LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, with reference to the announcement which has been published in The 266 London Gazette of the 4th March instant, that—The Queen has been pleased to issue a Commission under Her Majesty's Royal Sign Manual," addressed to "Our right trusty and wellbeloved Councillor, Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, Baronet, President of the Local Government Board, Chairman: Our most dear Son Albert Edward Prince of Wales, Knight of Our most noble Order of the Garter, Field Marshal in Our Army: Our trusty and well-beloved the Most Reverend Cardinal Archbishop Henry Edward Manning, Doctor in Divinity; Our right trusty and entirely beloved Cousin and Councillor Robert Arthur Talbot Marquess of Salisbury. Knight of Our most noble Order of the Garter; Our right trusty and right well-beloved Cousin Adelbert Wellington Brownlow Earl Brownlow; Our right trusty and well-beloved Councillor Charles Robert Baron Carington, Captain of Our Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms; Our right trusty and well-beloved Councillor George Joachim Goschen; Our right trusty and well-beloved Councillor Sir Richard Assheton Cross, Knight Grand Cross of Our most honourable Order of the Bath; the Right Reverend Father in God William Walsham Bishop Suffragan of Bedford; Our trusty and well-beloved Edward Lynlph Stanley, Esquire, commonly called the Honourable Edward Lyulph Stanley; Our trusty and well-beloved William Torrens McCulllagh Torresn, Esquire. Bachelor of Laws; Our trusty and well-beloved Henry Broadhurst, Esquire; Our trusty and well-beloved Jesse Collings, Esquire; Our trusty and well-beloved George Godwin, Esquire, Fellow of the Royal Society; and Our trusty and well-beloved Samuel Morley, Esquire;and nominating, constituting, and appointing the said parties, in the above-named order of precedence, to be Her Majesty's Royal Commissioners "to enquire into the housing of the working classes;" Whether their attention has been directed to the statement in The Tablet, the leading Roman Catholic newspaper, of the 8th March instant, expressing the gratification felt—In observing that its proper precedence had been given to the name of His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop, immediately after that of the Prince of Wales;and upon what grounds have Her Majesty's Government considered it their duty to advise Her Majesty to issue Her Royal Commission, giving official recognition of such title of dignity to the said "Most Reverend Cardinal Archbishop Henry Edward Manning," and according to him rank and precedence next to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and above the precedence accorded to Her Majesty's "Cousin and Councillor the Marquess of Salisbury" and the other noblemen, bishop, councillors, knights, sons of noblemen, de- 267 signated only by their "commonly called" titles of courtesy, and other gentlemen named in the said Royal Commission; and whether such Royal Proclamation in The London Gzette confers any authoritative recognition of such rank, dignity, or title of precedency to the said Henry Edward Manning? said, that in putting the Question, he wished to make a short personal explanation. He would not trouble their Lordships with any further observations than to say that this was a kind of personal recognition of Cardinal Manning. In saying that, he had no wish that ecclesiastics, laymen, or Roman Catholic Churchmen should not be treated exactly the same, and on the same footing, as any other of Her Majesty's subjects, no matter of whatever denomination. He wished, however, that the mere fact of their belonging to a particular religion should not entitle them to any extra privilege or precedent.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE
, in reply, said, Her Majesty's Government had, in this matter, followed strict precedent. There were no fewer than three precedents which he would shortly quote to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Oranmore and Browne). The first was that of the Royal Commission on Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) Fund. The date was December 20, 1844, and the list of names was in the following order:—The Most Rev. Father in God the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland; next came the Most Rev. Father in God the Archbishop of Dublin; after that came the Most Rev. the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, Dr. Croly.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
I beg pardon; but my Question is not with regard to the Archbishop of Dublin. I referred to the title "Cardinal Archbishop."
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE
said, the next precedent was in 1849. On the 7th of August of that year there appeared in The Dublin Gazette a notice of a Levee and Drawing Room in Dublin Castle, which set forth that Her Majesty had been pleased to desire that the following persons should have the entrée to the Castle:—The Primate, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Archbishop of Dublin, the Roman Catholic Primate, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, the Duke of Leinster, and others, 268 this being the order in which they were named. The third, and by far the most important precedent, was that afforded by the Charter of the Royal University of Ireland, which was signed in 1880 by the late Duke of Marlborough, then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and in which the following names appeared in the following order:—First there was the name of the Right Rev. Dr. Trench, Archbishop of Dublin, and then followed that of Archbishop MacCabe, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, which was immediately before that of "Our trusty and well-beloved Councillor," Dr. Ball, then Lord Chancellor of Ireland. So that in that instance the Roman Catholic Archbishop came next after the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, and before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. These were the precedents which Her Majesty's Government had followed in issuing the Royal Commission, and they had given to "Cardinal Archbishop Henry Edward Manning" a place next to the Prince of "Wales, which was that which most certainly belonged to him. As, in Ireland, former Roman Catholic Archbishops came next to Archbishops of the Established Church, and before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, it was thought that Cardinal Manning should have similar precedence in the Royal Commission that had just been issued.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
said, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) had not answered the latter part of the Question on the Paper—Whether the Royal Proclamation in The London Gazette conferred any authoritative recognition of rank, dignity, or title of precedency to the said Henry Edward Manning?
