid to put it into the Bill?
An hon. Member has asserted that the, word "Protestant" is an insult. I suppose the Prime Minister evolved this new form out of his own head, and I suppose he must have known that the great objection of Roman Catholics to the Declaration of the King is not so much because they object to the words in that Declaration and its harsh language, but because they see in it a kind of peg upon which to hang an excuse to, get rid of the Declaration altogether. Nationalists consider it is an insult to them that a Roman Catholic is not allowed to be the King. In a few years' time the Nationalists will be saying, "Everybody knows that the word 'Protestant' is an insult to Roman Catholics, and we must have the word 'Protestant' out." If the Prime Minister believes that a Protestant is a man who objects to the doctrines of the Church of Rome, why does he object to my interpretation in which there is no insult? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to insert an Interpretation Clause to show what he and the Liberal party mean by the word "Protestant?" I will tell the Committee why I distrust the Prime Minister and the Liberal party in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other night that he believed the Declaration was absolutely useless, and that it ought to go. If that is his opinion why does he not go the whole hog and take away the Declaration altogether? He was afraid to do that because there were so many of his supporters whose minds are, in the graphic language of the Chief Secretary, "centred in their seats," and consequently they knew that in England there was a determination that at any rate the King of England should remain a Protestant, and that he should make some declaration of this kind. The Prime Minister has framed a Declaration which he does not believe is necessary and his heart is not in it. For these reasons I distrust the Declaration as it stands at 2487 present. When I first saw the original draft of the Prime Minister's proposal I thought he had deliberately brought in the Church of England so as to create a storm amongst his friends and supporters of the Nonconformist faith, so that he would be able to say, when they began to get angry about it, "We have dropped this mention of the Church of England and fallen back on the word 'Protestant.'" I am not myself a Roman Catholic, and I am glad I am not.
§ Mr. BRUNSKILL
I believe they would be very glad to receive me in their faith. I want to have the word "Protestant" defined in an Act of Parliament, because if you look in the dictionaries you will find any number of definitions. The Standard Dictionary of the English language gives two. First:—'A member of one of those bodies of Christians that adhere to Protestantism as opposed to Roman Catholicism.And, secondly,A Christian who denounces the authority of the Pope, and holds to the right of Bible judgment in matters of religion.If you go to the Century Dictionary you find a number of other meanings given. First of all you find it given asOne who protestswithout saying what he protests against, and. secondly, asOne who makes a protestation.and if you look at the word "Protestation" you find it isA solemn or formal declaration.The King, therefore, in saying, "I am a faithful Protestant," might as well say, "I am a man who is faithfully making a protestation." It gives another definition:—A member or an adherent of one of those Christian bodies which are descended from the Reformation of the 16th century.I do not ask the Prime Minister to put in the Bill any of these definitions, but I do ask him to put in a definition that the word "Protestant," as used here, is the definition of a Christian. It is useless for the Prime Minister to say that because I introduce the Pope or the Roman Catholic religion into this Amendment it is insulting. The term "Protestant" is just as insulting as if I say one does not believe in Roman Catholicism.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
The hon. Member has repeated at very great length arguments which have been addressed to 2488 the Committee on previous Amendments. Although I listened to his speech carefully, I could not find a single new argument. I am not going to repeat the arguments I have used. The term "Protestant" is, I believe, perfectly well understood in Ulster as it is elsewhere. It is only apparently from the representatives of Ulster that we have any doubt expressed. It is certainly perfectly well understood in Great Britain, and I believe it is equally well understood in Ireland. These words, "a faithful Protestant," are accepted by the authoritative representatives of the Church of England, by English and Welsh Nonconformity, by the Presbyterians of Scotland, and, so far as I know, of Ireland also. There is no doubt in any quarter what "Protestant" means, and it is absolutely superfluous to introduce any definition.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGH
I am sorry that the Prime Minister has taken up this attitude of entirely refusing any Amendment. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the term "Protestant" may include an Agnostic or an atheist. The words suggested by my hon. Friend would make the matter far simpler than it is at the present moment. There is no doubt that the action of the Prime Minister in bringing in this Bill has excited a storm of indignation all over the country, upon which I do not think he calculated. Indeed, a great many of us did not believe there existed so strong a feeling, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised, seeing that this Bill is going through, to—if I may use the expression—pander to the susceptibilities of the very strong body of Protestants in this country by putting in some such words as those suggested in the Amendment, and so relieving the question of many of the difficulties and a great deal of the bitterness which exists at the present time.
