HL Deb 28 April 1868 vol 191 cc1425-53
THE EARL OF DERBY

, who had given notice to put a Question in reference to certain proposed Resolutions regarding the Church in Ireland, said: My Lords, I have, in the first place, to apologize to your Lordships for having, I am afraid, kept you waiting some few minutes; but the truth is, as several Orders of the Day stood before the Motion of which I had given notice, I thought they would occupy some considerable time. My Lords, I am quite aware that if I were to attempt to enter upon any discussion of the Resolutions which are at the present moment under the consideration of the House of Commons, I should violate the spirit if not the letter of the Orders of your Lordships' House. But I believe I am perfectly in order in referring to the matter of fact which appears on the Journals and Votes of the other House of Parliament, that, immediately before the Easter Recess, a very important Motion was made by a most eminent Member of the House of Commons, and was acceded to by that House by a large majority. That Motion was that the House should go into Committee for the purpose of considering three Resolutions most deeply affecting that branch of the Established Church that exists in Ireland. My Lords, the first of those Resolutions purports to declare the expediency of altogether disestablishing that Church, and separating the State altogether in that country from any connection with its religious institutions or with the religious education of the people, and relying altogether upon the voluntary principle. The second Resolution proceeds to say that, in order to further the object in view, it is expedient—I am not quoting the words of the Resolutions, but stating their substance — it is expedient that no new ecclesiastical appointments should be made; and the third suggests an Address to the Crown praying that the patronage of the Queen in regard to ecclesiastical dignities should be transferred to the control of Parliament. [Earl RUSSELL: Should be placed at the disposal of Parliament.] Well, that the rights of the Crown in regard to all ecclesiastical dignities and appointments should be placed at the disposal of Parliament. These, my Lords, are the three Resolutions of which notice was given in the House of Commons; and I suppose I am not assuming too much—I am afraid I am not assuming too much—when I say that there is every probability that the first Resolution will be sanctioned by the House by a majority something like that by which the Motion for the Committee was carried. I suppose I may also take for granted that that Motion, though made by a very eminent Member of the House, was not made on his own authority alone, and without communication with those who act politically in connection with him. Further, I suppose I must assume that the eminent persons who have determined, somewhat unexpectedly, on that course of proceeding, have not done so without making up their own minds as to the course they will take in the event of the success of their Motion; and it is as to those farther proceedings that I propose to put the Question of which I have given notice to the noble Earl my predecessor in office. Had the Question been put before the Recess, I should probably have addressed it to the noble Earl the late President of the Council (Earl Granville), or to the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), inasmuch as I understand that both those noble Lords were present at the private meeting at which the Resolutions were arranged. [Earl GRANVILLE was understood to dissent.] I shall be much obliged to the noble Earl to correct me if I am wrong; but, perhaps, I may relieve him of the responsibility of answering the inquiry by transferring or making it over to the noble Earl (Earl Russell) opposite; because, since the Recess that noble Earl has put himself very prominently forward at public meetings as a supporter of those Resolutions, and avowed his adherence to the principle they involve. I assume, therefore, that the noble Earl does adhere to that last phase of his opinions in reference to the Church in Ireland, although it is at least a fortnight old; but the alterations which have taken place in his views within the last few years have certainly been somewhat extraordinary, and I am sure he will forgive me for recalling to his memory what those alterations have been. In 1866, the noble Earl was charged with the responsibilities of Office, and upon the occasion of a Motion made by the noble Earl who sits on the cross Bench (Earl Grey) for inquiry into the state of the temporalities of the Irish Church, he opposed the Motion, stating that all manner of evil consequences must be the result, and he succeeded in defeating the Motion of the noble Earl. In 1867, the noble Earl was free from the responsibilities of Office, and in that year the Motion which the noble Earl on the cross Benches had brought forward the year before, and was resisted by the noble Earl—the same Motion was made by the noble Earl himself. It met with no opposition, and a Commission was appointed. In the commencement of 1867, the noble Earl—having moved for this Commission of Inquiry into the state of the temporalities of the Irish Church as a necessary preliminary to any further proceedings—thought it expedient, before the termination of that Commission, for which he was not content to wait, to move an expression of opinion in their Lordships' House that the incomes at present enjoyed by the Protestant Church of Ireland should be distributed in certain proportions, according to a rule of three, which he had himself framed, among the different denominations in Ireland. That was the third change in the views upon this question of the noble Earl since he filled the office of the First Lord of the Treasury. In two or three months there came a fourth change over the mind of the noble Earl, who then declared that he was quite ready to adopt the views of the right hon. Gentleman who had brought forward these Resolutions in the House of Commons, though the noble Earl confessed that he had a slight preference for the mode of proceeding he had himself suggested. Now, I ask your Lordships to consider what was the question in reference to which the noble Earl had a slight preference for his own mode of proceeding, but was ready to waive it? It was neither more nor less than one of the most important questions which could occupy the attention of a statesman—namely, whether the State should or should not connect itself with an arrangement for making a religious provision for the people. Well, on that subject the noble Earl stated that his own opinion was in favour of making a provision for all religions; that he had a slight preference for that mode of proceeding; but, that as his Friends near him were of opinion that the State provision should be withdrawn from the Established Church in Ireland, he was ready to waive his own preference, and after having published his opinion that it was expedient that the State should support all religions, he was ready to acquiesce in the proposition that the State should support no religion at all. I must say that these changes of opinion are somewhat remarkable and sudden, especially on the part of the noble Earl; for, before his fourth evolution, he informed this House that a change of opinion and conduct on the part of a Minister on any great question was quite sufficient to cause him to forfeit any claim he might have on the confidence of Parliament and the country. I must now assume that the noble Earl adheres to the last views he expressed; or that, if he has not made up his mind, his opinion has been made up for him, and that he is quite prepared to go in for the entire and total disendowment and disestablishment of the Protestant Church in Ireland. The question I desire to put to the noble Earl has reference to the future course of proceeding on this question. I wish to know whether in the event—I am afraid the probable event—of the House of Commons affirming the principle, at least, of the Resolutions brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, it is the intention of the noble Earl, and those who act with him, to refer the Resolutions to your Lordships' House, and to ask how far your Lordships are prepared to concur in that line of policy? Last year the noble Earl on the cross Benches (Earl Grey), when it was proposed to proceed by Resolution on the subject of Reform, argued with great force on the propriety of the concurrence of your Lordships' House in the Resolutions being applied for before the introduction of the Bill, in order that it might be ascertained how far the two Houses were in accord on the main and important principles. The plan of proceeding by way of Resolution was, however, dropped, and therefore there was no occasion for the suggestion of the noble Earl to be acted upon; but if it was thought desirable that such a suggestion should be acted on at a time when it was evident that, immediately on the adoption of the Resolutions, a Bill would be brought in and submitted to the consideration of Parliament, such a course of proceeding is doubly important, when there is a doubt whether it is proposed that any Bill founded on the Resolutions in the present case is about to be brought up to your Lordships' House, and whether your Lordships will have any means afforded you of expressing your opinion on the Resolutions, without which concurrence of your Lordships the Resolutions will be a mere dead letter. Therefore I wish to know, whether it is the intention of those who promote these Resolutions to ask, previous to taking any further stage, the concurrence of your Lordships' House in them, and to ascertain what views your Lordships take with respect to the extraordinary and unexpected measure for disestablishing the Irish Church. Then, my Lords, in reference to another point, I have to observe that a speech was reported to have been recently delivered at a public meeting by the noble Earl (Earl Russell), and in order not to misrepresent his sentiments, I shall read from the report in The Times newspaper a few passages, to which I call his attention. The noble Earl is reported to have said— I must say a few words on the very important third Resolution proposed by Mr. Gladstone. That Resolution asks the Crown to place at the disposal of Parliament Her Majesty's interest in the ecclesiastical dignities and benefices in Ireland. Now, that is in conformity with the advice which, a great many years ago, I gave to King William IV., and which His Majesty was pleased to accept, although, as I had to contend with Sir Robert Peel, Lord