ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL
BILL-LEAVE.

MR. MACEVOY said, he moved for leave to introduce a Bill for the repeal of this Act. As he understood no opposition would be offered at that stage, it was unnecessary for him to trouble the House with any observations.

upon the land, the Church, and the education question."

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh said—

"It should be repealed; but if the discussion of it just now would have the effect, as I believe it would, of drawing off attention from matters of much more practical importance to Ireland, it ought to be postponed."

MR. O'REILLY said, no one could feel In those sentiments he entirely concurred. more strongly opposed to the Ecclesiastical The law was, he believed, useless and unTitles Act than himself-one of the first just, and he hoped the good sense of this acts of his political life being to aid in country would in time-and that a brief depriving of his seat a personal friend who time-assent to its repeal. He saw, howhad not voted against that measure. He ever, no good practical result which was could not but ask, however, what would be likely to flow from raising the question at the practical result of this Bill? If the the present moment. If the hon. Gentlehon. Gentleman were able to say that he man could elicit from the Government a had any assurance from Her Majesty's distinct expression of their opinion on the Government on the subject, or if he could matter, then he might be doing good serhold out any hope of bringing the mat- vice. From those on his own side of the ter to a successful issue, he would have House, he required no such expression of his best support and assistance. All, how- opinion, because in 1851 they had the ever, that the hon. Gentleman had stated courage to stem the popular current, and was that the Bill would not be opposed at to speak words of truth. If the Governthe present stage. He had been anxious ment were now merely to say that they to know what was the opinion entertained would not oppose the introduction of the on this point by the Roman Catholic eccle- Bill, he held that such a statement would siastical authorities in this country and in be no avail. He, under those circumIreland, who felt most sensibly the injustice stances, could see no advantage which was and pressure of the Act. He had accord-likely to arise from the hon. Gentleman's ingly had communications from the Cardi- proposal. nal Archbishop of Dublin, and also from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, and he had communicated personally with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. He was therefore able to say that, much as they felt the injustice of the Act and Dr. Manning had remarked how hard he felt it on him, as a Christian Bishop and an Englishman, daily to be obliged by a higher duty to violate the statute law of this country-the present proposal was no suggestion of theirs, and they did not feel it part of their duty to raise the question at this time. They feared that to do so would only lead to an idle agitation which would hinder more practical and serious measures. He could not express this feeling better than in their own words, and he would therefore, with the permission of the House, read two very brief extracts. The first was from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel,

who said

"This is not the time to ask for a repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. That question can very well wait for a while. At present the Irish Members ought to concentrate their energies

SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, he should rejoice to think that there was any prospect of success likely to attend the Motion of his hon. Friend at the present time. They must all do justice to the generous motives which impelled him to make this Motion, to undo a great wrong inflicted upon a mistake and a misunderstanding. The Roman Catholic hierarchy of England and Ireland were stigmatised as guilty of a misdemeanour in doing that which was only their duty in accordance with their religious convictions. He believed a great mistake had been committed in passing the Act which it was sought to repeal a statement the justice of which he hoped the good sense of the English people would lead them before long to acknowledge. He did not, however, think that public opinion was ripe for the change proposed; and he therefore thought it was desirable that his hon. Friend should not press on his Bill at present.

MR. WHALLEY said, he understood meant-Dr. Manning had expressed his that Archbishop-he begged pardon, he regret that he was obliged to break the statute law of the land every day, and if

365

the House of Commons and the Govern | House, and the point to which it reduces ment allowed the law to be so broken, he itself. For if the circumstances are not should be disposed to second the proposal favourable, surely it is not to be desired by for the introduction of the Bill. He wished any rational man, whatever his views may to know whether the Government meant to be, that he should stir up controversy and support this Bill? He contended that the animosity unless he thinks a practical obI confess the answer concessions which had been made by the ject can be attained. I ask myself, Is it present and previous Governments had to be attained? never been fairly submitted to public entirely depends on another question-which there is no one here to reply toopinion. What are the intentions and views of Her Majesty's Government? I am unauthorized to speak for Gentlemen on this side of the House, or to utter more than the opinions I venture to form; but I do venture to form an opinion that as far as this side of the House is concerned, the hon. Member who makes this Motion will find little difficulty in the prosecution of his enterprize to a successful conclusion. But what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government? Will the second reading of this Bill and its later stages be supported or not by Her Majesty's Government? If they will be, then I say, by all means let us go forward with the Bill. If it will not be supported by the Government, then, in my opinion, having such adversaries in his face, the hon. Gentleman's undertaking so If there is not the opposed will be rendered hopeless by reason of that opposition.

MR. GLADSTONE: I am only desirous of making a remark which appears to me to be called for by the speeches which have proceeded from my hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly), and the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer). Prima facie, this Motion is one for relieving from certain civil disabilities the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, and we have had rather a striking declaration on the part of Gentlemen, than whom no other two Members in the House can be better qualified to represent the opinions of those prelates-that although they are convinced that the law inflicts upon them a wrong, yet, in view of the public interests and of more pressing demands, they do not wish to see the time of this House occupied and the temper of parties embittered by discussions which may, after all, prove fruitless. And I will never sit still and hear a declaration so wise as that which the hon. Members have signified as proceeding from those affected by the Act, without doing them the simple justice of saying that it does them the highest honour both as regards their judg. ment and prudence. In respect to the Bill itself, I confess on this occasion, I have on one point the satisfaction of coinciding with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) who feels -and feels justly-that it is a very considerable scandal that we should have a law of this description, which law no man volunteers to put into execution. I do not depart in any particular from the opinions which sixteen years ago it was my duty to express in this House at the time of passing this Act. The question then was, whether what I, for one, thought was a grievance, should be inflicted. The question of grievance to the parties who were the objects of the Act was a very material point. Another material point was the evil which ensued when a law was permitted to exist, which law could not be enforced. But is the time favourable for the introduction of the Bill of the hon. Gentleman? That is the whole case I wish to represent to the

