man had brought forward Resolutions which he could say they had very strong feelings ought to be discussed fully, and he thought against any proposition tending to overevery Member should have an opportunity of expressing his opinion on this important subject. They might still find time to discuss the other important measures of the Session. MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE said, he was one of the humble Members coming under the letter "Z" who had failed to catch the eye of the Chairman. As the representative of an important constituency he thought that their views on this important and solemn subject should be allowed to find expression. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer). If he had the good luck to address the House as often as the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) he should not complain. MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) a little misapprehends the nature of these understandings which appear so formidable. He treats them as conspiracies against the liberty of private Members. They cannot very well be that, when they are made in public, and they simply amount to this: they are appeals to the general sentiment of Members of the House, upon the general expediency and convenience of the case, to judge when they think a question has been sufficiently discussed. It is a mistake to suppose that any understandings of this kind can interfere with the liberty of hon. Members. But I think it would be idle to spend this evening in discussing whether we will close the debate tomorrow night. If the right hon. Gentleman says he can enter into no engage ment, I must point out that a sentiment has prevailed on this side of the House that there has been a singular languor, though not in the latter part, yet in a large portion of the debate this evening; and we on this side of the House must reserve our own liberty to judge and act for the best to-morrow night. And especially if we observe a like languor to-morrow, it is possible that we may come to the conclu sion that it will be for the general convenience that the debate should be closed. But that cannot be carried even by a slight preponderance of opinion; it must be by a general reference to the sense and convenience of the House. SIR JOHN HAY said, that no Member for Scotland had yet spoken on the subject. Having spent part of the Easter holidays among his friends in that country, throw the Protestant Establishments of the country. They were determined that they would neither be the slaves of a dominant superstition nor the subjects of an infidel State. MR. WHALLEY said, he regretted that he had not been able to catch the Speaker's eye, as he had wished to elicit some explanations from the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) with whom he had voted in the late division. In the previous debate he had asked the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) to explain what course he intended to adopt with regard to certain details of the question before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman promised to give him an explanation, but failed to do so. Under these circumstances, he desired an opportunity of pointing out the grounds on which he voted on the last occasion, as well as those which might rea sonably justify the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government in retaining his seat on the Treasury Bench rather than hand over the Government to the right hon. Member for South Lancashire. SIR GEORGE BOWYER explained, that he had not said that there was any conspiracy in the matter. But what he would say was, that a programme was made of those who were to speak, and he had ́ even heard of the case of one hon. Member anxious to address the House who was told that he ought to go to the Whip on his side and ask his permission to speak. When that was the case he thought it was time to change the system, and for the House to consider seriously whether they ought not to retain the liberty of debate. House resumed. Committee report Progress, to sit again. To-morrow. MILITARY AT ELECTIONS (IRELAND) BILL. On Motion of Mr. Serjeant BARRY, Bill to extend to Ireland the existing Law of Great Britain respecting the presence of Military at Parliamen tary Elections, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 95.] Serjeant BARRY, Major GAVIN, and Mr. ESMONDE. COTTON STATISTICS BILL. On Motion of Mr. BAZLEY, Bill for the collection and publication of Cotton Statistics, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BAZLEY, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. HORSFALL, Mr. WATKIN, and Mr. CHEETHAM. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 96.] DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BILL. amend the Law relating to Documentary Evidence Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 97.] HOUSE OF LORDS, Tuesday, April 28, 1868. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-Second Reading Third Reading-Promissory Oaths* (52). REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL-THE certain proposed Resolutions regarding the Church in Ireland, said: My Lords, I have, in the first place, to apologize to your Lordships for having, I am afraid, kept you waiting some few minutes; but the truth is, as several Orders of the Day stood before the Motion of which I had given notice, I thought they would occupy some considerable time. My Lords, I am quite aware that if I were to attempt to enter upon any discussion of the Resolutions which are at the present moment under the consideration of the House of Commons, I should violate the spirit if not the letter of the Orders of your Lordships' House. But I believe I am perfectly in order in referring to the matter of fact which appears on the Journals and Votes of the other Ilouse of Parliament, that, immediately before the Easter Recess, a very