I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I should explain at once that the object of this proposed new Clause is to meet as far as possible the principle involved in a number of Amendments which appear on the Order Paper. There may be some question as to whether the proviso—if one may so term it—made in this Clause is at all necessary. Those of us who are supporting the Bill are, however, most anxious to make it clear that our intention is not to interfere with what is known as the Reformation Settlement, or to interfere with the established Church of England. The New Clause, therefore, is designed to meet Amendments the principle of which we should be prepared to accept, although in some cases we could not accept them in the exact form in which they appear on the Paper. These Amendments include two new Clauses—(Saving rights of title) and (Presentations to benefices)—standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Northern Lanark (Colonel Sir A. Sprot), an Amendment to Clause 2 standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown)—to insert the words

"nothing herein contained shall permit or make lawful any act, practice or usage in a church of the Established Church of England which would have been unlawful if this Act had not been passed"—

and also an Amendment thereto in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman) proposing to vary that wording. It is also designed to meet, and I believe I am right in saying it will satisfy the point of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) who proposes to amend the Schedule by restricting the repeal of a Statute of Edward VI to one section. The effect of the new Clause may be desribed in three parts. First, it provides that nothing in this Act shall in any way affect anything done in a church or chapel of the established Church of England, nor anything done by a churchman or minister of that church. Secondly, it saves the existing law which makes it impossible for a Roman Catholic to exercise the right of presentation to any living or other office in the established Church of England. Thirdly, it proposes to save rights of title derived from old Acts of Parliament which forfeited estates to the Crown. As I have said, we never had any wish to do any of the things which are guarded against by the new Clause. I notice on the Paper a number of what I think I may rightly describe as verbal Amendments to this new Clause. So far as I am concerned, and I think I can speak for my hon. friends who are acting with me, there is no objection to any of these proposed alterations in the actual drafting of the new Clause. In these circumstances I hope the Clause will meet with general acceptance.

I beg to second the Motion.

I do so with more pleasure because this proposed new Clause exemplifies the spirit in which this Bill has been brought forward. We do not desire to be provocative or aggressive in any sense or form. We do not desire to interfere with any other persons' liberties, or the rights of any other persons to manage their own affairs. All we ask in this Bill is that, as regards our own religion, we shall be put in the same position as those who profess other faiths in this country. The Bill, as origiNally drafted, was not intended to do, and, in fact, did not do, any of the things which are guarded against in this Clause, but as certain fears were expressed by some hon. Members, we drafted this. Clause to meet those fears and to make it perfectly clear to anybody who might read the Bill, even in the most casual way, that nothing in it affected the existing law of the Church of England or interfered with any of the rights to property or other rights which are set down. As to the question of presentations to benefices by Catholics, the House is no doubt aware that our right to present is -carefully guarded against by a number of statutes which are not interfered with in any way by this Bill, but we gladly put in this 'saving Clause to remove any fears or doubts which any hon. Member may have that the Bill goes further than it purports to do or interferes with anybody else. Regarding the Amendments to the New Clause, I think I can speak for my co-religionists in this House in saying that we are prepared to accept all of them.

I think this new Clause largely meets the point contained in the Amendment which I have put down to the Schedule, and I rise now to say that if my impression be confirmed by the Debate, it is not my intention to move that Amendment. Personally, I think many of the difficulties in connection with this Bill arise from the fact that it is legislation by reference of a peculiarly complicated character. Some of the acts referred to in the Bill can scarcely be discovered in the Library because they are bound up in Volumes which are very much larger than those in which the general Statutes are bound, and it has been difficult to find out precisely what is the intention of some of the Acts referred to. Personally I stand for religious tolerance, but I do not want to see an act of religious tolerance interfering with the religious body of which I happen to be a member. I am prepared to support the Bill so long as its effects are confined solely to those who are Roman Catholics.

I think this proposed new Clause brings to the front the point which has just been raised by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) in reference to the complicated nature of this legislation. The House, from time to time, has complained bitterly when Measures have been brought forward by Governments proposing legis lation by reference. As the last speaker said this is legislation by reference of a peculiarly complicated kind. I cannot see why the hon. Members who promoted this Bill should not have put down, in black arid white, what they wanted to do. If they had done that, we should have had a chance of understanding it, but what they have done is to seek to repeal a number of Statutes, which are, some of them, very long and complicated, and I defy anyone to say exactly what the result of those repeals may be. This Clause reminds me very much of what was said once in this House in reference to another provision, that it was equivalent to indicating that, when it was raining, a man who had failed to put up his umbrella should be entitled to the same protection as if he had put it up. The hon. Members who have promoted this Bill do not know the effect of their own legislation. They repeal a number of Acts of Parliament contained in the Schedule, but they have had pointed out to them from time to time that those repeals would affect various people whom they say they never meant to affect, and there may be numerous other cases in which these repeals will have effects which those hon. Members never contemplated at all.

It is almost impossible to say when any Act of Parliament is obsolete. One often hears talk of obsolete Acts of Parliament, but I, myself, within my own limited experience, was once engaged in a case which turned on one of the sanctions of the Statute for the suppression of the lesser monasteries, an older Statute than some of those which are intended to he repealed by this Bill. One might have said that that old Statute was past and done with, but we find it cropping up in some titles to property in the last 20 years, and so with regard to the Statutes in this Bill. It is impossible, when one repeals a Statute in this way, to say what the exact effect of such repeal will be, and -we must remember, when we are told that some of these Statutes have no effect at the present time, that there is a procedure by which obsolete Statutes are dealt with, and from time to time a Statute Law Revision Act is passed. Statutes are carefully examined, and the Committee which deals with them has the advantage of expert assistance. If it turns out on examination that those Statutes have no effect at the present time, a comprehensive Statute Law Revision Act is passed, and those Statutes are wiped off the Statute Book and cumber it no longer. That procedure has come down to a date much later than some of the Acts dealt with in this Bill.

Quite a number of Acts have been wiped off the Statute Book by Statute Law Revision Acts which are later in date than some of the Acts in this Schedule, which, as a result of expert consideration, have been left on the Statute Book. That is a prima facie ground for saying that they ought not to be lightly dealt with. There must have been something before the framers of the last Statute Law Revision Act or one of the previous Revision Acts that led them to think that those Statutes ought to be left in force. The hon. Gentleman who moved the new Clause has not attempted to explain what the Statutes are or what is the effect of their repeal. It must be remembered that this Bill was introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule.

It would have been out of order to discuss the Statutes to be repealed in moving this new Clause, but every single one of them was referred to in the Memorandum attached to the Bill as first, printed, and they were all fully discussed in the two days' discussion in the Standing Committee upstairs.

The hon. Gentleman has now called attention to what seems to me to be one of the defects of our modern procedure in this House. A Bill goes to Standing Committee, and unless a Member happens to be chosen a member of the Committee dealing with the Bill, it passes from his sight altogether. The Standing Committee only comprises a comparatively small number of Members of this House. The ordinary channel of information concerning Bills is the Second Reading Debate, and there was no Second Reading Debate on this Bill, so that the question now comes before this House for the first time for reasonable consideration. The fact that these Acts are on the Statute Book now is a prima facie case for leaving them here. H they are obsolete, they can be dealt with the next time a. Statute Law Revision Bill is brought into the House. The House will then know that the matter has received expert attention and that it has been before a Committee with expert assistance, and the matter would have to pass the scrutiny of the Law Officers of the Crown. Therefore, the mere fact that they are on the Statute Book and that the Statute Law Revision Acts have come down to a later date is prima facie evidence that they ought to remain on the Statute Book until they are dealt with in the ordinary way. So much for the general question. But this new Clause states, among other things—

"This Act shall not alter, add to, or abridge the law in force prior to the passing hereof relating to services, the exercise by Roman Catholics of any right of presentation to any benefice or other ecclesiastical living or office in the established Church of England."

There is an Act referred to in the Schedule of this Bill, the 11th of George II, cap. 17—

I notice from the Order Paper that an hon. Member is proposing to remove that Act from the Schedule. I do not know whether it is desired that this Debate should be substituted for the Debate on the Schedule.

On a point of Order. The last part of this new Clause is a saving Clause in respect of a particular matter. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Down (Mr. Reid) is calling attention to the Statute which is intended to be repealed, because it will appear upon examination that if the Statute in the Schedule is repealed, and the last sentence in the first paragraph of this new Clause on the Paper is passed, there will be two enactments in the same Bill which cancel each other. I, therefore, submit that my hon. Friend is entitled to refer to the Act which is repealed by the Schedule to show that that repeal would be contrary to the intention, at least as I understand it, of the Clause that my hon. Friend has been good enough to say he would be glad to ask the House to accept.

That is the reason why I wish to safeguard the right to move to omit that Statute from the Schedule, but if it be desired to discuss it now, I do not object myself.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause is willing to accept that Amendment.

Certainly not. There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The Section the hon. Member proposes to repeal deals, not with the right of presentation, but with the actual transfer of the ownership of an advowson.

I think it would be convenient if the hon. member in whose name the subsequent Amendment appears has no objection to deal with this point here. The House is aware that where the right of presentation to a living in the Church of England is vested in a Roman Catholic, that right of presentation is exercisable by the University of Oxford or by the University of Cambridge. That is enacted by a Statute of William and Mary, to which I need not further refer, as that Statute is not in question. Section 5 of the Act of George II, Chapter 17, is the Section which is still in operation, and that Section contains a recital as to why it was passed. It sets out, first of all, the existing provision as to the presentation to benefices by the Universities when the right of presentation belonged to a Roman Catholic, and it goes on to say:

"Several provisions were made by the said. Act of the twelfth year of the reign of Queen Anne, which have been fraudulently evaded by persons obtaining from such Papists, without a full and valuable consideration, Grants of such Advowsons and Right of Presentation, Nomination and Donation, upon confidence only, that such Grantees will, at the Request of such Papists, present to such Benefices or Ecclesiastical Livings, Clerks nominated by such Papists who have been presented accordingly, contrary to the true Intent and Meaning of the said Acts."

This Statute is only a supplementary Statute, and, as I say, it provides that where the right of presentation to a benefice belongs to a Roman Catholic it shall be exercised by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. According to this recital, it was found that the early Statute was evaded by a Roman Catholic conveying the benefice to a trustee, who was a Protestant, and that Protestant had presented to the benefice the nominee of the Roman Catholic patron, who was incapable of presenting it himself. This Statute, as I say, is only a supplementary Statute. The same with regard to wills. A Roman Catholic in his will devised the benefice to a Protestant, and that Protestant presented the person nominated by the Roman Catholic. Therefore, this Statute is not in itself a substantive Statute.

I think the House will see that this Clause does not carry out what the hon. Gentleman himself said he intends that it should carry out. He does not want to alter the law which provides that if the right of presenation belongs to a Roman Catholic, it shall be exercised by the Universities. That he is prepared to leave standing, but what he does propose would remove the safeguard against the evasion of that Statute, and, therefore, I say this new Clause does not, as a matter of fact, keep the law in the same position as it was before. It leaves the existing law standing, but it presents a method of evasion. In. these circumstances, I submit that this Clause will not carry out what the Mover says is his intention.

