Lords Sitting of 11 July 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Railways (Guards' and Passengers' Communication) nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Court of Appeal Chancery (Despatch of Business) * (215); Banns of Matrimony * (216).
Second Reading—Vaccination (189).
Referred to Select Committee—Vaccination (189).
Committee—Offices and Oaths (100 & 218); Transubstantiation, &c. Declaration Abolition (101); Merchant Shipping* (180); Real Estate Charges Act Amendment* (191).
Report — Transubstantiation, &c. Declaration Abolition (101); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) * (187); Merchant Shipping * (180 & 219); Real Estate Charges Act Amendment* (191).
Third Reading—Adjutants of Volunteers (192), put off for three months; Galway Harbour (Composition of Debt)* (176); Blackwater Bridge* (178); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* (207); Linen and other Manufactures (Ireland)* (186); Edinburgh Provisional Order Confirmation * (198); War Department Stores* (209).

OFFICES AND OATHS BILL—(No. 100.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
OFFICES AND OATHS BILL—(No. 100.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (All the Queen's Subjects, without reference to their Religious Belief, shall be eligible to hold the Office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland).
  LORD LYVEDENmoved the insertion of the words "Lord Lieutenant, Lord Deputy, Lord Justice, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland," the effect of which would be that a Roman Catholic might hold the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The noble Lord said that the Bill, as originally introduced into the House of Commons, contained the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland among those that were to be affected by the Bill; but the words were struck out by the narrow majority of three votes—the numbers being 143 to 140, and be hoped they would be restored by their Lordships, in order that the Commons might have an opportunity of re-considering their decision. He might further observe that in the minority there were included the votes of forty-seven Irish Members, while in the majority there were only twenty-nine Irish Members. The omission was therefore carried entirely by the votes of English and Scotch Members, What he wished was to remove the notion
  1368
  from the minds of Irishmen that legislation for Ireland was conducted only for the interest of Great Britain, and in this it was impossible not to believe that an Irish Parliament would have arrived at a different conclusion. What was the answer in larger questions to those who called for measures exclusively in Irish interests? The Established Church in Ireland was regarded as a standing insult by the Irish people, and as a symbol of their subjection. He could, however, easily understand that Parliament and the Government were not at present prepared to deal with that question, and he should be the last man to blame any Ministry for shrinking from encountering the difficulties by which it was surrounded. He could not help thinking, too, that they would be more likely to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion upon the subject by postponing its consideration until another Session, when most probably a so-called Conservative Ministry would deal with it as they had with the question of Reform. The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was another source of incessant annoyance to the Irish people. When that subject was lately mentioned in this House, all their Lordships who spoke put themselves, so to speak, on the stool of repentance, and said how much they regretted having helped to pass such a Bill. Again, however, the repeal of this Act might excite very much the Protestants of England and Scotland. He could, however, see no reason why they should not at once resolve on rendering Roman Catholics eligible to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In fact, his difficulty was in understanding why the Lord Lieutenant should be included in the list of offices which might not be filled by Roman Catholics. The only objections he had ever heard urged to his proposal were, first, that the Lord Lieutenant was invested with Church patronage, and that such patronage ought not to be placed at the disposal of a Roman Catholic; and secondly, that the Lord Lieutenant was the representative of the Sovereign, and ought, therefore, to be a Protestant. But the first of those objections was met by a provision in the Bill itself, as it had been originally framed, which declared that whenever a Roman Catholic should be appointed Lord Lieutenant, the Church patronage attached to the office should be vested in trustees; and with respect to the second argument against the proposal—the Lord Lieutenant was the representative of the Sovereign—

