Lords Sitting of 29 May 1865

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl Poulett, after the Death of his Uncle.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No.3) * (127); Churches and Chapels Exemption (Scotland) * (128); Dogs Regulation (Ireland) * (129).
Committee—War Department Tramway (Devon) * Clerical Subscription (132); County Voters Registration * (116); County of Sussex* (114).
Report—Companies Workmens' Education (131); County Voters Registration * (116); County of Sussex * (114).
Select Committee—Sewage Utilization, Earl of Essex added.
Third Reading—Police Superannuation * (95); Pilotage Order Confirmation *, (67) and passed,

COMPANIES WORKMENS' EDUCATION BILL—(No. 121.)—REPORT.
Amendments reported (according to Order.)
Clause 1 (A Majority of a Mooting of Three Fourths of Shareholders may Vote Money for Purposes of Education, &c.)
Moved, to leave out Clause 1, and insert the following clause in lieu thereof.—(The Lord President.)
"Any Joint Stock Company or Corporation may by a Resolution passed by a Majority of not less than Three Fourths of such Members of the Company for the Time being entitled, according to the Regulations of the Company, to vote, as may be present in person or by proxy (in Cases where by the Regulations of the Company Proxies are allowed) at any General Meeting of which Notice specifying the Intention to propose such Resolution has been duly given, and such Resolution being confirmed by a Majority of such Members for the Time being entitled, according to the Regulations of the Company, to vote, as may be present in Person or by proxy at a subsequent General Meeting, of which notice has been duly given, and held at an interval of not less than Fourteen Days and not more than One Month from the Date of the Meeting at which such Resolution was first passed, resolve that any Sum of Money, not exceeding that of which such Notice shall have been duly given as above mentioned, shall be applied, either in gross or annually, for such Period as they may resolve, in providing Education, Worship, or Religious Instruction of the Families of the Persons employed by them, and they may also, by any Resolution similarly passed and similarly confirmed, resolve that any Land not exceeding an Acre in any One Vote shall be granted or appropriated, in perpetuity or otherwise, for any of the Purposes aforesaid; and thereupon the Directors or other Persons authorized to manage the Affairs of the Company or Corporation shall carry such Vote into effect: Provided nevertheless, that any such Resolution shall contain such Orders as shall provide for admitting to the Benefits of the Education which it provides the Children of Parents not in Communion with the Church, Sect, or Denomination,
954
according to the Doctrines or Formularies of which Religious Instruction is by the same or by any previous Resolution of the Company directed to be provided."
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKregretted that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) should propose to introduce a "conscience clause" into a Bill with which it had nothing to do. The Bill was simply to allow public companies to do what any private persons or firms could do and ought to do at present—to attend to the educational wants and well-doing of the children of their work-people. He was quite astonished to find there was room for a conscience clause within the four corners of the Bill. It was a conscience clause in an exaggerated form, because the conscience clause was essential only where there was but one school in a town. In the ease of a great railway town like Crewe, where the interests of Nonconformists were carefully watched, and where they had already sufficient schools for their children, some one might be willing to give a sum of money to endow a school for his own sect or denomination. He might offer to pay all costs if the company would only give a bit of land; but this trifling gift could not be made if this clause were adopted, unless provision were made in the same order that all other sects and denominations should be educated at the school. But they are supposed to be all provided for already. The Bill was extremely simple in its character, and knowing something of towns where such schools had been established, there having been such places in the diocese over which he formerly presided as well as those in his present province, he could state that in them never had there been any complaints of the children of Nonconformists being excluded. There were many cases in which schools were kept up by the sufferance of companies, and which a single adverse vote would stop; but they never were stopped, because the want of education was admitted by all, and because education was fairly provided for all. He challenged the noble Earl to point to a single case of hardship. He had always understood that Parliament never fettered the action of any one, unless it also conferred privileges. This Bill only sought to cure an omission in railway legislation, but the proposition of this clause would change a simple act of justice into a controversial measure. He would never advocate any system by which the Church Catechism would be imposed upon Nonconformists, nor could he be a

