and to thank the Chancellor of the Exche- burying in the churchyards, was not conquer cordially for undertaking the settle- sistent with his generous and liberal nature. ment of a question of this character, which [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I only asked the queswill put an end to that unhappy strife tion.] He begged the right hon. Gentlewhich has occurred in too many places, man's pardon-he had understood him to will do more than almost any other mea- suggest that they should not be buried sure could do for the peace of the country there. He joined with those members of the districts, and will save them from the heart- Establishment who had spoken in favour of burnings that church rate cases have occa- this proposal in hoping that a measure of sioned. I do hope that the House will real justice and universal peace would be accept this measure in the spirit in which carried in the spirit in which it had been the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sub-introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. mitted it, and that the Bill will be carried successfully through all its stages. MR. BAINES regretted that the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) should have introduced the word "victory" in reference to this subject, having hoped that no victory would be spoken of but that of justice and peace; for, while the measure was one of simple justice, and Churchmen would sacri. fice but a small amount by the abolition of the rate, it would bring the Church an amount of peace, independence, and vigour of action which would be of immeasurably more value than all she resigned. The Bill would remove the double injustice of requiring Dissenters, under the name of religion, to pay a compulsory rate, which was contrary to their principles, and also to pay for the maintenance of a form of worship of which they did not approve, while they maintained that of which they did approve; and this injustice could not be removed without the Church reaping fruit in the accession of valuable strength. He was confident that the Church would raise more voluntarily than she had done by church rates. If the Bill were carried, there would be no attempt on the part of Dissenters to interfere with the administration of the funds to be raised by the Church under its provisions: such interference would be an impertinence and an injustice, and he would discourage it to the utmost. He really did not understand the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Chambers), because if the courts were closed against the enforcement of a rate the form of compulsion would no longer exist. It was, indeed, possible that in some places a kind of moral compulsion might be attempted; but he hoped it would not be so, and it would certainly be known even in the remotest village that legal compulsion no longer existed. He could not help thinking the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel), with reference to the exclusion of Dissenters from MR. AKLAND felt grateful to the Dissenting body, so far as it was represented in that House, for the very handsome manner in which, as it appeared to him, they had met this question. But he merely rose to put a question to his right hon. Friend. He understood him to say that the Bill provided for the continuance of existing engagements where churches had been rebuilt and expenses incurred on the security of rates. The main difficulty would fall on the country clergy; but he knew that many of these looked forward to this settlement with hope and thankfulness. The question he wished to put to his right hon. Friend related to prospective engagements, whether there was anything in the Bill inconsistent with some such arrangement as this-where it was necessary to rebuild the church of a country parish, that the parishioners assembled in vestry should concur in rebuilding it, and that possessors of landed property, in conjunction with the next in succession to the entail, might charge their estates temporarily with a certain amount for the purpose of rebuilding such a church; and also whether it would be competent to the vestry to raise money for that purpose on the security of a voluntary rate? MR. READ asked, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not also embody in the Bill a clause for the abolition of the compulsory payment of certain Ecclesiastical dues, such as visitation fees, synod fees, and sundry other charges. for which Churchwardens were personally liable? MR. CUBITT asked, if the Bill was only applicable to rates for the Church of an Ecclesiastical district or to the rates for the mother Church as well? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have to answer very briefly the questions which have been put to me. I must, in the first place, say I have not the same horror of shutting up any description of Court that seems to be entertained by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Akland), asked whether it would be provided in the Bill that charges already imposed by local Acts should not be affected by the scope of the Bill? That certainly was the intention of the Bill, and I hope its language will be found to cover such cases. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), for whose cordially expressed support of the measure I feel very grateful, asked whether Dissenters and their families, not paying church rates, would continue to be entitled to interment in the churchyard? The answer is, that there is no disability created by this Bill of any kind, except such as are expressly cited and set forth in the Bill -namely, those relating to the power of taking a part in the management of the rate, in the election of Churchwardens, and in the title to demand an assignment of seats in the Church; in uo other respect is any right now existing touched by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cubitt) asked whether a double rate would be levied in Ecclesiastical districts and for the mother Church? I certainly believe that in the processes contemplated by the Bill no levying of a double rate will take place. The hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Akland) asks whether the Bill contains any provision to enable possessors of landed property, or the persons having life interest in such property, together with the heir of entail, to charge their lands temporarily for purposes connected with the re-building of the church? There are no such clauses in the Bill. I see no objection in principle to give powers of that nature, but I confess I have considerable doubt whether it would be entirely akin to the object of the Bill. It would certainly raise a number of separate issues entirely different from the main issue, and would be much better dealt with in a separate form. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Read) has asked whether it would not be possible to abolish the fees paid by the Churchwardens at visitations? but I apprehend that the Churchwarden is at present authorized to charge these fees upon the church rate, and the consequence will be that these fees will be paid like all other charges provided by the Bill to be paid out of the rate. MR. BRIGHT: I wish to suggest that in this Bill an end should be put to another imposition which I think is much less It justifiable than what are called church rates, and much more offensive, and that is the collection of what are called Easter dues. In a portion of Lancashire there have been proceedings of a most offensive character carried on against persons who refused to pay those dues, and dues of the smallest amount, of a penny, or twopence, or threepence from each house. And these dues are not levied by a vote of the parish, but at the will of a clergyman of the parish, and on that account I think they are more offensive than church rates themselves. seems to me a pity that some clauses should not be introduced for abolishing Easter dues into a Bill the object of which is to abolish church dues. I give no opinion at present on the Bill itself or its details, because I did not know anything of its provisions until I came into the House this evening; but surely if gentlemen outside, to whom reference has been made, who have been charged with conducting the agitation against church rates are satisfied with the Bill, it is not very likely that I should take it upon myself to express any discontent with it. Motion agreed to. Bill for the abolition of compulsory Church Rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Šir GEORGE GREY, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, and Mr. ATTORney General. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 143.] TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARATION ABOLITION BILL-[BILL 82.] (Sir C. O'Loghlen, Sir John Gray, Mr. Cogan.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. COGAN, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, he hoped it would meet with the general approval of the House-indeed, he should not have expected that any opposition would be offered to the measure had he not seen on the paper a notice by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) to more that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. As, however, on the first reading the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the acquiescence of the Government in the Bill, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), with that conciliatory manner which always characterized him, notwithstanding the strong views he entertained with regard to certain principles, also assented to it, he trusted that the The hon. Gentleman would not disturb the una- | with the permission of the House, shortly. nimity of the House by persevering in his make known what his views were. opposition. The Bill proposed to abolish Declaration against Transubstantiation was the declaration now required to be made by adopted as the best and only test against certain high functionaries - he believed Romanism in the time of Charles II., and only the Lord Lieutenant and Lord Chan- as such it had been regarded for 200 cellor of Ireland-on assuming office, that years. If it was needed when it was certain doctrines held by Roman Catholics established, 200 years ago, nothing had as part of their religion were idolatrous occurred since to render it unnecessary. and superstitious. It was peculiarly offen- Romanism was still the same, and Protessive to the Lord Lieutenant on entering tant Jesuitism was rampant amongst us. upon office in a country where the great He would relieve his own conscience in majority of people were Catholics, and the matter by challenging the Government surrounded by members of his Privy Coun- to consent to the appointment of a Com. cil and Law Officers, many of whom pro- mittee to inquire into the Fenian movefessed that religion, should be obliged to ment. Evidence would be given before make such a declaration. No one would such a Committee to show that that movepretend that the interests of Protestantism ment was neither more nor less than a could be in any way served by it, and it deliberate organization, in accordance with was calculated to excite feelings of hos- all the antecedents of the Roman Catholic tility and strife which every good subject Church-to gain the objects of the Roman should seek to allay. Its original object Catholic hierarchy by force, if necessary, was to exclude persons professing the Ca- by means of a bargain with the Governtholic faith from those particular offices; ment, in pursuance of which this and si and as the supporters of the Bill did not milar little Bills were to be given as the wish by a side wind to remove this ineligi- price of keeping the Fenians