44

Titles Bill through Committee, in which the principle of the measure was again and again brought into question, though the subject had long ceased to admit of any novelty in the arguments. The motion to go into Committee was, in the first place, strongly opposed, and even this preliminary proposition was not decided without an adjourned debate and several divisions, the majority for the Government being, however, in each case very large. The House having gone into Committee, several amendments were proposed, but without success; Lord Arundel endeavoured to insert in the first clause a saving of so much of the jurisdiction declared by the Bill to be illegal, as might be necessary for temporal purposes." This amendment was rejected by 316 to 61. Another amendment, proposed by Mr. Keogh, having for its object to exclude the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland from the operation of the Bill, was defeated by 314 to 59. The question that the first clause stand part of the Bill, on which Sir James Graham again renewed his objections with much earnestness, and expressed his serious apprehensions as to the working of the measure, was carried by 244 to 62. On the second clause being proposed, Mr. M'Cullagh moved the insertion of words intended to give legal recognition to the acknowledgments made from time to time by the Irish Courts, of the titular dignity of the Irish Roman Catholic prelates. The amendment was negatived by 291 to 45; and another proposed by Mr. Moore, making the operation of the Bill contingent on the Protestant Church continuing to be the United Church of England and Ireland, was negatived by

an almost equal majority. On a subsequent discussion of the same clause, four more amendments were disposed of in the negative; one of these, however, emanated from a different quarter from that which supplied the main opposition to the Bill, and was defeated by a much smaller majority. It was moved by Sir F. Thesiger, and related to the mode of enforcing the penalties under the Bill. He proposed to give to any person the right of suing, instead of confining it to the law officers of the Crown; but to restrain mere sordid motives, or those of religious intolerance, he would make the fiat of the Attorney-General necessary to the informer's suit. The amendment was opposed by the Master of the Rolls, the Attorney-General, Mr. Bethell, and Lord John Russell, and supported by Mr. Walpole, Mr. Disraeli, and Lord John Manners. It was nega tived by a majority of 33, the division being 166 to 130. Mr. Sharman Crawford attempted again to except Ireland from the operation of the Bill, by inserting a specific clause of exemption, but the House declined the proposal by a majority of 195. A clause of considerable length, prefaced by a long recital touching the Queen's supremacy and the prerogatives of the Established Church, which was moved by Sir Robert Inglis, shared the same fate, being negatived by 166 to 121. length, the session being far advanced, this much-disputed Bill reached the last stage of its progress through Committee. This was on the 23rd of June, when Mr. Walpole moved the extensive and important alterations of which he had previously given notice. The first change proposed was in

At

the preamble, respecting which Mr. Walpole thus explained his views. Many Members had avowed, in the course of the discussion, their feeling that considerable ambiguity existed in the declaratory clause of the Bill without agreeing in that opinion, Mr. Walpole thought that all ambiguity, if any existed, should be cleared up by that part of the Bill which was the key to the clauses, namely the preamble. This was more essential in declaring an old law than in enacting a new one; for in the latter case the authority of Parliament is enough, but in the former case you must look into the precedents to see if the law is clearly so. The Bill condemned the particular brief in question, but did not anticipate or provide against the repetition of a similar act; it was therefore defective as a national remedy; and as the Bill failed in that respect-failed, as Mr. Disraeli expressed it, as a measure of retaliation-it was right to make it effective as a national protest. In the statutes of Richard the Second and Elizabeth, the Parliament of those days were not satisfied with repelling the aggression with substantive enactments, but they set forth the constitutional principles on which they proceeded, asserted in plain and unmistakeable terms the entire freedom and independence of the country, pointed out the way in which that freedom and that independence had been assailed, and declared that such assaults should not be submitted to. The alterations now proposed in the Bill had these objects. He would set up the authority of the Crown over the usurping authority of the Pope; and state plainly and emphatically the entire freedom and independ