There are other points. The latter part of the new Clause deals with the Act of Elizabeth. There is another new Clause on the Order Paper later dealing with that subject, and I hope to deal with the point when that Clause is reached. I do think the House has reason to complain. Here we have a Bill which proposes to alter what has been the settled policy of this country. It was for a century the settled policy of the Government of this country to impose certain restrictions on Roman Catholics. In order to remove those restrictions, we have a Bill brought before us in an extraordinarily difficult form. There is no member of the Government present except the learned Solicitor-General. I think in a case of this kind the House is entitled to ask for some assistance from the Government. I think the House is entitled to ask that the Government will state what the position is. I would submit that what is really wanted is the withdrawal of the Bill, and that the Government should undertake to go into the whole matter. If there are any disabilities with regard to taxation or such matters, I am quite sure the House would be prepared to deal with them, but I think the Government should give us their assistance, and let us know definitely what we are doing if we pass this Bill. In these circumstances, I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General if he could at least give the House some assistance on the points I have raised.

I would like to remind the House that we are on the Report stage. The Bill has been through Committee upstairs, and has been before the House year after year in recent times. If any of the quite extraordinary interpretations, such as are indicated in some of the criticisms which have been circulated, could be read into the Measure, I should be one of the last Members in the House to be associated with this Bill. It has been said that it is very complicated legislation by reference. That is an absolutely unfounded criticism. If you seek to exempt certain persons from the incidence of existing law, or seek to repeal an existing Statute, you are bound to refer to it, so that I do not quite know what my hon. Friend means when he complains of references to existing Statutes. I am a little surprised that my hon. Friend who has just spoken has taken the attitude he does to this Measure, because his own constituents in Ulster already enjoy—

I am afraid the hon. Member is following a bad scent. This discussion would be appropriate to the Third Reading.

I was going to comment on this new Clause which it is proposed should be added to the Bill, and I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend that the Amendments which are down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Pennefather) and some others should be accepted in this new Clause. I only want to point out that there is a precedent for this Bill and this new Clause in principle, because the House has already enacted that in Ireland this exemption should be granted. I would remind the House that in Section 5, Sub-section (2), of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, it is enacted that

"Any existing enactment by which any penalty, disadvantage, or disability is imposed on account of religious belief or on a member of any religious order as such shall, as from the appointed day, cease to have effect in Ireland."

That has been done in Ireland, and yet my hon. Friends from Ulster come and object to the same thing being done in England. What this Bill proposes to do is to grant similar exemption in Great Britain, and if that is done the statutes will cease to function altogether. That is why they are referred to and included in the Schedule for repeal. I hope the House will not be drawn off into the discussion of some quite distinct point which may well arise on the particular Amendment, but will accept this Clause which, in my view, entirely meets the real objections which have been quite sincerely raised to the Measure as a whole, and I hope that having accepted this Clause, with the Amendments to it, we can then proceed to the one or two remaining points, which can be quite as readily and usefully disposed of.

My hon. and gallant Friend made one or two observations which, I think, ought to be referred to. I hope the House will allow me to say that, holding the convictions I do on these matters, I have deemed it not improper, though I happen to be a member of the Government, to give expression to those convictions as opportunity arises. My hon. Friends who are interested in this Bill and who do not belong to the English Church feel very deeply upon it, and I am quite sure that my hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment will not complain of other Members who feel equally deeply expressing their sincere convictions. At the same time I wish to remark that anything I may say upon this Amendment or upon this Bill is entirely personal to myself, and that if I presume to express an opinion upon a legal question that arises here, hon. Members will take it as they would from any other lawyer who happens to he a Member of the House—and perhaps give the less attention to it for that reason. There is one real point of substance which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Down (Mr. Reid) has referred to, and it is only upon that point that I think it necessary to say a word now, because I understand, Mr. Speaker, you have indicated that we had better have the discussion upon it in substance at this stage, though one or two other points may later have to be dealt with shortly.

I am very glad my hon. Friend has at last put down an Amendment which does meet some of the objections which some of my hon. Friends have felt towards this Bill. I think it was put upon the Order Paper only the day before yesterday, and I think it was a rather tardy recognition, perhaps the result of a rather tardy examination, of what the Bill really does, that led them to put down that Amendment. Speaking for myself, I think the Amendment is a great improvement in at least two respects, and I do not imagine there will be any objection to it if it is amended in the way the other Amendments on the Paper, which I understand my hon. Friend is willing to accept, propose to amend it.

I would draw attention to the last part of the first paragraph of the Clause, with which I am concerned at the moment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Down has explained that it was a Statute of Anne which made it illegal for Roman Catholics to make a presentation to an English advowson; that in the event of an advowson or a right of presentation being owned by a Roman Catholic the right of presentation passes to the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge or, in other circumstances to other persons. My hon. Friends quite rightly say they do not propose, and never did propose to repeal that Statute. It was so stated in the original Memorandum introducing the Bill, which said the repeal of this Section—that is Section 5 of 11 George H—will not affect the right of presentation, which passes to one of the Universities while the advowson is in Roman Catholic owner ship. It was early found out, after the Statute of Anne that, quite legitimately, Roman Catholics transferred their advowsons to persons who might be described as their trustees, persons in whom they had confidence, in order to avoid the disabilities created by the Statute of Anne. They transferred the advowson to a certain person who happened to be a Protestant and who might he trusted to appoint the nominee of the Roman Catholic owner. That was a plain evasion of the object of the Statute of Anne. Thereupon the Section which it is proposed to repeal—this Section 5 of 11 George II—was passed. Section 5, having recited the former Statute which transferred the advowson in those circumstances to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, went on to provide that every grant to be made by a Roman Catholic at any advowson

"other than bona fide and for a full and valuable consideration to and for a Protestant"

should be null and void. In other words, it prevented these colourable transfers of advowsons to Protestants with the object of appointing a particular person, the advowson then to revert back to the Roman Catholic owner. It is quite true my hon. Friends do not propose to repeal the Statute which makes it illegal for a Roman Catholic to present to an advowson, but to repeal the Statute which makes it possible for a Roman Catholic to avoid that disability. My hon. Friends who are Roman Catholics admit that they have no right, as they have no desire, to interfere in any way at all with the rights of presentation in the Established Church, and I should not expect any of my hon. Friends, for whom I have the most sincers respect, to desire to interfere. Then let me ask them how they can ask us to repeal this Section of 11 George II when the only thing the Section does is to say that a Roman Catholic shall not transfer for a colourable purpose, that is, otherwise than bona fide, an advowson of which he happens to be the owner? I can imagine some of my hon. Friends opening their eyes if, by some freak of fortune, it happened that a Protestant had some power to deal in or transfer some right of presentation in their own Church. I say to the credit of Roman Catholics that they have always recognised in their text books that they have no right to complain of this particular disability. I quote an observation from a legal text book by a Roman Catholic, Mr. Anstey's "Guide to the Laws of England," affecting Roman Catholics. He speaks of this Statute and says:

"There can be no practical grievance to a Roman Catholic in being forbidden by law to do that which his conscience would scarcely permit him in any case to do."

That is very frank and it is very proper, and I imagine it would secure the assent of all hon. Members, whether members of the Church of England or of the Roman Catholic Church.

Then I ask leave to point this out, so that the House may understand what they will do if they leave this Statute of George II in the Schedule. My hon. Friend has indicated his willingness to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Northern Lanark (Colonel Sir Alexander Sprot) which proposes to leave out the words "the exercise by Roman Catholics of." The Clause as drawn undoubtedly only saves the Statute of Anne, but if those words are left out, as it is proposed, it will read: "or relating to any right of presentation to any benefice."

That Amendment will have the result of saying that nothing in this Bill shall have the effect of repealing Section 5 of 11 of George II—the Section I have been dealing with; but then we shall have this extraordinary position. Unless it is agreed to omit the Act from the Schedule, we shall have the Act repealed in the Schedule but re-enacted in substance in the body of the Bill. I hardly think that would be creditable to the commonsense of the House of Commons. I do not know what might be done in another place, but I cannot believe that any of my hon. Friends, whether members of the Established Church or not, would desire a piece of legislation which would be confused and, indeed, contradictory. I think my hon. Friends who belong to the Roman Catholic Church will be doing, if I may say so with respect, honour to themselves if they say frankly "We have not the least desire to interfere even indirectly with rights of presentation in another Church. If unintentioNaily our Bill has been drawn with that effect we will recognise the fact, and we will hold it over for some further inquiry, because we think we may have been mistaken; but at any rate we will not do that at this present moment and we will allow the Act to go out of the Schedule." When that has been done it may not be necessary to have the last few words at all.

I presume the Solicitor-General would not wish to retain the existing disability of the Roman Catholic owner of advowsons to make them over freely and Voluntarily to the bishop or the Church or to a university.

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting and in- genious point, and he is suggesting that the object of this Bill is to facilitate the disposal of advowsons to bishops.

No.

I understand the hon. Member to suggest that Roman Catholics under this Bill will be entitled to transfer their advowsons to bishops. I think the existing law is quite adequate to deal with advowsons. The whole question of presentation of benefices is under consideration in the Assembly of the Church of England. It is better to leave the law as it is than to pass a Bill which might indeed facilitate the transfer by Roman Catholics to a bishop, but at the same time open a much wider door to the evasions which the Act was origiNally passed to prevent.

I would like to say that we on these benches, like every other section of the House, hold various views about religion and matters concerning religion. There is one thing, however, upon which we are all agreed, and it is that every citizen should be free to worship God or not to worship God, and we believe in regard Lo this matter in absolute religious freedom and equality. I think we might also say that we agree with the principle that the less Parliament has to do with the making of laws for the regulation of religion or churches the better it will he for religion. In regard to this particular Bill Personally I would prefer that the Bill had remained very much as it came from the Committee, but I recognise that the promoters of this Bill have been called upon to satisfy certain objections which have been raised. On this Amendment I would like to say that I do not understand the frame of mind or the logic of those who object to a Roman Catholic who possesses a church living exercising his ordinary right. Personally I do not think lay people ought to possess those livings, and I hope the day will come when the Church will control those matters entirely.

But things being as they are, I do not understand the strong objection that is taken to a Roman Catholic appointing a Church of England Minister when at this time of day you may have an agnostic Prime Minister who may have the gift of bishoprics and even the appointment of an archbishop in his hands, and even a Jew, an infidel, a Turk, a Buddhist, a Christian Scientist, or a Theosophist may have the right to appoint these people when a Roman Catholic is not allowed this privilege. I think that is perfectly absurd, and all these arguments this afternoon and these appeals to musty old laws are quite out of date. Those old laws are only appropriate to the days when freedom to speak was much less respected than it is now. I cannot understand the storm which is being raised because they are proposing this afternoon to remove this disability from those who hold the Roman Catholic faith. I would like to point out that if it is held that the reason you want to prevent Roman Catholics appointing to a living is because you do not desire that men should be appointed with Romish tendencies and leanings—

I understand that this new Clause is merely an attempt to state the law as it now exists, and does not raise any new,question.

I think that the discussion up to the present has been on the lines of preserving the present position by which the Roman Catholic is not allowed to make a presentation to a Church of England living.

The hon. Member is not entitled to argue on the merits of the question, but merely on the law.

