matter; but I could not allow the obser- | in error. It arose from a misconception of vations which I have heard, and heard at the circumstances connected with that much length, charging sympathy and connivance with the Fenian insurrection to the Roman Catholic priesthood, to be made, without rising and stating, as a Minister of the Crown, that from our experience of all that has passed with regard to this unfortunate conspiracy and insurrection, and with regard to all that is occurring even up to the present moment, we have had no cause to feel any distrust of the loyalty of the Roman Catholic priesthood. And I will go further and say that to their sympathy with the Crown and the interests of England-to the information which they have given to the general information and valuable knowledge which they possessed and have afforded, we have been much indebted and greatly assisted in the management of affairs of extreme difficulty; and, although we have been obliged to have recourse to severity, I trust the country will feel that it has not been an extreme severity, but that it has been tempered with that discretion of which real force knows how to avail itself. With regard to the present question before us, it is very important that we should distinguish between the nature of things which seem similar, but which are really distinct. The conditions on which the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act was passed are not part of the English Constitution. They were a statesmanlike settlement, and, as a statesmanlike settlement, they were adapted to the time and circumstances with which those statesmen had to deal. They were founded, no doubt, partly on principle and partly upon expediency, and, generally speaking, they were adjusted to the requirements of the period to which they related. But although I look upon those arrangements as the arrangements of very wise and considerate men, I do not hold that we are foreclosed from revising the policy under which those arrangements were recommended to Parliament. Now, with regard to the two particular offices touched by the present discussion, my noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, with the frankness and clearness which distinguish him, made a statement to the House some time ago, in which I entirely agree. I believe from what I myself heard some years ago from one who was a great authority connected with this settlement, that the intrusion into the arrangement of the office of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was a step founded office, and from the mistaken belief that it was identical in its attributes, influence, and patronage with the office of Lord Chancellor in England. The Lord Chancellor of England is placed in a peculiar position with regard to the Church of England. He has great control over the patronage of the Church, and he is peculiarly the Adviser of the Crown in all matters connected with the Church. That is a very good reason why we should maintain in the Constitution of this country that the person who holds the office of Lord Chancellor of England should profess the Protestant religion. But there is not now, and there never has been, anything in the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland which renders it unfitting that it should be held by a Roman Catholic. It is not connected with Church patronage, nor does it possess any peculiar relations with the Established Church in Ireland. It is simply the highest legal office, and as such the greatest prize that can be enjoyed by the legal profession, and it is therefore desirable that every Irishman, whatever his creed, should have the opportunity of obtaining that high dignity. But there is a very great difference be tween the two offices of Lord Chancellor and Lord Lieutenant; and even if the distinction were not so complete and absolute as I think it is, it would be, in my opi nion, the most unwise and indiscreet act for the Roman Catholics to press a change in the law in respect to the office of Lord Lieutenant. That would be a course which would only revive prejudices and re-call animosities which I had hoped, if they had not been entirely banished, were greatly appeased. The Lord Lieutenant is the direct representative of the Sovereign of this country, and he is placed in intimate relations with the patronage of the Established Church of England in Ireland, and it would be a most unwise course for us to sanction a change that would create great distrust and dissatis faction in the minds of the population of this country. Therefore, the course origi nally taken in this debate by my noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was discreet and wise-a course founded on principle, while to proceed further than the line which he indicated would very much offend the feelings of a great majority of the population of this country. It would, at the same time, create consider. able distrust and alarm, and be an obstacle | straight to the core of the evils of Ireland, to the encouragement of those feelings we shall assuage their intensity and prewhich I have always endeavoured to foster; pare the way for the ultimate operation. and instead of inducing that equality of The right hon. Gentleman draws a disposition and sentiment of which we have tinction between the two offices of Lord heard so much, would rather tend to pro- Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor. He says duce exactly the reverse. Therefore, as with regard to the former that its occupant far as I am concerned, I shall support the holds a peculiar position with regard to Amendment, which is in unison with the Church patronage. The Bill, however, policy of my noble Friend. I am quite proposes to divest a Roman Catholic Lord willing to open to Irishmen, whatever Lieutenant of the exercise of that patronmay be their