Lords Sitting of 6 August 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Unseaworthy Ships* (265); Public Works Loans* (266).
Second Reading—Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act Amendment* (252); Expiring Laws Continuance* (260); East India Home Government (Appointments)* (261); Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment* (262); Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, Amendment* (236).
Committee—Report—Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers)* (250); Government Officers (Security)* (251); Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* (244).
Report—Militia Laws Consolidation and Amendment* (243–264).
Third Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance* (222); Traffic Regulation (Dublin)* (239), and passed.
Withdrawn—Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, Extension* (68).

CARDINAL MANNING.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNErose to call the attention of the Lord President to the following paragraph:—
  Extract from "Weekly Register,"
  17th July, 1875:
  "Court, Fashionable, and Home News."
  "The Queen and the Cardinal. Reception of His Eminence at the Prince of Wales' garden party. The question of Cardinal Manning's precedence was indirectly settled at the Prince of Wales' garden party last week, when Her Majesty the Queen was present. The Prince of Wales advanced to meet the Cardinal on his arrival, cordially shook hands with him, and then presented His Eminence to His Royal Mother, who received him most graciously and conversed with him for a while. His Eminence remained within the royal circle for some time, a privilege accorded only to those of the highest rank."
  The noble Lord said, The Weekly Register was a paper of considerable authority among Roman Catholics, and up to a recent period, at all events, enjoyed the special blessing of the Pope. He now wished to ask the noble Duke the Lord President, whether the information contained in that paragraph was correct. Having heard it said that by calling attention to it he was intruding on the privacy of the Royal Family, he would first repudiate the justice of that assertion. The condemnation justly applied to those who had inserted the paragraph in The Church Herald and Weekly Register, and that clearly with a political object. But once circulated through
  606
  these papers its contents became a matter of public discussion; and he believed he was showing respect and attachment to those Royal Personages by eliciting, as no doubt he should do, from the noble Duke a direct contradiction to all that was important in the paragraph referred to. Some told him the matter was of no importance; but that the matter was of public interest was shown by leading articles having appeared on the subject in the leading journal, in the leading Roman Catholic journal, and in some others at the time of Dr. Manning being made a Cardinal. Living, as he did, among a Roman Catholic population, generally well disposed and well-conducted, but with their allegiance nicely balanced between their Church and the State, he knew that the latter could not afford to yield one atom to the aggression of the former; and if the reception of Dr. Manning as a Cardinal was uncontradicted, it would doubtless give some additional influence to the the Roman Catholic Church in these realms. His contention, therefore, was that in these realms the Queen was the sole Fountain of Honour, and that without her approval every British subject was forbidden to accept any rank or decoration from any foreign Potentate. Before dwelling on the few facts necessary to support this view he would state his grounds for believing the facts contained in the paragraph to be unfounded. Her Majesty has always been remark-able for her intimate knowledge of punctilious adherence to constitutional forms and principles. She was well aware that it was only by suffrance that a Cardinal resided in this country, and if she intended to permit Dr. Manning to accept the rank of Cardinal she would do it in the legal and official form. By so doing she would show that as a constitutional Sovereign she had acted on the advice of her Ministers; whereas by an informal recognition it might be said she evinced her sympathies with the views advocated by Dr. Manning, though, thank God, she left her people no room to doubt her willing acceptance of those Protestant principles on which by the Act of Settlement, her Throne was based. And as the name of the illustrious Heir to the Throne had been introduced into the paragraph, he would take the occasion of saying that the people of this country had no less confidence in his.

