Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]

for the Church on the faith of its belong- / where there was no building charge the ing to the Church for ever. Surely it glebe houses would be given to the new was sufficient to mention those two cases Church Body without payment. He was in order to stamp this clause with the quite aware, however, that he could not character of injury and injustice. The commit his right hon. Friend to any Prime Minister was quite correct in say- particular course of action. At the same ing that the glebe houses and glebe lands time he wanted the House to judge would be of comparatively little value in whether he had given those pledges the market. Indeed, he believed, in some without some reason. The book that he parts of the country they would be a held in his hand was his canvassing perfect drug. If they were to be sold at book, in which he had taken the prethe market value they would fetch a caution to note down, before he gave lower price than they would under this any pledge, what he thought were the Bill, with the building charges upon views of certain persons of great influthem. The Attorney General for Ire- ence in the House. Now, an eminent land (Mr. Sullivan) had stated that in Gentleman said this, the North-west of Ireland the glebe

• If I am asked to give my advice-and if I am houses were substantial family man- not asked I shall give it-I should propose that sions. Now, what was the demand where there are congregations in Ireland, I am for such mansions in that part of Ire- speaking now, of course, of the present Establand; and, if they were brought into the lished Church who will undertake to keep in remarket, how many purchasers could be pair the churches in which they have been accus

tomed to worship, and the parsonage houses in found ? The fact was, that the bargain which their ministers have lived, Parliament should was a bad one for the Church-almost leave them in possession of the churches and the everything had been taken from her. parsonage houses ; and I believe I speak the senThe incumbents had been induced, on

timent of every Catholic Member on this side of the faith of Acts of Parliament, to lay tholic in Ireland, not only of the laity, but of the

the House, and, probably, of every intelligent Caout money on property which could not hierarchy and priesthood, when I say that they become their own, and yet their suc- would regard such a course as that on the part cessors were to be deprived of it by a of Parliament as just, under the circumstances in Bill which, two short years ago, no

which we are placed.” human being could have imagined would Now, if he had uttered those words pass through the Parliament of Great himself, in addressing his constituents, Britain. He was, of course, bound to they would have been worthy of no nobelieve the statement on the part of the tice whatever ; but, as they were the right hon. Gentleman that he had been words of his right hon. Friend the Premisunderstood on this point, although sident of the Board of Trade, he must it was a practical exemplification of the say he was justified in relying upon truth of Talleyrand's saying, that words them. They were, he knew, only an exwere intended not to express thoughts, pression of opinion, and his right hon. but to conceal them. If all these pro- Friend was free to change that opinion jects had been openly avowed—and he to-morrow; but, unfortunately, they had did not say they had been intentionally developed into something like pledges concealed—before the General Election, on the part of his unfortunate followers. the Bill which South Lancashire was He might not have said what he had unable to swallow would, in his convic- done, if he had been the only Member tion, have proved too nauseous and too of the House who was in that position; unbearable even for the seasoned palate although he should, of course, in any of Greenwich.

case, do what was right to clear his own MR. P. WYKEHAM-MARTIN said, honour: but he knew, from private conhe had voted in every division but two, versation he had had with them, that and always in favour of the Govern- there were other Gentlemen on that side ment; but he would appeal to his right who were in the same situation as he hon. Friend at the head of the Govern- was in that matter. He, therefore, now ment to have a little mercy on some of asked the Government to strike out his faithful supporters. During the con- these words from the clause — [“No, test in November he addressed many no!”]-Well, they could over-ride him meetings in support of the Bill; and he if they liked, but he only asked, as a had frequently stated what he then be- steady supporter of the Government, lieved to be the truth — namely, that who felt his own honour to be commit

[Committee-Clause 27


ted, whether they would not strike out does not approve. Now, on this occathe words relating to the site which in- sion, the right hon. Gentleman made sisted on the payment of a sum of mo- an assertion, and when he was asked to ney. The question was a perfectly trum- corroborate and vindicate it, he merely pery one in point of money, but it was a said that at some future time, if we question of honour as regarded himself asked for a particular Return, it would and other Members. He would remind show that he was right. I myself

, with his Catholic Friends that he had always many other hon. Gentlemen on this side, supported the Maynooth Grant while he merely said “No, no!” I do not think had sat in that House, and that he had there was anything very discourteous in always said in his hustings' speeches, that course. But the right hon. Genbelieving that in doing so he was only tleman singled me out—why, I do not expressing his concurrence with his right know, for I was not more loud than hon. Friend and the Government — that anybody else or more demonstrative in Maynooth ought to be dealt with on the my “No, noes!” The second time the same terms of liberality as the Estab- right hon. Gentleman alluded to me I lished Church, and neither better nor was sitting perfectly still—I was not even

moving in my place, I made no expression SIR HERVEY BRUCE: I should not either of assent or dissent, and why have risen to take part in this debate the right hon. Gentleman should have had it not been for the observations of made so uncourteous a personal allusion the right hon. Gentleman at the head of to me I cannot say. I believe, however, the Government, which were more than that the real cause of his annoyance usually disingenuous, even for him— came, not from us, but from himself. [“ Order!”]

