to the benefit of the law, the whole law, I signed to him as the archbishop or bishop thereof, or within some other province or diocese by the and nothing but the law. permission of the archbishop or bishop of such other province or diocese; and that as he could only exercise such episcopal and spiritual functions within the limits of his own province or see as the archbishop or bishop thereof, by that name MR. REYNOLDS said, he understood the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) to suggest the appointment of a Select Committee. MR. SPEAKER said, the question before the House was, "That he should now leave the Chair." If the House was of opinion that a Select Committee should be appointed, they must negative the Motion that he now leave the Chair. MR. REYNOLDS said, he would move the adjournment of the debate. MR. W. PATTEN must deprecate the adjournment of the debate, because it would not advance the matter a single step. MR. O'CONNOR said, that was exactly what the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) had in view. MR. HUME thought it would be consistent with the rules of the House to adjourn the consideration of the present question, and afterwards appoint a Select Commit tee. MR. KEOGH said, that as he understood the decision arrived at was that the Bill did not come within the Standing Orders, as not affecting questions of a spiritual nature, he begged to submit that such decision involved a consideration of the clauses of the Bill. And although he admitted that the House was not to be bound by the opinions of lawyers, yet he hoped he might be allowed to remind the House that this Bill had been brought under the consideration of the highest legal authorities in the country. He did not allude to the opinion of Mr. Bethell, but to an express opinion as to whether the spiritualities of the Roman Catholics would be affected by the legislation of this Bill. The question had been submitted to three of the most eminent counsel in England Sir FitzRoy Kelly, Mr. Brodie, and Mr. Badeley: the last-named gentleman one peculiarly versed in ecclesiastical law. The following was the opinion of those eminent counsel: and title, and under the authority of that office, it follows that this Bill would render it unlawful for him to perform regularly the proper duties of his office, although merely episcopal or spiritual, such, for instance, as those of ordination, of visitation, and the maintenance of discipline amongst his clergy." Now this was a great constitutional question, one which had affected former Bills, and which would affect future Bills, not only with reference to the Roman Catholic religion, but measures affecting the Established Church; and he put it earnestly to both sides of the House, whether, in the face of such an opinion, they would decide that this Bill did not affect the spiritualities of the Roman Catholic religion. He hoped the House would pause before it deprived the Roman Catholics of the sister kingdom of any of those bulwarks which the Standing Orders of that House had thrown around their liberties. The rule was a wholesome one, and observed by those distinguished individuals who introduced the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill of 1829, and he hoped that in a case of this kind, where a Bill was before the House, which if carried would have a penal operation, the rule laid down in the Standing Orders would be complied with. Without the slightest wish to disparage the authority of the Chair, he apprehended that they were not to understand that Mr. Speaker was to decide on the legal construction of a Bill; and, that being the case, what legal authority had they to controvert the eminent opinions he had just quoted? There was no hesitation in that opinion; and let him remind the House that this Bill, when first introduced, was declared, by competent authority, to intend one set of results; and that it had scarcely been laid on the table when the first law officer of the Crown declared it to have a directly contrary effect. He hoped, under these circumstances, that the House would consent to refer the Bill to a Com "We are of opinion that the Bill in its original state, and containing the 2nd and 3rd clauses, as well as the 1st and 4th, would render it illegal for any Roman Catholic archbishop or bishop to ex-mittee. ercise his official functions, as archbishop or bishop of any province or see in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, though such functions were merely episcopal and spiritual, and had no reference whatever to any temporal rights or authority. We apprehend that the episcopal and spiritual functions of any archbishop or bishop can only be regularly and lawfully exercised within the limits of some province or diocese canonically as The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, that the question for the House to consider was, whether this was a Bill relating to religion, and therefore coming within the meaning of the Standing Order. Now, the first words that would strike any one in the Standing Order were, "faith and doc trine," and no one would dream that they referred to ecclesiastical management, superintendence, and jurisdiction. He thought that the case cited by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) tended to prove that, for it was a Bill to relieve Dissenters from subscribing to certain articles of faith. The appointment of this Select Committee on Religion, dated as far back as 1703, and was merely a modification of the former practice of having a permanent grand Committee on religion. What they had to consider was this, did this Bill affect in any way matters of faith and doctrine, or spiritualities of any description? The argument put was this: the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin said, "I cannot perform duties of ordination or confirmation if this Bill pass." How were they to understand that? Were they to suppose that ever since 1829 there had been no ordination or confirmation in Ireland except in the case of the Bishop of Galway, who did not come within the Emancipation Act, his see having been created since 1829, and