Derby, and Sir James Graham, I did not succeed, and was beaten in that encounter. I trust, however, that Mr. Gladstone will be more fortunate; that the advisers of the Crown will—as I suppose they will—advise Her Majesty to do what William IV. did, and that disestablishment and disendowment will take place. It is now very long since the period to which the noble Earl referred: but I apprehend that he must have alluded to what occurred in 1835. It certainly is rather curious to see how history repeats itself, and how a circumstance which had almost dropped into oblivion re-appears again almost in the same form. My Lords, the noble Earl and I are, I am sorry to say, the only survivors, with the exception of Lord Brougham, of those who took an active part in the debates of that period. Now, I will venture to state what really did occur on the occasion referred to, and then your Lordships will see how erroneous is the noble Earl's statement. It is rather singular that a few months before the Motion referred to by the noble Earl was made in the House of Commons, the previous Government had been summarily dismissed from Office; and the consequence was that Sir Robert Peel was called on to undertake the formation of an Administration, his party being at that time in an avowed minority in the House of Commons. The first thing which Sir Robert Peel did was to dissolve the Parliament, so that he might meet a Parliament elected under his own auspices, and afterwards—there having been a Commission then, as now, to inquire into the temporalities of the Irish Church—the noble Earl (then Lord John Russell) thought it necessary to call upon the House to support an abstract Resolution, then, as now, to the effect that any surplus that might appear to exist after providing for all the requirements of the Irish Church should be appropriated to the purposes of general education. The noble Earl proposed a further Resolution, to the effect that no plan for the settlemant of the tithe question would be satisfactory which did not involve such an appropriation. The noble Earl, on that occasion, not only gave notice of these two Resolutions, but he also moved an Address to the Crown, praying the Sovereign that he would be pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament his interest in the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland. My Lords, it is not correct to say that on that occasion he was defeated by the opposition of Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and myself. We opposed them, and the noble Earl obtained a considerable majority. The last Resolution, which Sir Robert Peel said he would resist to the utmost, the noble Earl had not the opportunity of pressing to a division, because the result was the resignation of Sir Robert Peel, and the noble Earl acceded to power. Now, whatever may be the determination on the subject by the present House of Commons, which has only a few months to live, and which was not elected under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government, I trust that he and my noble and right hon. Friends who are Members of his Government, are too well aware of the importance of this question, and of the duty they owe their Sovereign, to think of resigning their offices under any amount of pressure or opposition, however factions, if any such should be offered, until they have had a full opportunity, if not of perfecting the measures for the Reform of Parliament, at all events of testing the sense and feeling, not of the existing constituency, but of the larger constituency created by the Reform Bill of last year. Therefore, I hope that the parallel of 1835 will not hold good at the present time. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) succeeded to Office; and he says that, as a Minister of the Crown, he gave the advice to his Sovereign to take the same course as that now proposed to be pursued. But the advice he gave to the Sovereign was, not to take the course proposed in the Resolutions now before the House of Commons, but to sanction the introduction of a Bill which, if carried into an Act of Parliament, would have had the effect of restraining the Prerogative of the Crown. It is impossible that two questions can be more distinct. One is whether, upon advice given by constitutional Ministers and sanctioned by a constitutional Monarch, you shall permit the discussion of a question in the two Houses of Parliament, by which, in the case of an Act of Parliament being passed, the Prerogative of the Crown would be temporarily sacrificed and suspended; and the other is the question whether, upon the Address of one House alone, the Crown is to abandon the exercise of those Prerogatives and those duties which are imposed upon the Crown, not by a Resolution of one House, but by Acts of Parliament which Her Majesty, as a constitutional Sovereign, is bound to obey. There is an entire and absolute distinction between the two questions. I admit the noble Earl is quite prepared to show that in 1835 he took the same course he recommends Mr. Gladstone to take in 1868; but he will excuse me saying that that is only a reference from Earl Russell in 1868 to Lord John Russell in 1835, and it does not add any authority to the proposal. I contend it is no precedent at all. What you asked the King, through his responsible Ministers, to do, was to permit the discussion of an Act of Parliament the effect of which, if carried, would be to limit the Prerogative of the Crown. I do not know what language was used in signifying—which, after all, is a formality—the assent of the Crown in Parliament; but this, I know, that when Lord Melbourne moved the second reading of the Bill which the noble Earl introduced in the other House, and in which he was successful in introducing as a sine quâ non—the settlement of the tithe question—the language of Lord Melbourne was, that in moving the second reading of the Bill, he was authorized to signify the consent of the Crown to the suspension of the Prerogative of the Crown for the purposes of that Act. But the proposal was not fully adopted. After that Act was passed, what became of the sacrifice of the Prerogative of the Crown? The Crown, in the present instance, is asked—not to sacrifice, not to consent to the suspension of Prerogative, for the purpose of an Act of Parliament, upon the recommendation of the constitutional and responsible Advisers of the Crown—but it is asked indefinitely to suspend the exercise of duties which, by Acts of Parliament and the Coronation Oath, it is bound to exercise, until at some period, and in case at some period Parliament should think fit to legislate in the sense of the Resolutions. I am not about to discuss on their merits the Resolutions now before the House of Commons; the proper time for discussing them will be when they come—if they ever shall come—before your Lordships' House either as Resolutions or in the shape of a legislative enactment, to which your concurrence is requested, and without which these Resolutions are waste paper. I am not, therefore, discussing the merits of the Resolutions, but I am showing the noble Earl that he was—no doubt unintentionally — in error when he stated that the course now to be pursued was that he had recommended to William IV. I venture to think that William IV. could not, and her present Majesty cannot, accept and act upon a Resolution of the House of Commons calling upon Her Majesty to suspend the operation of Acts of Parliament; and I say again there is a broad constitutional difference between the course proposed in 1835 and the course sought to be pursued now. The one was the legitimate advice of Ministers to the Crown to permit the passing of an Act of Parliament; the other is the advice of the House of Commons to the Crown, to act upon a Resolution of that House, not only without, but in defiance of the authority of Acts of Parliament. While I seek to draw this distinction, I should not have taken notice of it at all, if it had not been broadly and pointedly stated by the noble Earl that the course which he advised and to which William IV. assented in 1835 was identical with the course now proposed, and to which Her Majesty is asked to assent. The noble Earl concluded by expressing the hope that Mr. Gladstone would be more successful than he was. The noble Earl was so far successful upon the occasion alluded to that he ousted Sir Robert Peel from Office; and having done so he gave effect to his own principles by the introduction of a Bill. That Bill, so far from being defeated by Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and myself, actually passed through the House of Commons, and was sent up to the House of Lords. Here a Motion was made to separate that portion of the Bill which related to the settlement of the tithe question, which was not objectionable, from that portion to which great constitutional objection was felt—namely, the principle of disestablishing the Established Church in Ireland. That Motion—that is, the omission of the Ap- propriation Clause—was carried by a majority of 96. The noble Earl, however, continued in Office; and, in the following year, he had the satisfaction of settling the tithe question, or what remained of it to be settled; and those who were opposed to the noble Earl had the satisfaction of knowing that they had defeated the principle against which they contended in the year before. The noble Earl had the satisfaction of retaining Office, and those who opposed him had the satisfaction of putting a stop for thirty-three years to all agitation on the subject of a change which the noble Earl had declared to be indispensably necessary. I hope Mr. Gladstone will not attain even the measure of success which the noble Earl attained on that occasion. Sir Robert Peel challenged the noble Earl when he was in Office to bring forward a Bill; and the answer of the noble Earl was—"I cannot bring forward a Bill; I must move Resolutions; I am not authorized to signify the consent of the Crown, and without it, signified by her responsible advisers, such a Bill cannot be introduced." I remind the noble Earl of that position. He says he hopes Her Majesty's present Ministers will give their consent, as the noble Earl did, to the measure which he recommended to William IV. I venture to express my hope that Her Majesty's Government will do no such thing; and that they will not facilitate the introduction, during the short space of time which this Parliament has to last, of a measure which, in my judgment, will, instead of producing peace and satisfaction in Ireland, stimulate to the utmost religious rancour and animosity.