955
party to the infliction of any hardship upon Dissenters, but he could not consent to this needless clause.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the observations of the right rev. Prelate seemed to imply that the object of the Bill was simply to allow railway companies to do that which individuals had the power to do at present; but, in fact, the Bill applied to all joint-stock companies of every description. Joint-stock companies were associations of persons for certain specific objects, and the Bill would give power to a certain proportion of the shareholders to grant for educational purposes money from funds which had been subscribed by the general body of shareholders. Now, the minority of the shareholders might be, and very probably would be, Dissenters; and he (Earl Granville) maintained that if they did confer this compulsory power upon the majority, it was also perfectly fair that they should accompany that power by the admission of a principle which had already been adopted in the Endowed Schools Bill by the right rev. Prelates themselves—that of precluding the minority, whatever their number, from being compelled to subscribe their money towards the maintenance of schools perfectly exclusive in their character, by which course their children would either be debarred from participating in the benefits of the education for which their parents were compelled to pay, or would receive an education contrary in its character to that of which the consciences of parents and the shareholders approved. It appeared to him to be purely an act of common justice, and he was therefore extremely pleased when he saw the most rev. Prelate rise in his place, knowing him to be one of those enlightened churchmen who shrunk, either directly or indirectly, from bringing any compulsion to bear upon those who did not concur in the doctrines of the Church of England, and averse from any proceeding which could by any possibility be regarded as an attempt to cram those doctrines down their throats. The most rev. Prelate, however, objected to the clause because he did not believe that any hardship was likely to occur. If such, then, were the case, he (Earl Granville) could not see the slightest objection to the introduction of the safeguard which he now suggested. If he thought that the clause which he proposed would in any way prevent the railway or joint-
956
stock companies from establishing schools where religious instruction should be given, and that instruction, too, consonant with the doctrines of the Church of England, he should refrain from proposing it; but he felt convinced that the clause could not by any possibility operate in any such way.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONtrusted that his most rev. Brother would not divide the House on the question, for he thought that after all the question was one in which they might be guided by expediency. If it were really the intention and the practice to admit the children of Dissenters to these schools, he could not see any great harm in acknowledging the fact. He doubted whether a little more agitation had not been excited with reference to this clause from the circumstance that it bore a rather obnoxious name. It did not, however, represent the "conscience clause" of which they had heard so much, but was in reality taken from a measure which at the time of its passing received the sanction of the right rev. Bench.
EARL GREYsaid, there were other large companies besides railway companies—such as iron companies—which would be affected by the Bill, and he thought it most desirable that they should be relieved from the technical difficulty which now existed. The practical effect of the measure would be the same whether the clause were adopted or not, and he hopen the most rev. Prelate would not oppose the Amendment, because its rejection might jeopardize the measure in another place.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he was extremely anxious that the measure should pass; but he would venture to urge upon the most rev. Prelate that he should insist upon the Bill in its original form, and not sanction the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl.
On Question, That Clause 1 stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 53; Not-Contents 38: Majority 15.
Amendment negatived.

CONTENTS.

York, Archp.

Bath, M. [Teller.]

Dublin, Archp.

Salisbury, M.

Westmeath, M.

Marlborough, D.

Richmond, D,

Amherst, E.

Rutland, D.

Bandon, E.

957

Belmore, E.

Chelmsford, L,

Carnarvon, E.

Churston, L.

Derby, E.

Colchester, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Crofton, L.

Delamere, L.

Denman, L.

Hardwicke, E,

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Home, E.

Pomfret, E.

Heytesbury, L.

Powis, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Rosse, E.

Kingsdown, L.

Stanhope, E.

Lyttelton, L.

Wilton, E.

Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Raglan, L.

Kavensworth, L.

Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Lifford, V.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Melville, V.

Scarsdale, L.

Bangor, Bp.

Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Oxford, Bp.

Rochester, Bp.

Sondes, L.

St. Asaph, Bp.

Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

Bolton, L.

Walsingham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Annaly, L.

Belper, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Devonshire, D.

Somerset, D.

Cranworth, L.

Ebury, L.

Albemarle, E.

Foley, L. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Chichester, E.

De Grey, E.

Harris, L.

Effingham, E.

Houghton, L.

Granville, E.

Oxenfoord. L.(E. Stair.)

Grey, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

Saint Germans, E.

Portman, L.

Eversley, V.

Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

Sydney, V.

Seaton, L.

Torrington, V

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Lincoln, Bp

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Llandaff, Bp

Taunton, L.

London, Bp.

Wensleydale, L.

St. David's, Bp.

Wentworth, L.

An Amendment made; Bill to be read 3ª To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 131.)

MANNER OF TAKING DIVISIONS IN THIS HOUSE.