He was unsaying all the promises that THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. he made, and that he had made, not Baronet has made use of an expression two years ago, when he was looked not consistent with the ordinary usages upon as the champion of the Church, of debate.

but so late as last year, when he was Sir HERVEY BRUCE: No one would pledged to destroy it.

I do not think regret more than I should do if I have that I did anything to call for the stricused any words inconsistent with the tures of the right hon. Gentleman, which usages of Parliament, or with the dignity must always be unpleasant to a private of the First Minister of the Crown; but, Member of the House—["Question!"); really, I do not exactly know what If hon. Gentlemen will not hear

I words to make use of to express my shall move the adjournment of the demeaning. The First Minister of the bate. I repeat that I can quite underCrown had previously made use of words stand the cause of the right hon. Gentlenearly the same as those of the President man's annoyance. He came down withof the Board of Trade which have just out giving any notice to the House, and been quoted. Yet he now comes down on the plea that some of the right rer. to this House and tells us, in the lan- Prelates had expressed disapprobation guage of withering sarcasm, that he with regard to the 3rd section of the considers we have no claims, in justice, 25th clause-proposed that we should to demand the fulfilment of these pledges, abandon that section, which embodied and that none of them need be kept, one of the few bits of kindness shown by because they were not pledges, but the right hon. Gentleman to the Church. merely expressions of opinion, and that I can fancy that the thoughts and feel

. opinions coming from any hon. or right ings of the right hon. Gentleman under hon. Gentleman in Opposition are not the circumstances are not very agreeto bind him when he has accepted Office. able. I also rise because of the more than SIR GEORGE JENKINSON attempt. usually discourteous way in which the ed to address the Committee; but, being right hon. Gentleman alluded twice to met with continued interruption, the me in the course of this debate. I think hon. Baronet moved that the Chairthat came with an ill grace from him, man report Progress. because there is no Member of the House MR. GLADSTONE said, he hoped who so often discourteously expresses they would go on with this debate. This his dissent when any hon. Gentleman was a matter of interest. It had been on this side says anything of which he debated for some time, and he would


make a contribution to the debate by the annual grants led to contests in that

1 answering an appeal that he was not House. What were the circumstances able to answer before. He could now connected with that £30,000? The mogive pretty exact particulars, he thought, ney was spent in enlargement, not in with respect to the Parliamentary Grants repairs. The first two witnesses to that for these glebe houses, which appeared fact were Sir Francis Head, who went to to be a matter of novelty and surprise to visit the College, and the Rev. Garrett some Gentlemen on the other side of the Wilson. Their statement was examined House. What appeared was this—the by the Commissioners, and it was then source of information was the Report found that this £30,000, which was inwith the evidence and documents of the tended by Parliament for repairs, was Commissioners who inquired into the expended for enlarging the College beecclesiastical revenues and patronage in yond the requirements stated by Sir Ireland between the years 1832 and Robert Peel in his speech. The repairs 1837 — the sum of money given for glebe were not made, and a subsequent sum houses through the Board of First Fruits, of £20,000, which was raised by permisindependently of much larger grants for sion of Parliament upon the buildings churches amounting to nearly £500,000, and lands of Maynooth, was intended to was £152,000. Besides the sum of mo- replace the default thus created by the ney so given there was a sum lent, free authorities of the College. When the of interest, of £250,000; and the com- right hon. Gentleman put in comparison puted amount of the gift involved in the those advances made to Maynooth with abandonment of interest was between the advances that were made years ago £80,000 and £90,000; so that very nearly ---previously to 1830—towards the glebe £250,000 had been actually given by houses, it was only right to inform the Parliament for these glebe houses, inde- Committee of the different circumstances pendently of this £250,000 that they under which those public monies were would have to pay to get into possession voted. of them, and a very small part of which MR. BRUEN said, he thought that would be recouped under the provisions gross injustice would be perpetrated unof the clause.