EARL GRANVILLE

I beg the noble Earl's pardon, but I understood him to say that he would not discuss the merits of the Resolutions.

THE EARL OF DERBY

I am not discussing the merits of the Resolutions; I am discussing a proposition connected with them—I mean the effect which would be produced if these Resolutions were carried in the other House, and if a new Government were formed and endeavoured to force forward a measure founded on them—the effect of which would be to produce discord and religious animosity instead of peace; and the passing of them will involve the introduction of a measure upon which the two Houses of Parliament will be irreconcilably at variance. Any person aspiring to hold the high office of Prime Minister should hesitate before introducing into Parliament a measure fraught with such dangerous consequences. I have thought it right to point out in what way I think the noble Earl's statement is incorrect in regard to what occurred in 1835 as compared with what is occurring now. One similarity occurs to me now, and it is that, in 1835, the noble Earl was asked the same question I am now about to put to him, whether it is intended to move the Resolutions in the House of Lords. Probably the noble Earl will give the same answer that he gave in 1835—that it was not the intention of the Opposition to the then Government to test the opinion of the House of Lords by submitting the Resolutions to them for their concurrence or disapproval. I have thought it my duty to state clearly where we think the noble Earl is in error in comparing the circumstances of 1835 with the circumstances of 1868 as to the course of procedure; and to point out that it would be contrary to the usages of the Constitution that an endeavour should be made to take action upon the Resolutions now under consideration by the other House before a Bill has been founded on them, and before they have received the sanction of your Lordships. Assuming that these Resolutions will receive the sanction of the House of Commons, the Question which I have to ask is, Whether, before proceeding with a Bill, or in the absence of any attempt to proceed with one, the noble Earl and his Friends propose to ask the House of Lords how far they concur in the principles of those Resolutions?