  STANDING OEDER PROPOSED.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDrose to call the attention of the House to the Manner in which Divisions are taken, with a view to some Standing Order being passed to regulate the same. On a recent occasion considerable confusion had arisen in con-
  958
  sequence of the manner in which the Question was put. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack put the Question as he was in the habit of doing; but there did not appear to be any distinct rule for the guidance of the House as to what interval should elapse between the putting of the Question and the Division actually taking place. Under these circumstances he thought some Standing Order should be passed to regulate the proceeding. The occasion to which he had referred, though of some importance, was not a very exciting one; but there were occasions when a division might involve the change of a Government, and when noble Lords, either anticipating the loss of office or accession to office, might not regard the matter with indifference. It would, therefore, be well to agree to some Standing Order while no excitement existed. He proposed that the following Standing Order be agreed to:—
  "That when, on the Question being put, a Division is called for, the noble Lord on the Woolsack, or in the Chair of Committees, shall order the House to be cleared. As soon as the House shall be cleared, the noble Lord on the Woolsack, or in the Chair, shall again put the question before the division takes place, and an interval of two minutes shall be suffered to elapse between the order of clearing the House and closing the doors."
  That, he believed, was the practice which prevailed in the other House, and he believed it had been found entirely satisfactory. He moved that the words he had read should be adopted and become a Standing Order.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not object to the proposition, but he would suggest that the proposed Standing Order should be printed, that it might be seen by all their Lordships; and the noble Duke might afterwards move its adoption by the House.
  LORD REDESDALEwas understood to approve the proposed Standing Order.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he was very glad the noble Duke had directed his attention to this subject. He thought it important that a Peer who had gone into the Library, perhaps, to consult a book on the subject of the debate should not be excluded from taking part in the division. The noble and learned Lord whose duty it was to put the Question should also be relieved in a moment of political excitement from all responsibility and the possibility of blame as to the time of taking a division. This could at once be secured by the interval of two minutes

  959
  being suffered to elapse between the time of clearing the House and closing the doors. His noble Friend (Viscount Eversley), who had presided in the other House with so much credit as Speaker, could bear witness how well a similar system had worked in the other House of Parliament.
  LORD EBURYsaid, he hoped when this subject was considered, that an effort would be made to define what was the House and what was not the House. On the occasion which had been alluded to a noble Lord sat in a particular portion of what he should have called the House; but it was said he was not in the House, and his vote was refused.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he believed the practice to be, although no formal Resolution had been adopted to that effect, that every Peer who could hear the Question put was to be considered in the House.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would consider the subject fully and consult the Chairman of Committees and the Clerk of the Parliaments in regard to this Standing Order. He would have it printed, and bring it forward again immediately after the Whitsuntide holydays.

CLERICAL SUBSCRIPTION BILL;

  (No. 132.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee."—(The Lord President.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLINrose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. The most rev. Prelate, who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that he felt some embarrassment in addressing their Lordships for the first time, especially on a subject eminently difficult and delicate, and considering, also, that the interest, the honour, and the well-being of that Irish Church with which he was so nearly connected were so much at stake in the conclusion at which they might arrive. For the neasure itself on which his Amendment was made he could only express the same approbation which had already been expressed in that House. He was not going to praise that which all had praised, which all recognized as a useful, a healing, and a quieting measure; but it was of the manner in which the Bill had been
  960
  introduced that he complained. The noble Earl (Earl Granville), in moving the second reading of the Bill, told them that it had not indeed the concurrence—for he would not admit that for an instant—but still that it had the approval of the Clergy in Convocation of the Provinces of Canterbury and York; but when the noble Earl arrived at that point he suddenly stopped—he made no mention whatever of those two Provinces of the United Church of England and Ireland—Armagh and Dublin. It was true that the noble Earl did not ascribe any importance to the approbation of the two English Provinces, and said, indeed, that their approval of the Bill was altogether superfluous and unnecessary. No doubt in some sense it was so. No one questioned the power of Parliament to pass such a measure as that before them; no one questioned the obligation on every subject to yield dutiful obedience to such a measure so passed; but they might doubt whether, although it was not legally necessary that those Provinces should consent to the Bill, it was not in a higher and more statesmanlike point of view most desirable that their consent should be obtained; and even in the passing remarks of the noble Earl he thought there was a. certain recognition of that. The measure was avowedly a peace-making measure, intended to heal strifes and remove scruples, and he thanked Her Majesty's Government for introducing it; but still who could for a moment have believed that Her Majesty's Government would have introduced such a Bill in a manner that would have been ungrateful and distasteful to the great majority of those whom it most nearly concerned? Could any one have thought for an instant that they would have introduced the Bill in such a manner as to create dissatisfaction and discontent a hundred-fold greater than that which it removed? However lightly the approbation of the English Church might be spoken of, yet all felt and understood that the Bill would not have been brought in without it. Well, what they were doing for the English Church he asked them also to do for the Irish. It was true that the Irish Church was weak not altogether by its own fault, if the Church of England was strong—it might be able only to count its hundreds of thousands while the English Church counted its millions; yet if a principle were involved that could make no difference, and