important Motion was made by a most eminent Member of the House of Commons, and was acceded to by that House by a large majority. That Motion was that the House should go into Committee for the purpose of considering three Resolutions most deeply affecting that branch of the Established Church that exists in Ireland. My Lords, the first of those Resolutions purports to declare the expediency of altogether disestablishing that Church, and separating the State altogether in that country from any connection with its religious institutions or with the religious education of the people, and relying altogether upon the voluntary principle. The second Resolution proceeds to say that, in order to further the object in view, it is expedient-I am not quoting the words of the Resolutions, but stating THE DUKE OF RICHMOND said, that their substance - it is expedient that no out of doors the Parcels Clause in the new ecclesiastical appointments should be Railway Bill was entirely misunderstood, made; and the third suggests an Address as it had never been the intention of the to the Crown praying that the patronage Government to deal with the question in of the Queen in regard to ecclesiastical the manner the public supposed. He had dignities should be transferred to the conthat day received a large deputation of trol of Parliament. [Earl RUSSELL: Should traders on the subject. He proposed to be placed at the disposal of Parliament.] revise the clause, and to amend some other Well, that the rights of the Crown in reclauses. For that purpose he would re- gard to all ecclesiastical dignities and apcommit the Bill, in order that the Amend-pointments should be placed at the disments might be printed and the matter placed distinctly before the public, so that there could be no misunderstanding. PARCELS CLAUSE.-QUESTION. VISCOUNT HALIFAX wished to ask a Question of the noble Duke the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the 15th clause, commonly called the Parcels Clause, of the Regulation of Railways Bill. It appeared that the intentions of the noble Duke in inserting this clause had been very much misunderstood, and several petitions had been presented against it. The matter had been fully explained in "another place;" but probably it would be more satisfactory if the noble Duke would state, Whether or not his views in inserting this clause were correctly under stood out-of-doors? ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND)— THE RESOLUTIONS.-QUESTION. THE EARL OF DERBY, who had given notice to put a Question in reference to posal of Parliament. These, my Lords, are the three Resolutions of which notice was given in the House of Commons; and I suppose I am not assuming too muchI am afraid I am not assuming too much when I say that there is every probability that the first Resolution will be sanctioned by the House by a majority something like that by which the Motion for the Committee was carried. I suppose I may also take for granted that that Motion, though made by a very eminent Member of the House, was not made on his own authority alone, and without communication with those who act politically in connection with him. Further, I suppose I must assume that the eminent persons who have determined, somewhat unexpectedly, on that course of proceeding, have not done so without making up their own minds as to the course they will take in the event of the success of their Motion; and it is as to those farther proceedings that I propose to put the Question of which I have given notice to the noble Earl my predecessor in office. Had the Question been put before the Recess, I should probably have addressed it to the noble Earl the late President of the Council (Earl Granville), or to the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), inasmuch as I understand that both those noble Lords were present at the private meeting at which the Resolutions were arranged. [ [Earl GRANVILLE was understood to dissent.] I shall be much obliged to the noble Earl to correct me if I am wrong; but, perhaps, I may relieve him of the responsibility of answering the inquiry by transfer ring or making it over to the noble Earl (Earl Russell) opposite; because, since the Recess that noble Earl has put himself very prominently forward at public meetings as a supporter of those Resolutions, and avowed his adherence to the principle they involve. I assume, therefore, that the noble Earl does adhere to that last phase of his opinions in reference to the Church in Ireland, although it is at least a fortnight old; but the alterations which have taken place in his views within the last few years have certainly been somewhat extraordinary, and I am sure he will forgive me for recalling to his memory what those alterations have been. In 1866, the noble Earl was charged with the responsibilities of Office, and upon the occasion of a Motion made by the noble Earl who sits on the cross Bench (Earl Grey) for inquiry into the state of the temporalities of the Irish Church, he opposed the Motion, stating that all manner of evil consequences must be the result, and he succeeded in defeating the Motion of the noble Earl. In 1867, the noble Earl was free from the responsibilities of Office, and in that year the Motion which the noble Earl on the cross Benches had brought forward the year before, and was resisted by the noble Earl-the same Motion was made by the noble Earl himself. It met with no opposition, and a Commission was appointed. In the commencement of 1867, the noble Earl-having moved for this Commission of Inquiry into the state of the temporalities of the Irish Church as a necessary preliminary to any further proceedings-thought it expedient, before the termination of that Commission, for which he was not content to wait, to move an expression of opinion in their Lordships' House that the incomes at present enjoyed by the Protestant