  607
  adherence to the same policy and the same principles. Could Cardinal Manning, as a British subject, he presented? When he was made a Cardinal the question of his position was much discussed in the public journals of this country. If he waived his rank and wished to be presented as Dr. Manning, he had no doubt that Her Majesty would be well advised as to the course she should pursue; but if so received at Court, the name of "Doctor," not Cardinal Manning would appear on the list. But as the announcement in the paragraph was received by many as true, and by more as important, he must endeavour very shortly to elucidate the law and practice of this matter both at home and abroad: to show that, not in the United Kingdom only, but over the whole Continent, it was, and always had been, held to be a matter of serious import—first, How did the law stand as to Cardinals? He wished some noble and learned Lord would tell them. But he found that when, in 1851, this question was considered, it was not contradicted that a Cardinal's duty was to assist in forwarding the business of the Holy See, and he could, therefore, only absent himself from Borne by reason of being sent as a Legate; and that the Government of this country, and of every country in Europe, accepting this view, did not permit a Cardinal to reside in their dominions, except by consent of the Crown. By the Act allowing diplomatic relations with Borne, the Sovereign was forbidden to receive an ecclesiastic as Ambassador from the Holy See. Then it was certain that no British subject could accept a foreign Order without permission of the Crown, and that this permission was never granted, save in the case of an Envoy carrying an English decoration to a foreign Sovereign, or in the case of an Englishman distinguishing himself in the field, either when in the service of or acting with the troops of a foreign Sovereign. The noble Earl the late Minister of Foreign Affairs enforced the soundness and importance of this rule so forcibly that he felt sure their Lordships would be glad that he should recall a part of his statement on that occasion. The noble Lord (Earl Granville), stated—
  "It has been held for centuries that Orders from foreign Sovereigns could not he held by
  608
  English subjects without the consent of their own Sovereign."—[3 Hansard, ccxiv. 777.]
  He referred to Queen Elizabeth, saying—" She did not like her dogs to wear any collar but her own; "to George III., by saying he "Liked his sheep to be marked with his own mark." He continued—
  "I do not say that there was not something coarse in this somewhat despotic observation; but it contains the germ of good sense, and a right appreciation of the national feelings that for Englishmen, at all events, the Sovereign should be the only fountain of honour."—[Ibid.]
  The noble Earl afterwards stated that a regulation to this effect had been made in 1812. After explaining the few exceptions to the rule thus laid down, the noble Earl went on to say—
  "It is impossible to make exceptions at all without breaking down the whole thing.…. I may refer to a case that occurred during the last war. The Legion of Honour was offered to Colonel Loyd Lindsay, who already bore the Victoria Cross on his breast, who was in every way worthy of the honour the French Government offered to confer upon him, and in whoso case an exception to our general rule would, I venture to think, have been equally agreeable to Germany as to France. But I should have been obliged to make the same answer in his case as I have in all others, if from other reasons he had not been entitled to wear it. I wish to point out some of the difficulties which would probably have arisen from a compliance with the application for permission in Colonel Loyd Lindsay's case. He had distinguished himself in bringing aid to the wounded; but at the same time he was doing that, there were others engaged in it. In France, there were subjects of Her Majesty engaged in it who might have been influenced by political and religious feelings. Some of them belonged to the Home Rule party. If permission to wear a foreign decoration were given to these persons, the exception would have been made in favour of men who to some extent deny the supremacy of the Sovereign."—[Ibid. 779–80.]
  He (Lord Oranmore and Browne) accepted this line of reasoning as unanswerable, and contended that if it was good touching decorations, which carried with them no precedence and no authority à fortiori, how much more necessary that the same rules should be enforced in cases of rank giving the highest precedence!—an authority involving the religious and political feelings, and, to some extent, denying the supremacy of the Crown. But, in truth, he only advocated that rank conferred by the Pope on a British subject should be treated in exactly the same way as rank conferred by the Emperor of Germany or any