  961
  a principle was there involved. The English Church had had the opportunity of expressing, whatever value it might have, its concurrence with that measure. It had had the opportunity by Royal licence and permission of framing its canons and declarations in conformity with that which was probably to become part of the statute law of the realm. The Irish Church appealed to them for the same permission. There was in Ireland as in England a Convocation, which had been in abeyance for many years as that of England had been for about the same period. He was not about to trouble their Lordships with and antiquarian researches respecting that Convocation. He would only mention that it dated as far back—it could not date back any further, being called by Royal writ—it dated as far back as Parliamentary Government in Ireland; that from 1625 to 1711 it was repeatedly so summoned; that at its last period of meeting, in 1711, it passed five canons, which, having received the assent of Her Majesty Queen Anne, became part and continued part of the ecclesiastical law of Ireland. He was not at all desirous that that Convocation should be permanently revived—there might be many differences of opinion on the subject of whether that was desirable or not—but he asked that that opportunity should be given to it which was not withheld from the English branch of the Church—namely, that of having a voice in the alteration and amendment of its own canons and subscriptions, so as to bring them into harmony with those of the sister Church of England and with the legislation of the State. Let the Irish Convocation be called together merely pro hoc negotio. He besought their Lordships, who were pre eminently the guardians of all that was historical and traditionary in the constitutional law of the Church and the State—who were pre-eminently the guardians of the weak, feeling that their own privileges were best maintained through the maintenance of the privileges of others, and knowing how many of them believed that the maintenance of the Irish Church was bound up with the best and truest hopes for the future of the whole Irish people—he besought them not to pass that slight upon that Church—not to inflict upon it that wound—not to set that mark of difference between it and the Church in England—not to create discontent and dissatisfaction and heart-
  962
  burnings, and a sense of wrong far more serious, far wider, many times wider, than any evil which they proposed by that measure to remove.
  Amendment moved to leave out from ("That") to the end of the Motion for the purpose of inserting
  "This House does not deem it expedient, without the Concurrence of the Convocation of the Irish Provinces of the United Church, to proceed with this Bill so far as it may set aside and supersede the Canons of these Provinces; and that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to convene the Convocation of the Irish Provinces for the Purpose of amending those Canons which relate to the Subscription of the Clergy and to the Oath against Simony, so as to assimilate the Law of the Church in England and Ireland in relation thereto, and so as best to secure the united Action of all the Provinces of the Church."—(The Archbishop of Dublin.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the most rev. Prelate had truly described the measure as one of a peacemaking character. He could assure him that Her Majesty's Government had never intended to introduce a Bill that would give the least offence or cast any slight upon the Church of Ireland. The measure was most earnestly desired, and he must strongly appeal to the most rev. Prelate not to press his Amendment. The late Primate of Ireland, the Archbishop of Armagh, had informed the Government with regard to the revival of Convocation in Ireland, that in his opinion it was not desirable that it should be revived, and the matter was most carefully considered at the time by the Government, who were entirely of the same opinion. Nothing had since occurred to change their views on that point, and therefore it was not their intention to call again into activity the Convocation of the Irish Church. The Government would deeply deplore if they had to abandon that Bill, or to confine its operation to England only, and on the other hand they could not agree to call the Irish Convocation together. He thought either of those alternatives most undesirable, and he trusted that the most rev. Prelate would not persevere in a proposition of so embarrassing a nature.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, that he was not prepared to support the Amendment which his most rev. Brother had submitted to their Lordships' consideration. He hoped that a measure of this importance would not be delayed by its adoption. He wished to observe that the Bill contained very great and important

  963
  changes, which were calculated to have a salutary effect. The desire for this measure had clearly arisen from the oppressive form of declaration sanctioned by the Act of Uniformity, by which statute the person making the declaration was bound to declare his unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained in the Book of Common Prayer. He was glad that for the enactment of that declaration the Church was not responsible—it was the act of the State; and it was very remarkable that the year after the Act of Uniformity passed a declaratory clause was added, at the suggestion of a Committee of their Lordships' House, that the declaration of assent should be understood as to practical obedience and not otherwise; that the assent and the consent were not to all and everything in the Prayer Book, but to the use of all and everything in the Prayer Book. Thus it was now proposed to sweep away that declaration, and to substitute the following for it:—
  "I, A. B., do solemnly make the following-declaration:—I assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and to the Book of Common Prayer, and of the ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. I believe the doctrine of the United Church of England and Ireland, as therein set forth, to be agreeable to the Word of God; and in public Prayer and administration of the Sacraments I will use the Form in the said Book prescribed, and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority."
  He wished to explain that that declaration had been adopted after most careful discussion by the unanimous vote of all the Members of a very large Commission, representing every phase of public opinion on this subject. It had been said that the change involved in adopting this declaration was very slight. On the contrary, it was very large and important; and before the Act was passed the Church and the country ought to consider how much was carried in it. "With regard to the Articles, the old form declared that the Articles were agreeable to the Word of God; the new one will affirm that the doctrine of the Articles is agreeable to the "Word of God; but a question might be raised, as old, indeed, as an Act of Elizabeth, whether all the Articles did contain doctrine—whether this part of the declaration necessarily covered all the Articles. Then, as to the Prayer Book, in accepting the doctrine of the Prayer Book, how much does the subscriber really bind himself to? The Courts have held that to constitute the offence of heresy, some definite
  964
  proposition of the Articles or formularies must be impugned. But words of devotion are not propositions; wishes or aspirations are not dogmatic statements. Therefore, so far as legal decisions went, the Prayer Book would contain little doctrine, however much it might imply. The new declaration would be much less stringent than the old, both as to the Prayer Book and the Articles. He did not urge this as an argument against the measure, far from it; but the change was too great to be passed in silence, and he thought it right to avow that it was great. With regard to the words "so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority," when that part of the declaration was drawn up by the Commission, it was by no means contemplated to leave the lawful authority undefined, and he was afraid that some difficulty might be felt in consequence of the existence of those words. The question might arise what was the lawful authority; and he thought it most important in making a declaration that there should be nothing doubtful in it. He would, therefore, be disposed to move the omission of those words, unless some attempt were made to define what was meant by the expression "lawful authority."
  THE BISHOP OF KILLALOEsaid, he desired to draw back their Lordships' attention to the Amendment which had been moved, and he begged to observe that he adopted every word which had fallen from the most rev. Prelate who proposed it. He was fully persuaded of the good intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and he thought that all ought to feel grateful for their manifest design to assimilate the ecclesiastical law in England and Ireland. On the other hand, people would look at the whole of the matter, and not merely at the declarations of the noble Earl the President of the Council, who had spoken of the assent of the Irish Provinces of the Church as of no great consequence, while at the same time he was fully aware that the approval of the English Provinces had been sought for to the measure. In point of fact, although it might be alleged the assents of the Convocations of Canterbury and York were not necessary, still they had been asked for in order to facilitate the passing of this measure, and he thought the same course ought to have been taken with regard to the Irish Convocations. He knew, however, that allowances must be made for the difficulties of all Governments. But the Bill as it stood might bear two opposite interpre-

