«Новая ирландская конституция: Экспозиция и некоторые аргументы»

Один из самых любопытных аргументов, на которые теперь опираются против гомруля, — это процветание Ирландии при унии. Раньше в качестве доказательства ее неспособности к самоуправлению приводились жалкая нищета и нерадение Ирландии; теперь же благодатные последствия все той же унии породили такое процветание, что самоуправление больше не нужно и даже нежелательно!

Один дерзкий оратор в Белфасте провозгласил «независимый парламент Ирландии — плачевной неудача, а имперский парламент — несомненным успехом». Улучшение положения Ирландии вызывает глубокое удовлетворение, особенно как предвкушение лучшего будущего. Но хвастаться процветанием страны, население которой сократилось наполовину за пятьдесят лет, где мелкие сельскохозяйственные участки с оценкой в 10 фунтов стерлингов составляют половину от общего числа, с ее заболоченными полями и плохо осушенными землями, безлесными холмами и неразвитыми минеральными ресурсами, голодающими крестьянами и босоногими детьми, несущими торфяные брикеты в сельскую школу, — это бессердечная насмешка, исходящая из богатой столицы Севера. «Несомненный успех» века так называемого юнионистского правления — столь же дерзкий полет фантазии. Большинство людей хотели бы видеть довольный народ, живущий по обычным законам конституционного правления, развивающуюся промышленность, растущее население и изобилие продовольствия в качестве признаков несомненного успеха при правительстве с непрерывно возрастающим богатством и могуществом: но семь голодов опустошили страну за этот век; «в течение тридцати пяти лет после унии Ирландией управляли три года из каждых четырех с помощью законов, наделявших правительство чрезвычайными полномочиями; а в следующие пятьдесят лет (1835–1885) было всего три года без Актов о принуждении и преступлениях». Вот вам и расхваленный успех юнионизма в Ирландии! Нынешнее процветание обусловлено Национальным движением, в ответ на которое Гладстон добился арендного права для фермера и отделил Церковь от государства, положив начало той долгой череде благотворных, но запоздалых реформ, которые вдохнули надежду в ирландский народ, и из которых последний и венчающий их дар независимого самоуправления ждет своего завершения.

Возвращаясь к более сугубо религиозным аспектам вопроса, хотя все, что означает свободу и прогресс, должно отзываться в самых теплых чувствах каждого протестанта, давайте вкратце рассмотрим предполагаемые опасности, проистекающие от власти римо-католического духовенства и его влияния на национальное правительство. Неблагородно забывать все, кроме теневой стороны влияния священника в Ирландии. В мрачные дни он был единственным защитником бедняка и заслужил любовь в сердце народа, которую нелегко даровать и непросто потерять. Но любой, кто знаком с ирландской жизнью, не может не заметить изменения в отношениях между священником и народом, предзнаменование ли это добра или зла. Распространение и укрепление демократических настроений, многочисленные связи между ирландской хижиной и детским домом в Америке, распространение образования и влияние прессы оказывают в Ирландии, как и аналогичные причины в других местах, глубокое влияние на простую набожность или, как некоторые называют ее, суеверие народа. Крик «никаких священников в политике» звучит как никогда прежде; и сами священнослужители все шире осознают, что сфера их влияния ограничивается вопросами веры и морали. Тенденции, действующие в европейских католических странах, будут все сильнее проникать в Ирландию, и, возможно, ее опасность исходит не от клерикализма, а от ослабления хватки единственной формы христианства, которая когда-либо завоевывала сердце народа. Во всяком случае, римо-католицизм в Ирландии никогда не был агрессивной силой, навязывающей свою веру другим конфессиям, но кажется довольным тем, что его оставляют в покое и что он беспрепятственно служит своим прихожанам, чего не было в прошлом.