I am afraid, if it comes to a question of law, I cannot compete with hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite. But I want to make it clear that at this time of day for the House of Commons to be discussing this question is rather childish, and I do not think it adds to the reputation of the Church or any of those who wish to uphold religion. I do not think religion can be upheld in this sort of way, and I wish to repeat that the less this House has to do with the regulation of religion or of churches the better it will be for religion and for the churches.

I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if I am now entitled to move my Amendments.

We must first of all dispose of the Second Reading of the Clause.

With regard to what has been said by the Solicitor-General, may I be allowed to say that we have no desire whatever to interfere directly or indirectly by evasion or in any other way with the presentation to any living of the Church of England, even if it is appurtenant to an estate. The reason we include Section 5 is because under the existing law a Catholic may not leave an advowson by will. This Clause, as amended, will read as follows:

"Nothing this Act nor the repeal of any enactments or parts thereof specified in the Schedule thereof shall in any way alter, add to, or abridge the law in force prior to the passing hereof relating to services, acts, matters or things performed or done in any church or chapel of the established Church of England, or remove the existing disabilities of Roman Catholics as regards presentation to any benefice or other ecclesiastical living or office in the established Church of England."

I submit to my hon. Friend that nothing' could be more clear and explicit than that. We wish to repeal the Section because it inflicts another small disability, and we put in a saving Clause which makes it impossible for anyone to do that to which my hon. and learned Friend objects.

I appreciate very much the way in which my hon. Friends have accepted our Amendments to this new Clause, and the only thing I want to be satisfied about is why, if they are accepting these Amendments, they find it necessary at all to do away with Section 5 of the Act of George II. The whole object of the Bill is to relieve Roman Catholics from certain disabilities, and, if they can assure mo that in doing away with these Statutes, they are not altering the law regarding the exercise by Roman Catholics of the right of presentation to benefices in the Church of England, I shall not oppose the Third Reading. I am not altogether convinced, but I have a, perfectly open mind, and if I can be convinced that it is all right, I shall be only too glad not to vote against the Third Reading. I should like, in regard to what has been said by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), to say one word about Roman Catholics having the right to give away Church of England livings. It is an interference with the Church of England, because it is for that Church to give away its own livings, and that is one of the reasons why this Clause goes far to meet my objections.

This Amendment, standing in my name, which the hon. Member has expressed his willingness to accept, would not in my opinion carry out what we want to carry out, but, if the hon. Member will agree to omitting this Act from the Schedule, that I think would do so, and, in my opinion, nothing short of that will carry out the object which I have in view.

I do not belong to the Church of England and I am not a Roman Catholic; I represent the rather big body of Free Church opinion, and they look upon this Bill with favour because they believe in civil and religious liberty. I have just had sent me a Resolution from the Committee of the Evangelical Free Churches. After very carefully considering the Bill, they have passed a Resolution in which they say that they adhere to the historic Nonconformist principle of free and complete civil and religious liberty in faith and practice. It should surely be established that a member of the Roman Catholic Church should have nothing whatever to do with the presentation of a living in the Established Church of England.

If a Roman Catholic should not, why should a Wesleyan?

Certainly, a Wesleyan should not interfere any more than a Roman Catholic or a Jew. I hope the time is soon coming when the Church of England will have complete control over its own livings. Therefore, I would appeal to the supporters of the Bill to agree to the suggestion of the Solicitor-General and take out the reference to this particular old Act. I think, if that were done, it would command very large support, and, on behalf of those I represent, I certainly support the Bill.

I can quite see why my Catholic friends object to having this kept in. It does seem peculiar when people of all kinds of religion and of no religion can present advowsons, you should pick out one particular sect and say that they should not.

The hon. Member is really conveying quite a false impression to the House though, I am sure, with the best intentions. Catholics do not now present to livings in the Church of England, and have not the slightest desire to do so.

I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the words "This Act shall not," and to insert instead thereof the words

"Nothing in this Act nor the repeal of any enactments or parts thereof specified in the Schedule thereof shall in any way."

The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) and the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell) have intimated that they see no objection to this Amendment, but I think it is only due to the House and the public outside that the reason for it should be stated in order to sweep away many misapprehensions May I refer to the genesis of the new Clause. It arose in this way. Two sections of the Church of England put down Amendments. One section feared that the effect of this Bill might be in one direction, and the other section feared that it might be in the. Opposite direction. Therefore, my hon. Friend and his colleagues put down this new Clause which relates, not at all to Roman Catholic disabilities, but merely to questions concerning the Church of England. There are in this country millions of people who are very nervous as to what the effect of this Bill may be, They look at the Bill, and they find it is a very small Measure with very few words. They probably see no objection as regards the words printed on the first page, but, When they turn over, they find it is intended to repeal no less than eight Statutes or sections of Statutes and very naturally they ask themselves what is the effect of this repeal. Therefore, in the wording of my Amendment I have made it quite clear that the repeal of the various Statutes shall not have any effect as regards the practices and ceremonies of the Church of England.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This Clause was, I think, put down in order to meet an Amendment that I myself origiNally put down. When I put down that Amendment, I first of all went to the promoters of the Bill, and they asked me to alter it. I gave them the Amendment to alter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) altered it, and I put it down in the altered form that he suggested. I take no exception to the intentions of the Movers in putting down this proposed new Clause, and I appreciate the fact that they are allowing us to insert Amendments which we think will improve it.

I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the words

"in force prior to the passing hereof."

It seems to me that there is no need to qualify the law by these words, and, as I understand that my hon. Friend is kind enough to accept this Amendment, I need not say more.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not move the next Amendment standing in my name—in line 4, to leave out the words

"relating to the exercise by,"

and to insert instead thereof the words

"remove the existing disabilities of."

I do not want nay hon. Friends to be misled when I said I would accept all these Amendments. It does occur to me that this proposed Amendment in line 4— [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not being moved!]—and the following Amend, went in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Sir A. Sprot), in line 5, to leave out the words

"the exercise by Roman Catholics of,"

are somewhat inconsistent. The whole point is whether it is better for my hon. Friends to move the first one or the second.

I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out the words

"the exercise by Roman Catholics of."

This Amendment has been dealt with by previous speakers, but I hope I may be allowed to say a word or two about it. The matter is a little complicated, and I wish to try to make it as clear as Possible. It is the presentation to livings in the Church of England. Roman Catholics do not desire to have the right to present to livings in the Church of England. They are prohibited from doing so by an Act of William and Mary, or of Queen Anne, I do not know which; and it is not proposed to interfere with that legisation at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell) has disavowed, quite properly, any intention of doing that, but that is not the point. It is not the Act of William and Mary, or of Queen Anne, which is proposed to lie repealed by this Bill; it is an Act of George II which was passed in order to meet evasions of the prohibition of presentation, where Roman Catholics who were owners of livings, or presentations to livings, arranged to do it by nominating a third party. I consider that in this proposed new Clause the words "the exercise by Roman Catholics" will not meet that case at all, although they would meet the case of the Act of William and Mary, or of Queen Anne, with which, however, as I have said, no one desires to interfere.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in line 8, to leave out the word "were," and to insert instead thereof the word "are."

I do not move- the consequential Amendment in line 4 which stands in my name, to leave out the words "of any right of," arid insert the words "as regards," because that has been covered by the last Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot). There is a, further consequential Amendment in my name, in line 8, to leave out the words "1 Eliz., cap. 24." My object in putting down these two Amendments is that the rights of the Crown may not he limited by the words "1 Eliz., cap.24." but that, whatever the rights of the Crown are, they should be maintained without disturbance by the present Measure.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am not quite sure that by this Amendment my hon. Friend is really doing what he intends. I am speaking now on the purely technical point of drafting. The Statute of Elizabeth vested certain lands of certain monasteries and chantries in the Crown, and a great many of those lands were almost at once granted to other persons—

Hear, hear!

—to educational institutions and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, for the greater part. If my hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted, and the word "were" were changed into "are," the Amendment would only save the title of properties which are at present vested in the Crown. What we want to do is to save the properties which, although origiNally vested in the Crown by the Statute, are now held either by the Crown or by other grantees from the Crown. Therefore, I suggest that the word "were" is the proper word.

In view of what the Solicitor-General has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "are" in line 8.

The words that I desire to omit are these:

"(being enactments affecting the civil and religious liberties of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects)".

My contention is that the Acts of Parliament mentioned in the Schedule do not do what is described by these words, and that the words are inaccurate and misleading, and should not appear in an Act of Parliament. Let me explain to the House by mentioning quite briefly the various Acts which the Schedule proposes to repeal. The first is the Act of Edward VI which regulates certain matters in the Church of England with regard to images and with regard to the Book of Common Prayer. Those are the subjects that are dealt with in that Act and there is nothing about Roman Catholics at all. Therefore, supposing that is the only one that answered to that description, I am justified in saying the words in brackets here are inaccurate when applied to that Act.

We must retain our own opinions but I have not the least objection to leaving out the words.

I should like to have an opportunity of explaining exactly what my hon. Friend has done. He has brought forward a Bill which he designates by the name of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill and he has put a Schedule into it tabling certain ancient Acts of Parliament which he desires to repeal. If he now admits that he has been inaccurate all through—

No; I admit nothing of the kind. I said we must retain our own opinions, but I have not the least objection to leaving out the words.

I should still like to have an opportunity of explaining the great inaccuracy of the hon. Member who has proposed the Bill. I have dealt with the first Act. The second is the Act of Elizabeth. It deals with certain specified abbeys. It does not deal with abbeys generally. It does not impose any law generally with regard to abbeys at all. It deals with the property in certain abbeys and transfers it to the Crown. That has nothing whatever to do with Roman Catholics, so here also I say the words in brackets are inaccurate. The Act of George I is an Act for appointing Commissioners to deal with the estates of certain traitors in 1715. Some people call them traitors and some do not, but that is the expression that is used in the Act of Parliament.

On a point of Order. If the hon. Member discusses these things, will he be allowed to discuss them again?

I shall certainly have to be guided in my selection of later Amendments by what occurs on the earlier one.

I am not discussing the matter at all. I am merely naming the Acts of Parliament proposed to be re, pealed and giving a proper description of them. The Act of 1715 dealing with traitors has nothing to do especially with Roman Catholics. Some of them probably were Roman Catholics, but others were not. So in three cases I have shown that the words in brackets are inapplicable. The next is the Act of George II, which refers to advowsons. We have been talking a good deal about that up till now, but it refers to advowsons in the Church of England, and has nothing to do with the rights or privileges or liberties of Roman Catholics. The other two may be said to deal with that matter, and the last two are negligible. They deal only with matters regarding charities. So out of the eight Acts which my hon. Friend desires to repeal, four have no relation to the object with which he has brought forward the Bill, and they do not come under the description of being enactments affecting the civil and religious liberties of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I should like to join with my hon. and gallant Friend in pointing out that not one of us wants to prevent relief to any member of a religious denomination who is suffering from a disability. It strikes me the Clauses of this Bill aim at giving greater freedom to people who are called Anglo-Catholics rather than to remove disabilities from Roman Catholics, and it is because of that that the Bill has been brought in. My hon. and gallant Friend assures us that these disabilities did not refer in the slightest degree to the Roman Catholic Church.

