Lords Sitting of 9 July 1855

MINUTES.
Sat first in Parliament.—The Lord De Mauley.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Endowed Schools (Ireland); West Indies Relief Loans Arrangement; Bills of Lading (No. 2).
2a Haileybury College; Powers under Improvement Acts Regulation.
3a Accidents on Railways.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES OF ROMAN CA- THOLIC PRELATES—THE MAYNOOTH REPORT.
THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA,who had given notice of a Motion on this subject, inquired whether the Government intended to oppose the Motion?
THE EARL OF HARROWBYreplied, that he could not consent to the passing of the Motion.
THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAthen, in formally making the Motion, referred to a clause in the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, imposing a penalty of 100 l. on any persons other than the persons authorised by law, who should use the name

611
title of archbishop of any province, bishop of any diocese, or dean of any deanery in England and Ireland; and also to another clause, imposing the Roman Catholic oath; upon which two clauses the promoters of the measure, he said, laid great stress, as affording security to the Protestant Establishment. The great body of the Protestant people of this country knew how perfectly futile the clauses which he had read had been in securing the objects for which they were framed. When it was proposed by the noble Earl at the head of the late Government to issue a commission of inquiry into the government and management of the College of Maynooth, all that the friends of Protestantism asked was, that it should be ascertained whether the teaching in that college was not inconsistent with the undivided allegiance which every subject owed the Sovereign, and in opposition to those great principles of civil and religious liberty on which our Protestant constitution was founded. When the names of the Commissioners were made known, however, it was found that there was not a single man among them who was not in favour of the establishment into the working of which they were appointed to inquire. After two years they produced a Report comprising two folio volumes, two-thirds of which were mere jesuitism; and as to the other third, it was so unintelligible, that the more one read the more confounded one became. Before the evidence taken by the Commissioners was presented to Parliament, a copy of it had been furnished to Dr. Cullen for his opinion and correction; and he would go one step further, and say that he believed Dr. Cullen had sent the evidence to Rome. To Rome, that had, indirectly, occasioned the war now raging in the East—for it was in consequence of the concessions made in favour of about 200,000 of his Roman Catholic subjects, in answer to the demand of the French Sovereign, that the late Emperor of Russia made a similar demand upon the Sultan on behalf of 10,000,000 of Greek Christians. In the appendix to that Report he found that, in direct contravention of the statute law of this country, ecclesiastical titles were given to Roman Catholic bishops, and he was sorry to say that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Harrowby) was an instrument in giving such illegal titles to those prelates. In one part of the Report he found the names given as those of Dr. M'Hale and Dr. So-and-So,
612
but on turning to the appendix, the names were given as the Most Rev. Joseph Dixon, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, the Archbishop of Tuam, and so on. Thus had the Commission given to these men titles that were prohibited by law, resting on the security of which the Protestants of this country had been gulled and deceived. His object was to correct that Report, and make it more in conformity with, the law and constitution of the country, and with that view he begged to submit his Motion to their Lordships.
Moved, To resolve—
"That the Recognition of those Ecclesiastical Titles prohibited to the Roman Catholic Prelates by the Act of 1829, intituled 'The Roman Catholic Relief Act,' in the Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Management and Government of the College of Maynooth, is a direct Violation of that Act:
"And that an amended Copy of that Report be placed upon the Table of this House, with those illegal Titles omitted."
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he did not rise to discuss the propriety of the Catholic Emancipation Act or the propriety of the establishment of Maynooth. This was not a fitting season to enter upon either of these topics. What their Lordships were now called upon to discuss was, simply the proposal of his noble Friend with reference to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the management and government of the College of Maynooth, being in violation of the Act of 1829, and that an amended copy of that Report should be laid upon the table. Now, as far as he could understand the Acts bearing upon this subject, there was nothing illegal in giving these titles to anybody; the illegality lay in the assumption of the titles. To give these titles to any one might be a discreet or indiscreet act, but it was no violation of the law. The Commissioners did not wish in any way to act upon a purely technical interpretation of those Acts, but were at the same time perfectly aware how incumbent it was on them to act up to their spirit, and they had, accordingly, taken great care that the spirit of the Act should in no way be tampered with. His noble Friend had, indeed, unconsciously given testimony to the care of the Commissioners upon this point, for he had himself pointed out that it was not in the Report itself, but in the appendix, that the titles which he complained of were given. Whenever the Commissioners spoke in their own persons, they did not confer these titles upon the