§ Captain CRAIG
The Prime Minister appears to be most indignant because my hon. and learned Friend merely proposes to put into the Schedule the right hon. Gentleman's own definition of Protestantism. He declares that the only people who do not understand the meaning of the word are those who come from Ulster. I would suggest, however, that he should study the remarkable speech made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland yesterday, in which he confessed that he did not know what a Protestant was. It was that right hon. Gentleman who started this whole 2489 trouble. But the indignation of the Prime Minister must surely be assumed. The discussion which has gone on to-day is simply crystallised in the short Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. It is unfortunate we have not the Amendment in print, but that is due to the wretching bungling by the Government of their business. They have given such short notice of their own Amendments that hon. Members have not had time to put down the Amendments they desire to suggest. It is not fair that a Bill which is
§ possibly the most striking measure of the session, altering, as it does, part of the constitution, should only have three days set apart for it. I rose more to support my colleague than to contribute anything to the Debate, but I think hon. Members who cry "divide" have very little idea of what they are doing.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 242.2491
|Division No. 150.]||AYES.||[12.30 a.m.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Grant, J. A.||Munro, R.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Barnston, Harry||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Primrose, Hon. Neil James|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Horner, A. L.||Quilter, William Eley C.|
|Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Carlile, Edward Hildred||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Keswick, William||Rutherford, Watson|
|Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.||Kirkwood, John H. M.||Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Clyde, James Avon||Llewelyn, Venables||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)|
|Coates, Major Edward F.||Lloyd, George Ambrose||Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)|
|Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Dairymple, Viscount||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)||Mackinder, Halford J.||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Fleming, Valentine||Moore, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Brunskill and Captain Craig.|
|Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)||Morton, Alpheus, Cleophas|
|Gibbs, George Abraham|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.|
|Agnew, George William||Cowan, W. H.||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)||Hancock, John George|
|Allen, Charles P.||Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)|
|Armitage, Robert||Crosfield, Arthur H.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Ashley, Wilfred W.||Cullinan, John||Hardie, J. Keir|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Dawes, J. A.||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Delany, William||Moslem, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Barclay, Sir Thomas||Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Barnes, George N.||Dillon, John||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)||Dixon, Charles Harvey||Hayward, Evan|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Donelan, Captain A. J. C.||Hazleton, Richard|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Doris, W.||Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cave[...]dish-||Duffy, William J.||Healy, Timothy Michael|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Duncannon, Viscount||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Elibank, Master of||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Elverston, Harold||Higham, John Sharp|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Falconer, James||Hindle, F. G.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Farrell, James Patrick||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Butcher, John George (York)||Ferens, T. R.||Hogan, Michael|
|Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)||Ffrench, Peter||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Field, William||Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich).|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Hughes, Spencer Leigh|
|Byles, William Pollard||Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Gibson, Sir James Puckering||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Gill, Alfred Henry||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Glanville, H. J.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Jowett, Frederick William|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Gooch, Henry Cubitt||Joyce, Michael|
|Clough, William||Goulding, Edward||Alfred Keating, Matthew|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Kelly, Edward|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Guest, Major||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Gulland, John William||King, J. (Somerset, N.)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron||Hackett, J.||Lambert, George|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||O'Shee, James John||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Lehmann, Rudolf C.||Paget, Almeric Hugh||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Sutton, John E.|
|Low. Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Parker, James (Halifax)||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Lundon, T.||Pearce, William||Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Peto, Basil Edward||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Pointer, Joseph||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Pollard, Sir George H.||Toulmin, George|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|M'Callum, John M.||Power, Patrick Joseph||Twist, Henry|
|M'Curdy, C. A.||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|M'Kean, John||Pringle, William M. R.||Verney, Frederick William|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Radford, George Heynes||Vivian, Henry|
|Mallet, Charles Edward||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Walters, John Tudor|
|Marks, George Croydon||Rainy, Adam Rolland||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Meagher, Michael||Raphael, Herbert Henry||Waring, Walter|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Reddy, Michael||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Middlebrook, William||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Waterlow, David Sydney|
|Millar, James Duncan||Rendall, Athelstan||Watt, Henry A.|
|Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Ridley, Samuel Forde||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Robinson, S.||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Muldoon, John||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.||Ronaldshay, Earl of||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|Muspratt, Max||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Samuel. Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Neilson, Francis||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Sanders, Robert A.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Nolan, Joseph||Scanlan, Thomas||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Wing, Thomas|
|Nussey, Sir T. Willans||Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.||Wood, Hon. E F. L. (Ripon)|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Sheehy, David||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Shortt, Edward||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Simon, John Allsebrock|
|O'Doherty, Philip||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.|
|O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|O'Malley, William||Soares, Ernest Joseph|
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY
I beg to move to insert the words "in communion with the Church of England by law established, and a."