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE
This confers no further precedence on Archbishop Manning than did the former Royal Proclamations, in accordance with the precedent created by which this Royal Commission has been issued.
said, he thought it unfortunate that the title of Archbishop, in connection with Cardinal Manning, should have been introduced into the Commission, because the rank of His Eminence as a Prince of the Roman Catholic Church was undoubted; but Westminster was part of the diocese of the Bishop of London. He believed that Cardinal Manning would have 269 served on the Commission without requiring his title of Archbishop to be recognized. He was always most distressed at the divisions among Christians, between Protestants and Catholics. They ought to live together in a friendly way. He reminded the House that sometimes too great power had been assumed by Popes; and alluded to the Battle of Varna, and to the taking of Constantinople—which fact would nut have offended the Mahommedans, nor would Constantinople have been taken by them, if a Pope had not absolved Christians from an oath to maintain peace for 10 years. Benedict XIII., one of the best Popes who ever sat in the Chair, at the instigation of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland, between 1715 and 1740, gave a plenary indulgence to all who would say and pay for ayes and a Pater, in order to aid the cause of the Pretender; but, though £1,500 was collected, the Government discovered the plot, and prevented all mischief. On the other hand, Protestants had, at times, done things to provoke the larger number of Romanists, of whom a Lord Lieutenant had said that it was the "duty of the Government to protect the Protestants, but not to persecute the Catholics." And on August 8, 1832, Mr. Shaw, Recorder of Dublin, had set the example of Obstruction by dividing the House of Commons 17 times on the re-commitment of the Party Processions Bill. This was recorded in the Journals of the House of Commons; it was a debate on a Wednesday, and the hon. Member, in a contemporary Memoir, was stated to have expressed his regret, justifying himself that he had made a vow to use every form of Obstruction; but he was sorry for it, and would not do so again.
LORD ORANMORE AND BEOWNE
said, he thought the answer of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) scarcely satisfactory. In the first place, he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) was not aware that Irish precedents were precedents in this country. The same rank, he believed, had never been accorded in this country to Catholic Prelates as in Ireland, and he doubted whether announcements in The Dublin Gazette were to be treated as binding legal documents in this country. In the second place, it was very doubtful whether the Crown had the Constitutional right of conferring precedence at all—whether 270 the precedence granted by 32 Hen. VIII. could be interfered with by the Prerogative of the Crown. The point was mooted when a Bill was brought in for the naturalization of the late Prince Albert. The Duke of Wellington raised the point, and it was doubted whether the Crown could give precedence to Prince Albert. It was thon admitted that there were no precedents. Lord Melbourne, who was then Prime Minister, said that if they did not give Prince Albert precedence by Act of Parliament, there was no other way of giving it. Lord Cottenham, the Lord Chancellor, acceded to that view; and the Government found the matter so difficult that they withdrew the Bill as to precedence, and merely passed a Naturalization Act. Lord Brougham asked Her Majesty's Government how they contemplated dealing with the subject? They declined to answer, and, a few days later there appeared in The Gazette a declaration by Her Most Gracious Majesty giving Prince Albert precedence, so far as it was not forbidden by Act of Parliament—leaving it an open matter as to what precedence this gave to the Prince. The Government were strong enough to hold their ground. It was an exceptional case, and everyone wished to gratify the Queen. The matter, therefore, passed without remark. But the present was a very different case, and it would be quoted as a precedent for the conferring of precedence by the mere power of the Crown. He admitted that the Roman Catholic Church was a great power for good or evil, and that no Government could preserve peace and order, as in Ireland, if it set it at defiance. But let their relations with that Church be regulated by some Act of Parliament, and not by a side-wind such as this for more Party interests, and contrary to the Constitution of this country.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE
said, that Her Majesty's Government did not intend, by the issue of this Commission, that any new precedent should be created. He had quoted the three precedents in accordance with which the Commission had been issued, and, whatever those precedents were, they were created long ago, and this Commission created nothing new.
§ EARL CADOGAN
said, that as he understood the quotations made by 271 the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Brown) from The Gazette, they amounted to a contention that it was not within the power of Her Majesty to create any precedence, and that it must be done by Act of Parliament. Now, The Gazette merely contained an enumeration of names arranged in order according to former precedents. There had been no attempt to create a new precedent, as that would have to be done, as the noble Lord himself had pointed out, by Act of Parliament; and therefore his own argument showed that no new precedent had been created.