  1369
  he certainly was the representative of the Sovereign at levees, balls, and receptions; and he represented the Sovereign also in conferring knighthood, and in receiving young ladies who were entering the world. But a Roman Catholic could perform these duties as well as a Protestant, The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was, in fact, the subordinate of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and was often inferior to his own Chief Secretary, who was sometimes a Cabinet Minister when he was not. The Governor of Canada and the Governor General of India might be Roman Catholics; and the exclusion of a Roman Catholic from the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was owing solely to the lingering prejudice against that religion, and a dislike to allow Roman Catholics to fill offices which might be filled by persons of other religions. He hoped that their Lordships would give the House of Commons an opportunity of re-considering their decision upon this point. The question should be treated as one of political expediency alone, and should not be looked at from a religious point of view at all. As enlightened Protestants their Lordships were bound to do all they could to show that the Roman Catholics were not treated differently from members of other religions, and were admitted to their fair share of patronage, in spite of their religious opinions. This was one of the minor concessions by which their Lordships would soothe, to a certain extent, the irritation existing among the Irish people, though Parliament might not be prepared to make those greater concessions for want of which Ireland was a constant source of weakness instead of strength to this country.
  An Amendment moved, p. 1, 1. 17, after the first "of" to insert "Lord Lieutenant, Lord Deputy, Lord Justice, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, or"—(The Lord Lyveden.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that in moving the second reading of the Bill, he had expressed his regret at the omission of the words which would have opened to the Roman Catholics the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but at the same time he said that he did not think it advisable to endanger the passing of the measure by the re-introduction of that provision. He entirely approved, however, of the present proposal, and he should give his best support to the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, he was not only opposed to the present proposal, but to the whole Bill, which he still trusted their Lordships would reject altogether. The noble Lord who had moved the Amendment (Lord Lyveden) in instituting an analogy between India and Ireland, seemed to forget that Ireland, unlike India, was an integral portion of the United Kingdom. Sir Robert Peel, when he introduced the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act, specially exempted the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and the present Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, in 1859, told the House of Commons that the ground upon which the question had never been brought forward since 1829, was that lawyers recognized the principle that the Lord Lieutenant was exempt because he was the direct representative of Royalty in Ireland. It was said that we ought to deal with Ireland as the Irish people wished to deal with it; and an essential part of the Union between England and Ireland was that they were to be one united country. Lord Castlereagh, in proposing the Union to the Irish House of Commons, said—
  "I now proceed to that part of the question which concerns religion, and the Church Establishment of the country—one State, one Legislature, one Church. These are the leading features of the system, and without identity with Great Britain in those three great points of connection we never can hope for any real or permanent security. The Church, in particular, while we remain a separate country, will ever be liable to be impeached on local grounds. When once incorporated with the Church of England it will be placed upon such a strong and natural foundation as to be above every apprehension and fear from adverse interest, and from all the fretting and irritating circumstances connected with our colonial situation. As soon as the Church establishments of the two kingdoms shall be incorporated into one Church, the Protestant will feel himself at once identified with the population and property of the Empire, and the establishment will be placed on its natural basis."
  From personal experience in Ireland he could say that if we did not treat Ireland as an integral part of the Empire we should create ill feeling in every parish of the country. He believed the Irish people did not care anything about his measure, and that it mould only create discord among the different classes in the country.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he desired to express his thanks to the noble Lord who had proposed the Amendment. He could not conceive any grounds why, in reason or policy, we should keep alive a

  1371
  continual suspicion against Roman Catholics. We were not bound now to consider the words and actions of Sir Robert Peel at a time when the Roman Catholics were held in great suspicion. Catholics had since shown that they were capable of being as good citizens as their Protestant fellow-countrymen, and we ought, therefore, to treat them without being unduly influenced by party feeling, political or religious. We might depend upon it that one of the great causes of discontent in Ireland was not so much the law of land tenure, or the position of the railways as, it was the feeling that the Roman Catholics were subject to Protestant ascendancy, and until that feeling was removed the Roman Catholics would never be content. The Roman Catholics of Ireland did not wish for ascendancy, but simply for religious equality. Whatever the private religious views of an individual might be, or however erroneous he might think the doctrines of the Roman Catholics to be, he had no right to make them the measure of his action in his legislative capacity; we had to legislate for a mixed people, and we ought to do that which was best for the community. He could not conceive any valid reason why the Lord Lieutenant should not be of the same religion as the people; he had talked it over with Friends and with noble Lords, and he could get no better reason than this—"I cannot give you any reason, but I don't like it," an answer which, however pardonable it may be from a pretty pair of lips of one of the other sex, is yet utterly unworthy of a man and a legislator. Good reasons ought to be adduced for rejecting a measure which would do justice to the religion of a whole people. To those who might urge that it would endanger the Protestant Constitution to appoint a Roman Catholic as the representative of the Sovereign in Ireland, he would reply that, without entering upon the question as to whether even theoretically such a consequence might be reasonably assumed, at least practically it was not likely to arise, as he was not aware of any Catholic Peer of the present day who would accept the office even if it were offered him, as the office required an union of qualifications not easily obtained. He did not, therefore, think there was any danger to be apprehended from the Bill. We were not required to deal with the Irish people as they would deal with themselves, but we ought to deal with Ireland as we should
  1372
  wish Ireland to deal with us if we were in the same position as the people of that country.
  THE BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNORrose to make an earnest appeal to the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment not to press it. He objected to it not on grounds of principle, but on practical grounds. If the Amendment were carried, the machinery of the Bill would have to be recast. Again, the beneficial effects which the Bill was intended to produce in Ireland would not be realized if the Amendment were adopted. It ought not to be forgotten that, although Her Majesty's Government did not initiate this measure, they had adopted it in a kind and generous spirit. One good effect that would follow the adoption of the measure would be that the Irish people would conclude that at all fitting opportunities the Government would be prepared to remove religious disabilities, which, it must be confessed, were not now many nor grievous. No good would result from pressing the Amendment, while the provisions of the measure were in themselves wise, just, and generous.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNopposed the Amendment. Sir Robert Peel, in moving the second reading of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, said—
  "It will, nevertheless, be quite consistent with this principle to exclude Roman Catholic from a certain limited number of offices, which have special and peculiar duties attached to them, connected with the patronage of the Church, or with education, or the administration of the Ecclesiastical Law. The Roman Catholic is jealous of our interference with the appointments and discipline of his Church, and we have, at least, as good a right to take security for the maintenance of the integrity of our own. This Bill will, therefore, exclude the Roman Catholic from the office of Regent, and from exercising under any circumstances the delegated authority of the Crown, from the office of Lord Chancellor in England and Ireland respectively, and from the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."—[2 Hansard, xx. 762.]
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have to express my regret that I cannot agree to the proposed Amendment. I am extremely unwilling to say anything which could hurt the feelings of any Roman Catholic Member, or which could convey the slightest doubt as to the perfect loyalty of the great body of the Roman Catholics of this country. But this is not a question either of loyalty or of disloyalty; it is a question respecting the power and authority to be intrusted to persons of a certain religious persuasion who are distinctly specified in the Emancipation Act of 1829. I