possibly the person who called himself Archbishop of Tuam, who might say that there was no Protestant archbishop of his see? Because, be it remembered that precisely a similar clause was in the Emancipation Act. There was nothing before the House to assure them that such was the fact. Again, he apprehended that no one would assert that Dr. Wiseman could not ordain and confirm as well as Bishop of Melipotamus as if he were recognised as Archbishop of Westminster. The real meaning of Dr. Murray's statement was this: There are certain temporal advantages to the person ordained by me as Archbishop of Dublin which he would not possess if he were ordained by me under any other title." But that was clearly out of the precincts of religion. It dealt with temporalities merely. Every one admitted that this was a question of temporality, and that they were not going into a Committee on religion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham) had argued on a former occasion that the second clause of the Bill would prevent evidence of ordination being given in a court of justice; but evidence of ordination had nothing to do with the spiritual act, nor did this Bill alter the law in that respect, for if such evidence could be given under the Act of 1829, it might be given, notwithstanding any penalty the Bill imposed. As to the opinion of counThe Solicitor General sel, he had the highest respect for the authority of the legal gentleman referred to; but he remembered that Mr. Willes' opinion had been given upon a case-and the others were probably the same-in which he said: "I am instructed that the Archbishop cannot ordain and confirm under the present Bill; and if that be so, my opinion is, that it will have such and such an effect.' Now, in the first place, if the learned counsel were truly instructed, then the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin and all the Catholic bishops of Ireland must have been under an interdict for the last twenty-two years. Was such a statement made to the learned counsel? He (the Solicitor General) would venture to say that nothing of the kind was even hinted at; nor would any one seriously contend that a Roman Catholic bishop's spiritual functions depended upon the title which he assumed. The probability was that the other eminent authorities had been similarly instructed; and the case suggested by the right hon. Member for Ripon was, that if the Bill passed, Roman Catholics would be prevented from doing what they might do under the existing law. But there was no authority either in or out of that House, he apprehended, who would assert that the bishop's spiritual functions were at all affected by the title he assumed. It was difficult to act on any opinion, without knowing the facts on which it was given: he would rather trust, then, to the opinion of Mr. Speaker than that of lawyers who had not heard the case discussed, and the value of whose authority would depend on the nature of the case submitted to them. The argument of the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) that Mr. Speaker's opinion was of value only as to the Standing Orders of the House, and not as to the construction of the clauses of a Bill, did not apply to this case; for unless Mr. Speaker gave an opinion upon the clauses, how could he decide whether a Bill ought to have originated in Committee or not? He thought the right hon. Gentleman in the chair had arrived at the correct conclusion, and one that was fully borne out by the whole course of precedent. The Church Temporalities Bill of 1833 was a strong case in point. By that Bill ten out of twenty-two bishoprics in Ireland were abolished. Had the ten bishops whose sees were thus abolished, no spiritual functions? Did not that Act interfere with ordination and confirmation by handing over to say that the Bill affected the established religion was out of the question. The only argument which had been advanced on this point was, that which, taking up the recital, not of this Bill, but of a clause in another Bill, stating that the Protestant bishops having a legal title to their sees, no other persons should assume those titles, urged that in that respect this Bill went to alter the law; but surely this was an argument which would not stand for a moment. The practice of the House was, that no Bill affecting the established religion of the country should be brought in without a preliminary Resolution passed by a Committee of the whole House. He doubted whether that could be taken as an alteration of the law, in the sense meant, which added to the securities of that religion. What was meant, as he apprehended, was to guard against any tampering with or weakening the existing securities, not that they should not alter by strengthening and adding to them. The House had not gone into a Committee of the whole House on the Tithe Commutation Bill, on the Vestry Bill, on the Church Establishment Bill, on the Repeal of the Disabilities Bill; and after these precedents the House would stultify itself if it adopted another course. But even supposing it was meant that they should not even increase or improve those securities without a preliminary Resolution, still he contended that to enact that prelates of the Roman Catholic Church should not assume certain titles, did not affect the case for which the Standing Order was provided. The spiritual functions of those prelates remained untouched by the Bill; and seeing the whole course of precedents was in favour of the opinion which they had heard from the Chair, he trusted the House would not stultify itself by coming to an adverse decision. the people of one diocese to the bishop of another? The right hon. Member for Manchester (speaking ad invidiam) said, that when they were removing disabilities, the House went into a preliminary Committee, but that when they were imposing disabilities, they did not think it necessary to go into Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware of the reason why the House went into Committee on the Catholic Relief Bill-it was because that by it they were altering an oath, and so far were interfering with religion. The