I should like to support what my hon. Friends have said. All we want is that this shall not be a Bill for the benefit of Anglo-Catholics but one for proper relief for Roman Catholics, and this Clause has no right to be in at all. The Statute of Edward VI had nothing whatever to do with the Roman Catholic Church.

I may point out that hon. Members are prejudicing their claim to move Amendments to the Schedule if they make their speeches in advance.

I would only say that is the reason I support the Amendment.

The next Amendment. I am afraid, is not in order. It is outside the scope of the Clause, and I think also would have been outside the scope of the Bill as a whole.

I beg to move, in page I, line 14, to leave out the words "the United Kingdom of."

The next two Amendments are really drafting. The Bill was altered to exclude Northern Ireland, and unfortunately the reference to Northern Ireland, in this Clause happened to be left in. If it is left out "United Kingdom" should also he left cut.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 24, after the word "to" to insert the words "Scotland or."

As origiNally proposed, this Bill included Northern Ireland, but in Committee we agreed to cut out Northern Ireland. I proposed in Committee, as I propose now, that Scotland should also be excluded. I did riot succeed in Committee. The argument used against me was that Northern Ireland has a Parliament of its own, whereas in Scotland we have not our own separate Parliament. We have, however, in Scotland certain bodies whose advice and opinion upon this matter could very readily be obtained, and they have not yet passed any opinion upon the Bill. When I was in Scotland I found that a great many people were unaware that this Bill was coming forward. We have a General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the other churches in Scotland have their Assemblies. The Episcopalians have their representative Church Council. Therefore, although we have not a separate Parliament in Scotland, we have these bodies which are very suitable for discussing and expressing an opinion upon a subject such as this.

The General Assembly usually sits in the month of May, but I have been in communication with the law agent of the Committee of the Church of Scotland in regard to the Bill. The Committee state that they are in favour of granting the fullest possible liberty to Roman Catholics in the exercise of their religion—that is on a par with what we all feel and what we all wish to do—but they officially, in my correspondence with them, take exception to the repeal of those Acts which would facilitate religious processions being engaged in in Scotland more than at the present time. Here we have the opinion of the Church of Scotland on one point. I submit that we ought not to have embarked upon this proposed legislation without having had fuller discussion in religious circles upon these important points.

I do not want to argue the question of religious processions very fully in this connection, but in passing I would like to say something on the subject. In the West of Scotland we have a large number of Roman Catholics and a large number of emigrants from Ireland. The numbers are increasing from day to day, and this influx of Roman Catholics and Irish constitutes one of the problems to be dealt with in Scotland. It is one of the problems which all bodies, the civil authorities and everybody else, have to keep in mind. We have, for instance, to deal with the question of building new Roman Catholic schools, and with the question of Roman Catholic teachers and Protestant teachers.

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing this matter on this Bill?

I admit that I was travelling a little wide, but I think the question is germane to some extent to this Bill. We have in that part of Scotland a great mixture of population, a great many Roman Catholics, Scotsmen and a large number of Orangemen. If religious processions of a character which I need not describe were to be encouraged more than they are at the present time, I am sure that a great deal of trouble would be occasioned. Close by my own constituency there is the Scottish Lourdes, a place of pilgrimage, and I am sure that if special facilities were given there would be a great increase in the number of processions of a size and character that would arouse feelings among the rest of the population that would cause a great deal of trouble. The answer is that permission to hold processions should be arranged by the civil authority and not form part of the Statute law. I do not think that the local authority, the police and so on, are strong enough to deal with that matter. You might have a majority on certain councils which would lean towards allowing processions of one sort of religious persuasion or the other. The members of those councils would be assailed with applications, and I do not consider that they would be strong enough to deal with the matter in the way that it ought to be dealt with. It is far better to have a provision upon the Statute Book as at present.

In London these matters are dealt with, I understand, by the Chief Commissioner of Police. Some time ago the Chief Commissioner of Police in London was a Roman Catholic. There was no objection in the world to that, but during his time there was, I believe, a large procession inaugurated which took place and led to a good deal of disturbance.

I do not see that this argument is relevant to the Bill. It does not appear to me that the Bill changes the law in any possible way in regard to that matter. Therefore I cannot see why the exclusion of Scotland can have any effect in the way referred to.

The Bill proposes to repeal one Act of Parliament which deals with the wearing of vestments and with processions in public streets. I have stated my case. I submit that Scotland has not discussed this question sufficiently and that it is only fair that more time should be given for these proosals to be thoroughly well digested and discussed before they are passed into law.

I beg to second tap Amendment.

In the West of Scotland we feel that not enough is known of this Bill, and the great deal of ill-feeling which has been aroused would, I am sure, have been obviated if all sections of the people had had the privilege of listening to the Mover of this Bill. For that reason we feel that more time should be given to allow Presbyterian opinion in Scotland to get more knowledge of this subject, and I hope the House will therefore allow Scotland to remain out of this Pill for the time being. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment has mentioned the fact that there are a number of Orangemen in Scotland. They are a very gallant and law-abiding people, but they feel that there is more in this Bill than meets the eye, and for that- reason more time should be given for Scotland to digest the proposals and thereby avoid any rancour and ill-feeling which may he engendered by passing this Measure too quickly.

I feel that I ought not to give a silent vote on this matter. I cannot understand why, if the Bill is to be applicable to England, it should not be applicable also to Scotland. As a, matter of fact many of the difficulties that have been raised in regard to presentations do not apply to Scotland at all. But what does apply to Scotland is the general equality of religious beliefs as between different faiths. I am well aware that there is a feeling on this matter. As far as I am concerned I have very few Roman Catholic electors, but I think it would be a shameful thing if someone who is a Liberal, belonging to a party whose proud boast it is to have stood for religious freedom, should not raise his voice and say that, much as I regret differing from any persons who elect me, I certainly intend to cast my vote in favour of the Bill as it stands to-day.

The Amendment put forward by the hon. and gallant Member is that we should have more time in order that the Assemblies in Scotland should be consulted and Presbyterian opinion obtained. But the hon. and gallant Member was able to quote only one man, the law agent of the Church of Scotland as representing that church, and the Seconder of the Amendment was only able to refer to the opinion of the Orangemen—in support of his Motion. I claim to be as good an interpreter of the religious opinion of Scotland as either the law agent of the Church of Scotland or an Orangeman. I object strongly to the proposal made here, that Scotland should be the last refuge of bigotry, injustice and inequality. Scotland has been the great battlefield of religious freedom and equality in State and School. I grant you that we have not in church or School fully realised it. I grant you that some recent legislation in regard to the Scottish Church was rather going backwards, in my view, on that position, but our great aim in Scotland is, and has been, the great trend of our pofity in Church and State has been, towards complete religious freedom and equality. Democracy in Scotland as we have understood it, means equal rights to all creeds and preference for none, the most complete religious equality and the fullest freedom for every form of belief.

May I be allowed to sound a personal note. I was nursed in the Covenanter's spirit. I have the honour to belong to the most celebrated Covenanting parish in Scotland, the Parish of Fenwick, in Ayrshire. The blood of the Covenanters is in my veins. I have lectured more than any other living man on the Covenanters of Scotland, and I yield to no man in my regard for their struggles, their heroism, and their courage. Let me quote our national poet—

"The Solemn League and Covenant

Now brings a smile, now brings a tear;

But sacred Freedom too was theirs,

If thou'rt a slave, indulge thy sneer."

In pleading to-day that this Bill should cover the whole field and apply to Scotland, I am only putting my own stone on the great pyramid of freedom that throughout the ages my Scottish forebears have been rearing in my country, the foundations of which they laid in their very blood. I am a Protestant of the Protestants. If I may say so, without any offence, I am a Low Churchman. I go into Protestant pulpits preaching the great and noble simplicities of our faith. But the religious equality of all has been the very breath of my life. I have proclaimed it in our Assemblies, in the General Assembly, on public platforms. and I put it in my Election Address, and I feel that I should be false to every principle I have ever proclaimed if I did not stand up and support this Measure and plead that it should be applied to Scotland.

I know it is said in Scotland: "This is a Protestant country. Why should we give relief to Roman Catholics?" The only Protestantism I have ever admired, and the only Protestantism to which I desire ever to be attached, is a Protestantism that concedes to all others the full liberty it claims for itself. Nay, more I believe that Protestantism, and my Roman Catholic friends will, no doubt, excuse me, is the last thing in the world that needs to make progress by receiving unjust favours at the hands of the State, or by inflicting unjust disabilities on those who differ in doctrine, creed or ritual. Another objection I know in Scotland is this. They say, "Do Roman Catholics in their country give you all this freedom?" I have never read in my Bible—and I am not so familiar with it as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood)—"Do unto others as they do unto you." What I do read in my Bible is, I think it is St. Matthew vii, 12:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to diem."

In Scotland we have had our own code of disabilities and penal persecution. They tell us they are obsolete now. In one manifesto that I have read it is said:

"In no way whatever will this Bill affect either the civil or the religious liberty of Roman Catholics."

If that is so, we need not trouble, because it will neither make things better nor worse. Why should they disturb themselves about it? It is all one to me if I feel that my liberty is being infringed, whether it be an old rusty chain or one forged but yesterday which binds me. I desire to have it removed. I do not take it that I am free to follow my hon. Friend in regard to the question of processions. I make only passing reference to the subject. Dr. W. B. Robertson, of Irvine, one of the greatest divines and men of genius ever given to the Church which I represent, when on the Continent saw a Roman Catholic procession. He was the narrowest and keenest of Protestants in one sense, but he was so impressed that he fell into line and continued with the procession. I say frankly that I do not propose to do anything of that kind, but I say to my hon. Friends opposite this, that a procession—I think it takes place somewhere about the 12th July—which stands for Protestant ascendancy is as repellent to me as one that stands for Roman Catholic ascendancy. Is our Protestantism so weak in Scotland that we cannot stand to see those of another faith parading the streets? In questions of liberty and equality we have not only to allow the things that are to our liking. We have been taught in Scotland, as well as in America, that we must "feel the chain when it works a brother's pain," that we are not "to break fetters for our own dear sake," but we are "to share all the chains our brothers wear." When we take the chains from others and make a broader freedom for others, we make broader avenues of freedom for ourselves, new pathways of liberty in which we walk and rejoice. May I make a reference to the greatest representative that Scotland ever had in this House? He used memorable words when speaking in this House as a Scottish representative. I refer to W. E. Gladstone, who in the Bradlaugh case said:

"I am convinced that upon every religious, as well as upon every political, ground the true and wise course is not to deal out religious liberty by halves, by quarters and by fractions; but to deal it out entire, and to leave no distinction between man and man on the ground of religious differences from one end of the land to the other."

I believe that to-day I am representing Scottish opinion as a whole, religious opinion and political opinion in quoting those words. In regard to what fell from one speaker about the incoming of the Irish element into Scotland and the proposal made in Scotland to close the ports against the Irish Free State, I would say that that seems to me to be a most reactionary proposal, and it is one that I would strongly oppose. In my opinion Protestantism is not to win its way by repression at all, but by giving a fuller freedom to all; it is to win its way by reason, to win its way by argument, to win its way by noble deeds, and, like other religions, to win its way by showing what it can do to build up a greater, a better, a freer, a purer, a nobler and a more Christian Scotland. I say with John Milton—

"Let truth and falsehood grapple. Truth never was lost in an encounter with falsehood."