  609
  other Potentate. But he asked attention to the following results, a very small part of the whole question, if this whole-some rule were not held to apply to dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church. According to the Roman Catholic Register, he found there were two Cardinals, six Roman Catholic Archbishops, and 44 Roman Bishops, English subjects, residing in the United Kingdom, and besides these there were a crowd of minor dignitaries. Here were 52 gentlemen claiming rank derived from a foreign Potentate without consent of the Crown, two of them claiming precedence over any rank the Queen could bestow. He might also mention that during the last few years the Pope had conferred the titles of Count and Baron on many British subjects. He could not conclude without referring to the precedence given in The Dublin Gazette, in 1849, to the Roman Catholic Archbishops. He asked the late Government, and he now asked the noble Duke—Was there ever any legal and official order signed for the precedence so gazetted? He was led to believe there never was. Though very sorry to intrude so long on their Lordships' time, he must say a few words to guard himself against being supposed to be so short-sighted or unpractical as to ask any Government to attempt to ignore the existence of the Roman Catholic Church in these realms. Having all his life lived under its benign influence, knowing the part it played in the present and the past history, he knew it was impossible. But it was only a weak Government which attempted to deal with it on any other principle than it dealt with the other great interests in the country, be they lay or ecclesiastical—namely, considering the interests of each as bearing on the whole, and always jealously guarding the supremacy of the Executive. Everyone would accept these principles; but every Government knew that the Roman Catholic Church only accepted them with reserve, and that every concession brought a fresh demand. Many moderate men who would have said that Her Majesty was right to show favour in 1849 to Dr. Murray, the friend of mixed education, of moderation, and conciliation would condemn as weakness any favour shown by the Crown to Cardinals Manning or Cullen. Cardinal Manning had announced in one of his sermons that he came "to conquer heresy
  610
  in England," which meant the overthrow of every principle on which our institutions were founded, and both were the advocates of Infallibility and the supremacy of the Church of Rome over all Powers and Principalities. The ex-Premier, convinced by the telegram from Rome which deprived him of office, truly described their views
  "as aggressive, not defensive; as putting-forward principles adverse to the purity and integrity of civil allegiance, as a policy of violence and change of faith."
  Till the Roman Church returned to the policy of Dr. Murray the principle of self-preservation alone forbade all concession. With regard to the Question he had to put, he hoped that the noble Duke would give no evasive answer to it, but that he would tell their Lord-ships that Cardinal Manning was not in any capacity presented to or received by Her Majesty, and that the Government could not advise Her Majesty to confirm the rank given to the Cardinal by the Pope. An assurance on these points would give great satisfaction to every loyal subject of Her Majesty. In conclusion, he hoped the Government would show their reprobation of that veiled treason which induced the Chief Magistrate of Dublin only last night to give the toast of "The Pope" before that of "The Queen."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I hope that neither on this occasion, nor on any other occasion, I shall give an evasive answer to any Question which may be addressed to me in this House. In the first place, I do protest against the Question which the noble Lord has put. And I do think that it is a Question which ought never to have been placed upon the Notice Paper. I shall confine myself—as I believe your Lordships would wish me to do—to the Question which has been put to me; and I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord into the discussion which he wishes to raise, as to the position of the Queen of this country. I had thought that that matter had been sufficiently established, and that the whole of the country were perfectly satisfied with, and had a thorough knowledge of, the position of Her Majesty in her own dominions. I shall now proceed to answer the Question which the noble Lord has put. It is, whether at the garden party at Chiswick the Prince of Wales advanced

  611
  to meet Cardinal Manning on his arrival? I am able to answer, in the most unevasive and most direct manner, the Question which the noble Lord has put; because I have, by the courtesy of the Prince of Wales, the means of doing so. The Prince of Wales did not advance to meet Cardinal Manning on his arrival. The Cardinal received an invitation to a garden party at Chiswick, in common with many other of His Royal Highness's acquaintances. The Cardinal, like many others of His Royal Highness's acquaintances, availed himself of that invitation; but I have the authority of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for saying that on the occasion of that garden party he had no opportunity of seeing the Cardinal. Therefore, he had no opportunity of shaking hands with him, and still less an opportunity of presenting him to Her Majesty the Queen. The last part of the Question is—"whether his Eminence remained within the Royal circle for some time—a privilege accorded only to those of the highest rank? "Now, those of your Lordships who have the honour and privilege of being invited to and attending the garden parties at Chiswick, must be aware that there is no such thing there as a Royal circle. The guests are ushered into a very large garden, where there are marquees, and refreshments for those who wish to partake of them, and the guests circulate about there in any manner which is most agreeable to themselves. Therefore, it is not correct to say that His Eminence remained within the Royal circle for some time. Now, having answered the inquiries of the noble Lord, I put it to your Lordships whether it is seemly that such Questions should be put—whether Questions should be asked in this House about the private entertainments of Members of the Royal Family?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYmust express his opinion that it was a very invidious thing for a noble Lord, who, according to his own account, spent most of his life among a Roman Catholic population, to give utterance to such sentiments as they had heard that evening. He referred to an Answer given by the noble Duke to the noble Lord on a similar question of precedence raised some five years ago, and said that he could not understand why any loyal subject
  612
  should be debarred from Her Majesty's Court merely because he had a certain dignity conferred upon him by the Church to which he belonged.