  965
  tations. On one side it might be said that the Legislature regarded as superfluous and unnecessary the concurrence of the Synods of the Church in the passing of the Bill. The Convocations of York and Canterbury, no doubt, had been indulged in their innocent desire to play at deliberation over the measure; but it had not been thought in any way necessary to call for the assistance and advice of the Synods of Armagh and Dublin. He trusted his brethen of the English Church would not lend their countenance to any such interpretation as this of the duty and functions of the councils of the Church. On the other hand it might be said that though by the law of England, by several legislative Acts, and by the declarations of Her Majesty's Ministers, the Irish provinces formed an integral part of the United Church of England and Ireland; yet in reality, and under the rose, this was understood to be merely a civil matter, the Irish Provinces were not called into consultation, while by some it was thought the time was nearly approaching when all connection would be severed, and the Irish Provinces cast off entirely. It could not be expected that the representatives of the Irish Church would quietly accept such views as these, and he trusted that his Brethren of the English Bench, and even a considerable proportion of their Lordships, who thought it of importance that an ecclesiastical measure should have the approval of the Synods of the Church, would be unwilling so to regard the matter. Two classes of subjects were dealt with this Bill. The first was the real difficulty; and it was created by the Act of Parliament imposing the declaration of assent and consent: with that Convocation had nothing whatever to do. The declaration was imposed without its desire, contrary, he believed, to the wishes of the Bench of Bishops, and in a manner distasteful to their Lordships' House. The people, however, of that day had seen their Archbishop murdered, their clergy plundered and driven out of their houses; no wonder, then, that they were disposed to deal sternly with those whom they believed to be the authors of those practices. If this Act of Parliament were the great grievance that was represented, it would be easy for the Legislature to alter their statutes, and allow the Convocations to alter their canons, as they were perfectly ready to do. It was notorious that all the Synods of the Church, if they only obtained licence, were ready to carry out the excellent sug-
  966
  gestions of the Royal Commissioners. He had not a word to say against the Report of the Royal Commissioners, or against the frame and structure of that Commission. It introduced, however, a new era, and set a new precedent in Church matters, when the ecclesiastical advisers of the Legislature, instead of being Synods of the Church, duly convoked, and including in some form or other the representative principle, were to be Royal Commissioners selected by the advisers of Her Majesty. Nothing could be fairer than the way in which the Royal Commission had been constituted; but it must he remembered that a precedent bad in its operation always had its origin in something totally unobjectionable; and he should not be accused of pedantry if he appealed to history for confirmation of this assertion—speaking in that House, and in presence of the noble Earl, who, re-stringing the old harp of Homer, found time, amid the distraction of anxious political life, to sing with old Homeric inspiration "the awful deeds of heroes and of gods." Cæsar, on the occasion of some unconstitutional proceedings against the Catilinian conspirators, said he had no fears whatever under Marcus Tullius—nobody could feel greater confidence than he did in him—but he dreaded that the precedent set by the course then advocated might be used another time for a worse purpose—atque ego hoc non in M. Tullio, neque his temporibus vereor. In like manner, he (the Bishop of Killaloe) had no objection to the manner in which this Royal Commission had been constituted or to any of the Members of which it was composed, nor had he any material objections to their Report, but he did object strongly to the principle that the ecclesiastical advisers of the Sovereign and the Legislature were to be Commissioners selected in this manner. It had always been felt that the Legislature required some kind of Ecclesiastical body to advise and co-operate with it, even at a time when nobody could exercise the functions of a Member of Parliament without being a professed member of the Established Church. On looking into the Journals of their Lordships' House that morning, he found that in the reign of William and Mary, when their Majesties addressed both Houses, and declared their great affection for the Church of England, and their resolution and determination to maintain it, at the same time requesting Parliament to take measures for the ease of scrupulous consciences and for