We are not here to-day granting toleration. I heard the word "toleration" mentioned just now. No, Sir. In 1811 Lord Stanhope, in reply to Lord Sid-mouth's Bill for repressing the liberties of Dissenters, said:

"The time was when Dissenters sought for toleration as a favour. Presently they demand it as a right. The time will come when they will reject it as an insult."

It is just because the promoters of this Bill are not to-day asking toleration, but because they are coming forward and claiming just and equal rights with their compatriots, that I give to this Measure, and its application to Scotland, my whole-hearted support and allegiance.

Everyone wants Roman Catholics to have complete freedom. I have such faith in the Protestant religion that I am not in the least frightened by these processions, if Roman Catholics want to have them. I feel that if they are not right, the more they are exposed the more England will protest. What I cannot understand about some hon. Members opposite is that they have accepted the Bill as a whole without looking into it. There are Members on this side of the House who want absolute religious freedom for all Roman Catholics, but they cannot understand why four of the Acts mentioned in the Bill have nothing to do with Roman Catholic disabilities. That ought to be explained. That is what made some of us, who are stern and unbending Protestants, a little suspicious.

That comes on the Schedule, which applies to England as well as to Scotland. The present Amendment is to exclude Scotland from the Measure.

I only wanted to explain that some of us could not understand why some of the Scottish members have given assent to the Bill without looking into it more fully. We on this side have no desire whatever to be unfair to Roman Catholics. If hon. Members opposite are so keen about the Bill, we do not understand why they did not look into it a little more closely.

I think that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) has disposed of the main arguments against the general application of the Bill to Scotland. It has been stated that this question has never been discussed in Scotland, that nobody in Scotland knew anything about it. I represent the second or third largest Division in Scotland, numerically. In the 1924 and 1923 elections I was asked questions about it. It will be remembered that the subject was acute in 1923 owing to certain actions which then took place at Carfin. We have been told that there is a strong anti-Catholic feeling against the Bill. If that be so, it is curious that no Glasgow Member has had any communication from any one in Scotland against the Bill. My constituents number 41,000, and I have received one penny postcard against the Bill. The fact of the matter is that in Scotland there is no feeling whatever against the Bill. On the contrary, the general feeling is that the Bill ought to be passed without any discussion at all.

Since Northern Ireland has been left out of the Bill, it is not my intention to say very much, but there is one thing that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) said, to which I take the very strongest objection and it is only right that, so far as my knowledge goes, I should contradict it in the strongest terms. He said—and he will correct me if I am misstating him or if I have misunderstood him—that the processions that take place on the 12th of July stand for Protestant ascendancy. I wish to take the opportunity of saying that nothing could be further from the truth. I have belonged to that society nearly all my life and never at any time have we taken the attitude that we stand for Protestant ascendancy. Nothing could be further from the truth and I am very sorry if it should remain an impression on Members that such a thing could be true. We have always stood for civil and religious liberty for all. I wish to make my protest against the words of the hon. Member.

Before we divide on this Amendment, I would like to ask the framers of the Bill why it is that in framing the Bill they made it apply to Scotland and yet particularly excluded Northern Ireland. I can perfectly well see that it may not be necessary to make the Bill apply to Northern Ireland because of the older Statutes, but there are some of the more recent Statutes, such as those passed in the reigns of the Georges, that must apply to Northern Ireland in the same way as they apply to Scotland. I would like an explanation on this point.

The first reason for excluding Northern Ireland would be that Northern Ireland has a Parliament of its own which aught to be left to deal with questions of this sort. The second reason is that it has already been dealt with in Ulster by the Government of Ireland Act which in a very few lines wholly swept away every single one of these disabilities.

I feel bound to express a Scottish view which has not much expression in any of the speeches of those who have hitherto spoken on behalf of Scottish constituencies. As regards the principle on which this Bill purports to be founded—the principle of religious liberty and of freedom of conscience—I subscribe to everything which has been said and where there is a substantial and direct grievance which is suffered by our Roman Catholic fellow citizens (for example, it is suggested that they do not receive the same remission of Income Tax on their charities as do other charities), there I would support any amendment of the law. But there are two reasons why a very large number—and here I would say with great respect to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) that he may be entitled to speak for some districts, but not for all districts of Scotland—of people in Scotland, especially in the Highlands, are doubtful about this Bill. The first reason is that, as the hon. Member opposite said, they have not been told how four of the Acts enumerated in the Schedule affect the Roman Catholics at all. The second broad principle is that we ask ourselves where in all the world is there a country which shows greater religious toleration and affords more complete liberty of conscience and worship that this country?

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 5 and 6, inclusive.

The Amendment seeks to omit from the Schedule the repeal of a Statute of Edward VI. This Act has nothing whatever to do with the liberties of Roman Catholics. It is purely a Measure for the regulation of the Church of England. It enacts that images existing in churches and cathedrals should be destroyed and that only one prayer book is to be authorised for the Church of England, and it imposes penalties, not upon Roman Catholics, but upon the clergy and members of the Church of England for contravening those Regulations. There is no reason in the world why the repeal of that Act should be included in a Bill for the removal of disabilities from Roman Catholics because it imposes no disability upon Roman Catholics.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think there are very few words that I need say in regard to this particular item in the Schedule, but I think I ought to call the attention of the House to what is the actual effect of the Statute which it is proposed to repeal. To state it as shortly and simply as I can, it is a Statute which forbids the keeping, directs the destruction, and aims at the general suppression of various books and images. Many of those books are the books of devotion of members of the Roman Catholic Church. Others are books which are in the keeping of lovers of beautiful books, museums, and other places, and very much the same thing in regard to anything in the possession of museums and collectors applies to images. I think the House may like to know what are some of the hooks which it was attempted by this Act to suppress. They included antiphons, missals, scrayles, manuals, legends, pies, portuyses, and couchers.

Will the hon. Member explain what these things are?

Not to waste the time of the House, I may explain what they are in one comprehensive phrase. They are books of devotion of either the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of this country prior to the date of the Reformation.

Will the hon. Gentleman state the words that cover the books?

I think the words I have used do cover them, With regard to images, I do not think that anybody in this country now would wish, as should be done provided this Act is to be literally put into force, to deface and destroy the beautiful carvings which still, in spite of the bigotry of ancient days, do adorn some of our places of worship in this country. I suggest that we would like to keep those images, if you choose so to call them, or representations of persons which are things of beauty in our public buildings, and which, under this Statute, would not be allowed to remain unless they happened to be images of

"any monarch, prince, nobleman, or other deceased person not commonly reputed to be a saint."

There is a real, practical reason for the repeal of this Statute, and that is that it is little short of a scandal to the intelligence of his country as a whole that there should remain upon the Statute Book an Act which forbids the keeping in this country of the books of devotion which are used and reverenced by the Roman Catholic community.

Will the hon. Member say whether these books, statues, and so forth, have been destroyed, and, if so, whether this Bill could in any way restore them, or, if they have not been destroyed, whether they are menaced at the present time by any threat of destruction?

I may inform the hon. and gallant Member that the Bill does not attempt in any way to restore books which have been burned. We have tried to make it a practical Bill. In regard to his second question, I doubt whether they are menaced, but I think the answer to the suggestion contained in that question is that we ought not to have a law which is admittedly obsolete and might possibly be inconveniently put into force at some time by some ill-advised person, if I may so describe him.

I entirely acquit my hon. Friend of any intention in the world to let the House be under a misapprehension in regard to the effect of this Act of Edward VI, and I credit him with the fullest anxiety to tell the House what has been said by the highest Courts in the land about this Act. But it is, I am afraid, only illustrative of the insufficient attention to the provisions of this Bill which has allowed him to make the speech to which we have just listened. My hon. Friend, in moving terms, asked us all to assent to the proposition that it would be a scandal and a shame to destroy beautiful books. He was thinking of them not as religious hooks, but rather as works of art, but I should like the House, before they keep this Act in the Schedule, to know a little more about it. I, for one, wholeheartedly and sincerely assent to the proposition, voiced from both sides of the House, that no Roman Catholic should be under any disability of worshipping, as an hon. Member opposite said, in his own way with the utmost freedom, and although some hon. Members may think I am not sincere in saying that, I honestly believe that I am sincere.

This Act of Edward VI was passed for a particular purpose. Certain orders had been made in the previous reign which required, in the course of the turnover from the unreformed Church to the reformed Church, the removal of certain images and books of devotion. When Edward VI came to the throne, it was found that those books of devotion and images which had been ordered to be removed had not been, in some cases, destroyed. This Act was, therefore, passed for the sole purpose of giving validity to or recognising the validity of the orders, which had been made, not by Parliament, but by executive authority, requiring the books and images in question to be removed. Some 300 years later an effort was made to suggest that this Act of Parliament was still operative to prevent the erection of images in a cathedral, and in a very well known case, with reference to the Cathedral of Exeter, the Privy Council decided and laid it down that this Act had long ago been spent. It was passed for a particular purpose with reference to particular and identifiable books and images, which had been ordered to be removed, and it was impossible to invoke its aid in establishing the general illegality of images in reference to Exeter Cathedral.

Then why not scrap it?

I will tell the hon. Member in a moment. The next time that this Statute was under examination was as recently as the year 1919, by the House of Lords, in a case of which, I am sure, my hon. Friend knows the name, namely, Bourne v. Keane, where the general validity of a bequest of sums left for the purpose of saying masses was considered by the House of Lords. Lord Birkenhead, as Lord Chancellor, repeated what was said in the Exeter Cathedral case, and said that this Act was entirely spent and no longer operative. It is exactly the same as the Statute, if the House will forgive the comparison, which is on the Statute Book to-day, for the attainder and execution of Catherine Howard. That Act is spent, but it is on the Statute Book to-day. It is part of the history of this country, but nobody in his senses proposes to take the trouble to ask the House to repeal that Act for the execution of Catherine Howard. Why? Because, of course, it was passed for a particular purpose, and to dig it up and repeal it would be very much like those people who, when Cromwell and Wyclif had done their work and were beyond the reach of anybody, dug up their bodies to show their execration of them.

An hon. Member opposite asked why we should not repeal this Act. I am coming now to something more controversial. I cannot help thinking that the intention or the desire to repeal this Act is not because it has in fact prevented anybody from keeping one of these books. It has not. It is not because it is likely to be invoked to prevent the keeping of books or these images in Roman Catholic churches in the future, because the Privy Council and the House of Lords have refused to allow it to be invoked. What the House of Lords has said, is final and conclusive in this matter. What is the reason for putting this in the Schedule? I am entirely at a loss to know, unless this be the reason, that some people think that it would be generally advantageous to what they desire, namely, to see this country reconverted to what is called the old faith, if Parliament could be induced to pour, I will not say contempt, but some sort of discredit upon the Reformation settlement of 300 years ago.