I was not allowed to move this Amendment at an earlier stage, but I think I am now entitled to move it. This is a question we are bound to raise in this House, because, after all, we must remember that these words would not be necessary under the old conditions when we followed a distinctly different policy of repudiation. The Government have adopted a policy of affirmation, and it is, in my opinion, necessary that we should follow the Act of Settlement by putting in words which shall not only affirm that the Sovereign is a faithful Protestant, but also what particular form of Protestant he is. These words will serve as a definition of "Protestant," which has been frequently asked during this discussion. I am glad that we have now emerged from the more debatable part of this matter. 2492 There was a very valuable speech made on behalf of the Nationalist Members by the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) in which he said:There is, so far as I know, not the slightest objection to these proposed alterations from Catholic Members of this House. Indeed, I would go further, and say that I cannot conceive that, it would be, under any possible circumstances, the duty of Catholics to interfere in the drafting and phraseology of this Bill, in reference to the Protestantism of His Majesty the King. That is entirely a matter for hon. Gentlemen in this House who are Protestants."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1910, col. 2196.So far as this Amendment is concerned the Nationalist Members stand entirely on one side, and leave us to decide as to the drafting of the words which the Sovereign should use. I would urge very strongly on the Government that they should adhere to the line indicated in the first instance, though I did not like the original words. I think we should adhere to the Act of Settlement, and by that means secure some definition of the words the Government now propose to put in the Declaration. I do not desire to dwell on the point as it has already been dealt with in the speeches of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. G. Butcher) and the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil).
§ The PRIME MINISTER
No doubt, technically, this Amendment is not out of order, because it will read sensibly with the words of my Motion which the Committee has substituted for those which stood originally in the Bill, but substantially it, is asking the House to reverse what it has already decided. The sole objects of the Amendments which I moved—one carried by a large majority and the other without a Division—was to get rid of these words and substitute the simpler formula. What the hon. Member is asking us to do is to reverse the decision already adopted by a large majority.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY
It is only fair to say that I desired to move my Amendment before the others were moved, and it was owing to pressure from various parts of the House that it was postponed.
§ The PRIME MINISTER
I am not complaining in the least of the hon. Member's conduct. I am only pointing out that the Committee has come to a decision on the point. But out of respect for the hon. Member I may go further and point out that this Amendment in any view of the matter is totally unnecessary. I will not go into the question which we have already debated to-day as to whether or not it is desirable or necessary to append a definition to the term Protestant. The Committee has decided that it is not. The object of the Declaration proposed by the hon. Member is already amply secured in the first place, as he himself admits, by the Act of Settlement, by which the Sovereign is required to join in communion with the Church of England. Therefore it is not necessary for us to say that he shall join in communion. As to ate sense in which the words "join in communion" are to be interpreted, it has been suggested that they mean a membership or fellowship of the body. But whether they are taken in the larger sense or in the more restricted sense of being a communicant or taking the communion, the Sovereign is equally bound, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is part of the ceremony of coronation that the Sovereign should take the communion in the Church, and, therefore, whichever way you take it, whether in the narrow or the wide sense, it is specially provided for already by Statute law and by custom. On the other hand, objection has been taken in Scotland, England, and elsewhere to the repetition of these unnecessary words in the Declaration. Having regard to those objections, the law as 2494 it stands and the decision which the Committee has already arrived at, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment to a Division.