religious creed, the office of age; and, in the second place, even if it Lord Chancellor. I see no reason why did not, the fact would still remain that difference of religion should be a bar to the Lord Lieutenant has not one shadow of any Irishman arriving at that distinction. the higher responsibility with regard to But I cannot sanction the other part of the ecclesiastical patronage. Whatever he does Bill; and I believe that we shall be acting is done under the responsibility of the a discreet and proper part by determining Ministers of the Crown. Then we are told that the relations of the Lord Lieutenant he is a representative of the Crown. Cerwith regard to the Crown and the country tainly he is the representative of the shall not be changed in the manner pro- Crown on all matters of dignity, of cereposed. monial, of courts, drawing-rooms, and on public occasions, when ladies are presented to him, and in various functions of that description. But this is not to be denied, that the constitutional responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant is inferior in dignity and weight to that of the Ministers forming the Cabinet, and that still the very place of the Minister who specially superintends the Lord Lieutenant in the exercise of his duties-namely, the Secretary of State for the Home Department-may at any time be filled by a Roman Catholic. The right hon. Gentleman has said that those who propose and support this measure will in pressing it revive prejudices and excite animosities. But when we are told that we are not to apply to Ireland principles different from those which we apply to England and Scotland, I say that the same principles, so far as they are consistent with the unity of the Empire, should be consulted in framing the laws and institutions of each country. My belief is, that to follow out to their natural conclusion, courageously, prudently, but firmly, the principles of strict civil justice is the way not to weaken and disparage, but to confirm and consolidate those institutions. The right hon. Gentleman says, that to press these claims would awaken animosities and revive prejudices. Where? In Ireland? No, but in England. But is that a sufficient reason why a majority of the people of Ireland should be debarred and deprived of enjoying a matter of a civil right, because the minority allege that their prejudices would be wounded? Now, I ask, is that a fair, generous, and MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche. quer has spoken on this subject with a moderation and with a studious and unaffected concern for the feelings of the people of Ireland, which, in my opinion, do him honour. But, at the same time, I think it must have been obvious to the House that in the argumentative portion of his speech he felt the difficulties of his position; and to use an old and familiar expression drawn from a high source, "his wheels drave heavily." The right hon. Gentleman must be conscious that it is upon grounds of no breadth that he offers a resistance to a most important portion of the Bill. He commenced his speech by stating that he did not pretend to know the source of the evils of Ireland, and it would be most presumptuous in me to contradict him, or to assert for myself any such knowledge. But although it may be true that there are ancient wounds which we cannot heal, and which perhaps are not yet probed to the bottom, still physicians when dealing with the constitution of a patient, even when they doubt as to the ultimate seat of the disease, have recourse to alterative methods, by which they can soothe, if with limited benefit, and which they confidently hope will do something to mitigate the disease. Admitting frankly the fairness of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that if we strictly observe the paramount principles of civil justice-if we carefully attend to the susceptibilities of national feelings—although we may not go equitable mode of handling this question? SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN said, that Is it a mode by which we may seek to soothe the sore and wounded feelings of the people of Ireland, if, on a question that is not English, but Irish, we are to say to the people of Ireland, "Ábate your rights, do not urge your demands, because we who inhabit England and Scotland in a matter purely Irish declare we have prejudices which you must respect?" There is no man in the House, I think, who seriously would urge or could possibly believe certain I am that the right hon. Gentleman will not seriously urge and cannot possibly believe-that danger would result to the Constitution, the Church, and the religion of the country by the contingency-not arising at the moment, but should it ever arise-by the holding of the office of Lord Lieutenant by a Roman Catholic subject of the Queen. I am only doing the right hon. Gentleman justice when I point out to the House that the (Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Mr. Cogan, Sir John in the debate on the second reading, the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland called his attention to the fact that the Lord Chancellor had some jurisdiction in the appointment of delegates for hearing ecclesiastical appeals, and was an ex officio trustee of certain Protestant charities. He had consequently prepared a clause providing that when the office was filled by a Roman Catholic those functions should devolve on one of the Chief Judges, being a Protestant. right hon. Gentleman in his speech made no such allegation. He rested his opposition on the question of the ecclesiastical patronage of the Lord Lieutenant, which the Bill proposes to take away; he rested it on the representation of the Crown by the Lord Lieutenant, which representation is exercised under the control and responsibility of the Government and a Minister of the Crown, who by the existing law may be a Roman Cotholic; he rested it on the prejudice of this country, to which it would be most unworthy of us to give weight as against the civil rights of a people who are not English, but Irish. But of danger to the Constitution, the right hon. Gentleman has not said a word; and I am persuaded that he believes that danger to be a phantom. If danger there be, it is in this:-in slackness, in reluctance, in niggardliness on our part in dealing with those claims of Ireland which are founded on justice. But to extend largely and liberally civil equality to the entire of Her Majesty's subjects in these kingdoms is the true way of consulting the interests of the religion, the Church, and the Constitution of this country. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided:-Ayes 140; Clause agreed to. Clause agreed to. House resumed. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow. TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARA- Gray.) [BILL 6.] COMMITTEE. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, the hon. Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Col man O'Loghlen) having assigned no rea sons whatever for his introduction of this Bill in the present Session, I am bound to conclude that he is actuated by the same reason which prompted him to bring in this Bill last Session. These were that the Declaration, prescribed by the Act of Charles II., which is embodied in the Act of Settlement, and by that Act is required to be made by the Sovereign of these realms at his or her coronation — that this declaration of adhesion to the Protestant religion is considered so offensive by Roman Catholics, that they will not permit any Protestant officer of State to pronounce it. Now, I beg the Committee to observe how these matters proceed. We have had an eloquent oration to-night from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition against preserving any office to persons of the same religion as the Sovereign, and every argument that the right hon. Gentleman used struck directly at the principle that the Sovereign ought to be a Protestant. I know there is a most extraordinary indifference to these Constitutional questions in this House. In my experience I have never known a Parliament in which the principle of religious indifference, to say the least, was so manifest as in the present. | decent that a Protestant should move this It appears to me that the opinions of the Protestant people of this country are neglected and wilfully violated; every principle they most value is bartered away for the sake of the political convenience of the moment. I am happy to say, however, that the people of this country are at last becoming sensible of this; and although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire and his Friends may disregard the opinions of their constituents, I have reason to believe that gradually their constituents are coming to the conclusion that, unless they act with energy, the government of the country must eventually and permanently lapse into the hands of the only party in the House who consistently seek to establish the domination of the power they represent-I mean the power of the Papacy. I know that this feeling exists. I know also that it is justifiable. I am, nevertheless, most desirous of avoiding anything needlessly offensive to my Roman Catholic fellowsubjects. I therefore propose an Amendment which would remove from the declaration certain words that they deem to be objectionable. That these words are offensive, however, is a new discovery; for this declaration has existed ever since the reign of Charles II.; and it has only just been discovered by the Roman Catholic Members of this House, that it is an offence on the part of Protestants if they express their religious opinions. Whilst hon. Gentlemen are proclaiming the doctrine of religious equality in this House, his Holiness of Rome is denouncing that principle; commanding his officers to abjure it; forbidding them to unite with any other religion whatever, and urging them to be more and more exclusive. Nevertheless, with characteristic carelessness, the more stringent the directions issued from Rome and the more evident the obedience which they command, the more lax is the guardianship extended to the Protestant Constitution of the country by this House. There is a good deal of idle declamation about the bigotry of Protestants; but what bigotry can be greater than that of a Bill by which the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Roman Catholic body forbid the Protestant officers of the State to express their religious convictions in a form that has existed and been in use for more than 200 years? Can any intolerance surpass that? Why, Sir, it would have been but VOL. CLXXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] Bill; but no, it is reserved for a Roman Catholic, an active, energetic, zealous Roman Catholic, in obedience to his superiors, to desire that the House should abolish a declaration made by the Protestants. I confess that to me this appears an act of aggressive intolerance that ought to excite a just indignation throughout the country. If Protestantism is to be strong, however, Protestantism must continue to be tolerant. I propose, therefore, that whilst retaining the requirement for the declaration of those opinions, which constitute the distinctive features of the purity of the Protestant faith, as contrasted with what we believe to be the corruptions of the Church of Rome, we- -[Laughter from Sir George Bowyer.] The hon. Baronet opposite is ever the exponent of intolerance, and was never more so than in the manner in which he has just given vent to his feelings. [Laughter.] Why, look at him now! Is he not the very picture of sarcastic intolerance? Anything that is said in the