I do not wish to raise any angry passions. I do most sincerely respect the hon. Members' religion and desire to enjoy the right to exercise their religion, but what am I to think of the activities of their representative in an attempt to repeal an Act of Parliament which was long ago spent, which was only part of the history of our country as a result of that great upheaval known as the Reformation, when with my correspondence this morning, I received a copy of the Advent Address of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clifton, in my own constituency? He is a reverend gentleman for whom I have very great respect, and with whom I have had many delightful conversations at dinner and elsewhere. This statement in his Advent message appears to be all the more lamentable, for he says:

"There would have been no change of religion if the Reformers had had to build churches. The whole movement here, as elsewhere, was naught but a political, social and financial ramp, with religion as a pretext and a war-cry."

The only reason I can see for putting this in the Schedule is to assist a movement which suggests that we are beginning to be a little ashamed of the Reformation. Even if mine were the only voice in this House to say it, I say that I am not prepared to assent to any effort to throw any sort of discredit on the Reformation, which I believe to have been the foundation of our liberties.

I really think in the latter part of this speech hon. and learned Friend has been talking about matters which have nothing to do with this Schedule. I thought, when he was quoting what some bishop had said, that it would have reference to the Act in question, but, apparently, it was some general observation which had nothing whatever to do with the matter which the House is now considering. Therefore, I am not going to discuss any of the latter matters of which he spoke, which, if I may say so, seemed designed to prejudice the issue. The question is whether the House, having assented to the general principle of this Bill, is prepared to repeal Statutes which do affect Roman Catholics? May I remind the House that those of us who do not, possibly, accept exactly the same view of the structure and mission of the Anglican Church as does the Solicitor-General have accepted an Amendment which says the Anglican Church shall not benefit by this Bill. It cannot be said that an Anglo-Catholic or High Churchman is seeking anything in this Measure, because we have accepted an Amendment to say we shall gain nothing out of it, but leave the matter where it is. The hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that the decisions of the Privy Council are subject to review, and, as far as the Privy Council is concerned, what it says to-day, it may unsay to-morrow.

That is why I took the trouble to state what the House of Lords decided.

I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman interrupted prematurely. Having a logical mind, I was proceeding to deal with his speech in the order that he made it. I say he did not tell the House that the decisions of the Privy Council are open to review, and, therefore, as far as the Privy Council is concerned, he will agree with me that on several occasions the Privy Council in several matters affecting the Anglican Church have decided certain matters to be illegal, which, subsequently, they decided were legal, and vice versa.

Then we come to the decision of the House of Lords. As I read it, the speech of Lord Birkenhead is dealing with another issue, that of masses and chauntries. There is doubt to-day, in the opinion of many eminent ecclesiastical lawyers, whether this Statute does not operate in futuro as well as for dealing with those- matters which are now spent. Although we agree that the case of Catherine Howard, whose attainder some would like to see reversed, dealt with a matter which is exhausted and spent, there is the other part of the Act of Edward VI, which directs that certain things in the future shall not be-done, and, although they may not he. done, Roman Catholic fellow-subjects are under peril of informers, and are treated in this respect as potential criminals, and if we are sincere in wishing to do away with their disabilities, I do not see why we should not do away with a Measure which forbids a Catholic to keep a missal in his house. We accepted an Amendment excluding the Anglican Church, and therefore this Amendment is merely an attempt to destroy the whole benefit of the Bill, and, in the end, our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects will have no, protection at all.

In intervening in this Debate, I feel it necessary to state what has been stated by every Member who has spoken, that I am in favour of absolute religious liberty for all people in this country; but I am sure I am voicing the feeling of a great many back- benchers in this House when I say that we really do not know where we are with regard to this Bill. I want to put very shortly to the learned Solicitor-General or those in charge of the Bill one point with regard to the matter with which we are dealing now. The whole of the Act of Edward VI is to be swept away, but that is not to apply to the Church of England. How can you sweep away the whole of an Act and at the same time make it apply to a certain body in this country? It seems to me that by doing that, we are not giving religious liberty. We are refusing to allow certain things to members of the Church of England but allowing them to everybody else. The Church of Rome is forbidden, under the Act of Edward VI, to do a certain thing, and we are now going to permit it. We are also going to allow all other churches to have missals and various things in their churches, but the one body which is going to be left out is the Church of England. It seems to be perfectly extraordinary to sweep away the whole of an Act, and at the same time say that part of the Act is to be left, and is to be applicable to one Church alone in the country. I should like to have some explanation.

We have already passed Clause 1, which says that the enactments specified in the Schedule to the Act are hereby repealed. But that has a parenthesis which states that the enactments referred to are enactments

"affecting the civil and religious liberties of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects."

The only ground which has been put forward for striking out that parenthesis is this, that the statutes enumerated in the Schedule are not statutes that affect the civil and religious liberties of Roman Catholic subjects. The late Solicitor-General said the first of these Acts, that of Edward VI, was passed for the express purpose of ex-post facto doing something which had been omitted. It appears that there were some books and images which those who were in authority in the Reformed Church desired to be destroyed, and they also desired to prevent a repetition of the same class of images and literature in future, and they passed an Act saying that these images and this literature which commended themselves to Roman Catholics, should be destroyed, and that no images and no literature of a like character should be produced in future. If anybody can tell me that that is not an enactment which, not only in the past but at the present time, affects the religious liberty of Roman Catholics I really am at a loss to understand it. I want to know why it is that while making protestations of our religious tolerance we should be leaving on the Statute Book Acts of Parliament which in express terms prevents Roman Catholics from doing certain things—Acts which if they were enforced would call forth a howl of execration from all fair-minded persons. Nobody would dare to put such Acts into force. This Act to which we are referring is on the Statute Book and it could be put into force, and it seems impossible to reconcile an objection to the removal of a potential authority of this character with avowals of tolerance such as we have heard here.

I cannot help thinking the promoters of this Bill have gone too far, perhaps inadvertently, in endeavouring to repeal the whole of the Act, because the Act has more than one bearing. In the preamble to the Act it is clearly stated that the object of the Act is to ensure

"That the Book of Common Prayer set forth shall be used and observed in the said Church of England,"

I do not suppose the promoters of the Bill really want to strike that out.

The recital to which the hon. Member refers is a recital stating that an Act of Parliament has been passed to secure the use of a uniform Book of Common Prayer. That is an Act of Parliament which we do not propose to repeal at all. There is no suggestion of repealing that. To repeal a subsequent Act of Parliament which states that an Act has been passed does not repeal the other Act.

But am I not correct in stating that the Preamble to this particular Act which it is proposed to repeal does state that the object of that Act was to ensure that the Book of Common Prayer set forth should be used and observed in the Church of England? That, I am informed—I think on very good authority—is actually in the Preamble to that particular Act. Then, may I suggest that any disabilities which may be contained in that Act could be removed by simply amending it—a much less drastic procedure than repealing the whole Act? I read that Act last night in the Library, and I came to the conclusion that it was really intended to apply much more to the Church of England than to the Roman Catholic Church, that the disabilities which were imposed were disabilities upon the Church of England, and not a disability upon the Church of Rome. In any case I hope the promoters of the Bill will meet the views of those who feel that there is a strong danger in repealing the whole of that Act by withdrawing it from the Schedule, and inserting an Amendment which will cover the particular disabilities which they think ought to be removed.

I do not think that this Act would help Roman Catholics, first because I think there is no doubt the original Act was made for the Church of England and the disabilities therein are disabilities affecting the Church of England. If I were given any instance of where Roman Catholics suffer disabilities now, I should be glad to review this matter; but I do feel this is the one important Section that we should be very careful over, because it is not our business to do away with the Reformation laws of the Church of England. It is a matter for the Established Church to look into itself, and I hope it will look into it, and put it in order. Under a Roman Catholic Disabilities Bill we ought not to do away with one of the pillars of our Reformation.

Do I understand that those words have not been omitted from the Bill?

No, they have not.

With reference to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot), I understand that point has already been dealt with in the new Clause which was passed.

On that point I would like to explain that the new Clause merely saves certain rights, but that fact does not dispose of the question of whether this Bill ought to go into the Schedule. It may be that the effect of leaving it in the Schedule is to create a contradiction with the substance of the Bill.

It appears to me that the matter was dealt with in the new Clause.

It is quite true that a Clause has been admitted into the Bill saving a particular title to lands affected by the Act in question, but I submit with great respect that does not preclude the question whether the Act ought to be put into the Schedule at all.

If I am correct in my recollection, the effect of this Amendment was discussed on the Clause, and I understood Mr. Speaker to say that when we came to this Amendment on the Schedule it could not be discussed at any length.

That is quite true and it may be moved.

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 7 and 8, inclusive.

I believe that the Amendments which have been made to the new Clause cover this point.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do so on two grounds, which seem to me to be very good grounds. One is that the Act concerned is spent, and if it is not spent it is obsolete. It is so spent and so obsolete that it is not to be found in the ordinary editions of the Statutes within the precincts of this House.

I found it a month ago.

I searched and could not find it, but I went down to the Temple and there I found an edition of the Statutes published in the 18th Century. It is a magnificent edition of all the Statutes. I have read the Act very carefully from beginning to end, and it is printed in excellent type and on magnificent paper. I challenge anybody to say where in this Act there is anything which is not spent and is not obsolete. If anyone can point to any part of this Act which has any effect whatsoever upon any person to-day, then there might be some reason for repealing it. The Act is absolutely spent, and I suggest it is not right in a Bill which is entitled, "The Roman Catholic Relief Bill," to deal with the question in this way. This is a disability which Catholics ought to be relieved of, and it is not right to include such an Act as this in the Schedule. Casting my mind back for some parallel to the proposal now put before the House, it occurred to me that perhaps my hon. Friend might include in the Schedule the Act for the execution of that unhappy lady, Catherine Howard.

I am afraid the hon. Member was not present when that question was dealt with.

At any rate, this Act ought not to he included in a Catholic Relief Bill.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, column 3, after the word "sections" to insert the word "three."

This Amendment is intended to preserve the third Section from repeal. Sections 12 and 16 were reserved in the Committee stage. Section 3 has the marginal heading of "Saving of titles for strangers." I am not sure what it means but the intention of that Section is to save the rights and titles of certain persons whose titles were not intended to he interfered with and under these circumstances we did not want to repeal anything which ought to he kept alive. This is merely a formal Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 9 and 10, inclusive.

This Amendment refers to the Act of George I. It is an Act merely to appoint Commissioners to deal with the forfeited estates of certain persons who took part in the rebellion of 1715. We should not have an Act of that kind in a Roman Catholic Relief Bill because there is no connection between one thing and the other and I submit this ought not to he included in the Schedule.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is all very well to say that these Acts do not cause trouble to anyone, but I think we ought to hear from the promoters of the Bill how any Roman Catholic is going to be hurt by the repealing of this obsolete Act.

There is a very serious reason for this proposal. This happens to be one of the Statutes which describes certain Roman Catholic bodies as superstitious and by reason of applying such a description to Roman Catholic bodies, it puts them outside the protection of the ordinary law of the land. It is for that reason we ask that these Statutes may be wiped off the Statute Book. The suggestion that this particular Statute is one which could have no effect at the present time is very unfortunate, and I am afraid, again, that some of my hon. Friends have not studied the Acts quite so carefully as some of us. Section 23 of this Act specifically provides that estates given to superstitious uses are vested in the Crown for the use of the public, and that is one of the things which we say should not apply to Roman Catholic bodies, but that estates properly given to such bodies should be held by them. I can only, of course, hope that the House will decline to pass this Amendment.