  967
  improving the position of Dissenters, that House made a respectful answer, which would be found in their Lordships' Journals for the year 1689, praying their Majesties—
  "To issue forth their writ, calling the Convocation of the clergy of this kingdom to be advised with on ecclesiastical matters."
  He was very far indeed from saying that the Convocations of the Church were perfect; Convocation had been often disgraced by sad scenes—but so also had Parliament, he was afraid; and it was not long since they heard that representative institutions were on their trial, and that grave doubts existed whether they could work on. He was not entering upon a general defence of Convocation, but this he would say, as he was forced to speak of the Irish branch, that, although there might have been scenes in it which were to be deplored, there never were any of those unseemly conflicts between the Upper and Lower Houses which had taken place across the water—they always worked together in harmony; and on the last occasion that Convocation sat in Ireland, their final occupation consisted in drawing up canons for the purpose of enabling the Church to work more thoroughly with the Irish speaking population, by the translation into Irish of the Scriptures and Book of Common Prayer. And it was the jealousy of the English Government with respect to such proceedings that formed the immediate cause of the suppression of Convocation. Not once, but frequently, this had been the case with the Church of Ireland. When that Church was most seriously endeavouring to discharge its proper functions and to perform its proper work, it had been stopped by the interference of England, and afterwards the very blame of that cessation from work, of that enforced apathy, had been thrown by England upon the Irish Church. In many respects, no doubt, Convocations were wanting; but it was one of the principles involved in their constitution that they contained a representation of the presbyteries of the Church. In advocating them he was not speaking so much for his own order. The Bishops of the Church—at least the majority of them—were still Members of that House; and it was still possible for the Primate of all England, the Peer, who, next to the Royal blood, was first of all the peerage of England, to get a hearing for a few hurried words on matters of grave importance, even while
  968
  the House was impatient to get to a Bill about police regulations. But he was speaking now of the privileges of the presbyteries, whose peculiar right it was to form a constituent part of the Synods of the Church. That right they traced from the principles of the Constitution itself, and from the representative principle running through all its branches. Parliament, by its legislation, was setting aside that right of representation, in order to substitute for it a Royal Commission, consisting of persons chosen by the advisers of the Crown. He did not know whether the noble Earl (Earl Granville) in introducing this matter to their Lordships had conveyed to their minds a clear conception of one matter. The communication to which the noble Earl the President of the Council alluded was a paper issued by the Primate of Ireland, in the name of himself and of the Bishops of the Irish branch, in which he requested Her Majesty's Government, instead of proceeding by four several Convocations to advise Her Majesty, to call together an united synod of the entire Church. He (the Bishop of Killaloe) quite concurred, in this view, that by far the best way would be to summon a Synod of the entire Church; and he thought that that request was one which should not have been refused, and that would have removed all difficulty from the matter. At the time of the "Union, Mr. Pitt made a distinct statement in Parliament that it was unnecessary to insert any provision for the purpose in the Acts of Union, because it was the inherent right of the Sovereign, as head of both branches of the Church, to call Convocation together whenever he pleased. That, undoubtedly, was what he should greatly prefer; but as that request was refused, the Irish Bishops asked for the next best thing. If there were any doubts or difficulties in the matter, he would suggest that the Amendment should be framed in such a manner as to take the form of a Motion for a Select Committee to consider what was the proper form of recurring to the advice of the bishops and clergy of the Irish Church. For years the Irish Church had been asking for synodical action. At one time they received no answer; then a positive refusal; then that the Convocations of York and Canterbury having done nothing which the Queen would be advised to ratify, her Majesty's advisers considered that there was no necessity for a Convocation of the Irish Provinces. Statesmen had been