  1373
  do not at all object to the alteration under which Roman Catholics will be made admissible to the high office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland; for I think that a Roman Catholic lawyer, whose talents have raised him to eminence and position, should have opened to him all the advantages of his profession; and more especially as in the present Bill provision is made against his exercising that portion of the functions of the Lord Chancellor which could hardly be properly discharged by a Roman Catholic. I therefore give my entire support to this measure as it passed the House of Commons. But you raise another, and a very serious question, when it is proposed to extend the provisions of the Act to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It is all very well to say that the office is one of mere pageantry; but this is by no means the case, he is the head of the Privy Council, which possesses very extensive executive powers. And when my noble Friend at the table (the Earl of Denbigh) says that there will be no satisfaction among Roman Catholics until they are admissible to all offices it should be borne in mind that such an argument would extend not only to the Lord Lieutenant, as the representative of the Sovereign, but to the Crown itself. He who holds as a delegate the office of Viceroy is thereby placed in the position of the Crown, and if it be right that the Vice-royalty of Ireland should be held by Roman Catholics, it is equally right that the Constitution of this country should be set aside so as to enable the Crown itself to be held by a Roman Catholic. I allow that it is unlikely that a Roman Catholic would be appointed to the high office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but still this is a question not of theory, but of principle. The principle is that the Constitution of this country is a Protestant Constitution, presided over by a Protestant Sovereign, and that when the Viceregal authority is delegated it should be delegated to a person who is of the same religious persuasion, and bound to maintain the same religious principles, as the occupant of the Throne itself. For the reasons which I have just stated, I think it is extremely inexpedient that this question should be opened by the noble Lord. The House of Commons has decided that the office of Lord Chancellor in Ireland should be thrown open to Roman Catholics, I entirely concur in the prudence, the wisdom, and the justice of that measure; but when it is proposed to go a step further, and to delegate the practical
  1374
  authority of the Crown, the head of the Executive, to a Roman Catholic, I must say, I think that is encroaching very closely upon what is a vital portion of the Constitution of this country, and I, for one, should deeply regret to see such a course taken.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I cannot allow the remarks which have been just made by the noble Earl to pass without any answer. I am astonished to hear the noble Earl place the question of admitting Roman Catholics to the office of Viceroy on the same level as the admission of Roman Catholics to the Crown. I have no desire whatever to disparage the office of Viceroy; for certainly no one who has ever filled it would be likely to do so. But what are the duties of the Lord Lieutenant? They may be divided into two parts. In one sense he may be said to be the representative of the Crown. He holds certain Court ceremonials which, no doubt, it is very desirable should be held, though I see no reason why they should not be held by a Roman Catholic. But the Lord Lieutenant does exercise one great function. He has the power of granting pardons. Still, though that authority is directly delegated to him by the Crown, and is therefore exercised in a different manner from the power exercised by the Home Secretary, yet it only differs in this—that the Lord Lieutenant acts as a Minister directly himself, and directs that a sentence be commuted or remitted, while the Home Secretary recommends the Crown to grant the commutation or remission of a sentence. As regards the duty of the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the general government of the country, he is directly subordinate to the Cabinet and to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs; and, indeed, the very terms of his commission direct that he shall correspond with and receive instructions from the Home Secretary. Now, as the Secretary of State and every member of the Cabinet with the sole exception of the Lord Chancellor of England may be Roman Catholics, I can see no reason why a Roman Catholic should not be appointed to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I was not at all anxious that this question should be brought before your Lordships, inasmuch as it has been already settled in the House of Commons; but at the same time I must express my opinion that the arguments are most forcible in favour of admitting Roman Catholics to the office of

  1375
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and therefore I shall vote with my noble Friend.
  On Question? their Lordships divided; —Contents 55; Not-Contents 69: Majority 14:—Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Churchill, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Clermont, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Cranworth, L.