same reason applied also to the Jew Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey's) Bill, and Mr. Watson's Bill for repealing certain disabilities from Roman Catholics which remained after the passing of the Emancipation Act-neither of them had originated in a Committee of the whole House. It was not, then, as the right hon. Member for Manchester had stated, that when the object was to get rid of disabilities, as many difficulties and delays were thrown in the way; but when the object was to impose disabilities, their legislation was hurried through as fast as possible. There was another point for consideration. What was meant by religion when the House passed this Standing Order? Faith and doctrine, no doubt; but was it not the faith and doctrine of the Established Church? The object of the Standing Order was, that they should not tamper with or alter the faith and doctrine of the Established Church; and therefore every Bill referring to that faith and doctrine must be preceded by a resolution of the whole House. The Grand Committee on Religion he had traced back to the time of James I. would any man tell him that Parliament then had no intention to alter the relations of the Roman Catholic Church without the safeguard of such a Committee? He did not say whether the view taken then was right or wrong; but he was not sorry-bearing in mind that the Roman Catholics then were a very different body from what they were now-that they should have, as far as possible, the free and unfettered exercise of their spiritual functions. But in speaking of Standing Orders, discussing dry legal questions, and reading legal opinions, they must take them in their strict legal sense; and no lawyer would say that the present Bill changed or dealt with the internal construction or the free exercise of the established religion. As he had said, the Standing Order had reference to the established religion, and MR. GLADSTONE said, it would be a matter of great importance that they should know exactly what the question was that they were going to vote upon. If the question was whether the debate was to be adjourned, he would vote against that proposition. If the question was that Mr. Speaker do not leave the Chair, he would, as an opponent of the Bill, vote in its support; and if the Motion was to appoint a Select Committee to examine this question, and to report to the House, he must say that it would have his hearty support. One useful result had followed this discussion-they must on all hands admit that the precedents upon the point at issue were in a most unsatisfactory | cesan titles. There is no doubt that the state. It was impossible to show any orders of the Church gave them that principle, or to apply any rule, which power; but where they found them ordainwould reduce the precedents before them, ing under certain circumstances and you so as to make them form one consistent interfered, and by any act rendered these and intelligible whole. The labours of ordinations illegal, then they were intersuch a Committee might probably lead fering with their spiritualities. He (Mr. them to the conclusion that there was no Gladstone) must, however, confess he sufficient reason for sending this Bill to a leaned to the conviction that the religion Committee of the whole House. But that meant in the Standing Orders was the would be a most valuable result to obtain established religion. But if that was so, for their future guidance, namely, that what was the course of precedent? There they should have a rule laid down which was no consistent or uniform precedent for would lead to a greater degree of pre- the case from 1772 to the present time cision and uniformity in the practice of the that would lead to the inference that a House upon matters of considerable im- Bill affecting the state of religion ought to portance. The hon. and learned Gentle- pass through a preliminary Committee. man who had just sat down argued the He confessed that the proceedings of 1772, case with very great fairness and ability. assuming that they had been correctly He (Mr. Gladstone), however, could not stated, would lead to an inference that say that he agreed with him in all the Bills which tended to affect the securities conclusions he had arrived at. There had of the established religion, should pass been two main questions placed before the through a preliminary Committee. But, House. The first of all is, what is the then, they were met by the fact, that the meaning of your Standing Orders? What Act of 1788 for the relief of Roman Cais the meaning of the word religion? Does tholics was introduced into that House it include any religion except the estab-without any preliminary Committee. He lished religion; and, if it does, are the had precedents most uniformly showing Catholics touched or not in their spiritualities? One point comes out of all these precedents-those, at least, having special reference to the point at issue-there is no case of a Bill, relating chiefly to ecclesiastical dominion, which has been referred to a Committee. As far as the abolition of the bishoprics in 1833 was concerned, the precedent very feebly applies. What in popular phraseology was termed an abolition, when they came to look into the Act itself, would be found to be no such thing. The Act only said that two or more bishoprics might be held at one and the same time, by one and the same person, but it did not touch the question of ecclesiastical jurisdiction at all. The Ecclesiastical Commission Bill was a stronger case as affecting ecclesiastical jurisdiction, for it abolished "peculiars," and founded a new jurisdiction in place of the old. He must say, that it appeared to him that there was some colour for the proposition before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General says that the Order of the House does not refer to religion in general, but to the religion of the country; and what is that if it be not the established religion? And he more over says that the temporalities of the Church are not affected, because the bishops can ordain, irrespective of their dioMr. Gladstone that Bills which tended to