  969
  so constantly occupied in checking the usurpations of the Church, that, considering that the danger lay on that side, they neglected to look to the other side. It was not for the interest of the Commonwealth that the civil power should be all in all. The State required the aid of religion to give sanction to its precepts, and unless there were a reference to that higher law whose seat was in the bosom of God, the law of the State would be in vain—if they confined the law to the horizon of this world they would make it mean and brutal, and deprive it of more than half its value. When statesmen had enslaved the Church, deprived it of all freedom of action, and stripped it of al that made it venerable in the eyes of men, they would find the tool to be useless with which they intended to work. A greater folly could not be attempted by any statesman than to turn the Church into a mere branch of the Civil Service, and at the same time to expect it to answer and civil end whatever. The union of Church and State could be maintained without impairing the activity of the Church; but, looking at the matter in a worldly point of view, and the State and the Church as two societies, the union of the Church and State was more desirable for the State than for the Church. It answered higher purposes than earthly ones; it freed the clergy from temptations, which temptations might otherwise be too strong for them; temptations to become slaves to the people or to corrupt and debase their doctrines in such a way as to make them absolute despots.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, the Commissioners had certainly regarded it as an axiom in their proceedings that there should be no difference with respect to what was to be recommended for the English and Irish branches of the Church. But he must admit that the Commission had overlooked the practical difficulties which would arise, and which had arisen. The Report did not say a word about Convocation, but they took for granted that, with regard to England, by immemorial usage the alterations of the canons which they recommended would require the sanction of the Convocations of Canterbury and York;—because, though no doubt Parliament, according to the old legal saying, could do everything except "turn a man into a woman," it did not do everything, and one of the things which it was not likely to do was to alter the canons of the Church without the sanction of Convocation. Taking these two things
  970
  together—the necessity of not separating the two branches of the Church, and the necessity of consulting Convocation—the present occasion was one of difficulty. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Killaloe) said there was no difficulty in calling together the Convocation of the Irish Provinces; but there was this technical difficulty, that there were no records of the Convocation of the two Provinces. At the time that Convocations were held in Ireland there were four ecclesiastical Provinces. At the present time he thought that it was practically out of the question to call Convocation together in Ireland for the purpose of obtaining the assent of that branch of the Church to this alteration. He wished to know from the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin) whether it was the intention of his amendment that it should be an Instruction to the Committee that the ease of the Irish Church should be postponed and left for further consideration? In his opinion that might be the best compromise; for on the one hand he should be sorry to advise the Irish Prelates to waive the rights of their church, but, on the other he could not agree to postponement of the measure as it concerned England. He attached great importance to the measure; he believed that it had a very good chance of passing this Session, and he was exceedingly unwilling to give up this prospect because of the difficulties of one branch of the Church. He should advise the Irish Prelates not to do anything that would have this effect, especially if they were willing to have the Bill passed and the case of their own branch of the Church omitted from it, and considered on a future occasion.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, that the noble Earl (Earl Granville), in moving the second reading of the Bill, said that the measure was one of kindness and conciliation; and, if so, he asked, why should the Irish Protestants be the only parties excluded from the benefit of a Bill which was declared almost universally to be good? If it would relieve the English Church from a difficulty, why should not the Irish Church have the same benefit r He thought that more time should be given for consideration. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) doubted whether it would not be necessary to call together the Convocations of the four Provinces; but by the Church Temporalities Act it was declared that all powers whatever which were theretofore possessed by the Provinces of Cashel