der this clause. He wished to call atIn answer to Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, tention to an occurrence that had taken

MR. GLADSTONE said, he had quo- place in a parish with which he was acted from the Report of the Commission- quainted. In that parish there had been ers with respect to ecclesiastical revenues no glebe land or glebe house till five and patronage from 1832 to 1837. They years ago. A friend of his gave in percommenced their inquiries before the petuity several acres of land for the purChurch Temporalities Act of 1833. No- pose of a glebe, on which a glebe house thing had been granted on account of was built at very considerable expense. glebes since the passing of that Act. Now, under the clause, the Church Body

MR. NEWDEGATE said, the right must either pay the amount of the buildhon. Gentleman had taken that oppor- ing charge or pay for the site, and that he tunity of confirming, somewhat irregu- considered would be a great hardship. larly, a statement which he made in his Mr. GLADSTONE said, he hoped speech with regard to the fact that years the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson) ago there were some grants towards the would consent to continue his remarks. building of glebe houses. He would There was no idea on the part of the take that opportunity of saying that, ac- Government of pressing the whole clause cording to his recollection, the right through Committee that night. The hon. Gentleman's statement with refer- division they were about to take would ence to the College of Maynooth was not involve the point raised by his hon. not supported by fact. When the Act Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. of 1845 was passed a sum of £30,000 P. Wykeham - Martin), but only this was granted by Parliament for the pur- question-whether in this case anything pose of repairing the College of May- should be paid at all. What the Gonooth. It was given on the distinct un- vernment contended was that in every derstanding, stated by Sir Robert Peel, case they could not forego payment. that the annual Vote should cease. These The point as to what should be paid were the precise words of Sir Robert could be considered between now and Peel, and the reason he gave was that Thursday.

[Committee---Clause 27.


MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT said, I MR. AYRTON said, that must depend his hon. Friend beside him (Sir George upon the progress made with the Irish Jenkinson) had not received much en- Church Bisl before Whitsuntitde. couragement to go on, and, on that ac

Bill read a second time, and committed count, he would be perfectly justified in

for To-morrow. adhering to his intention. MR. DISRAELI said, though he was

House adjourned at a quarter anxious the Committee should have fair

before One o'clock. opportunity for discussing all important points, yet he believed there was a bona fide feeling in the House that they should advance Public Business. He must say,

HOUSE OF LORDS, however, after the declaration which the right hon. Gentleman had just made, that he had himself made a case for

Tuesday, 27th April, 1869. reporting Progress, and they had better take time to consider what was really

MINUTES.)–PUBLIC Bills-First Reading

Court of Common Pleas (County Palatine of before the Committee.

Lancaster) * (79): Newspapers, &c.* (80). MR. GLADSTONE said, that what he Second Reading--Life Peerages (49); Reprehad stated was that the point raised by sentative Peers for Scotland and Ireland (50); his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester

Militia * (76). (Mr. P. Wykeham-Martin), which was

Select Committee — Representative Peers for

Scotland and Ireland, appointed. payment for sites, was a very small one, Committee ReporlNorfolk Island Bishopric and it might be considered by Thursday, (73) but the point now before the Committee was whether any payments at all should LIFE PEERAGES BILL.-(No. 49). be made.

(The Earl Russell.) MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Order of the Day for the Second Gladstone) before, that the question as to Reading, read. what payments should be made would be considered between this and Thursday.

Moved, “ That the Bill be now read [“No, no!”] They on that side of the 24.”—(The Earl Russell.) House heard quite as well as hon. Gentle- THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, men opposite. He did not see very much having made no remarks on the introdifference between the two things. The duction of this Bill, and having paid question which had been argued that considerable attention to the subject for night was the question of payment. But a number of years, I am desirous of

, in this clause the only payments abso- stating how far I am able to concur in lutely necessary were the payments for the principle of the measure, and how sites, because the privilege offered to far I am obliged to dissent from its main those who took the glebes was payment provisions. The noble Earl (Earl Russell), for sites or for the building charges, and in introducing the Bill, stated very that was the very point the hon. Gentle- correctly the great difference which man opposite had raised. He must say exists between this question and that he thought there was every reason for which engaged your Lordships' attenreporting Progress.

tion in 1856. The question then was

whether there existed in the Crown the House resumed.