in check. bility-although in a country allowing free- The country at large was in most profound dom of religious opinion the holding of any ignorance as to the state of these most offices under the Crown should not be important questions in that House. They limited to persons holding a particular believed that hon. Gentlemen opposite were creed the Bill contained a proviso that sufficiently watching the Government, and nothing contained in it should be construed that his interference was almost impertias giving Roman Catholics a right to fill nent. All the energies of the Pope were the office either of Lord Lieutenant or directed to the destruction and injury of Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The simple this country. Let them suppose the ocobject of the measure was to remove a de- currence of an European war, and that claration which was at once offensive and our army and navy were affected with useless, and he hoped that, in the inter- foreign allegiance to the extent that they ests of peace, conciliation, and Christian contained Roman Catholics. [ Oh, oh !"] charity, it would receive the sanction of He had last Session challenged the Secre the House. tary for the Colonies to state whether he the Governor of New Zealand, a dispatch had not received from Sir George Grey, informing him that the war in that colony was organized and sustained by Roman Catholic priests-and the right hon. Gentleman had not denied that such was the case. He had since received letters from dignitaries of the Church and others in New Zealand assuring him that all that he then asserted was perfectly true, and that the losses which we sustained, and the disgrace which befell our troops, could be attributed to nothing so much as to the direct organization upon Riband and Fenian principles, of the natives in rebellion against our authority. He did not wish to offend the hon. Gentleman who had moved. the second reading of the Bill, by calling his religion impious, but it had in all past Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Cogan.) MR. WHALLEY complained of a question of such importance being brought forward by a private Member, and not on the responsibility of the Government. The same course had been taken with regard to the Oaths Bill and the Scotch Episcopal Bill, although these questions lay at the very root of the Constitution. However, he did not intend to move the Amendment of which he had given notice; and the reason why he did not do so was because the Government and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) had acquiesced in the principle of the measure. He had not altered his opinions, and he would, times been associated with allegiance to a | hon. Gentleman maintained that this Deforeign power which under circumstances claration should be abolished in the meanof difficulty might be fraught with the time, so as to relieve the Commissioners greatest danger to this country. He was from considering whether any test should not called upon to defend the bulwarks be applied to the case of the Lord Lieuwhich had been erected against that dan- tenant. The inference was that, if the ger; it was for the hon. Gentleman to test was not to be applied to the Lord show that they might safely be abolished. Lieutenant, a Roman Catholic ought to [The hon. Member spoke amid continued be allowed to fill the office as well as any interruptions and noises.] other person. MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, that he would not enter upon the question as to the share which the Fenians had in the war in New Zealand; but he wished to say, in answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough, that the Government most cordially supported the Bill. In reply to the objection that the introduction of the measure had been left to a private Member, he must observe that this Declaration against Transubstantiation was so utterly indefensible and devoid of foundation that it required but the touch of any Member of the House to make it fall to the ground. The only wonder was that the proposal for its abolition should not have been made long ago, and that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other officers of the highest rank in Ireland should have been so long compelled on entering office to stigmatize, in terms which amounted to nothing short of contempt, the sacred doctrine of a Church to which many Gentlemen of the highest rank in the country and Privy Councillors sitting round the same table with himself adhered. The Government were about to issue a Commission to inquire into the whole question of oaths and to report as to which it was desirable to do away with or to amend; but this particular Declaration was so simple and indefensible, that the Government had no hesitation in giving the Motion before the House their support. MR. WHITESIDE observed, that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) whose observations against the Ministers were always delivered from that (the Opposition) side of the House, always supported them by his vote. The present mode of legislation deserved, he thought, the notice of the House. This form of Declaration had been made for some centuries by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and therefore he thought it was the duty of the Government to have considered this question. But the Secretary for Ireland said that it did not matter who touched a subject of this kind; and, although a Commission on Oaths was pending, the right THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER rose to ask indulgence for the hon. Member for Peterborough. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had just said that the hon. Member's speeches against the Government were all very fine, but that he always voted with the Government. That was a most singular case of political ingratitude. The only critical division which took place before that on the Reform Bill was one which was well and judiciously selected on the other side namely, that on the Parliamentary Oaths Amendment Bill. It was sought to mutilate and spoil the oath to be taken by Members of Parliament by the addition of words to the effect that no foreign Prince or Potentate had or ought to have any power in the courts of this country. Why nobody ever said or could say that they had. In the division list there were two names recorded, singularly enough, side by side-those of "Whalley, J. H.," and Whiteside, Right Hon. J." With respect to what the right hon. Gentleman had stated as to the duty of the Government, he had only to observe that the Government proposed to deal with the whole question of oaths by a Commission, and they could not, therefore, deal with this portion of it. But when the hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) brought in his Bill, as he had a right to do, and asked them-Would they support it ?-they had no hesitation whatever in saying that they would, and that they wished the measure every success. MR. NEWDEGATE wondered what the Commission which the Government were going to appoint would have to do, for the Government had settled the Parliamentary oaths, and were now about to sweep away this Declaration. Without denying that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) generally voted with those who wished to defend the Protestant Constitution of the country, he must say that he knew no Member who, whether from accident or incapacity, did so much disservice to the cause he advocated as had done his religion essential service, and to that fact must be attributed the silence with which the Members of the Roman Catholic persuasion received the extraordinary charges in which the hon. Member so frequently indulged. When the hon. Member attributed the war in New Zealand to the combinations of the priesthood at Maynooth, such statements could only be attributed to a fevered brain. MR. WHALLEY, amid cries of "Order!" denied that he had made any such statement. MR. O'BEIRNE was speaking within the recollection of the House, by whom it would be remembered that the hon. Member stated that he had received letters informing him that the New Zealand war was attributable to the machinations of the Roman Catholic priests, many of whom had been educated at Maynooth. As far as Parliamentary usage would permit him to do so, he challenged the hon. Member to prove his charges; and if he thought he could do so, to move for a Select Committee, before whom he could adduce his proofs. that hon. Member. The hon. Member had that the hon. Member for Peterborough suddenly withdrawn his notice in opposition to this Bill, and when he rose on a question of this sort, the hon. Member invariably played into the hands of his opponents. The expression of "damning with faint praise was well known, but he was not aware of any advocate who damaged a cause so effectually by his support as the hon. Member for Peterborough. [Laughter. Though the House might treat the matter with levity, it was not lightly thought of out of doors, and he had presented 122 petitions that night against the abolition of the Declaration under consideration. By those who believe in the Roman Catholic tenets, the Protestant Constitution of this country was regarded as a heretical establishment, and one that ought to be swept off the face of the earth; but he (Mr. Newdegate) was surprised at the indifference with which it was treated by the Protestant Members of that House. By the opinions which he had expressed that evening, the hon. Member for Peterborough had cut the ground from under his feet. The hon. Member ought not continually to repeat that the religious opinions of different sects were, in his opinion, of no political importance. He was sorry to be obliged to make this observation, but he warned the hon. Gentleman that if he were a Protestant, and were sincere in his adhesion to the Protestant faith, he was damaging the interests of that religion, misrepresenting the opinions of the Protestant people of the country, and bringing into contempt in the House feelings which were deep and sincere. He (Mr. Newdegate) thought that it was but reasonable that the High Officers of State, the direct representatives of our Protestant Sovereign, who was bound to the Church of England, should express their adhesion to the substance of the articles of the Church of England, and that was in reality the substance of the declaration. It was right, too, that the same declaration should be made by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who had not only to decide on many questions relating to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but also enjoyed the dispensing of considerable ecclesiastical patronage. MR. O'BEIRNE reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) that a reference to the second clause of the Bill would show that his fears were groundless, and that he laboured under a misapprehension. As a Roman Catholic Member, he acknowledged VOL. CLXXXIII. [THIRD SERIES.] MR. WHALLEY rose to reply, but was called to order by the Speaker. Bill read a second time. Motion agreed to, and committed for SEA COAST FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. Law of Ireland as to the Sea Coast Fisheries, BRADY. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 147.] INDIAN PRIZE MONEY BILL. On Motion of Mr. MONSELL, Bill to legalize the payment and distribution of Indian Prize Money by the Treasurer or Secretary of Chelsea Hospital, and to amend an Act for the consolidating and amending the Law relating to the payment of Army Prize Money, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONSELL and Mr. STANSFELD. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 146.] Y House adjourned at Twelve o'clock: |