  De Tabley, L. [Teller.]

  Camden, M.

  Ebury, L.

  Foley, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Airlie, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Harris, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  De Grey, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Lyveden, L. [Teller.]

  Grey, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Monson, L.

  Morley, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Petre, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Eversley, V.

  Exmouth, V.

  Portman, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Romilly, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Seaton, L.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Chester, Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Down, &c., Bp.

  Stratheden, L.

  Stuart de Decies, L.

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

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Camoys, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Teynham, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Manvers, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Powis, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Romney, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Stanhope, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Tankerville, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Wilton, E.

  Westmeath, M.

  Zetland, E.

  Amherst, E.

  De Vesci, V.

  Bandon, E.

  Hawarden, V.

  Bantry, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Brownlow, E.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Cadogan, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Cardigan, E.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Ossory, &c., Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Devon, E.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Boston, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Home, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  1376

  Churston, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Colonsay, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Delamere, L.

  Denman, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Sondes, L.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Southampton, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Hylton, L. [Teller.]

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Tredegar, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Overstone, L.

  Wynford, L. [Teller.]

  Penrhyn, L.

  On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, he should oppose the clause to the utmost.
  LORD ATHLUMNEYsaid, the rejection of the clause would be tantamount to the rejection of the Bill. It was objected to the appointment of a Roman Catholic Lord Chancellor that such an officer might have it in his power to do great mischief. But surely the same could be said against other high functionaries; and yet he was happy to say that the Bench of Ireland, whether Protestant or Catholic, was above all suspicion. Nor would the stream of justice become less pure if a Roman Catholic by his character, his abilities, and efficiency in the performance of public duties were able to attain this high position. Religious equality he believed to be the only ulterior views entertained by the Catholics in this matter: and until that religious equality was granted they would never have—he would not say peace, because he believed that the Irish people would endeavour to gain the redress of their grievances by constitutional means—but they might depend upon it that they would never have the people satisfied or contented. The late Mr. Shiel had denounced the present state of the law as a signal wrong to the whole Catholic Bar, and had characterized it as a mark which the manacle had left behind. For his own part he could only express a hope that their Lordships would be just and fear not—pass the measure if it were a just one, but not refuse their assent for any unfounded dread of the consequences.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Every Judicial or Corporate Officer may attend his place of Worship in his Robes without incurring any Penalty).
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that he did not apologize for rising to move the