EARL RUSSELL

I think the course pursued by the noble Earl is somewhat extraordinary. In the midst of a discussion in the House of Commons upon certain Resolutions, and in the prospect of a division in that House upon the question, the noble Earl brings the subject forward; and he says he will not discuss the Resolutions, but he will discuss the effect of them. If a Member of the House of Commons was about to oppose the Resolutions, what more effectual way could he take than that of saying, "I will discuss the effect of the Resolutions; I will show you the bad effect they will have if they are carried, and how contrary they are to sound policy; and therefore I ask you to reject them?" That Member of the House of Commons would be quite in order and quite within the rules of debate. But to raise a discussion in this House on a de- bate proceeding in the House of Commons is, I must say, an unusual and a not very exemplary course of proceeding. The noble Earl has taken up three topics. He has first discussed my course of action on this question of the Irish Church, and has adverted to what he considers the inconsistency of my course. I will answer the noble Earl in the language of Burke, who, when he was taunted with some inconsistency, said, "I vary my means in order to preserve the consistency of my ends." My end has been the pacification of Ireland, and not merely to preserve a parchment union with that part of the kingdom, but that the hearts and minds of the people of England and Ireland should be reconciled; and, seeing the miserable consequences that have resulted from time to time from the almost periodical recurrence of discontent and disaffection from the date of the Union to the present time, I wish to see that Union become real, and the people of Ireland fairly convinced that they are treated with justice. I have always been of opinion that you could not say they were treated with justice when the whole of the revenues applied to the religious instruction of the people of Ireland are given exclusively to an eighth, a ninth, or a tenth of the community. That is, as has been shown over and over again, an inconsistency which exists nowhere else in the world; and, being complained of by the people of Ireland, the Roman Catholics of Ireland have this year asked for equality with regard to religious distinctions. It is obvious that the easiest mode at the time of the Union in which that equality might have been effected would have been by a large grant to the Roman Catholic clergy, and that was the mode that Mr. Pitt proposed, but unsuccessfully—we all know that not a single, word he uttered on that subject took effect. In 1825 Lord Ellesmere proposed that a provision should be made by law for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. I voted in favour of that proposition. I used very strong language at the time. I remember saying that I could not understand the construction of that man's mind who was not ready to vote for such a Motion as that if it would produce peace in Ireland. But that proposal was defeated — not in the House of Commons, for there it was carried by a majority—but the Minister of that day did not choose to adopt it, and it was altogether lost, and was not brought forward again in 1829, when the general question of the privileges of the Roman Catholics was settled. Well, when the subject came to be debated here in 1866, it was brought forward by my noble Friend on the cross Benches (Earl Grey), not in the shape of a Motion for a Commission of Inquiry, but by a series of Resolutions settling the whole question. I certainly did not feel myself justified at that time in agreeing to those Resolutions; nor last year, when the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) opposite was in Office, and was proposing a new Reform Bill, as the Ministry of which I was the head had done the year before, would I have thought it right, fair, or expedient that we should attempt to settle the difficult question of the Irish Church at the same time that we were endeavouring to pass Reform Bills seeking to settle the representation of the three parts of the United Kingdom. All, therefore, that I proposed in 1867 was, that there should be an inquiry by a Commission, but with this proviso and condition — that the Commission should inquire, whether the revenues of the Irish Church might not be applied in such a manner as would benefit the whole people of Ireland.

THE EARL OF DERBY

That proviso proposed by the noble Earl was struck out.