613
Roman Catholic prelates; but in two cases the titles were given in a reprint from the Catholic Directory, which was inserted in the appendix to the Report. He admitted he thought it would have been better if in those cases the titles had not been given; but he must remind the noble Earl that the Commissioners, speaking in their own persons, had always most carefully avoided any breach not only of the letter but even of the purpose and intention of the law. The noble Earl had himself borne testimony to the propriety which had characterized all the acts of the Commissioners themselves, and he (the Earl of Harrowby) hoped the House would not think a very inexcusable oversight had been committed, in not running their pens through two ecclesiastical titles of two of the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland in a very voluminous appendix. Complaint had been made that the evidence taken before the Commissioners had been tampered with in this country or elsewhere. It was not necessary to trouble the House with the details of the petty transaction to which this complaint referred; but he regretted that one of the Commissioners—with, he believed, the most innocent intention—had placed a portion of the evidence in the hands of a Roman Catholic archbishop, with the view of obtaining his opinion upon certain points which had been raised in the course of the inquiry, and some months afterwards it appeared that that evidence had been conveyed to Rome. The Commissioner to whom he referred had undoubtedly committed an error of judgment, but at the same time it was not at all unnatural that he should have asked the advice of his archbishop upon points affecting the system of the Roman Catholic Church. He (the Earl of Harrowby) must add, that the evidence taken by the Commissioners, was printed before the portion of the evidence forwarded to Rome could have been received there, and therefore, the charge that the transmission of that evidence to Rome could have had the slightest effect upon the Report of the Commissioners, was physically impossible and totally absurd.
LORD ST. LEONARDSobserved that I under the Roman Catholic Relief Act the assumption of ecclesiastical titles by unauthorised persons subjected them to penalties; and there could be no doubt that, according to the spirit of that Act, such titles should not be given to persons who had no right to bear them. He thought,
614
however, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby), had afforded a satisfactory explanation of the conduct of the Commissioners with reference to these transactions, and he hoped his noble Friend (the Earl of Winchilsea) would not think it necessary to press his Motion to a division.
THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, he certainly should press his Motion to a division. He had a very strong feeling in the matter, and it was not in his power to comply with the request of his noble and learned Friend.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Earl was asking their Lordships to do a thing they had no power to do. What was laid upon the table was the copy of a Report made to Her Majesty, and, right or wrong, the Report was made. It might be a violation of the spirit of the Act, but it was not a direct violation of the Act itself, and therefore, he thought the Resolution could not so far be sustained. He hoped their Lordships would not stultify themselves, if he might be allowed the expression, by declaring a direct violation of the Act that which was nothing of the kind.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEwould feel some difficulty in voting for the Motion, inasmuch as the recognition of these ecclesiastical titles in the Report could scarcely be regarded as a direct violation of the Act which prohibited the assumption of such titles. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Harrowby) had apologized for the error, and, as the recognition of these titles had clearly occurred by mistake, he did not think his noble Friend had any ground for pressing his Motion to a division.
LORD CAMPBELLthought, that there had been no direct violation of the law in the case; and, that being so, their Lordships ought not to pass an abstract Resolution which might have the effect of fettering their judgment in the event of the matter coming before them judicially; or if they did, they ought to be careful that they were in the right. However, he was sure that their Lordships were in the wrong, and he hoped they would not worse than stultify themselves by voting that black was white. He did not think those titles should be conferred any more than they should be assumed. The noble Lord had therefore done well in drawing the attention of their Lordships to the subject, but he hoped the result attained would be sufficient, and that the Motion would now be withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DERBYfelt, that the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Winchilsea), was perfectly justified in calling the attention of their Lordships to that which, if not a violation of the letter of the law, was at all events a violation of the spirit of the law, and ought to have been specially avoided in a document emanating from gentlemen acting under the authority of the Crown. Undoubtedly, if the intention of the law was to check and control the assumption of undue titles and influence on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, it was a grave error on the part of persons acting under the authority of the Crown to permit the introduction of titles which, if they had been assumed by the bishops themselves, would have been a direct violation of the law. It appeared, however, that care bad been taken on the part of the Commissioners to avoid the introduction of improper titles, and that it was purely by an oversight that they had crept into the Report. That being the case, and believing that his noble Friend would see, upon reflection, that the act of the Commissioners was not a direct violation of the law, inasmuch as the law referred to the assumption of titles, and not to titles conferred, and seeing also that the notice which had now been taken of the matter would be a sufficient notice to all parties not to repeat a similar error in future, he trusted that his noble Friend would withdraw the Motion. He (the Earl of Derby), called the Act of the Commissioners an error; but if it was not an error then he considered that it was a very grave offence. He was bound to say that he thought the course of conduct pursued by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, their eager grasping at every possible circumstance which could give colour to increased usurpation, and the mode in which every concession or waiving of the actual letter of the law had led to increased and increasing claims, entirely justified their Lordships and the other House of Parliament in looking with extreme jealousy on any assumption or encroachment on the part of that body. His noble Friend had done great service in calling the attention of their Lordships to this matter; but, at the same time, he (the Earl of Derby) could not recommend the withdrawal of the Report of which his noble Friend complained, and the substitution of another. The parties from whom the Report emanated were functi officio, and he presumed that his noble Friend had
616
no desire to revive the Commission for the purpose of having another Report prepared, or to put the country to the expense of reprinting the Report for the sole purpose of noticing the errors that had crept into it. He confessed that it would have been more satisfactory if his noble Friend could have framed his Resolution so that it would mark the sense of the House as to the erroneous titles given in the Report. At present his noble Friend and the House were in this difficulty—it was impossible that they could assent to the Resolution in its present form, but if it was negatived upon a division it would appear upon the Journals of the House as if their Lordships had sanctioned the assumption of improper titles by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. That he thought would have a most unfortunate effect in future times, because it would appear that his noble Friend had brought forward the question, and that Members upon both sides of the House had felt themselves compelled to vote against it. He earnestly entreated his noble Friend to rest satisfied with the general and unanimous sanction given by their Lordships to the opinion that these titles had been unjustifiably conferred, and to withdraw the Motion.
The said Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

