Lords Sitting of 9 May 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Report—Inverness County, &c. (Boundary)* (48).
IRISH COLLEGE, AND ENGLISH COLLEGE, DOUAY, PARIS.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he desired to ask their Lordships' attention to a matter which, though of somewhat remote date, affected the character and honour of the British Crown and the British Government. It was a case which somewhat resembled that of
  386
  the Baron de Bode, with which their Lordships were formerly so familiar—at least in its primary elements; but there was this material difference, that the Baron de Bode was not a British subject, while the claimants in the present case were recognized British subjects. The Irish College at Paris was founded in the reign of Queen Elizabeth by an Irish ecclesiastic, and was from its establishment an essentially British institution. As such it was recognized, both by the British and by the French Governments, for in 1789, when the property of all ecclesiastical establishments was confiscated, the then head of the College presented a memorial to the French Government claiming exemption on the ground that it was a British institution and that its inmates were British subjects. That remonstrance was supported by the English Ambassador at Paris, and was successful, the property of the College remaining for a time untouched. When, however, the Reign of Terror set in all respect for property and privilege disappeared, the College was broken up, the Professors were treated as British subjects, arrested and sent back to this country, not being able to return and re-open the College till 1801. With the exception of that interval of four or five years, its existence had been an uninterrupted one, its object being to afford Irish Roman Catholics those means of education which the Penal Laws prevented them from enjoying in their own country. Now, in 1814 or 1815, claims were made by the British Government for the confiscation and loss of property sustained by British subjects, and a joint Commission was appointed to inquire into those claims by both countries; but ultimately the inquiry was conducted by British Commissioners exclusively, France having agreed to pay a lump sum estimated by the British Government for the claims then sent in. The claim of the Irish College was included in that estimate, and the British Government undertook to Liquidate out of that amount all claims. Some years afterwards the claim of the College was heard by the Commissioners, who decided against it. Claims were also made by the English Colleges which had existed at Paris, Douay, and elsewhere; but those institutions were on a totally different footing. They were not of the same antiquity as the Irish Col-

  387
  lege, and after the confiscation of their property they ceased to exist and were never revived. On their claims being rejected they appealed to the Privy Council; but the appeal was rejected on the ground that those Colleges were in the nature of French corporations, that they had no connection with England, and that their object was directly at variance with English law. After the lapse of some short time the Irish College also appealed; when the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Leach, instead of calling on the other side to argue the case, cut the matter short by ruling that it was concluded by the appeal of the English Colleges, and he accordingly dismissed it. Now, it was true that one objection—namely, that they were locally established in a foreign country—applied equally to the Irish and the English Colleges; for it was the very gist of the claim that they had property in a foreign country—namely, France—and had sustained injury which the British and French Governments had undertaken to compensate. The Irish College, however, had been supported by Irish funds, and had a clear right to be reimbursed. The decision of the Privy Council in 1825, delivered by Lord Eldon and other members, was based on a political principle, and Parliament had therefore a manifest right to review it. That principle was, that an institution for the education of Roman Catholic priests was contrary to British law—a strange doctrine, and one inconsistent with fact, considering that many years previously Maynooth had been established, and had continued to be supported by the British Parliament. Moreover, the Irish College had always been a loyal institution, and had sent forth, as it was still continuing to do, many eminent and learned men. In proof of this, he need only mention that an Irish. Prelate, known to many of their Lordships, and esteemed by all who knew him, Dr. Moriarty, was for four years its vice president. This would indicate the spirit in which it was conducted. On the re-establishment of the Bourbon dynasty in 1815, the French Government at once acknowledged its claim to exemption, as a foreign institution, from the financial superintendence of a Government administrator, which was obligatory on all French institutions, and a British subject, the Rev. Paul Long was appointed administrator
  388
  general. The decision of the Privy Council in the case of the English Colleges, by which that of the Irish College was governed, was given prior to Catholic emancipation, on the intolerant and persecuting principles which then prevailed; and now that the principle of religious equality had been adopted the English Government ought not to withhold the compensation paid by France of which it was still in possession, but to which it had no right. Nobody could doubt that if the institution had been a Protestant one the Commissioners would have made an award in its favour, or the Privy Council would, on appeal, have sustained the claim. He would now move for, Copies of the award of the Commissioners, of the judgment of the Privy Council, and of the judgment in the case of the English College at Douay, hoping that the matter would be considered by the Government, and that he should have no occasion to recall attention to it.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of the award made in the case of the Reverend Paul Long as administrator-general of the Irish College at Paris by the commissioners appointed for liquidation of British claims out of funds received from the French Government, and of the judgment of the English Privy Council in 1832 on the appeal from that award:
  Also, Copy of the judgment in 1825 in the appeal case of the English College at Douay.—(The Lord Somerhill.)
  THE MAEQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he would confine his answer to the history of the case, without following the noble Marquess into somewhat abstract arguments. In 1815 a Convention was concluded between this country and France, by which the latter created Rentes representing 3,500,000f. per annum, for the purpose of indemnifying British subjects who had suffered confiscation of property during the Revolution. In 1818 France created a further fund of 3,000,000f. for the same object. Out of these sums all sufferers were compensated who, in the first instance, established their claims before a joint Commission, and latterly before an English Commission. It was impossible that, as the noble Marquess had stated, the claims of the Irish College were not considered. All then existing claims were considered; a sort of rough average was made, and a round sum was claimed.