Once more I am afraid that I have, not to complain, but to suggest that my hon. Friend is inaccurate. He may have studied the Act, but quite evidently he has not studied it sufficiently long to appreciate what it does. It was passed after the rising of 1715 to confiscate the estates of people who took part in them. They were not merely Roman Catholics. The estates of everybody who took part in that Rebellion were confiscated. My hon. Friend said that there was a Section of the Act, the number of which I forget, which deals with estates of Roman Catholics at the present time. My hon. Friend is inaccurate, and I say that, not on my own authority, but on the authority of the House of Lords which decided that the Act did not profess to have any operation beyond the existence of the Commission which was set up to inquire into the lands which were owned by the people who took part in the Rebellion. The House of Lords said that the Act had long since undergone exhaustion. It is an Act which set up Commissioners, and it is described as

"An Act for appointing Commissioners to inquire of the estates of certain traitors and of popish recusants, and of estates given to superstitious uses, in order to raise money out of them severally for the use of the public."

The money raised by that method went for the use of the public, and the Act gives no power to take any more money out of those estates, the greater part of which are owned by the Crown or by people who received them from the Crown. The same observations that I made on the other Act apply to this Act, and I do not propose to repeat them. My hon. Friend suggested that this Act places certain Roman Catholic bodies outside the protection of the law. I shall be very glad if he or one of his friends can give some authority for that most remarkable statement. There is not a vestige or a tittle of authority for it. If my hon. Friend was referring to the fact that the epithet "superstitious" is used to describe the purposes to which these estates were given, he is well aware of the fact that the House of Lords decided in the case to which I have referred that money given to these purposes is not money given for superstitious uses.

The hon. and learned Member has not got the whole case.

Then my hon. Friend, no doubt, will inform the House, but I challenge him to produce a single Section in this Act which affects any estate or person to-day, and to repeal this Act is simply tantamount to saying that the Parliament of that day was not justified in the measures which it took in reference to the 1715 rebellion. Whether that is a matter which ought to detain this House or not, I beg leave to doubt. Some of my hon. Friends seem to think that our time can be profitably spent in recalling these unhappy things.

You will not want it the next rebellion.

I do not understand the hon. Member's interruption. I do respectfully protest against my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Herbert) suggesting that these Acts have any effect to-day in putting either Roman Catholics or Roman Catholic institutions or orders outside the protection of the law. They enjoy the fullest rights and privileges under the law, and this Act does not touch them in the least degree. If the House thinks it right to repeal this Act in face of that, I shall not criticise the decision of the House, but I do criticise my hon. Friends for allowing the House to think that it has any operation to-day when the House of Lords has said that it has no operation or effect whatsoever.

Perhaps the House will allow me to answer the particular matter on which the Solicitor-General has challenged me Personally. I do not think that I stated specifically that this Act placed certain Roman Catholic bodies outside the pale of the law. What I did state was that this was one of a series of Acts by which the description of these bodies as "superstitious" did in certain cases put them outside the pale of the law. The hon. and learned Member may be perfectly correct in his description of a particular statement in a judgment by the House of Lords, but I think I am right in saying that that decision did not deal with the case of a Roman Catholic order, and it is the cases of Roman Catholic orders which are particularly concerned here, because they are the bodies which are definitely put outside the pale of the law in certain respects, and which, in spite of anything the hon. and learned Member may say, has had the effect of their not being entitled 'to the protection of the law.

There is no reference to any Roman Catholic Order in this Act at all.

I think I must again intervene, because, whatever view the House comes to on this matter, it should know what the Act provides. This Act provides for two distinct matters. It is an Act for appointing Commissioners to inquire into the estates of certain traitors and popish recusants and estates given to superstitious uses. The real truth therefore is that it applies to two or possibly three different matters. The first 22 Sections or so deal with the estates of traitors and popish recusants, and Section 23 to estates given to superstitious uses. Now "superstitious uses" can have no reference to traitors, so let us be clear about that. It does describe estates given to superstitious uses as vested in the Crown. Everyone knows that where you have a trust, and that trust is on an illegal basis or for superstitions uses, it is liable to forfeiture, and that phrase which there appears, as the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Herbert) has said, is continued to be used in subsequent decisions and Acts, and is a phrase which applies to religious orders to-day. After all, if the Roman Catholic is to be relieved from disabilities, "superstitious uses" means, in the language of this Statute, uses by Roman Catholics, and there it is, an unrepealed Statute the effect that Catholic orders are superstitious and so forth. I hope that the House will reject this Amendment.

If, as the hon. and learned Member states, the Act deals, in Sections 1–22, with the steps to be taken after the 1715 Rebellion, and from Section 23 onwards with other matters, could it not be agreed to retain Sections 1–22, and repeal the remainder as necessary?

The difficulty that arises in discussing whether these Acts are obsolete is that they are not to be found in any ordinary edition of the Statutes. As far as I recollect, the Statute in question, and I have had the opportunity of reading it, the Section referring to superstitious uses is bound up with the provision regarding the Commissioners who are to deal with the estates that are to be forfeited because of superstitious uses. If I am right in that—and I have heard no sign of dissent on the part of my hon. and learned Friend—then I am certainly right in saying that the provisions of the Statute are obsolete. The Commissioners were appointed in the year 1715, and, although by the Act they were provided with a salary of £1,000 a year, apparently fur life, we can confidently say that they have been long since dead; and, therefore, if I am right in saying that it was only those Commissioners, appointed in 1715, who had power to deal with estates that were given to superstitious uses, it follows that that Section of the Act, like all the previous Sections, has become absolutely obsolete.

There is one matter on which I should like to appeal to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), as one very learned in the law on these questions. Was it not a fact that, down to the decision of the House of Lords in 1919, most lawyers supposed That the gift of money for the purpose of saying Masses for the souls of dead persons was a gift for a superstitious purpose, and, indeed, was the only gift which was obnoxious to the law as being a gift for a superstitious purpose? The expression "superstitious purpose," before 1919, meant the purpose of saying Masses for the souls of persons who were dead. My hon. and learned Friend may say that there are other purposes which are regarded by the law as superstitious. The decision of the House of Lords in 1919—and the House will recollect that in this respect the House of Lords resembles His Holiness the Pope, for the House of Lords, like the Pope, is infallible, and whatever it says is the law is the law, and cannot be altered except by an Act of Parliament; indeed, the House of Lords has no power of reversing or revising its own decisions—the of Lords in 1919 laid it down, and laid it down once and for all, that the legal profession was mistaken in thinking that a gift for the saying of Masses for the souls of dead persons was a superstitious use, and I venture to think that nowadays there is no gift which would be obnoxious to the Statute of 1715, if the Commissioners who were appointed by the Act of 1715 were still alive and still enjoying their £1,000 a year.

With regard to the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot)—to leave out lines 11 and 12—is that covered by the decision of the House on the new Clause as amended, or is it a separate point?

I think, if I may say so, that the House will come to the conclusion, on considering the matter, that the way in which the new Clause which has already been passed was amended, has made it necessary, as a matter of drafting, that the repeal of Section 5 should be left out of the Bill, and that, therefore, this Amendment should be accepted. If my hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) will move his Amendment, I should like to say a word or two upon it.

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 11 and 12 inclusive.

It appears to me that this point is met, as you, Mr. Speaker, have suggested, by the new Clause which was passed at the beginning of the discussion, and that, therefore, it is unnecessary that this Section should be repealed.

I beg to second the Amendment.

We have come to the conclusion that, in view of the new Clause in the amended form in which it was ultimately passed, it is really necessary that this Section should be left out. Therefore we do not oppose the Amendment. But I desire to point out one matter of considerable importance which arises here and which might conceivably be raised in another place. There were two Amendments down to the new Clause which, to some extent, conflicted with one another. One in the name of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Sir J. Pennefather) proposed to make the words in question run, "Remove the existing disabilities of Roman Catholics." That was not moved. That would probably have been sufficient for my hon. Friend, but in place of it was moved one which left out all reference to Roman Catholics. This Section ought to be repealed, or at least modified, because of the very remarkable and absurd restriction it imposes upon the disposal of property. From the Protestant point of view it is advisable that they should get rid of this honestly and properly. Therefore I hope my hon. Friends who have been so interested in this matter will consult with their friends in another place as to the possibility of it being advisable to amend the new Clause and still leave that Section repealed.

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 15 to 18, inclusive.

Here we get to the question of processions. This Section being repealed will legalise processions through streets carrying images for adoration. This is one of the provisions of these old Acts which a great many people think it would be very dangerous to remove. The second point refers to registration and licences, etc., of religious orders. That is a very important matter which I am afraid I am hardly competent to deal with from a legal point of view. I think the repeal of these Sections should not stand.

I beg to second the Amendment.

As far as processions are concerned I desire to say very little. One may think it would perhaps be better if there were in religions processions in the public streets. Such things may, under certain circumstances and in certain neighbourhoods, be likely to provoke disorder.

On a point of Order. I think it is out of order to discuss processions, because these Sections do not deal with processions at all.

If I am out of order, Mr. Speaker will tell me so, but I think the hon. Member is wrong because the Statute it is proposed to repeal, in Section 26—

No, it is not proposed to repeal Section 27.

Section 26.

The hon. Gentleman said Section 27.

No, 26. I apologise for being indistinct in my utterance. I am reading Section 26 from a Manual of the Law specially affecting Roman Catholics:

"And be it further enacted that if any Roman Catholic ecclesiastic or any member of any of the orders, communities or societies hereinafter mentioned"—

Those are the communities and societies dealt with in Section 28 and the following Sections, which raise the whole of the monastic orders—

"shall after the commencement of this Act exercise any of the rites or ceremonies of the Roman Catholic religion."

I think the hon. Member will now admit that this Section precludes religious processions by those professing the Roman Catholic faith in the public streets.

The Section the hon. Gentleman refers to is as to wearing particular clothes, and exercising rites, neither of which is a procession.

He may not exercise any rites or ceremonies of the Roman Catholic religion nor wear the dress of a particular order through the public streets.

That does not forbid a procession.

It does not prohibit processions in express terms, but the provisions of the Section in effect do prohibit religious processions, because a Roman Catholic priest cannot take part in a procession wearing the habits of an order. Whatever may be the view of my hon. Friend the Courts of this country would take the view that an ecclesiastic taking part in a procession was committing an offence within this Section. Therefore, the Section is one which deals with or restricts the rights of processions. I do not want to deal with the question of processions at any length, because the second question, that of monastic orders, is far more important and one to which I think the promoters of the Bill have not given the consideration that it deserves. One might wish that no religious procession could be held in the public streets at all. A religious procession is something which those who take part in it regard with solemnity, and one would not wish to go through the public streets arousing, possibly, opposition in the minds of persons who see the pro- cession. I am afraid, however, that that is a counsel of perfection, and that if this House were to pass a law to say that there were to be no religious processions, that would be considered to be rather a harsh exercise of power by Parliament.