EARL RUSSELL

I did not mention that circumstance at first, but it is quite true that the proviso which I proposed was struck out by this House; and that shows, at nil events, that I was ready for an inquiry, and that I wished that inquiry to be complete, and that we should have, as the result of it, some plan which would be for the benefit of the whole people of Ireland. I stated—and the noble Earl has certainly fairly repeated what I said—that my preference was, as it would be even now, if it could be effected, that the equality for which the Roman Catholic laity in Ireland ask should be obtained by an endowment embracing the Episcopalian Protestants, the Presbyterians, and the Roman Catholic instructors of the people. But when I find that neither the Established Church in England, nor the Established Church in Scotland, nor the Dissenters in England, nor the Dissenters in Scotland, nor the Established Church in Ireland, nor the Presbyterians in Ireland, nor the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland are willing to concur in such a plan, then I am perforce, in this free and constitutional country obliged, as I have already said, "to vary my means in order to preserve the consistency of my ends." I am obliged to give up the plan which I myself preferred, and adopt, or rather follow, a scheme that has more chance of success, but which would attain the end—the pacification of Ireland. The noble Earl, in his history, made some remarkable omissions. He forgot to say that during Lord Grey's Ministry that question of having a Commission of Inquiry into the revenues of the Irish Church—always proposing that a portion of those revenues might be applied to other purposes than the maintenance of the Established Church—was a matter of conference and discussion; and it was during Lord Grey's Ministry, and not during that of Lord Melbourne, that the noble Earl himself and Sir James Graham quitted the Government on account of their differences of opinion with their Colleagues. It is not a matter of proof, but I have always believed that it was in consequence of the fears of King William IV. that the Government would propose plans to him which he would not be able to approve that he dismissed the Ministry of Lord Melbourne and sent for Sir Robert Peel. No doubt King William IV. acted according to his own conscientious views; but it seems to me it would have been very much better if he had left the Ministry of the day to introduce their own plans; and in that case I doubt whether we should have been successful in carrying them. However that may be, having had a strong opinion on that point in 1834, when Sir Robert Peel undertook the Government of the country under very adverse circumstances, we did not think ourselves bound to follow him. On, the first question of the Address, we proposed an Amendment with regard to municipal corporations, and also a censure on the Government of Sir Robert Peel for having dissolved the previous Parliament. After a time, there being this difference with regard to the Irish Church, and seeing no hopes of ever getting a majority in that Parliament which he himself had called together, Sir Robert Peel most constitutionally said that the Minister ought to have the confidence of the House of Commons; he ought not to remain Minister if he has not that confidence; and therefore, with my Colleagues, I have felt compelled to resign our power into the hands of the King. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) refers to the Resolutions now before the other House, and he asks me whether those who are favourable to them have had any communication together, and whether, supposing those Resolutions to be carried in the other House, they intend to propose them to this House. Now, I think it is rather premature to ask that question. I think they ought to be regular Resolutions of the House of Commons, made and reported, before that question should be put. However, I will not keep the curiosity of the noble Earl in suspense, but will say at once that, as far as I know the sentiments of those who sit on these Benches, it is not our intention in any way to propose these Resolutions to this House. My belief is that if a Bill containing the substance of those Resolutions, embodying the views of Mr. Gladstone, is brought before this House, that would be the best shape in which they can be submitted to your Lordships, with the view to their becoming an Act of Parliament. And if that Bill in its several stages were supported by a majority of the House of Commons and by the country, it would have far more chance of being favourably received and accepted by your Lordships than if I or any noble Lord near me were to bring forward Resolutions. That is a point, I submit, of discretion; and perhaps the noble Earl will recollect that when there was a question raised last year by a noble Lord on the cross Benches (Earl Grey) with regard to the expediency of proposing Resolutions or a Bill on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, I said that was entirely a matter for the discretion of the Executive Government; and, whether the noble Earl preferred Resolutions or a Bill, I should not make any objection to the course he might think fit to take in that respect. The noble Earl then comes to another question on which he accuses me of making a statement which is not historically accurate. But I must say he has attributed a meaning to my words which I never intended, and which I do not think they will bear. The whole question contained in Mr. Gladstone's third Resolution, as I read it, is this— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly to pray that, with a view to the purposes aforesaid, Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament Her interest in the temporalities of the Archbishoprics, Bishoprics, and other Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices in Ireland, and in the custody thereof. That is a question which it appears to me is preliminary to any measure with regard to the Irish Church. It was, in fact, embodied in the Act of Parliament which the noble Earl himself induced the other House to accept, and which was afterwards accepted in this House, in respect to the temporalities of the Church of Ireland. It was there enacted in a clause that His Majesty had been pleased to place the temporalities of the Church in Ireland at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of that Act; and your Lordships will recollect that ten Bishoprics were absolutely destroyed by that Act. So, likewise, when a Bill was brought into the House of Commons by the late Earl of Carlisle, affecting the temporalities of the Irish Church, and containing the Appropriation Clause, I then, as Minister of the Crown, brought down a Message from the Crown, to the effect that His Majesty was pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament his interest in the dignities, Bishoprics, and benefices of the Church of Ireland. It appears to me a necessary preliminary that you should have the assent of the Crown if you mean to have any legislation on this subject at all. I hold in my hand an extract from my speech, taken from The Times newspaper, which agrees as nearly as possible with the passage read by the noble Earl. It is as follows:— Gentlemen, I do not wish to detain you much longer, but I must say a few words on the very important third Resolution proposed by Mr. Gladstone. That Resolution asks the Crown to place at the disposal of Parliament Her Majesty's interest in the ecclesiastical dignities and benefices in Ireland. Now, that is in conformity with the advice which a great many years ago I gave to King William IV., and which His Majesty was pleased to accept, although, as I had to contend with Sir Robert Peel, Lord Derby, and Sir James Graham, I did not succeed, and was beaten in that encounter. I trust, however, that Mr. Gladstone will be more fortunate: that the advisers of the Crown will, as I suppose they will, advise Her Majesty to do what King William IV. did; and that disestablishment and disendowment will be the result. Now, there was no part of the Message sent by King William IV., and there would be no part of the Message sent by Her Majesty, if she should graciously accede to Mr. Gladstone's third Resolution, which would bind the Crown or bind Parliament to disestablishment or disendowment. It can only be by an Act of Parliament—by a Bill receiving the approval, first of the House of Commons, next of the House of Lords, and lastly the assent of the Crown—that disestablishment and disendowment can be effected. But, if you take it the other way and say that no advice should be given to Her Majesty to place at the disposal of Parliament, even for the purpose of discussion or argument on the part of those who introduce the question—who I suppose would be the regular Official Advisers of the Crown — her interest in these revenues and appointments, it would be an estoppel to Parliament, and would prevent the subject being considered at all. It would, of course, be always in the power of the Crown to object to any particular measure, but in the event I have supposed the whole subject would be entirely in abeyance. Parliament would be condemned to silence or inaction on the subject, unless advice were given to the Crown in conformity with the advice given to William IV. I have been looking to see whether there is any precedent for that course, and I have found one that is exceedingly to the purpose; but it is rather remote, being nearly three centuries ago. I find that in 1575 a Bill for Rites and Ceremonies in the Church having been read three times in the House of Commons, the Speaker declared to the House that it was the Queen's pleasure that from henceforth no Bills concerning religion should be proposed or received into the House unless the same should be first considered and approved by the clergy. Now, is that the principle on which the noble Earl insists? Does he contend that a subject like this must not even be discussed in the House of Commons unless with the approval of the clergy? Such a principle, I am afraid, would very much limit the authority of the House of Commons, and would very much fetter the liberty of discussion which, since the Revolution of 1688, they have taken upon themselves. The noble Earl says that, as an historical fact, I was not defeated by himself, Sir Robert Peel, and Sir James Graham, because I succeeded in carrying the Bill in the House of Commons. Yes; but that does not at all diminish the importance I attach to their opposition, for it had an immense effect throughout the country, and when the Bill came up to this House, and one of the vital clauses was struck out by a large majority, it would have been impossible for us to appeal with any hope of success to the country. Their opposition was so influential that I had county Members constantly coming to me and saying that they would lose their election if we persisted in the measure and if we appealed to the country. I confess that, under these circumstances, we, rightly or wrongly, retained Office. It is clear, then, that those who opposed the Appropriation Clause were victorious. At that time, however, the ignorance that prevailed with regard to Ireland and the Irish Church was something quite astonishing. When I mentioned to my constituents that there were churches in Ireland in which no Divine service was performed my hearers could not believe it. They thought it impossible that such a state of things could exist, notorious as it now is, and that was the reason why we were defeated. For my own part, I see no reason because that measure was defeated in 1836, because it could not be carried in 1838, why now, when the people are far more enlightened and when opinion is far more favourable to a just settlement of the question of the Irish Church, we should not endeavour to obtain such a settlement. If these Resolutions are carried—I leave it entirely out of the question whether the Ministry should choose to resign or not, for that is no business of mine—my belief is if they give advice to the Crown to resist the deliberate opinion of a large majority of the House of Commons they would produce a difference, in fact a collision, between the Crown and that House which, happily, we have not witnessed for many years, and which in former times was averted by Mr. Pitt and Lord Grey by appealing to the country. Now, however, it is quite clear—it must be evident to the whole world—that, in the case of an appeal to the country, there would not be a less majority in favour of Mr. Gladstone's Resolutions, and in favour of taking into consideration the Irish Church, than there was on the 30th of March, when Mr. Gladstone, by a majority of 60, carried his proposal to go into Committee. I think I have already explained that the speech I made did not, as the noble Earl seems to suppose, imply that Mr. Gladstone in his Resolutions recommends the Crown to agree with the House that disestablishment and disendowment are necessary; but only that the Crown should, as on former occasions, allow Parliament to consider the question. The noble Earl apparently wished to impress on my mind that nothing can be done by Resolutions. I know that perfectly well. I am quite aware that the Queen would not be justified in suspending a single Bishopric or benefice in Ireland unless an Act of Parliament provided that that should be done. The Queen cannot be constrained, as it were, by the House of Commons to sus- pend these appointments. That is a question of convenience and arrangement; but the great question is, whether disestablishment and disendowment are due to the Irish people. It was no doubt a great triumph in 1836 not to agree to our Resolutions; and it was a great triumph in 1825 that the Roman Catholic Church was not endowed; but, however successful the Opposition was in those instances, it has brought on the question of disestablishment and disendowment; and if you mean to consult the real interests of Christianity in this country, you will act according to what Mr. Gladstone has proposed whenever a Bill comes up to you; and I feel very confident that when that Bill does come up—if it is supported by the great majority of the House of Commons, and that majority speaks the sense of the country at large—your Lordships will have the patriotism and wisdom to accede to it.