  971
  and Tuam should be transferred to those of Armagh and Dublin. Any noble Lord? who knew Ireland would, he was sure, concur with him in the statement, that the condition of the Church in Ireland was rapidly improving, and new churches were rising up day by day. He would, with the permission of their Lordships, read an extract from a speech by the late Bishop Jebb of Limerick, in which he stated his opinion in reference to the position of the Church of England and the Church of Ireland. The right rev. Prelate said—
  "One point and I have done. We have lately heard frequent mention of the Church of England and the Church of Ireland. I have myself heard it maintained in various companies, and I have read the doctrine in several publications, that the Church of England stands on a different footing from the Church of Ireland, and that the one Church ought to be treated differently from the other. Now against this doctrine, against any conclusion deducible from it, I most solemnly protest. I know the law knows not of any Church of England; I know the law knows not of any Church of Ireland; I know the law knows of one Reformed Episcopal Church within this realm, the United Church of England and Ireland. The English portion and the Irish portion at the period of the Union were bound together indis solubly, and for ever. They are one in doctrine, one in discipline, one in government, and one in worship. Each portion, therefore, must be treated as the other. Again, if one portion of the Church suffers, all must suffer with it. The Church in England and the Church in Ireland have no separate interests, have no separate being. They must stand or fall together. The United Church of England and Ireland is one and indivisible."
  In conclusion, he (the Earl of Bandon) expressed his earnest hope that their Lordships would aid them in the attempt to obtain what was due to the Church of Ireland.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he could not but think that this matter had been put in a somewhat false position. He believed that the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin) had not intended to make his Motion as an Amendment to going into Committee, but rather to move a Resolution in Committee in reference to the Irish branch of the Church. He (the Bishop of Oxford) was most anxious not to vote against anything that the Prelates of the Irish Church should think desirable for the maintenance of the rights of the Irish branch; but he must say that he could not vote for this Amendment on the Motion for going into Committee, because he thought that it was most important that this Bill should be at once proceeded with. He would therefore sug-
  972
  gest to his most rev. Friend that he should withdraw his present Motion, and that he should in Committee move either that the clause bearing upon the Irish branch of the Church should be postponed for further consideration, or to move an Address to the Crown, praying the Crown to call Convocation together, and thus allow them in a constitutional manner to alter the canons of the Church. He must, however, strongly deprecate the doctrine that the supposed exigency of the Irish branch being used in such a way as to give rise to a taunt that it acted upon the progress of the English branch as a retarding power; and he thought that a persistence in this Resolution would expose it to that imputation. This would be to put his Irish brethren into an altogether false position; and it would tend to do harm to the cause of the Irish branch of the Church. He confessed that he did not see any great hardship in postponing this matter in reference to the Irish branch until next year, it being no new thing that legislation for the Irish Church should follow that for the Church of England. It was not true that the canons of the two branches of the United Church were now identical—they were different in important points, and they needed to be brought closer together; but there was no necessity for that agreement in the time and manner of legislation which was now contended for. If the Prelates of the Irish Church wished to sec the constitutional mode of Church action established in Ireland, let them bring that forward as a proposition by itself; and not place it as an obstruction in the way of direct. English legislation. As the case at present stood, many of the English Prelates would have to vote against their Irish brethren. They did not, however, wish to be placed in that position, and therefore he trusted that the most rev. Prelate would withdraw his Motion, as he could bring it forward in another shape in which the English Bishops could give it their independent support.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONjoined his request to that of his right rev. Brother, and upon this strong ground—that they were by this Amendment requested to ask for the Irish branch of the Church that which had not been conceded to the English branch. They were, moreover, asked to stop legislation for England, and to pray that Her Majesty would be pleased to call Convocation together in Ireland for the purposes named in the Motion. But they had made no such Address to the Crown

  973
  in reference to England; and although when Convocation was sitting it had been understood that it would not be unacceptable that they should consider this question, there had been no attempt on their part to stop legislation until this had been done, and therefore the Irish Church claimed what the English Church had not claimed. What had been done was conciliatory to the Irish Church. The two Primates of Ireland had been placed upon the Commission, they had been consulted upon every step taken, and there was a strong feeling on the part of the Commissioners that the English and the Irish Church should be treated in the same manner. A strange error had found its way into the usual organs of public opinion, that it was the wish of the Commission that the Irish Church should be treated differently from the English Church; but when he expressed his own conviction that upon the maintenance of the Irish Church depended greatly the prosperity not only of Ireland but also of England, and when he stated that there was a kindly feeling exhibited, he believed, by all the members of the Commission towards the Irish branch of the Church, he did not think it unreasonable that they should ask the most rev. Prelate not to claim for the Church in Ireland that which had neither been accorded to nor claimed by the Church in England.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLINsaid, he regretted that his ignorance of the forms of the House had led him into a course he had not intended to take. He certainly had not intended to oppose any obstacle in the way of legislation, but simply to move his Motion as a first Amendment in Committee, with permission of the House, he would strike out the first six lines of his Motion, and begin with the words, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty."
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that the Motion in that form would have precisely the same effect. If it were moved prior to going into Committee it would stop the progress of the Bill.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLINwithdrew his Amendment.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn; then the original Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Declaration of Assent.)
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD THE BISHOP OF OXFORD moved to
  974
  strike out the words at the conclusion of the clause—
  "I will use the form and the said hook prescribed, and none other, except so far as altered by lawful authority."
  After a few words from Earl GRANVILLE,
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Oath of Allegiance).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDdrew attention to the fact that this clause was not in conformity with the recommendations of the Commission. He trusted that in this, as in all other cases, their recommendations would be carefully followed.
  LORD LYTTELTONhoped that the House would not be led into the belief that the Commission attached to all its recommendations the same importance, or that it advocated such strict adherence to its recommendations in regard to this clause as in the case of Clause 1.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the state of the law on this subject was somewhat complicated. The clergy took the oath of allegiance and supremacy only; but there was also the oath of abjuration. Two or three years ago an Act was passed substituting for the three oaths another oath; but it was held by some of the Courts that inasmuch as the clergy only took the oaths of allegiance and supremacy the recent Act did not apply to them. The subject was very much discussed in the Commission whether it would not be better to get rid of all differences in the oaths; that there should be but one oath in lieu of the three; and that that should be taken by the clergy instead of the two they were in the habit of taking. He thought that a very desirable change; but if it was at all felt that this was any departure from the recommendations of the Commission, or that it would in any way endanger the passing of the Bill, it would be much better to strike out the clause.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that rather than endanger the Bill he would withdraw the clause.
  Clause negatived.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 132).
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.