In regard to Roman Catholic processions there is this to be said, that so far as Roman Catholics are concerned there are certain objects which they regard with extreme veneration, which in their view all persons who profess and call themselves Christians ought to regard with veneration also, and yet, as they know, the very thing that they regard with veneration is the very thing which to those who are of the Protestant reformed faith, seem to he entirely contrary to the teaching of our religion. I am trying to use words which cannot create offence, and I hope that I am succeeding in doing so. In these circumstances, when the thing which Roman Catholics venerate and regard as being something that Christians ought to look upon with veneration and solemnity, is the very thing which the majority of the people of this country do not so regard, and indeed regard with very opposite feelings, surely, it is right that such things should not be displayed in the public streets, where they are likely, certainly in many districts, to arouse feelings which we might all hope should be done away with as far as possible. That is all I desire to say on the subject of processions. I wish very much that the promoters of the Bill had paid more regard to the considerations which I have presented to the House.

Now may I turn to the other matter which seems to me to be one of far greater importance, and that is, the question of the monastic orders. In 1829, after a long and bitter struggle, those professing the Roman Catholic faith were removed from the disabilities which had affected them ever since the days of Queen Elizabeth. They were disabilities which were really imposed from a political point of view rather than from a religious point of view. The animosity towards the Pope, I take it, was mainly founded on the claim of the Pope that he could depose the Sovereign of this Realm. When that claim was put forward, that a foreign power had the power to establish or depose the Sovereign in this land, it aroused the opposition of the people of this country, and induced them to pass the Measures which were repealed in 1829.

When the Catholic Relief Act was passed in 1829, apparently by universal consent—as far as I can see there was no question raised at the time—it was agreed that monastic orders of male persons should not be permitted within the Realm. The prohibition did not apply to females. Whether it was that females were regarded as harmless, or whatever the reason may have been, the Act of 1829 made the express proviso that this prohibition on persons bound by monastic ties should not apply to communities of females, but only to communities of males. The provisions of the Act, recognising as it did at that time that there were members of these monastic orders within the Realm—Jesuits and other orders—made elaborate provision that those who were then within the Realm might remain within the Realm, but that no new persons bound by the monastic oath should come, in, and that no persons should take those monastic vows within the Realm. It was, obviously, the intention that those who were within the Realm at the time might stay there, that in course of time they would die, and that there never would be any monastic communities of persons bound by monastic vows within the United Kingdom.

Apparently, from the very first, the Act was never observed. The provisions with regard to registration of those persons who were within the Realm at the time were never enforced, and persons under monastic vows have freely come into the country since then. There are a number of them within the Realm now. Their presence here is, according to the Act, illegal. Some 50 years ago an enterprising person applied to a Metropolitan police magistrate for a summons against one of the monastic fathers. I think it was one of the fathers at Farm Street, where there is a community of Jesuits, and where a church is established. Although the Act never had been enforced, and it had been in existence for more than 70 years, this enterprising person applied to the Metropolitan magistrate for a summons against one of the fathers at Farm Street, with a view to presenting a Bill of indictment against him on the ground that he was offending against the provisions of the Act of 1829. The magistrate refused the information on a number of grounds, whereupon the enterprising person went to the Court of King's Bench for a mandamous to command the magistrate to issue the information. The Court of King's Bench said, I think, that two of the reasons which the magistrate had given were bad reasons, but that the third one was good. The third reason was that it was within the discretion of the magistrate to exercise his discretion, and that therefore nobody had anything more to say about it. And that, so far as I know, is the first and last occasion on which it has ever been attempted to enforce this Act.

That being so, this Act having never been put in force for a period of nearly 100 years, it is surely reasonable to suggest that an experience of 100 years has shown that the Act is not necessary. Why should it not be repealed?? That is an argument which would appeal to most persons, and that is, therefore, why I want to put before the House certain considerations which I do not think the promoters of this Measure have recognised at all. If they had taken them into consideration they would not have brought forward this Measure in its present form. Who are these people who are bound by monastic vows? They are the members of a corporation formed under a foreign law. They are bodies called into existence, created, by a foreign law. The policy of this country has always been one of extreme jealousy with regard to the creation of corporations, and quite rightly, because once you form a corporation and give it the power to hold property in its corporate capacity, to collect money and act together, you are giving to that body a power which no individual possesses.

I do not want to arouse opposition on the benches opposite, but I cannot help observing that the trouble we have got into with regard to trade unions is due to the fact that we have allowed these bodies to be constituted without putting on them the obligations which are always inherent whenever associations of persons are formed into a corporate body. The trade unions have the power of joining together a number of people, of collecting funds and exercising corporate acts, without the responsibilities which the law attaches to all other corporations. Therefore, it is important to consider whether, by the repeal of these sections, we are going to permit foreign corporations to come into this country, to hold property here, exercise rights not as individuals, but as corporations. With regard to corporations formed in this country—

What about Cook?

I am not sure that I observe the relevancy of the hon. Member's interruption. I am putting this point seriously to the House. In the case of corporations formed under our own laws we make stipulations before such a corporation is formed. With regard to foreign corporations coming into this land we require them to register, to say who they are, to put down their rules under which they are formed, to give their constitution, and to satisfy us as to who is the person in whose name they act, his address, who it is that can sue for them and can be sued for them as well. It is a matter of great importance that you should know who is the person to be sued. I am sure the promoters will realise the importance of the point I am putting and, therefore, it is not right merely to repeal each provision. It may be right to allow monastic orders to come into this country, and hold property in this country, but if that is to be done it ought not to be done by a simple repeal of the provisions of the Act of 1829.

Would not that apply to the members of the Loyal Orange Lodge?

I have not the honour of belonging to that lodge. But I have no doubt there are other hon. Members who may be able to speak for it, but as far as I am aware, in fact, I am quite certain, the only obligation which members of the Loyal Orange Lodge enter into is to serve God, honour the King and be loyal. That is the obligation which they enter into. It may seem to the hon. Member an offensive obligation, but so far as we are concerned, to fear God, honour the King and be loyal, is a virtue to be commended.

Does the hon. and learned Member suggest that this body is a. monastic order?

I gather from the interruption that the hon. Member did think so, and therefore I thought I was entitled to inform the House, as far as I could, what are the relations of the members of the Loyal Orange Lodge between one another and their Sovereign. I do not wish to be diverted from the course of my argument, which is that a simple repeal of these provisions which make monastic orders illegal is not the right course to adopt. If monastic orders are going to be allowed to come into this country, to hold property in this country, and to act in their corporate capacity, there ought to be some provision in the Bill for their registration, setting out their rules, who are the persons who may represent them in this country so that they can sue and be sued without difficulty. I do not think the promoters of the Bill can have taken this point into consideration. It is not a matter really for a private Member's Bill at all, it is a matter of very great importance concerning the whole community and it is worth the consideration by the Government as to whether they should appoint a Committee to consider it.

I speak for what the hon. Member opposite describes as the Loyal Orange Lodge, as I speak for every member who holds the Protestant faith. We are most anxious that every legitimate grievance of those who profess the Roman Catholic faith should be removed. We are most anxious, if there be any injustices under which they are suffering now, that they should be taken away. If such a course as I have suggested were adopted, and if a Commission were appointed, they could inquire into what are the grievances and injustices, if any, from which Roman Catholics suffer, and what are the proper measures to take to relieve such injustices. It is too late now to appeal to my hon. Friends to allow that course to he taken, but I can assure them that we would give the most sincere support to any Measure for the removal of any injustices. This proposal, simply to repeal the provisions with regard to monastic orders, without laying down any conditions by which these corporate bodies—corporations created by a foreign Power under rules which we do not know, with nobody to represent them—we do say that to do that, to allow such bodies to be legal bodies here, is not wise. There ought to be some provision made for their registration and their legal status.

My hon. and learned Friend who seconded the Amendment has done so with so much earnestness and so much lucidity that I feel bound to answer him to the best of my ability. I think there is a very definite answer to most of his arguments. The questions he has dealt with he described as falling under two heads. One was in reference to religious processions, and the second in reference to the question of monastic orders. With regard to the question of religious processions, my friends and I were most anxious to meet those who were feeling uneasy about processions, as far as we could, but the unfortunate fact with which those who are uneasy about processions are faced, is the fact that there is no law at the present time which prevents these processions as such, whether they be Boman Catholic processions or others, except in so far as there are certain local Acts in certain places which have to be observed. Therefore, while we are as anxious as they are that there should be no processions in this country which would be calculated to lead to religious or political disturbances, we feel that that is a matter which ought to be dealt with, but not in the form of legislation dealing with any particular religion or with any particular political party. I suggest that this Parliament has no right or justification, in these days, for dealing with the processions of any religious body, any more than it has a right to deal with the processions of any political body. Therefore, if these processions have to be dealt with, they should be dealt with by legislation which applies to all impartially. I hope that the House will not misunderstand me. I am merely giving this explanation in order to show that there was no refusal on our part to try to meet those who are anxious about this question of religions processions. The whole difficulty in our doing so arose from the fact that. any Amendment of this Bill such as that which was on the Paper was necessarily out of order for the reasons that I have stated.

Now I turn to the question of the monastic orders and the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend, which would at first sight appear to have so much in their favour. I cannot refrain, in the first instance, from making a reference to his statement that this legislation was brought about for political rather than for religious reasons. That may be perfectly true, but in the days when those particular Acts were passed it was sometimes a little difficult to. separate religion from politics, and I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will agree that the less politics have to do with religion and the less politics and religion are mixed up the better for both. The whole object of this Bill, which is merely to repeal enactments, which are aimed at a particular religious body, is to clear politics of religious strife as far as possible. The hon. and learned Member raised a point which certainly did seem to be a very serious one, when he dealt with the question of the legal position of corporations in this country, and especially corporations formed under what I think he described as a foreign Power. I understood him to include the Pope as a foreign Power. I do not want to quibble over that. He argued that we must be very careful indeed before we allow corporations of that kind to be legal in this country.

The first answer to that is this: The law against these particular corporations has not been actively enforced for many years, and it is a very great mistake, as this is a serious legal matter, that we should have a law making these corporations illegal which is not enforced. That brings me to the hon. Member's suggestion that what we want to do ought not to be done by the repeal of the. Statute, and not to be done by a private Member's Bill, but by a Government Bill, after a full inquiry. If the House desires to deal with the question of the position of corporations in this country as a whole, by all means let it be done by the Government, after full inquiry, and not by a private Member's Bill. We are merely seeking here, not to put any corporation outside the law, but to remove certain enactments, in the nature of penal enactments, which apply to and are directed against one particular type of corporation only, and that a much smaller class of corporation and a much less definite one than my hon. and learned Friend thinks. Many of these Roman Catholic com- munities, bound together by monastic or religious vows, are not formed under any foreign Power. They are formed in this country and formed as English corporations. But, again, there are other such corporations in this country already, I think I am right in saying. There are Moslem corporations in this country, Mohammedan corporations, corporations within the Established Church of England, bound together by what may be described as monastic and religious vows. None of these are affected by this particular Statute which we propose to repeal. If it be the case that all these other bodies are lawful under the law as it at present stands, why should those of one particular religion be unlawful? If the position of corporations of this kind is unsatisfactory, I venture to say