course of debate which is not agreeable to him he laughs at or flatly denies; and after having himself expressed in this House extreme Roman Catholic opinions, no sooner does a Protestant Member rise to propose the removal of what he himself proclaims to be offensive, than the hon. Baronet receives him with interruption and ridicule. This Bill marks another step in the career of concession to the Papacy. That is the sense in which it is moved, and it is in that sense I resist it, and I resist it in this manner-by seeking to substitute for a declaration, which is asserted to be offensive in the terms in which it is expressed, another that cannot be fairly said to be so, though about the meaning of it there can be no mistake, inasmuch as it distinctly repudiates the doctrines of the Church of Rome to which Protestants object; but it is free from every offensive word that might serve as a hook upon which the hon. Baronet might hang his ribaldry. For this purpose, and acting under the advice of Sir Hugh Cairns and Sir James Whiteside, I prepared this Amendment last Session. I will not read the terms of the existing declaration, because I am told that those terms are offensive; but I will read the words of the two articles of religion which are embodied by reference in the declaration I propose to substitute for the present; because I wish to show to the House 2 Ꮓ that there is in them no expression which [jesty, thereby declaring themselves to be should be offensive to the Roman Catholic, in religious communion with Her Majesty, who is really liberal, really tolerant of the that henceforth the Sovereign shall be opinions of others. For 300 years the Pro-isolated in declaring her adhesion to the testants have thus declared their rejection Protestant faith. Pass this Bill, and no of the doctrine of transubstantiation-that officer of the Crown or of the State will cardinal dogma of the Church of Rome. hereafter be required to make either the The 22nd Article of Religion, as received same or an equivalent declaration to that by the Church of England, runs thus- which is made by Her Majesty. Thus you "The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, deprive the Sovereign of the security that pardons, worshipping and adoration, as well of she has a few high officers of the State images as of reliques, and also invocation of avowedly of the same religion as her Saints is a fond thing, vainly invented, and self. Besides, let it be remembered that grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but our Sovereign is a lady, and surely that rather repugnant to the Word of God." ought to command for her some consideration on the part of this House. If it be wise to maintain the declaration by the Sovereign of adherence to the Protestant Faith, it is also wise to require some of the great officers of State to make the same or an equivalent declaration; it is wrong, it is inconsistent with every feeling of loyalty, to allow the Sovereign to be isolated in making a declaration of faith, which this House will, if it passes this Bill, have stigmatized as offensive. If the profession of Protestantism by these officers of State is condemned by this House, how long will it be before an assault is made upon the Act of Settlement itself? and that will be the next step. In these liberal days I know that large sections of the House think lightly of these matters. But I speak in the presence of many Members who remember the late Lord Lyndhurst, a man who was no less remarkable for the liberality of his opinions than for the clearness of his perception. His liberality, indeed, was undoubted; for he was the great promoter in the House of Peers of the measure for admitting the Jews to seats in Parliament, and when Attorney General he drew up the Roman Catholic Relief Bill; yet Lord Lyndhurst, in the last great speech that he ever made, de It is not possible that any terms should be more studiously void of offence. And the other Article, the 28th, is to this effect— "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death, insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine, in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." If you study that article you will see that it is couched in terms, which are the least possible offensive, consistently with the utterance of an entire repudiation of the doctrine to which it refers. After giving the matter, therefore, the fullest consideration, and after having had the advice of Sir Hugh Cairns and Sir James Whiteside upon the point, I came to the conclusion that it would be impertinent on my part to suggest any other terms than those con-clared that he could conceive no greater tained in some formula, issued by authority, such as are the Articles of Religion. It has been a rule of this Protestant country for 300 years to require from Protestants a declaration of their faith, and to accept them upon their own declaration as thereby qualified for high office. I wish to avoid the consequence that must follow the passing of this Bill as it stands. The object of the Bill is this:-that whereas some few high officers of State, who are still to be of the same religion as Her Majesty, have for 300 years been required to make the same declaration of faith as Her Ma misfortune for his fellow-subjects than that the throne of this country should again be occupied by a Roman Catholic. Sir, it is in defence of that great principle—the principle that the Sovereign of this country shall be a Protestant, and therefore tolerant, and therefore of a religion and of a disposition consistent with the Constitutional freedom which has stood firm amongst us for centuries, whilst it has waxed and waned in Continental countries-it is in support of this great principle that, whilst asking the House to remove every just occasion of offence, I pray the House, by |