Church of Ireland should be distributed in certain proportions, according to a rule of three, which he had himself framed, among the different denominations in Ireland. That was the third change in the views upon this question of the noble Earl since he filled the office of the First Lord of the Treasury. In two or three months there came a fourth change over the mind of the noble Earl, who then declared that he was quite ready to adopt the views of the right hon. Gentleman who had brought forward these Resolutions in the House of Commons, though the noble Earl confessed that he had a slight preference for the mode of proceeding he had himself suggested. Now, I ask your Lordships to consider what was the question in reference to which the noble Earl had a slight preference for his own mode of proceeding, but was ready to waive it? It was neither more nor less than one of the most important questions which could occupy the attention of a statesman-namely, whether the State should or should not connect itself with an arrangement for making a religious provision for the people. Well, on that subject the noble Earl stated that his own opinion was in favour of making a provision for all religions; that he had a slight preference for that mode of proceeding; but, that as his Friends near him were of opinion that the State provision should be withdrawn from the Established Church in Ireland, he was ready to waive his own preference, and after having published his opinion that it was expedient that the State should support all religions, he was ready to acquiesce in the proposition that the State should support no religion at all. I must say that these changes of opinion are somewhat remarkable and sudden, especially on the part of the noble Earl; for, before his fourth evolution, he informed this House that a change of opinion and conduct on the part of a Minister on any great question was quite sufficient measure for disestablishing the Irish to cause him to forfeit any claim he might Church. Then, my Lords, in reference have on the confidence of Parliament and to another point, I have to observe that the country. I must now assume that a speech was reported to have been rethe noble Earl adheres to the last views cently delivered at a public meeting by he expressed; or that, if he has not made the noble Earl (Earl Russell), and in order up his mind, his opinion has been made not to misrepresent his sentiments, I shall up for him, and that he is quite prepared read from the report in The Times newsto go in for the entire and total disendow- paper a few passages, to which I call his ment and disestablishment of the Protes- attention. The noble Earl is reported to tant Church in Ireland. The question I have said— desire to put to the noble Earl has reference to the future course of proceeding on this question. I wish to know whether in the event-I am afraid the probable event-of the House of Commons affirming the principle, at least, of the Resolutions brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, it is the intention of the noble Earl, and those who act with him, to refer the Re-I did not succeed, and was beaten in that encounsolutions to your Lordships' House, and to ask how far your Lordships are prepared to concur in that line of policy? Last year the noble Earl on the cross Benches (Earl Grey), when it was proposed to proceed by Resolution on the subject of Reform, argued with great force on the propriety of the concurrence of your Lordships' House in the Resolutions being applied for before the introduction of the Bill, in order that it might be ascertained how far the two Houses were in accord on the main and important principles. The plan of proceeding by way of Resolution was, however, dropped, and therefore there was no occasion for the suggestion of the noble Earl to be acted upon; but if it was thought desirable that such a suggestion should be acted on at a time when it was evident that, immediately on the adoption of the Resolutions, a Bill would be brought in and submitted to the consideration of Parliament, such a course of proceeding is doubly important, when there is a doubt whether it is proposed that any Bill founded on the Resolutions in the present case is about to be brought up to your Lordships' House, and whether your Lordships will have any means afforded you of expressing your opinion on the Resolutions, without which concurrence of your Lordships the Resolutions will be a mere dead letter. Therefore I wish to know, whether it is the intention of those who promote these Resolutions to ask, previous to taking any fur. ther stage, the concurrence of your Lordships' House in them, and to ascertain what views your Lordships take with respect to the extraordinary and unexpected "I must say a few words on the very important third Resolution proposed by Mr. Gladstone. That Resolution asks the Crown to place at the disposal of Parliament Her Majesty's interest in land. Now, that is in conformity with the advice the ecclesiastical dignities and benefices in Irewhich, a great many years ago, I gave to King William IV., and which His Majesty was pleased to accept, although, as I had to contend with Sir Robert Peel, Lord Derby, and Sir James Graham, ter. I trust, however, that Mr. Gladstone will be more fortunate; that the advisers of the Crown will-as I suppose they will-advise Her Majesty to do what William IV. did, and that disestablishment and disendowment will take place.” It is now very long since the period to which the noble Earl referred: but I apprehend that he must have alluded to what occurred in 1835. It certainly is rather curious to see how history repeats itself, and how a circumstance which had almost dropped into oblivion re-appears again almost in the same form. My Lords, the noble Earl and I are, I am sorry to say, the only survivors, with the exception of Lord Brougham, of those