  1377
  rejection of the clause, for it applied, not to Ireland only, but to England also, and Scotland and Wales. Its object was to render it legal for civic and judicial officers to do that which had been prohibited by law as long ago as the 5th year of Geo. I. (1718), and had been again prohibited in the Roman Catholic Relief Act, 10th Geo. IV. (1829). By both those Acts it was expressly provided that no such officers should frequent any other than the Established Churches of the land in their robes of office. By this clause the prohibition was removed. Now, he did not object to judicial and civic officers resorting in their private capacity to their places of worship, as Mr. Justice Shee had recently done in his diocese; but he did object to the gowns, the chains, the maces of civil or judicial Royalty being carried to any place rather than to those hitherto permitted. For now it would be possible not only for a Roman Catholic Lord Mayor to bow down in all the pomp and circumstance of his civic Royalty before the host, but also for a Jewish Lord Mayor, with similar parade and state to frequent the Jewish synagogue. Now to this he objected on three distinct grounds. First, this clause was inconsistent with the principle of an Establishment; but not only so, it was actually inconsistent with Christianity itself. Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land, as was set forth in a recent judgment of Lord Chief Baron Kelly. Now how could their Lordships pass a clause which would permit the representative of the Sovereign—for the Sovereign was the fountain of all honour—to attend a place of worship, acting and appearing as her representative, in which Christianity might be denied, and even the existence of God himself called in question? How could they do so in loyalty to the Saviour of Mankind, or in justice to their fellow-subjects? In justice, he said to their fellow-subjects, for such public actings would teach them lessons not of nonconformity to the Establishment only but of nonconformity to Christianity also. Vain would be all theorizing to the contrary—
  "Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem,
  Quam quæ sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus."
  Secondly, it was impossible to conceal the fact that this, and like measures, are supported by many with similar objects in view to those of the famous Edicts of Toleration of James II. The supremacy of Rome in these lands was their ultimate goal. He respected greatly the consistency and the pertinacity with which his
  1378
  Roman Catholic fellow-subjects pursued that aim. No consideration of persons or party were permitted for a moment to interfere with this paramount object of restoring to England what they conscientiously believed to be a great blessing; but as he read that Holy Book which once was, and perhaps still was, carried in solemn procession at the coronation of the Sovereign, and as he read history as it chronicled the fluctuations of our national fortunes, he came to the conclusion that such reinstatement of Rome amongst us, was neither for the glory of God nor the good of the people. He, therefore, felt it right to resist every step, and this amongst them, which led in the direction indicated. His third and last reason was the wanton offence given by this clause to the Protestant feelings of England and Scotland. Sir Robert Peel, in introducing the Bill for Roman Catholic Relief in 1829, said—
  "There are, however, some points—in no respect trespassing on any legitimate privileges or discipline, that the religion of the Roman Catholics requires to be preserved inviolable—which may be so arranged and regulated as to afford great satisfaction, and a sense of security to the Protestant mind. With this view I think it fit to provide that when Roman Catholics are admitted to the enjoyment of corporate offices, and other offices of a similar nature, under no circumstances whatever shall the robes and other insignia of office be taken to, or exhibited in, any other place of religious public worship than one belonging to the Protestant Established Church of England."—[2 Hansard, xx. 775.]
  And subsequently in Committee, speaking on this clause, Sir Robert Peel said—
  "This was a clause calculated to give great satisfaction to Protestants, and no dissatisfaction to Catholics."—[Ibid, 1438.]
  Mr. Brougham speaking, in the adjourned debate, of the whole measure as proposed by Sir Robert Peel, said—
  "It went the full and entire length that any reasonable man ever did or ever could demand. It did equal justice to his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. It put an end to all religious distinctions; it exterminated all civil disqualifications on account of religion. In its means of operation it was at once simple and efficacious; it clogged no exercise of civil or religious rights, and required no securities but such as the most zealous Catholic must readily admit to be, of necessity, part and parcel of such a comprehensive measure."—[Ibid, 834.]
  And Lord Lansdowne, on presenting a Petition from Ireland, said—
  "To the conditions attached to the measure—conditions which he would not then argue—he could not entertain any objection. He meant those conditions which regarded the Catholic

  1379
  religion. He had never for a moment contemplated that any measure on this subject would be allowed to pass, without such reasonable securities as should satisfy the doubts and calm the consciences of the Protestants while they inflicted no wound on the feelings of the Catholic population; and he saw nothing of a contrary character in these conditions."—[2 Hansard, xx. 1015.]
  The Protestant feeling of the country was far from being allayed. On the contrary, the noble Earl (the Earl of Denbigh) must permit him to say that recent events and legislation all in a Romeward direction excited afresh the suspicions of the people, and rendered the maintenance of such restrictions even more necessary than ever. For these reasons he moved the rejection of the clause.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsupported the clause, and begged to remind the right rev. Prelate whose remarks had been directed chiefly against the Roman Catholics, that the clause applied not to Roman Catholics only, but to Nonconformists as well. There was no security whatever to the Established Church in retaining the distinction which now prevailed. In Ireland especially, it would be extremely desirable that the Judges and mayors of the Roman Catholic religion should be seen by the population attending their places of worship with the insignia of their offices.
  On Question, Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 218).

TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARATION ABOLITION BILL—(No. 101.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARATION ABOLITION BILL—(No. 101.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he rose to move that their Lordships should go into Committee on that day six months. He desired in the first place to call attention to that portion of the Bill which declared that—
  "It shall not be obligatory for any person hereafter to take, make, or subscribe the said declaration as a qualification for the exercise or enjoyment of any civil office, franchise, or right within the realm;"
  and would ask the Lord Chancellor whether, having respect to the provisions of
  1380
  the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, which regulate the succession to the Crown in the Protestant line, and render it imperative on every King and Queen to make that declaration, its abolition can be enacted without injury to the throne and constitution in the cases of those—
  "Who hold or exercise the office of guardians and justices of the United Kingdom, or of Regent of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such office may be constituted?"—(10th Geo. IV. cap. 7.)
  And whether in the event of the abolition of the declaration in this latter case, the country might not be governed under a Regency on principles irrespective of, or antagonistic to, those which the fundamental laws of the realm require the Sovereign, by most solemn sworn obligations, personally to maintain. The change proposed to be made by this Bill was a revolution? It was nothing but a revolution. [Laughter.] The question whether this country was to continue to be a Protestant country was not one to be treated with levity. The real authors of the Bill were the Jesuits, who, as was well known, were in this country contrary to law. Had the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) devised any plan whereby our illustrious Sovereign wan to be absolved from the declaration she took at the commencement of her reign, or was Her Majesty to be bound by a declaration which would not necessarily bind any one of her subjects? He had recently learnt by the visit of a missionary something he heard taught in the metropolitan Roman Catholic chapel in Dublin, which might astonish their Lordships. The object of the preacher was to get his auditory to pray to the Virgin Mary, and he added the reason—
  "For you know that she stood by her Son during his sufferings upon the cross, while his Father deserted him, which you must know is true, because the Bible says it."
  This was the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church only a fortnight since; monstrous and blasphemous sis it was it is true. He knew he was using strong language. He was there for the purpose. It was said that such statements were offensive. Well, and, of course, so was the Reformation itself to the Roman Catholic Church; and so also was the very name of Protestant. It was purposely to counteract this idolatrous teaching of the Church of Rome, that the oath against Transubstantiation was framed and enacted. It is the great Protestant landmark, which that party, of which the noble

  1381
  Earl has become the willing mouth-piece in this House, want to obtain the repeal of. He thought that dynastic considerations formed a sufficient reason why their Lordships should reject this attempt to interfere with the Protestant institutions of the country. He begged to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether the abolition of the declaration in question could be enacted without injury to the Throne and Constitution in the cases of those who hold or exercise that office of Guardian and Justice of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such officer may be constituted; and, whether in the event of the abolition of the declaration in the latter case, the country might not be governed under a Regency on principles irrespective of or antagonistic to, those by which the fundamental laws of the realm require the Sovereign by the most solemn sworn obligations personally to maintain?
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months.")—(The Marquess of Westmeath.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it might be convenient before the House went into Committee that he should answer the question of the noble Marquess, who seemed to be under an erroneous impression with regard to the extent to which the declaration was required. The question of the noble Marquess was pregnant with inferences, but he thought that he could answer it satisfactorily. As to the particular officers referred to he could tell the noble Marquess that there was no danger in repealing the declaration, inasmuch as these persons were not required to make it. The declaration against Transubstantiation was first established by the statute of Charles II., and was required to be taken by Peers, Members of Parliament, and servants of the Crown; and after the Revolution that declaration was, by the Act of William III., required to be taken by the persons to whom it referred, and under the Bill of Rights by the Sovereign. He believed that the noble Marquess would find that there was no danger of the Crown being isolated by this Bill; because, in fact, isolation had already taken place to a considerable extent, for there were now very few persons who were required to make the declaration. It was a very extraordinary thing that neither the learned and able Commission whose Report was before them, nor the House of
  1382
  Commons had adverted in the slightest degree to the fact that Roman Catholics were relieved altogether from making the declaration by the Roman Catholic Relief Act. The preamble of the Act said—
  "Whereas by various Acts certain oaths and certain Declarations, commonly called the Declation against Transubstantiation, and the Declaration against Transubstantiation and the Invocation of Saints, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as practised in the Church of Rome, are, or may be required to be taken, made, and subscribed by the subjects of His Majesty, as qualifications for sitting and voting in Parliament, and for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights."
  It then enacted—
  "From and after the commencement of this Act all such parts of the said Acts as require the said Declarations, or either of them, to be made or subscribed by any of His Majesty's subjects, as a qualification for sitting and voting in Parliament, or for the exercise or enjoyment of any office, franchise, or civil right, be and the same are (save as hereinafter provided and excepted) hereby repealed,"
  What were the exceptions? From the 12th section it appeared that the exception did not apply to the Regent of the United Kingdom, and it might be said, although it appeared doubtful, that it did not apply to the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The words of the sections were these—
  "Nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend to enable any person or persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, to hold or exercise the office of guardians and justices of the United Kingdom, or of Regent of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such office may be constituted."
  These words only prohibited Roman Catholics holding the offices. The clause said nothing more with regard to the necessity of making the declaration. But it went on—
  "Nor to enable any person, otherwise than as he is now by law enabled, to hold or enjoy the office of Lord High Chancellor, Lord Keeper or Lord Commissioner of the Great Seal of Great Britain or Ireland, or the office of Lord Lieutenant, or Lord Deputy, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland."
  Inasmuch as no person could hold the office of Lord Chancellor or Lord Lieutenant without making this declaration under the former Acts, the declaration was retained with regard to these particular offices; but the words did not apply to the Regent of the Kingdom. Therefore, the liability and obligation to make this declaration having been repealed by the preamble and the first section of the Act, it was quite clear it was not re-enacted with regard to this particular office. As