  389
  After this had been granted each case had to be decided, and the claim of the Irish College was brought forward and rejected. The noble Marquess was also incorrect in stating that the British Government were still in possession of part of this sum. In 1826, 700,000f. remained unaccounted for, which might have been appropriated by the Government; but they did not take advantage of the power they possessed under the 59 Geo. III.; and this residue remained subject to any claims omitted or made too late, till in 1845 Dr. Phillimore, the then sole surviving Commissioner, reported that the whole sum had been expended. Not a single penny of these Rentes, therefore, remained in the hands of the Government. He thought it was almost a pity that a matter decided by the Commissioners, and again by the Privy Council, should have been reopened. The Master of the Bolls in 1832 emphatically adhered to the judgment of Lord Gilford in the case of Douay College, and this, he should have thought, disposed of the case. Sir John Leach deemed himself bound by that analogous case.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICAEDEmaintained that Sir John Leach was in error in doing so.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the Master of the Rolls, in giving judgment, gave two reasons—one that the Colleges were opposed to English law, which he (THE MARQUESS of Lansdowne) regarded as a questionable reason, on account of the material difference between English and Irish law; the other that they were French establishments, having been founded by the authority of the King of France. He held himself, therefore, precluded by the Douay judgment from any further consideration of the matter. Now, after this conclusive decision there was no reason for re-opening the subject; but there was no objection to produce the Papers moved for.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEremarked that the English Colleges were affiliated to French institutions, and ceased to exist at the Revolution, whereas; the Irish College was always an independent one, and continued in existence.
  Motion agreed to.

NATURALIZATION BILL.

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that the Amendments made by the Commons in the Bill, as it was sent down by their Lordships, were only four, to which he hoped their Lordships would have no difficulty in agreeing. In Clause 2, enabling aliens to hold property, the Commons had struck out the proviso, empowering the Queen in Council to suspend its operation with regard to the enjoyment of property by aliens, subjects of any State at war with Her Majesty, during the continuance of such hostilities. This proviso appeared to him, when inserted, scarcely necessary, since, during a time of warfare, there would be ample power to deal with the subjects of an enemy who had settled or held property in this country. The aim of the Bill—though, as he had explained, it could not be thoroughly carried out—was to enable any person with a double allegiance to elect which country he would be a subject of. The 4th clause accordingly provided that any person who, by being born within the British dominions, became a British subject, but who also became at his birth under the law of any foreign State a subject thereof, might, if of full age and not subject to any disability, make a declaration of alienage, and cease to be a British subject. Now, the Commons had added the converse proposition—that a person born out of Her Majesty's dominions who by reason of parentage was a British subject, should, in like manner, be able to make a declaration of alienage and cease to be a British subject. This he thought an improvement, for it made, the position of both countries a reciprocal one. The term of three years' residence adopted by their Lordships as a qualification for naturalization had been extended by the Commons to five years—which was the period required in Prussia, and he believed at present in the United States. Considering that naturalization would confer the full privileges of citizenship, including a seat in Parliament and membership of the Privy Council, their Lordships, he trusted, would not be indisposed to assent to this. The Commons had also added a money

  391
  clause, enabling the Home Secretary to fix the fees payable on certificates and declarations, which could not properly have been inserted by their Lordships. He moved that the Commons' Amendments be agreed to.
  LORD WESTBURYexpressed a doubt whether the Government would have sufficient power over the subjects of a State at war with us, in the absence of the proviso which the Commons had struck out. The 4th clause having originated with himself, he should wish it to be good English; but the provision added by the Commons spoke of a person as "born of a father." Now, it was quite right to speak of a man as born of a woman, or born to a father, but "born of a father" was a singular expression, which he had not previously met with, even in the proceedings of a Reformed Parliament. It expressed, indeed, a thing physically impossible. He would propose an Amendment, making it read "any person born out of Her Majesty's dominions, the child of a father."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLreminded the noble and learned Lord that it was not uncommon, and, he believed, not incorrect to say—"born of English parents," which, according to his contention, would be as bad English as the expression used in the Bill.
  LORD WESTBURYremarked that the phrase "English parents" included the mother.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONappealed to his noble and learned Friend not to press his Amendment, unless he attached great importance to the distinction between father and mother. It was important that the Bill should become law as early as possible, as it would be the basis of a treaty giving effect to the Protocol signed by Lord Stanley and Mr. Reverdy Johnson. If passed tonight it could not receive the Royal Assent before Thursday, which would leave Friday for him to negotiate with Mr. Motley.
  LORD WESTBURYupon this withdrew his Amendment.
  Commons' Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.