who took an active part in the debates of that period. Now, I will venture to state what really did occur on the occasion referred to, and then your Lordships will see how erroneous is the noble Earl's statement. It is rather singular that a few months before the Motion referred to by the noble Earl was made in the House of Commons, the previous Government had been summarily dismissed from Office; and the consequence was that Sir Robert Peel was called on to undertake the formation of an Administration, his party being at that time in an avowed minority in the House of Commons. The first thing which Sir Robert Peel did was to dissolve the Parliament, so that he might meet a Parliament elected under his own auspices, and afterwardsthere having been a Commission then, as now, to inquire into the temporalities of the Irish Church-the noble Earl (then Lord John Russell) thought it necessary to call upon the House to support an abstract Resolution, then, as now, to the effect that any surplus that might appear to exist after providing for all the requirements of the Irish Church should be appropriated to the purposes of general education. The noble Earl proposed a further Resolution, to the effect that no plan for the settlemant of the tithe question would be satisfactory which did not involve such an appropriation. The noble Earl, on that occasion, not only gave notice of these two Resolutions, but he also moved an Address to the Crown, praying the Sovereign that he would be pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament his interest in the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland. My Lords, it is not correct to say that on that occasion he was defeated by the opposition of Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and myself. We opposed them, and the noble Earl obtained a considerable majority. The last Resolution, which Sir Robert Peel said he would resist to the utmost, the noble Earl had not the opportunity of pressing to a division, because the result was the resignation of Sir Robert Peel, and the noble Earl acceded to power. Now, whatever may be the determination on the subject by the present House of Commons, which has only a few months to live, and which was not elected under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government, I trust that he and my noble and right hon. Friends who are Members of his Government, are too well aware of the importance of this question, and of the duty they owe their Sovereign, to think of resigning their offices under any amount of pressure or opposition, however factious, if any such should be offered, until they have had a full opportunity, if not of perfecting the measures for the Reform of Parliament, at all events of testing the sense and feeling, not of the existing constituency, but of the larger constituency created by the Reform Bill of last year. Therefore, I hope that the parallel of 1835 will not hold good at the present time. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) succeeded to Office; and he says that, as a Minister of the Crown, he gave the advice to his Sovereign to take the same course as that now proposed to be pursued. But the advice he gave to the Sovereign was, not to take the course proposed in the Resolutions now before the House of Commons, but to sanction the introduction of a Bill which, if carried into an Act of Parliament, would have had the effect of restraining the Prerogative of the Crown. It is impossible that two questions can be more distinct. One is whether, upon advice given by constitutional Ministers and sanctioned by a constitutional Monarch, you shall permit the discussion of a question in the two Houses of Parliament, by which, in the case of an Act of Parliament being passed, the Prerogative of the Crown would be temporarily sacrificed and suspended; and the other is the question whether, upon the Address of one House alone, the Crown is to abandon the exercise of those Prerogatives and those duties which are imposed upon the Crown, not by a Resolution of one House, but by Acts of Parliament which Her Majesty, as a constitutional Sovereign, is bound to obey. There is an entire and absolute distinction between the two questions. I admit the noble Earl is quite prepared to show that in 1835 he took the same course he recommends Mr. Gladstone to take in 1868; but he will excuse me saying that that is only a reference from Earl Russell in 1868 to Lord John Russell in 1835, and it does not add any authority to the proposal. I contend it is no precedent at all. What you asked the King, through his responsible Ministers, to do, was to permit the discussion of an Act of Parliament the effect of which, if carried, would be to limit the Preroga tive of the Crown. I do not know what language was used in signifying-which, after all, is a formality-the assent of the Crown in Parliament; but this, I know, that when Lord Melbourne moved the second reading of the Bill which the noble Earl introduced in the other House, and in which he was successful in introducing as a sine quá non-the settlement of the tithe question-the language of Lord Melbourne was, that in moving the second reading of the Bill, he was authorized to signify the consent of the Crown to the suspension of the Prerogative of the Crown for the purposes of that Act. But the proposal was not fully adopted. that Act was passed, what became of the sacrifice of the Prerogative of the Crown? The Crown, in the present instance, is asked-not to sacrifice, not to consent to the suspension of Prerogative, for the purpose of an Act of Parliament, upon the recommendation of the constitutional and responsible Advisers of the Crownbut it is asked indefinitely to suspend the exercise of duties which, by Acts of Parliament and the Coronation Oath, it is bound to exercise, until at some period, and in case at some period Parliament After |