EARL GRANVILLE

The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) stated that, had not my noble Friend given in his adhesion to Mr. Gladstone's Resolutions, he should have addressed his question to me or to the noble Duke near me (the Duke of Argyll), because he understood we were present at a private meeting at Mr. Gladstone's, at which those Resolutions were drawn up. Now, though I have long been in the habit of calling on Mr. Gladstone, sometimes alone, sometimes with a few friends, and sometimes with many, I think I have a right to ask upon what authority the noble Earl based that statement? When notice of the Resolutions was given it happened that, by a singular coincidence, some one very like a runner of the Treasury was observed to be excessively attracted by the architecture of Mr. Gladstone's house. That gentleman had not far to go, because Mr. Gladstone's house was not far from the Treasury; but it was remarked that he hovered around Mr. Gladstone's door as if drawn to the spot by some extraordinary attraction. Now, it is perfectly impossible that he could have been employed by any Member of the Government for that purpose; for, though we have seen many strange things in this country, it is not to be thought that he could have been made use of for what in Continental countries is called espionnage, but in this country and in more vulgar language "touting." At the same time I do not complain. I am willing to admit that I have been at important preliminary conferences con- nected with the Resolutions; I am very happy to say that I feel but a very small responsibility on that account, and I shall be glad to give your Lordships any information possible on the subject. But I do protest against its being drawn into a precedent that, if a man is seen to enter into the house of a political friend he should be called upon by his political opponents for such information as the noble Earl has indicated. There are a few points in what fell from the noble Earl to which I wish to refer. I do not profess to be a prophet, but this afternoon I have been a prophet and a successful one. I said to a noble Friend of mine that I thought it extremely possible the noble Earl in dealing with this question would begin by declaring his determination not to discuss the Resolutions at all, and would immediately rush straight into the middle of them. My noble Friend said he could not believe it, but I think I was right. I wish to follow the theory rather than the practice of the noble Earl. But there are one or two points which I think it important to notice. The noble Earl did not read the Resolutions, but said he would give their substance. He did give the substance of the first and second quite correctly; but, by a singular mistake, he gave the substance of the third exactly in the manner in which the Government Papers give it day after day, and which conveys a perfectly erroneous impression of what that Resolution really is. The noble Earl said that the third Resolution prayed the Queen to suspend the exercise of the ecclesiastical patronage of the Crown in Ireland. Well, having been admitted to some of the conferences on the subject, I must say that one of the most anxious considerations of its framers was how to proceed in these matters in the most constitutional way as regards this House, and in a manner the most profoundly respectful as regards Her Majesty. We looked for precedents, and we found one in the Church Temporalities Act, promoted by the noble Earl; and Mr. Gladstone has, in fact, taken the words of his Resolution from that Act. During our search, we looked not only to the Act in which the words occur, but also to the debates. We found that an objection was raised as to the Crown's consent not having been properly given, and the answer given by Lord Althorp and subsequently by Mr. Secretary Stanley—the noble Earl — was that they took the right way of proceeding to obtain the consent of the Crown, and he added that he could not help thinking that those who insisted on a point of mere form showed their disinclination to grapple with the subject. The Speaker, on being referred to, said that the consent of the Crown might be given at a future stage. Sir Erskine May in his work on The Law and Practice of Parliament, says that it is usual for the Crown's consent to be given before the introduction of any Bill which affects the Royal Prerogative. That consent is usually obtained by Her Majesty's Ministers advising Her Majesty to place her interest and Prerogative at the disposal of Parliament—a phrase upon which the noble Earl seemed to lay some stress—but the meaning is not that the Crown gives any approbation to the substance of the measure, but will merely remove an obstacle to the carrying on of the Bill, so that it may be considered both by the House of Commons and by the House of Lords, and ultimately be submitted for the Royal assent. I believe this is the usual course which should be adopted. But how will it be when a Motion of this kind is made by a Member of the Opposition? Can this course be taken when the Ministers are adverse? It was thought disrespectful to this House and towards the Queen that one branch of the Legislature should ask Her Majesty not to fulfil those duties which the law of the land imposes upon her. It was thought exactly in the same way that either branch of the Legislature might ask the Crown to remove the form of an obstacle to legislation. The noble Earl who introduced this subject did one thing, however, which appears very extraordinary. He, an unofficial, but certainly an eminent, Member of this House asked another Member, equally unofficial and equally eminent, what the Opposition in the House of Commons would do under certain circumstances? I am surprised that my noble Friend gave an answer, but he did, and a most explicit answer it was. I should not venture of myself to ask a Question on this subject of Her Majesty's Government; but since the noble Earl has set the example, perhaps I may be allowed to inquire of him, what is the course Her Majesty's Government will take in the event of their being defeated by an enormous majority in the House of Commons? I will put the Question on the Paper if the noble Earl wishes? But what I do protest against is this,—that a noble Lord, having retired from the official Leadership of this House—and there is no Peer who laments more than I do the noble Earl's retirement—should, almost immediately after having so retired, endeavour solemnly to pledge the House of Lords, before the country and the House of Commons, to fly in the face of whatever Resolution the other House of Parliament may adopt, and so make themselves an unpopular assembly.

THE EARL OF DERBY

Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to answer the Question as to what the Government ought to do in the event of the Resolutions being carried.

EARL GRANVILLE

That is not my Question. What I asked was, whether the noble Earl would tell me what the Government would do in the case I have stated?