  1383
  far as concerned these offices there was no danger in the Bill, which merely provided for that which was by law established. The question was a very different one from that which was before the House on a previous occasion. This question did not affect Roman Catholics at all. As far as he understood the argument they said they were offended by Protestant Privy Councillors having to make this declaration against Transubstantiation in the presence of Roman Catholics. He had very great doubt whether a Privy Councillor was bound to make the declaration; indeed, he believed that under 10 Geo. IV. a Privy Councillor was not bound to make it. It might be customary to require them to make it; but he saw nothing in the Act which brought Privy Councillors within the 12th section. However, if a Privy Councillor was bound to make this declaration, and if offence was given to Roman Catholics, there was an easy way of avoiding offence and preserving the declaration. He saw no reason why private subscription to the declaration should not be sufficient; and, if the slightest encouragement were given to him, he should be disposed to move an Amendment that subscription alone should be required.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas surprised that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack should have said anything in support of the declaration. He was under the impression that the measure had the complete assent of the Government in the other House; and he was, therefore, the more surprised that the noble and learned Lord should have endeavoured to induce their Lordships to retain this offensive declaration. The Commission recommended its abolition. There was no obligation on Privy Councillors to make it, and they did not make it. The only persons who did make it were the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The Roman Catholics of Ireland regarded it as an insult to them that the chief representative of the Government in Ireland, whom it had been determined should not be a Roman Catholic, but a Protestant, should commence his tenure of office by making a declaration which was needlessly offensive to Roman Catholics. That declaration was conceived in the spirit of the speech of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Westmeath). The declaration, whether made by word of mouth or by subscription,
  1384
  would be grievously offensive to the great body of the Irish people, and he thought their Lordships could not follow worse advice than that which had been given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  LORD LYVEDENwas of opinion that a subscription to the declaration would be as offensive as to make it verbally.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHthought this Bill would place the Sovereign in an isolated and anomalous position; and it would behove Parliament at some future time to consider whether the Sovereign should not be also relieved from the necessity of this declaration.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHthought the compromise proposed by the noble and learned Lord was a satisfactory one, and he would therefore withdraw his Motion.
  Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? put, and agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORremarked that the Commission had reported in favour of the abolition of the declaration, on the ground that it was publicly made and was couched in terms which gave great offence to the Roman Catholics who were present. It appeared to him, however, that by adopting the course which he had already indicated, the declaration might be retained by Protestants without giving offence to the religious feelings of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwished to know whether the Government shared the views of the noble and learned Lord?
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHdenied that the sacrifice of the Mass, as practised in the Church of Rome, was, as the declaration asserted, either superstitious or idolatrous; and he might remark that many Protestants were also of opinion that there was no superstition or idolatry in the Mass.
  LORD LYVEDENinquired whether the noble and learned Lord intended to move any Amendment?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had been expressing only his private opinion. He felt very strongly that the declaration might be retained without any offence being given to Roman Catholics. He had no desire, however, to press this opinion upon the House. He had said that if he met with any encouragement he should move an Amendment, but as he

  1385
  had not found any encouragement he should not move one.
  Then it was moved that the Bill be now reported.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months.")—(The Marquess of Westmeath.)
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill reported accordingly, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