  ARMY (IRELAND)—GENERAL ORDER No. 882.—ADDRESS FOR A PAPER.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK, in moving—
  "That an humble Address be presened to Her Majesty for, Copy of General Order, No. 882, Adjutant General's Office, Dublin, 30th July, 1875,"
  said, that, in the Address, the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Sandhurst) referred to the effects of" recent legislation "on the people of Ireland. Such allusions, in a Military Order, were not likely to be attended with happy results.
  EARL CADOGANhoped the noble Earl would not expect him to express on his own behalf, or that of the Government, an opinion on the General Order for which the noble Earl had moved. The noble and gallant Lord who had issued that Address was a Member of their Lordships' House, and it would be competent to him to explain or defend the Order if he should so think fit.
  Motion agreed to.
  Address for Copy of General Order, No. 882, Adjutant General's Office, Dublin, 30th July 1875.—(The Earl of Limerick.)

ARMY (INDIA)—CAVALRY RELIEFS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD WAVENEYasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is proposed to relieve the Queen's regiments of European Cavalry in India at more frequent intervals?
  EARL CADOGAN, in reply, said, that, as at present arranged, Infantry regiments remained 12 years in India. There were nine Cavalry regiments in India, and at present they served there between 11 and 12 years; but as one regiment returned home every season, the term of foreign service would soon be reduced to 10 years, at which period it was intended to retain it.

ARMY (INDIA)—HILL SANATARIA.

  QUESTION.
  LORD WAVENEYasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it

  613
  might not be practicable, without injury to the public service, to detach dismounted Cavalry and Gunners of Her Majesty's regular forces (European) in India to Hill Stations for sanitary reasons; and whether the Indian Government propose to extend the system of Sanataria for the women and children of the European troops?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in reply, said, it was not desirable to detach dismounted cavalry and gunners to hill stations in the way suggested by the noble Lord. The Government of India had been for a long time expending a great deal of labour and money in improving the sanitary condition of various places in which troops were stationed. The result was, that in many of those stations the death rate was much lower than it had been, and the sanitary statistics would compare favourably with those of any other quarters in the world. As to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, he did not know whether the noble Lord meant that the women were to go to the sanataria without their husbands.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, its object was to know whether the Government would be disposed to supplement the voluntary assistance that had been given, and extend the system of sanataria for the women and children of the European troops? Colonel Sir Frederic Fitz-wygram, lately on Indian service, had given £10,000 to be applied for the benefit of the wives and children of Cavalry troops only for a sanatarium; and he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government were disposed to assist further that voluntary contribution in providing sanataria for the women and children of the troops generally, independent of the regimental and divisional sanataria?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had no information as to the circumstances connected with the fund just referred to by the noble Lord; but he could at once say that he did not think encouragement should be given by the Government of India to any proposal for unnecessarily separating the women from their husbands. Of course, the health of women and children was attended to at the stations as well as that of the men; but a plan for sending the women and children to separate sanataria was one which could not be encouraged.

UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS BILL.
(The Lord President.)
UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS BILL.

  FIRST READING.
  Bill read 1a.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would move the second reading on Monday. He must ask their Lordships to meet to-morrow to forward Bills; but no business likely to give rise to a discussion would be taken.
  Bill to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 265.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.