THE EARL OF DERBY

Of course I cannot undertake to say what the Government will do; but if they are defeated by a large majority in the present state of Parliament, I do not think they would be justified in abandoning Office, inasmuch as, under present circumstances, it would be impossible, or next to impossible, to adopt the ordinary course of an appeal to the country.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am so sensible of the inconvenience which would arise from a continued discussion of the Resolutions which are said to be pending in the other House of Parliament, that I should have preferred to let the matter rest upon the speech of my noble Friend and the answer of the noble Earl. But the noble Earl who gave that answer and the noble Earl who followed him have fallen into an error upon a matter of fact which ought not to pass without correction, because the accuracy of the statement of that fact really constitutes the turning point as to the parallel between what was done in 1833 and what is proposed to be done on the present occasion. Now, what was done in 1833? A Resolution was proposed by the Government of the day to recommend to Parliament the extinction of a certain number of Irish Bishoprics, and to deal with the temporalities which belonged to them. Having come to that Resolution, the Government of the day introduced a Bill on the subject in the House of Commons; and inasmuch as the Crown had an interest in the temporalities of those Bishoprics, the Bill recited that the Sovereign had placed those temporalities at the disposal of Parliament. I apprehend that that was a perfectly right, regular, and constitutional mode of proceeding; because Parliament was called upon to deal, and proceeded at once to deal with those Bishoprics, with their temporalities, the right to appointments, and the other interests and patronage involved. But what is proposed to be done on the present occasion? The noble Earl who has just sat down corrected my noble Friend in the inference he drew from the Resolutions which are said to have been proposed to the other House of Parliament. But the noble Earl himself in reading the Resolutions fell into a much greater inaccuracy. I will read to your Lordships the third of these Resolutions as they are read by both the noble Earls on the Opposition side of the House. They read the Resolution as follows:— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly to pray that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament Her interest in the temporalities of the Archbishoprics, Bishoprics, and other Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices in Ireland, and in the custody thereof. That is the way in which the noble Earls on the Opposition side of the House read that Resolution; but they omit the most important words, which make all the difference between the present case and that of 1833,—namely— That with a view to the purposes aforesaid Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament, &c. Now, what are "the purposes aforesaid?" The designs of the framers of the Resolution are to prevent the creation of new personal interests by the exercise of any public patronage pending the final decision of Parliament. Therefore, what the Crown is asked to do by this Address is, not to consent to Parliament legislating with regard to the disestablishment of the Irish Church, but to place at the disposal of the Parliament its rights and patronage—not with the view to their being extinguished or transferred to, or exercised by, any other body, but with the view of their being suspended until some future time—for one, two, or, perhaps three years—when Parliament shall have come to a final decision as to what shall be done with them. I do not desire to prolong the debate; but I ask the noble Earl to consider whether, in the course of Parliamentary history there is any precedent for an Address praying the Crown, by the creation of a vacuum or an interregnum in regard to the legislation of the country, to suspend its prerogative for an indefinite period.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

The noble and learned Lord has entirely misunderstood the scope and intention of the Address which it is proposed by the Resolutions shall be presented to the Crown. The noble and learned Lord has endeavoured to impress upon the House—repeating, in this respect, the misconception of the noble Earl opposite—that it is the intention of these Resolutions to pray the Crown to suspend its Prerogative in respect to the filling of benefices in Ireland, in consequence of the Resolution of the House of Commons, without legislation upon the subject. [The LORD CHANCELLOR dissented.] Then, if the noble and learned Lord shakes his head and denies that to be the representation he made of the effect of these Resolutions, I affirm that he has entirely failed to make out any distinction in point of principle between the precedent of 1833 and the course which it is proposed to take in 1868. The Resolution proposed to the House of Commons asks the Crown to place at the disposal of Parliament — not of the House of Commons, but of Parliament in all its three branches—the intermediate patronage in respect to the Church in Ireland until the decision of Parliament shall have been taken in regard to it. In short, the Resolution does not in any way propose to dispose of the revenues of the Irish Church, which it leaves to be dealt with finally by legislation in Parliament, and not merely by the Resolution of the House of Commons. There is, indeed, this distinction between the present case and all previous cases of a similar kind, in which the Prerogative of the Crown has been placed at the disposal of Parliament—and that is, that in all previous cases the Crown has placed its interest at the disposal of Parliament under the advice, and at the initiative of, its responsible advisers; whereas, in the present case — the country having a Government which does not possess the confidence of the House of Commons, and which is opposed to the course proposed to be taken by the Resolutions, the House of Commons is compelled to address the Crown upon this subject, and to assume to itself the initiative with regard to the disestablishment of the Irish Church. The discussion this evening is an example of the inexpediency of the course taken by the noble Earl opposite, who, occupying the position of an Independent Member of this House, has thought fit to put a question to other Independent Members on this side of the House, as to the future course they intend to take with regard to this question. I say respectfully to the noble Earl that the future course of the Liberal party as Independent Members of this House upon this great question is in our own keeping, and the conduct of the Opposition is our own business and not his; and if, through the good nature and the courtesy of my noble Friend (Earl Russell) he has condescended to answer the question the noble Earl has put to him, it is our duty not the less to protest against this occasion being drawn into a precedent. The noble Earl has put questions which he has not a right to ask, and to which he had not a right to expect an answer. His putting that question is, indeed, an acknowledgment of our position. The noble Earl knows well that although the Liberal party is not in Office it is in power. He knows further that we have the power to impress upon Parliament the policy we advocate; he knows, in short, that the Government which he has recently left is only, to use his own expression, a Government of "stop-gaps" and "make-shifts" and nothing else.

THE EARL OF HARDWICKE

thought that the House in discussing this question should take into consideration what might be the effect if Her Majesty, mindful of her Coronation Oath, were to refuse to accept the principle laid down in the Resolutions which had been submitted to the other House.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