§ Mr. J. G. BUTCHER
The House has not arrived at any decision inconsistent with the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The truth is the words "join with the Church of England" are not identical with the words "members of the Church of England." The Church of Scotland can join the Church of England. Members of the Episcopal Church of Ireland, or of every Episcopal Church throughout the world, can join the communion of the Church of England, but it does not follow they are members of the Church of England. Therefore, the point has not been decided. The Prime Minister says these words are unnecessary because they are already in the Act of Settlement. If that argument has force then the word "Protestant" is unnecessary because it is already in the Act of Settlement. In the preamble to Section (3) of the Act, it says, Whereas it is requisite and necessary that some further provision be made for securing our religion, laws, and liberties, from and after the death of His Majesty, be it enacted that whosoever shall hereafter come into possession of the Crown shall join in communion with the Church of England as by law established." The Amendment proposes that inasmuch as we have by the former Amendment decided that the Sovereign shall comply with the condition laid down in the Act of Settlement, that he is to be a Protestant, so now we ask the Sovereign to comply with the second condition in the Act of Settlement by joining the communion of the Church of England. Either neither of these conditions should be referred to in the Declaration or both of them. I can understand the Prime Minister saying he does not want either of them, but he has accepted the word "Protestant," and I say he is absolutely bound, following the terms of the Act, to accept what is proposed by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY
At this late hour I do not desire to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, though I thought it was necessary to bring this point before hon. Members.
§ Question put, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 54.2497
|Division No. 151.]||AYES.||[12.50 a.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Hackett, John||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Agnew, George William||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Hall, Frederick (Normanton)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Allen, Charles Peter||Hancock, John George||O'Malley, William|
|Arbuthnot, Gerald A.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Armitage, Robert||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Ashley, Wilfred W.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Shee, James John|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Pearce, William|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Haworth, Arthur A.||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.|
|Barclay, Sir T.||Hayden, John Patrick||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott||Hayward, Evan||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Barnes, George N.||Hazleton, Richard||Pointer, Joseph|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)||Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Healy, Timothy Michael||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Helme, Norval Watson||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Bentham, G. J.||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish||Higham, John Sharp||Radford, George Heynes|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hillier, Dr. A. P.||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Hindle, Frederick George||Rainy, Adam Rolland|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Raphael, Herbert Henry|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Hogan, Michael||Reddy, Michael|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Holt, Richard Durning||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||Ridley, Samuel Forde|
|Butcher, John George (York)||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Robinson, Sidney|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshlre)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Jowett, Frederick William||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)||Joyce, Michael||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Kelly, Edward||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Clough, William||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||King, Joseph (Somerset, North)||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Kirkwood, John H. M.||Sheehy, David|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Lambert, George||Shortt, Edward|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Cowan, William Henry||Lehmann, Rudolf C.||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Lewis, John Herbert||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Llewelyn, Venables||Sutton, John E.|
|Crosfield, Arthur H.||Lloyd, George Ambrose||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Cullinan, John||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Lundon, Thomas||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Lyell, Charles Henry||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Delany, William||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Toulmin, George|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Dillon, John||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Twist, Henry|
|Donelan, Captain A.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Doris, William||M'Callum, John M.||Verney, Frederick William|
|Duffy, William J.||M'Curdy, Charles Albert||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Duncannon, Viscount||M'Kean, John||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Waring, Walter|
|Elibank, Master of||Mallet, Charles Edward||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Elverston, Harold||Marks, George Croydon||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Meagher, Michael||Wateriow, David Sydney|
|Falconer, James||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Ferens, T. R.||Middlebrook, William||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Millar, James Duncan||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Field, William||Mitchell, William||Foot White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph`||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||White. Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Fleming, Valentine||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Morpeth, Viscount||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Gibbs, George Abraham||Muldoon, John||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Gibson, Sir James Puckering||Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Gill, Alfred Henry||Muspratt, Max||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Glanville, Harold James||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Neilson, Francis||Wing, Thomas|
|Goldman, Charles Sydney||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)|
|Gooch, Henry Cubitt||Nolan, Joseph||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Nugent, Sir Walter||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)||Nussey, Sir Willans|
|Guest, Major||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Soares and Mr. Illingworth.|
|Gulland, John William||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Falle, Bertram Godfray||Munro, Robert|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Barnston, Harry||Gilmour, Captain John||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Grant, J. A.||Ormsby-Gore, William|
|Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon||Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Bryce, John Annan||Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Rutherford, Watson|
|Carllie, Edward Hildred||Horner, Andrew Long||Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Houston, Robert Paterson||Starkey, John Ralph|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Keswick, William||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)|
|Clyde, James Avon||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Coates, Major Edward F.||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Cooper, Captain Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Mackinder, Halford J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mitchell Thomson and Mr. Neil Primrose.|
|Dairymple, Viscount||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)||Moore, William|
|Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
Bill committed to a Standing Committee.
§ Bill reported with Amendments; to be considered this day (Friday).