ADJUTANTS OF VOLUNTEERS BILL.
(No. 192.)—(The Lord Campbell)
ADJUTANTS OF VOLUNTEERS BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in moving the third reading of this Bill, said, that as the House had sanctioned it in all its former stages, he should not deem it necessary to depart from the silence he had scarcely broken on it, if it were not that a noble Duke upon the other side (the Duke of Buckingham) had declared himself as likely to oppose it. The opposition of the noble Duke, however, he had reason to suppose, was not the opposition of the Government. What doubts or difficulties had occurred to the noble Duke as to the Bill, he (Lord Campbell) felt unable to conjecture. It might, however, be imagined that it was not called for by existing inconveniences. He would, therefore, assure the House that existing inconveniences alone had induced him to bring it forward. In the 46th Middlesex, with which he was connected, for the last three years the Adjutant had been exposed to the necessity of serving upon juries. At one time the late Sir John Shelley, the commander of the corps, questioning the right of the authorities to summon him, ordered him not to attend at Westminster but to perform his regimental duties. By disobeying such an order he would have become liable to a court martial; and by fulfilling it he incurred the risk of a considerable fine. In the present year the Adjutant had been repeatedly compelled to go to Westminster and to remain there. A few weeks ago he was detained during the whole of the day, on which the regiment paraded in the evening, and was only enabled by a good deal of activity to reach his house and join the battalion in uniform. The same circumstances might
  1386
  arise in any corps of the metropolis or elsewhere if the Adjutant was an householder. The noble Duke might think perhaps that the law, as it stood, would guard against the evil. He (Lord Campbell) had received professional assistance on that question, and felt no doubt that in order to meet the case the law required to be amended. The magistrates in petty sessions had maintained the liability of Adjutants in Volunteer corps. The only exemption by which they could be sheltered was that of officers on full pay in the Royal army; they were on full pay, but they had left the Royal army, and it was clear, at least from the facts he had adduced, that the authorities of Middlesex were guided by that doctrine. As regards the policy of the exemption he proposed, it hardly stood in need of vindication. Adjutants in Volunteer corps received the pay of captains—a sum he believed of £300 a year. It was absurd to suppose that the public intended to defraud itself, and to grant a considerable salary with one hand, while it obstructed the performance of the duties for which that salary was given with the other. In the series of exemptions which existed and which were founded upon two Acts of Parliament, many would be found which the public had not by any means so clear an interest in granting. Exemptions were given to apothecaries, sergeants-at-law, and others whose occupation was indirectly useful to society, but who were not among the paid and thus acknowledged servants of the country. Even the exemption of regimental officers in the Royal army on full pay, which came nearest in its character to that which the Bill demanded, would hardly stand on a foundation of necessity so valid. If an Adjutant of Infantry in the Line or in the Guards was withdrawn from his duty that he might serve upon a jury several lieutenants would be qualified if not ambitious to replace him. In a Volunteer corps from its nature the remaining officers were all engaged in civil occupations, and if the Adjutant was forcibly withdrawn the loss was utterly irreparable; drill could not go on, and all the operations of the regiment were suspended. Nor would the evil be restricted to some fixed portion of the year as it would in the case of the militia or yeomanry. When the exemptions were created there was no such office in the country as that of Adjutants in Volunteer corps holding their commissions from the Crown, and receiving salaries in order that

  1387
  their whole time might be devoted to the regiment which they served in. The case was new and wanted legislation to provide for it. Their Lordships, he trusted therefore would see no reason to depart from that favourable judgment of the Bill, which, on all the previous stages, they had intimated.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Campbell.)
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMopposed the Bill, which had passed through its previous stages without discussion or explanation, because he thought it unwise to extend to Adjutants of Volunteers the exemption from serving on juries. Adjutants of yeomanry and militia regiments were liable to serve, although from being on active duty at the training, which occupied twenty or thirty days in the year, they would occasionally be exposed to far greater inconvenience than Adjutants of Volunteers. There was no analogy between the case of these Adjutants and officers on full pay in the army and navy, because the latter might at any moment be summoned to leave the country; while Adjutants of Volunteers were always resident in the town or county to which their corps belonged. He, therefore, moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months.")—(The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos.)
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that the reasons urged by the noble Duke were insufficient to warrant their Lordships in rejecting a Bill which would enable officers who were paid by the country to render more efficient service. Adjutants in the yeomanry and militia had no duties to perform in connection with their regiments except during the time of training, while with the Adjutants of Volunteers a constant attention was requisite.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsupported the Bill.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, it was evident the noble Duke had no objection to the Bill upon its merits, but only thought it a disparagement to the militia and the yeomanry that no exemption should be given to their Adjutants, if the exemption was created for Adjutants of Volunteer corps. As far as he (Lord Campbell) was concerned, he would not hesitate to say that
  1388
  clauses, to meet the wishes of the noble Duke, might be inserted in the other House of Parliament. As there was not a shadow of argument against the Bill, he hoped, that after this assurance, the noble Duke would not insist upon dividing.
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 6; Not-Contents 18: Majority 12.

  CONTENTS.

  Denbigh, E. [Teller.]

  Monson, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Sidmouth, V.

  Stratheden, L. [Teller.]

  Denman, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Romney, E.

  Beaufort, D.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D. [Teller.]

  Bagot, L.

  Colonsay, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Cranworth, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Redesdale, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Belmore, E.

  Derby, E.

  Southampton, L. [Teller.]

  Devon, E.

  Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 3a on this Day Three Months.

VACCINATION BILL—(No. 189.)

  SECOND READING.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to a Select Committee.
  And, on July 12, the Lords following were named of the Committee:

  Ld. President

  L. Hatherton

  E. Devon

  L. Portman

  L. Boyle

  L. Churston.

  L. Lyttelton

  COURT OF APPEAL, CHANCERY (DESPATCH OF BUSINESS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make further Provision for the Despatch of Business in the Court of Appeal in Chancery—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 215.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.