Prerogative of creating, without the Committee report Progress; to sit sanction of the House, an indefinite again upon Thursday.

number of life peerages, conferring the right of sitting and voting in Parlia

ment. It was raised as a matter of CONSOLIDATED FUND (£17,100,000)

principle, and not as a question affecting BILL.-SECOND READING,

an individual, for the occasion taken Order for Second Reading read.

was to raise to the peerage, for the purMR. HUNT said, he would take the pose of strengthening the appellate opportunity of asking when the House jurisdiction of the House, an eminent would have a further opportunity of lawyer who was well qualified for a seat considering the Financial Scheme? in this House and to assist in our ap

pellate jurisdiction; and it was inge- | for Life, and in refusing upon that Assumption to nuously admitted by Lord Chancellor permit him to take his seat as a Peer.”—-{Ibid., Cranworth that, Lord Wensleydale being

1179.) at that time far advanced in life, and It was not denied that 400 years ago, with no reasonable probability of leav- when the Crown possessed the Prerogaing a male heir, it was a fair and fitting tive of giving representatives to certain opportunity for trying the question of boroughs in one Parliament and deprinciple. The question then raised priving them of that representation in was-has the Crown, by the mere ex

another, some letters patent for life peerercise of its Prerogative, the power of ages had been issued; but even in those creating an indefinite number of Peers days only one or two instances could be for life, entitled to sit and vote in Par- found in which such letters patent had liament? My most learned Friend the been granted to persons who had not late Lord Lyndhurst brought forward a previously been entitled to sit and vote Resolution in opposition to that asser

in Parliament under another title. It tion of Prerogative on the part of the was not denied, too, that the Crown had Crown, in a speech which, for the a perfect right to confer on any person knowledge it displayed of Parliamen- the dignity of a Peer or Peeress of the tary, legal, and constitutional history, United Kingdom; but the question was, would have been remarkable in the whether in conferring that dignity the mouth of any man, and which was the Crown was enabled to confer likewise more remarkable on account of his


the right of sitting and voting in Paradvanced age. He was followed by my

liament. On a division Lord Lyndhurst's noble Friend the present Secretary for Resolution was carried by 92 to 57, the the Colonies (Earl Granville), who then majority being 35. I should mention held the Office of President of the that the noble Earl (Earl Grey) had Council; but I must be allowed to say given notice of his intention, in case his that if the noble Earl was impar Amendment was carried, of moving congressus Achilli, he undoubtedly dis-Resolutions which were of great importplayed an ability in the manner in ance, and in the spirit of which, had the which he argued the case fully justify- Amendment been adopted, I should have ing the courage he had shown in pre

entirely concurred. Those Resolutions senting himself in opposition to so for- admitted, in the first place, that no premidable an antagonist as Lord Lynd- cedent had been found within the last hurst. The discussion was conducted 400 years for the admission of a comwith great ability and learning on both moner to this House by the grant of a sides; and, by a very considerable ma- peerage for life, and they proceeded to jority, your Lordships decided to refer affirm that the Crown ought not to be the whole case to a Committee of Privi- advised, without the consent of Parlialeges, which should search for prece- ment, to exercise the Prerogative. While dents and report their opinion to the declining, under the particular circumHouse. That Committee sat for a con- stances, to express disapproval of the siderable time, investigated various his conduct of the Ministry in granting to torical documents, and finally came to a

Lord Wensleydale a life peerage, the conclusion adverse to the Prerogative of third Resolution went on to say,the Crown in respect of the power of

“ That the Grant of Peerages for Life might in granting life peerages, carrying with some Cases be of Advantage both to the louse of them the right to sit and vote in Par-Lords and to the Public ; but that the Practice of liament. Lord Lyndhurst accordingly to Abuse unless guarded by some precautionary

granting such Peerages would be peculiarly liable moved a Resolution affirming- Regulations."'-[Ibid., 1180.]

That neither the said Letters Patent, nor the And the fourth Resolution was said Letters Patent with the usual Writ of Summons issued in pursuance thereof, can entitle the sideration to determine what Step it will be proper

“ That it will require further and mature ConGrantee therein pamed to sit and vote in Parlia- for the llouse to adopt in order to prevent the ment."-[See 3 Hansurd, cxl. 1170.]

Patent granted to Lord Wensleydale from being To this the noble Earl on the cross-drawn into a Precedent in favour of creating PeerBenches (Earl Grey) moved an Amend- ages for Life, and in order to establish adequate ment declaring that

Securities against Abuse if such Creations are

hereafter to take place.”—[Ibid.] “ The Ilouse of Lords would not be justified in assuming the Illegality of the Patent creating the After the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Right Hon. Sir James Parke Baron Wensleydale Resolution the Crown admitted the cor



« AnteriorContinuar »