ence of this kingdom, and that no foreign power either had or ought to have any jurisdiction within this country; and then he would point out distinctly and expressly, instead of evading the question, as the Government preamble did, that the Pope pretended, without any right, to constitute a hierarchy derived from places belonging to the Crown of England. He would then take up the Government preamble, referring to the illegal assumption and use of such titles; and here he would refer to the Act of George the Fourth, as the compact made when the Roman Catholics obtained their rights, the condition being that they should not interfere with the Established Church, or attempt to weaken the Protestant constitution of this country. In the conclusion he would embody the whole offence in one recital, to the effect that the introduction of the brief in question into the kingdom, the claim to such power on the part of the Pope, and the constitution and assumption of such territorial titles, were in fact, as in law, usurpations and encroachments, contrary to the Queen's authority, and opposed to the spirit and intent, if not to the letter, of the statute of George the Fourth. The adoption of these improvements would do much to allay the disappointment caused by the inefficiency of the present measure.

The Solicitor-General maintained that the present Bill was consistent in itself, and that the preamble already sufficiently explained the clauses.

There could be no doubt that already the law was that no foreign power had jurisdiction here: the effect of the Act of 1829 was simply to free the Roman Catholics from scruples of

conscience, and in nowise to alter the law itself. Why again call on the Roman Catholics to concur in a declaration from the swearing of which they had been excused?

Lord J. Russell feared that the introduction of the words proposed would give rise to a suspicion that the House was not satisfied with the words of the Act of 1829, and that there was some covert intention to alter it; it would be better not to throw such a doubt on it.

Mr. Bankes and Mr. Napier supported the amendment.

On a division the amendment was negatived by 140 to 130.

A subsequent amendment moved by Mr. Walpole, to make illegal the constitution of "a hierarchy of bishops named from sees, and with titles derived from places belonging to the Crown of England," was opposed by Lord John Russell. It was rejected by 141 to 117. The preamble was then voted as it stood, by 200 to 39; Ministerial majority, 161.

The preamble having been adopted, the Chairman, amidst great cheering, reported the Bill.

Upon the report of the Committee being brought up on the 27th of June, an important diversion took place, which led to a defeat of the Government and a material modification of the Bill. This event was brought about by the secession from the House of a large body of Members, about seventy in number, consisting chiefly of Roman Catholic representatives of Irish counties and boroughs, who simultaneously retired from the House, amidst a good deal of laughter, upon Sir Frederick The siger rising to propose certain amendments which he had given notice of moving at this stage. The learned Member's proposals

were to amend the first declaratory clause so that it should apply to all rescripts, and not only the one rescript establishing the hierarchy; to give the prosecuting power to any individual with the sanction of the Crown officers; and to make penal the introduction of bulls. His speech was long and able. Lord John Russell replied at great length, arguing the question over again according to his view. At the close of his speech, he alluded to the "significant and ostentatious retirement" of the Irish Romanist Members,-an act meant, he supposed, to show that they would take no part in the proceedings. But they would be taking part, by the very act of retirement: they would be consenting parties to the decision of the House; and they would be responsible for the insertion of these amendments by their aid.

The Attorney-General opposed the proposed alterations, but admitted that the first and second were not very material-" there was no great harm in them." The third amendment he combated more strenuously. On a division, the first amendment was carried against the Ministers by 135 to 100. The second passed without a division. The third amendment was also carried by 165 to 109.

Lord John Russell then intimated, that he would not oppose the second amendment, relating to common informers; so it was inserted without a division; but he stated that he should take the sense of the House against it after the third reading. Sir James Graham suggested, that after such amendments, made against the strong protest of Ministers, but assented to by them, the Bill should be reprinted, and good time

allowed for its consideration in the new shape. Lord John Russell assented to this arrangement. On the day fixed for the third reading, the 4th of July, Lord John Russell attempted to induce the House to reverse the decision which it had pronounced in favour of Sir F. Thesiger's amendments. The noble Lord first moved the omission of the clause making it penal to introduce or publish the bulls, as well as to assume the titles. The Solicitor-General backed the Premier's arguments, and Mr. Roebuck also spoke on the same side. Sir F. Thesiger skilfully defended his amend ments, and on a division, Lord J. Russell's motion was defeated by 208 to 129. Again, on the second amendment moved by the Prime Minister, to omit the words enabling common informers to sue for penalties, the Government were defeated by 175 to 124. In these divisions the Irish Roman Catholic Members, took no part, standing aloof from the proceedings altogether. The amendments being disposed of, the Speaker put the question, "That this Bill do now pass." No Member rose, and after pausing for a time, he put the question, and the division was taken. The numbers wereFor the motion Against it.