ACCIDENTS ON RAILWAYS BILL.
Bill read 3a, according to Order.
THE EARL OF EGLINTON THE EARL OF EGLINTON moved the omission of Clause 2, which gave the Bill a retrospective operation. The noble Earl said it would be a great injustice to oblige railway companies which, had expended large sums of money upon the construction of level crossings, to make an additional outlay upon the building of bridges.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that a provision which Parliament thought necessary for the public safety with regard to railways about to be made, must also be necessary for the public safety with regard to railways already in existence. He did not think the clause would do any injury to railway companies, and he proposed to give them an appeal from the decision of the Board of Trade to the Privy Council.
LORD ST. LEONARDSopposed the clause, on the ground that it was a direct infringement of the rights of property. Railways were now one of the great material interests of the country; they had become a legitimate investment for money; thousands of families were dependent upon

617
them for support, and they ought not to be tampered with by ex post facto legislation of this kind.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that after the high and exaggerated tone adopted by the noble and learned Lord, with regard to interference with private property, he could not help reminding their Lordships that last year the noble and learned Lord had, by inducing the House to pass his measure for the suppression of dog-carts, perpetrated a retrospective act which affected the property of the poorest classes in the community. He did not think the clause would operate so injuriously as the noble and learned Lord had represented. The Board of Trade would consider the interests of the railway companies as well as those of the public, and in addition, the former would have the protection of an appeal to the Privy Council.
THE EARL OF YARBOROUGHopposed the retrospective operation of the clause.
EARL REDESDALEsupported the clause, and reminded their Lordships that in many instances they had felt justified in enacting measures which, though they were attended with expense to some parties, were necessary for the public health and safety. Since the rule laid down in this matter in 1848 not a single railway company had hesitated to assent to the introduction of this clause; neither had its operation made any difference in regard, to railway speculation. This Bill enabled railway companies to call upon the inhabitants of particular districts to contribute towards the expense of bridges which they were required by the Board of Trade to, erect. He would suggest that the Government should consider the propriety of inserting a clause enabling a district to contribute the amount imposed upon it by, annual payments, instead of in one total sum.
THE EARL OF EGLINTONhaving said a few words in reply,
On the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided:—Content 30; Not Content 21: Majority 9.
On Clause 5, relating to the responsibility of railway companies for the acts of their servants,
LORD LYNDHURSTtook occasion to renew his objections to the clause. Upon a former occasion his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor had quoted the authority of Baron Parke in support of the alteration in the law which was
618
contemplated by the clause; but his noble and learned Friend must have laboured under some misapprehension with respect to the matter, inasmuch as he (Lord Lyndhurst) had in his hand a letter of Baron Parke's, in which he expressed himself as unfavourable to any change in the existing state of the law; adding, at the same time, that if the Legislature determined upon altering it, the change might be made as satisfactorily as possible by the operation of the clause in question.
LORD CAMPBELLthought the clause one of the very best portions of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLORadmitted that he had in some respect misapprehended the views upon the matter which Baron Parke entertained.
Clause agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned till To-morrow.