affect the securities of the Established Church ought to pass through a preliminary Committee. The Act of 1829, for the relief of Roman Catholics, as well as the Act of 1828, for the relief of Protestant Dissenters, all Bills of that nature, except, indeed, that which had been brought forward for the emancipation of the Jews, were introduced into that House through the medium of a preliminary Committee. Well, then, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General said that was because those Bills had a tendency to affect the securities of the established religion of the country. He (Mr. Gladstone) thought that the Bill which had been passed as to the making of affirmations instead of oaths by Quaker witnesses in courts of justice, was a conclusive objection to the doctrine laid down by his hon. and learned Friend. The natural consequence to be derived from all these facts it had been argued was thisthe Standing Orders are intended to protect the religion of the country, and when you deal with securities, whether they be for good or for bad, you must pass through a preliminary Committee. It was contended, upon the other hand, that when you strengthened them, such an ordeal was not necessary. He believed, however, that as far as there was any sound doctrine upon the subject it was this, that all Bills LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I see no affecting religion ought to pass through a ground, Sir, for further delay. With repreliminary Committee. The principle spect to the case of the House going into ought to apply both ways; it was not like a Committee of the whole House, that has the case of repealing a tax; they need not been almost uniformly, if not entirely, on then go into a Committee, because the questions respecting religion or spiritual remission was in favour of the entire com- matters. With respect to the cases remunity. But the case was essentially ferred to by the right hon. Gentleman the different here; because whatever they Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. were giving to one, they were taking away Gladstone), one of them was the Bill for from another. That such was the charac- the repeal of the Corporation and Test ter of the present Bill, he apprehended Acts, which I had the honour of introthere was no doubt. The preamble was ducing; that was, whether persons, on to this effect:-"Whereas the assumption accepting the municipal office, should be of titles in respect of dioceses in this exempted from taking the sacramentcountry by any other than bishops of the being clearly a question of a religious Established Church is inconsistent with nature. The next case was upon the the rights of that Church." It appeared question whether the Roman Catholics to be clear, therefore, that this Bill was should be released from the disabilities imone which was intended to strengthen the posed upon them by a declaration against securities of the established religion of the transubstantiation and various other doccountry-that they had a rule that Bills trines of the Roman Catholic religion; dealing with these securities generally both instances-in the one case, with reshould pass through a preliminary Com- spect to a sacrament; in the other, with mittee-and that the question was whether respect to a declaration against transubthey would apply that rule to Bills which stantiation-being supposed to be secupurported to increase those securities, al-rities in favour of the religion of the counthough they might increase them at the try. I consequently think that these expense of inflicting disabilities upon other precedents do not in the least tell upon parties who did not profess that established the present case. I will not go into the religion. And as to the case quoted, of arguments which my hon. and learned the Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General has so clearly Member for Youghal to remove certain stated to the House; but I own I do not Roman Catholic disabilities, that was a think there is any ground on the present Bill to repeal certain penalties, and could occasion for referring this question to a hardly be construed as one exactly in point. Select Committee. Then the further diffiThe question, however, was one involved culty arises-according to the statement in such considerable difficulty, that it would of the right hon. Member for the Unibe, whether with reference to this particu-versity of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), and aclar Bill, or for their guidance in future legislation, most desirable to appoint a Committee of Inquiry, who should decide it by placing an authoritative construction upon the rules of the House. MR. SADLEIR said, that the Bill did affect the spiritualities of the Roman Catholic Church. He believed this was an attempt to strike down the Roman Catholies in all things relating to their rights and privileges, which was not contemplated in the Act of 1829. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Solicitor General was not aware that ordination in the Roman Catholic Church depended on title and local jurisdiction, and that no bishop had power to ordain or confirm outside the limits of his own see. The vicars-apostolic ordained only as the delegates of the Pope, and not in respect to their own offices. cording to the clear and comprehensive statement of you, Sir-that the precedents on this question are very various, and that the instances are confused, if not contradictory. It is an entirely different question whether we should not appoint a Select Committee to inquire into this subject. For my part, my impression is entirely against it, as I do not believe that a Select Committee could come to any satisfactory conclusion. Such questions must be left to the discretion of the House, to decide in each case whether it is necessary to go into Committee upon any particular Bill. I believe that, when the opinions of different lawyers are taken, we shall not have gained one step in our progress, and that it would be a most inconvenient course for us to follow. I see nothing, therefore, which ought to prevent the House from going into Committee. |