Majority

263 46

217

No sooner was the division over than the House seemed to awaken from a surprise. It had been intended and expected that a discussion would have taken place at this stage, but by some accident the opportunity had slipped by. A number of Members in succession expressed their surprise and vexation at the result. Mr. Serjeant

Murphy said he had come down on purpose to speak, but he did not hear the words, "That this Bill do now pass." The Speaker, however, was on all sides exonerated from having had any share in the contre-temps. Sir James Graham expressed his regret-with some self-blame for the oversight-that he had not himself proposed to adjourn the debate, in order that those who were absent, and who had been taken by surprise by the turn of things, might have had the expected opportunity of joining in one more discussion on the principle of the Bill. But he thought there would now be more dignity and propriety in abstaining from further division. The further progress of the Bill would be under the guidance of Her Majesty's Government that responsibility was very grave; and he felt confidence that the civil and religious liberties of the country would be safe in the hands of the noble Lord at the head of the Government.

Lord John Russell then made his explanations. He considered himself irresponsible for the result. He had nothing to do but to move the third reading, and that the Bill pass. The opponents of the Bill chose to absent themselves. "You then, Sir," said Lord John to the Speaker, "most fairly and particularly put the question that the Bill do pass. I certainly was surprised that no one rose; and for the moment I was disposed to rise myself, in order to introduce the debate; but it just occurred to me, that, if I spoke then, some of the gentlemen who have opposed the Bill, and who might rise to speak afterwards, would not fail to bring charges against me of one kind or another, and then I should be precluded

from answering them. Besides, it was obviously the business of those who opposed the Bill to raise the question before the House, and to say whether or no they had any objection that the Bill do pass." The responsibility he incurred was this could he recommend it to the House to pass the Bill in the shape it took as altered by Sir Frederick Thesiger's amendments -altered as they had been from Mr. Walpole's amendments, and further made more temperate than in their original shape? Having maturely considered them, he believed that there was nothing in them or in the Bill as it stood which militated against religious freedom. He therefore felt the responsibility of recommending the House to pass the Bill, less than that of leaving those who had invaded the rights of the nation to triumph over the people, whose wishes, sentiments, and general expectations, would thus be baulked by the failure of the only measure before Parliament to resent the insult put on the country.

Mr. Gladstone joined in the expression of regret at the position in which the House was placed; and sincerely apologized to the House if, in consequence of what he had suggested the day before, [the arrangements as to the expected "final discussion,"] he had been, however indirectly, the cause of that position. Reviewing the topics introduced by Lord John Russell, he refuted the argument founded on the assumption that all baptized persons are subject to the Roman Pontiff. A more important declaration, and one more pregnant with fatal meaning, he never heard from the Minister of the Crown. Why, this "new assumption" had always VOL. XCIII.

been an open, avowed, notorious, and legitimate principle of the religion of the Roman Catholics, which we professed to tolerate. And this new definition of the aggression only showed the confusion of ideas under which the House had been legislating. Following the advice of Sir James Graham, he should now content himself with a solemn protest against the Bill, as hostile to the institutions of this country, more especially to its established religion-because it would teach it to rely on other support than that of the spiritual strength and vitality which could alone give it vigour― because its tendency was to undermine and weaken the authority of the law in Ireland-because it was disparaging to the great principle of religious freedom on which this wise and understanding people had permanently built its legislation of late years-and, lastly, because it would tend to relax and destroy those bonds of concord and goodwill which ought to unite all classes and persuasions of Her Majesty's subjects. (Loud cheering.)

An amendment, which had been moved by Mr. Grattan, to alter the title of the Bill to this style-“ A Bill to prevent the free exercise of the Roman Catholic Religion in the United Kingdom," was then negatived without a division, and the Bill was ordered, amidst loud and hearty cheers from all parts of the House, to be carried up to the House of Lords.

The period of the session which had now arrived left but a small remnant of time to that assembly to deal with a measure which had for nearly five long months afforded occupation to the House of Commons. Happily, however, the House of Lords needed but a short time to dispose of this already exhausted

[F]