assurance of support, let the hon. Gentleman make his Motion, and I am not the man to oppose it, but it will be singularly sterile in its practical results. We cannot ask any Gentleman opposite, who is probably not in possession of the views of the Cabinet, to speak for them; but it would be desirable that my hon. Friend the Member for Longford and his friends should make it their business to ascertain the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to the course they mean to pursue with respect to the ulterior stages of the Bill.

SIR JOHN GRAY said, that during the last two days there had been floating rumours about the lobbies that Her Majesty's Government would support the Bill, and one of the organs of the Irish Executive, The Irish Times, had stated, on information received from this side of the Channel, that they were determined to do so. Now, in the absence of any Member of the Cabinet, he should be glad to hear from the Solicitor General for Ireland whether there was any truth in those rumours.

MR. REARDEN said, he had not expected to hear such expressions as had fallen from the hon. Member for Longford

(Mr. O'Reilly) with regard to an Act commendable postponement of their own which would be a disgrace to Roman case to that of the laity; but for his (Mr. Catholics as long as it remained unrepealed. M'Kenna's) part, not having before him He had more confidence in the support of the communications which elicited these Her Majesty's Government to this Bill letters, he thought he would show greater than some Members on that side of the consideration for the distinguished writers House. He could remember a time when by giving his heartiest and most unqualithe throats of Roman Catholic Members fied support to the Motion of his hon. were very near being cut in the streets of Friend the Member for Meath, and by London. From that time the Liberal party doing his utmost to remove from the under Earl Russell had never been a strong statute book an Act which was not only one, and but for the influence of the right a perpetual insult to Catholics, but a rehon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), it would proach to any Administration which perhave been smashed up. They were as mitted it to remain on the statute book much buried politically as Lazarus was simply to offend the well-disposed, and to bodily, and the right hon. Gentleman ac- be violated openly. complished their resurrection. If Roman Catholic Members did not support this Motion they would have a sorry account to give to their constituents.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, that the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the Bill would be very important. Those who valued the independence of the country, and the declaration made by Lord Russell on this subject, must object to the repeal of this Act. It was to assert that

COLONEL GREVILLE said, he agreed in the opinion that the action of the hon. Member for Meath on this occasion would lead to no result. After the opinion ex-independence that the whole of the nation pressed by the Roman Catholic prelates, who had taken a part on the side of law and order, he thought that the House had a right to know what course the Government of whom he saw two Members though not members of the Cabinet present would pursue in respect to the

Bill.

MR. M'KENNA trusted that nothing which had been said or quoted by the hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to the introduction of the Bill would prevent its being read a first time. It was not usual at this stage to press the Government for an expression of opinion; but as hon. Members had it quite in their power to elicit the opinion of the Government at another day, he hoped that they would not prevent the Bill from reaching the point when all would be able to test the disposition of Her Majesty's Government. For his own part, he could not help believing that much of the indisposition of hon. Members to the introduction of this Bill arose from tenderness of feeling towards the head of the late Government, whose supporters they were. The noble Lord the head of the late Government, who now sits in "another place," was the author of this disgraceful Act, now sought to be repealed, and it was perhaps a pardonable consideration for his feelings which induced the hon. Member, who had quoted letters from distinguished prelates, to write to them in such a strain as to elicit their most

was roused. The people were most tolerant, but he believed it would be a rash act to repeal this law. The thirty Irish Roman Catholic Members were representatives of a foreign power in that House, and the people desired a reform of the House of Commons mainly because they found one party pitted against another, who were ready to throw out any bait to secure the votes of Irish Members. The feeling was growing strong in the country against that course of proceeding, and it was prudent on the part of the hon. Member to seek the repeal of this statute before the House of Commons should be reformed.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, that no one would support the Motion of his hon. Friend sooner than he would, if he thought that his hon. Friend was the authorized representative on the occasion of the Roman Catholic body, or, if he saw any chance of its obtaining the support of Her Majesty's Government; but, in the absence of any Member of the Cabinet, he did not think it would be right to call upon any Member of the Government present to express any opinion on it. One of the most unhappy recollections of his Parliamentary life was connected with the passing of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which he had, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend near him, resisted. He would suggest that the second reading of the Bill should be fixed for the earliest day possible, in order to give the Government an opportunity of stating their views.

MR. ESMONDE said, he would ask the probability no Members of the Governrepresentative of the Dublin University ment would be in the House, seeing that (Mr. Chatterton) to express the opinion of the first reading of the Bill was a mere Her Majesty's Government. matter of form. He was, however, willMR. BRYAN said, he hoped to hearing to join them in expressing a desire to what was the opinion of Her Majesty's learn what course the Government would Government on the question. pursue, and he should be disappointed if the answer of the Government did not disappoint hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House.

On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LoGHLEN, Bill to render Policies of Insurance assignable at Law, and to enable assignees of such Policies to sue thereon in their own name, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Mr. Serjeant BARRY, Mr. VANCE, and Mr. PIM.

House adjourned at Two o'clock.