My Lords, two or three noble Lords on the opposite side of the House have taken upon themselves to read the noble Earl who sits near me (the Earl of Derby) a lecture; and, in return, I hope they will permit me to return the compliment by referring them to the usual customs and manners of this House. It is neither the custom of the House of Lords, nor the manner among Englishmen, for those who have made an attack upon individuals to retire when those whom they have attacked are about to reply to the charges made against them. I was about to rise a few minutes since, when I was interrupted by the noble Earl who has preceded me; and though the noble Lords who have spoken on the other side of the House saw that it was my intention to reply to the accusations which have been brought against the Government with reference to this question, those noble Lords left the House without giving me, who represent the Government in this House, any opportunity of replying to their accusations. Under these circumstances, I shall not attempt to reply to the charges which have been brought against us by those noble Lords whom I should never decline to meet face to face. The noble Lords have brought two accusations against those who sit on this side of the House to which I was particularly anxious to reply. One of those charges was directed against the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Derby), complaining that he, as an independent Peer, had taken upon himself to put a question to the noble Earl who sits opposite with regard to the course he intended to take with regard to the Resolutions which have been submitted to the consideration of the other House of Parliament. It is said that the noble Earl having retired from Office was not entitled to plunge into this debate. The charge is not worth replying to. Is my noble Friend to give up his right to speak on one of the most important subjects of the day because a month ago he filled the office of Prime Minister?—a post which he unfortunately was obliged to resign. I am glad to observe that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) has returned to his place, and I will take the liberty of repeating what I was saying in his absence—that it is neither courteous nor customary, when a noble Lord has attacked a Minister, to leave the House without awaiting the reply he may have to offer. My noble Friend the noble Earl (Earl Granville) who has also returned, was obliged, I am afraid, to leave his place by indisposition; but I must say he always carries on a debate with a courtesy and good humour, which the noble Duke does not exercise. The noble Earl complained that some spy appeared to have been placed before Mr. Gladstone's house for the purpose of ascertaining who were the persons that passed in and out. Now, I confess that no one is more alarmed than I am by Mr. Gladstone's proceedings of every description; but what alarms me the more upon this subject is that within two doors of Mr. Gladstone's house there resides a friend of mine whom I am in the habit of visiting once or twice every week, and I now fear that if I were recognized passing Mr. Gladstone's door I might be put down for a mouchard watching his movements and those of his visitors. As I understand the noble Earl (Earl Russell) admitted, at the end of his speech, the principle which my noble Friend the Earl of Derby has laid down as to the difference between action upon Resolutions and action upon a Bill; and that is the whole point under discussion. If you arrest the Queen's Prerogative upon Resolutions you arrest it indefinitely, and it is impossible to know when it may be again exercised. I will take the liberty of putting a question to the noble Lords opposite, and I will ask them whether they intend to bring in a Bill? Nothing of the kind has as yet been done; and all that has taken place upon that matter is to move a series of Resolutions, which have no greater Parliamentary value than an abstract Resolution about the moon. It has never been stated by the Mover of the Resolutions that he would bring in a Bill, and yet they would have the face to ask Her Majesty to suspend her Prerogative without any pledge being given that a Bill would be introduced. The Prerogative might thus be suspended for three, four, or five months. Indeed, we know that it must be suspended until January, for with all the activity of Mr. Gladstone and his party I defy them to disestablish the Irish Church before that period. But it might be January, 1870, before any measure for that purpose could become law, and yet, according to the Resolutions, the Queen is not in the meantime to appoint to any Bishopric or other preferment in the Irish Church. I understand the noble Earl (Earl Russell) to take the same view as my noble Friend on that point, and to say that he should not expect Her Majesty's Government to advise Her Majesty to take such a course. In conclusion, I have only again to protest against the statement of the noble Duke that an Independent Peer, because he has resigned high office, ought not to come down to that House at a critical and important period and give us the benefit of his experience, which is greater than that of any other Member of the House.

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

said, he was not in any way responsible for the Resolutions in the other House; but he must say that the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Malmesbury) had entirely misrepresented—unintentionally no doubt—what had fallen from the noble Duke and the noble Earl who had left the House (Earl Russell). The distinction between the present case and the precedent of 1833 was this. In 1833 a measure was proposed by the Government and the assent of the Crown was given to it on their recommendation. But in the present case it was not the Government but the House of Commons that took the initiative, and, in the most respectful way, asked the Crown to do that which in 1833 the Government advised the Crown to do. The distinction was obvious. In 1833 a Bill was introduced on the subject of the Irish Church temporalities, and the Government of the day recommended the Crown to place at the disposal of Parliament its interest in the appointment of Bishops and Archbishops. Mr. Gladstone now moved an Address asking the Crown to do the same thing. If it was not open to a Member of the House of Commons to make such a proposal, it must be a perfect estoppel to that House interfering with what they might consider a great grievance, because the Government might advise the Crown not to put its interests at the disposal of Parliament. In 1833 the statement made by Lord Althorpe was this—he signified to the House that His Majesty had been graciously pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament his interest in the temporalities of the several Bishops and Archbishops of Ireland. That was a formal proceeding without which the House of Commons could not have proceeded. It did not pledge the Queen as to the ultimate measure, but unless her formal assent was signified it was a perfect estoppel on the proceedings of the Commons.

LORD REDESDALE

said, it was not difficult to see the difference between the two cases that had been mentioned. In the year 1833 the Crown was advised to place its patronage at the disposal of Parliament, in order that it might be dealt with by a Bill which had been introduced for the purpose; but in the present case it was proposed that the Crown should be asked to suspend the exercise of its Prerogative on a Resolution of the House of Commons. The second Resolution prayed the Crown not to make any new appointments to any vacancies that might occur—any Bishopric, deanery, rectory, or preferment of any sort—so as to prevent the creation of new personal interests. That was a thing that had never before been asked of the Sovereign. But Her Majesty was bound by her duty to the Church to exercise her Prerogative in appointing to vacancies as they occurred; and the Crown was now to be asked, "for the purposes aforesaid," to make no new appointments, in order that no new personal interests might be created to be compensated for on the principle proposed by the Mover. The effect would be that till such time as, in the conflict of parties, the Bill might be introduced and passed no appointment by the Crown would be made. [The Duke of ARGYLL: No!"] All he could say was, if that was not the meaning of these Resolutions the sooner the language in which they were framed was altered the better. It was utterly impossible that any other interpretation should be placed on them.

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

had already stated that he was in no way responsible for the Resolutions; but the noble Earl who had sat near him (Earl Russell) had distinctly stated what indeed must be obvious to everyone, that no addresses could interfere with the action of the Sovereign, so as to suspend making any appointments, in the exercise of the Queen's patronage, which it was her duty to fill up.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, the question was not what was the intention of the Mover of the Resolutions, but what was the meaning which the words themselves bore. He did not see how it was possible to put upon the Resolutions any other interpretation than that they were to have some immediate effect.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

The Resolutions were framed for the propose of placing the patronage of the Crown at the disposal—not of the House of Commons—but of Parliament.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

The Resolutions, if they were carried into effect, would prevent the creation of any new interest in the temporalities of the Irish Church. The position of the Crown in that case was one of a very peculiar character. It might be that the Crown might give leave to Parliament to discuss a Bill prepared on the subject; but at the present moment there was no Bill in existence; and it would be a most painful thing for the Sovereign, who was sworn to maintain the Irish Church, to be over-ruled, not by a legislative Act, but by a Resolution of the House of Commons calling upon the Crown to allow that body to deal as it pleased with the Irish Church. Such a course of proceeding would not be consistent with the duty with which the Crown was invested in the character of its head and protector.

House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.