Когда говорят, что протестантские интересы, такие как образование, трезвость, соблюдение воскресного дня, брачные законы и мораль в целом, находятся в неизбежной опасности, что именно имеется в виду? В таких вопросах есть интересы существенные, а есть те, что являются вопросом мнения: очень важные для тех, кто считает их правильными, но не имеющие никакого веса для других. Что касается законодательства по этим вопросам, то если протестанты воображают, будто у них есть какие-то претензии или шансы навязать свои взгляды в Национальном парламенте так, как они привыкли делать или пытаются делать с помощью английских голосов в Вестминстере, то чем раньше они освободятся от иллюзий, тем лучше. Но если они удовлетворены тем, что обеспечивают такие существенные интересы, как основательность образования, повышение уровня трезвости путем реформы, святость брака и свободу соблюдения воскресного дня согласно убеждениям каждого, то какое у них есть основание опасаться, что влияние римо-католического духовенства окажется на стороне, противоположной их целям? В сознании обычного протестанта царит поразительное невежество относительно позиции католического духовенства по моральным и социальным вопросам. В вопросах трезвости, например, ни одна церковь в Ирландии не может соперничать по масштабам или эффективности с работой отцов-капуцинов, редемптористов или организации «Пионеры», созданной священником-иезуитом и соперничающей по тщательности и успеху с кампанией пресвитерианской церкви «Поймай моего друга». В образовании же любой ступени Римско-католическая церковь продвигается с необычайным усердием. Правда, есть протестанты, которые жалуются на противодействие римо-католиков «смешанному образованию» — очевидно несправедливая жалоба, скрытым мотивом которой является сектантская надежда ослабить влияние религии на людей. Среди самих протестантских церквей не было ничего похожего на единодушие по этому вопросу. Каждая из них изо всех сил пыталась обеспечить в сфере образования свои собственные конфессиональные интересы. Именно призыв «Руки прочь от Тринити» погубил законопроект мистера Брайса об университете, который объединил бы молодежь Ирландии в один великий университет, в котором Тринити могла бы стать гордым лидером ирландского университетского образования. Требовать законодательства в области образования на основе смешанной системы совершенно неразумно, поскольку мнения по этому поводу крайне разделены; но в том, что касается острой и успешной конкуренции римо-католических школ и колледжей со всеми старыми институтами страны, у знающих людей нет никаких сомнений.

Что касается нравственных интересов общества, то это довольно смелое предположение, будто они окажутся под угрозой при явно националистическом правительстве. Репутация ирландской нации как первенствующей в домашних добродетелях — это хорошо установленный факт, и никакие инциденты последних лет не могут бросить даже мимолетную тень на доброе имя ее сыновей и дочерей. Стандарт религиозного соблюдения в таком вопросе, как воскресный день, может отличаться от такового у протестантских церквей. На практике последним особо нечем гордиться; и опыт не дает никаких оснований опасаться какого-либо вмешательства в свободнейшее следование их религиозным убеждениям. Декрет Ne temere и случаи несомненной судебной ошибки, проистекающие из него, вызвали много споров и недоверия относительно незыблемости при ирландском парламенте самих узов брака. Святость этих узов в глазах Римско-католической церкви, для которой они являются таинством, не подлежит сомнению; и если целью декрета является, судя по всему, предотвращение смешанных браков, он должен заслужить одобрение многих протестантов, которые решительно осуждают такие союзы; но гражданский закон и исполнительная власть любого правительства должны позаботиться о том, чтобы законно заключенные браки поддерживались всей мощью государства. И у Ирландии, согласно законопроекту мистера Асквита о гомруле, нет причин опасаться какого-либо невыполнения этого долга. Что же касается декрета, широко известного как Motu proprio, то он никогда не провозглашался и не применялся ни в Ирландии, ни где-либо еще в британских владениях. Он был извлечен на свет после веков своего существования партийной газетой и использован по полной программе, и даже много больше, чтобы разжечь антикатолические предрассудки и набрать очки в ирландской дискуссии.

Что касается гарантий, мнения среди протестантов сильно разделены. В лучшем случае они представляют собой временную меру для успокоения страха и никогда не смогут заменить те подлинные и почтенные гарантии, которые можно найти в свободе и гласности обсуждения, распространении просвещения и веротерпимости, растущем духе христианского братства и доброй воли. Положения правительственного законопроекта кажутся достаточными, но любые бумажные гарантии легко обходятся, и протестантам следует полагаться на более прочные и духовные заверения.

Редко у протестантизма был столь прекрасный шанс, какой выпадет ему в Ирландии при самоуправлении, если только, вдохновленный духом своего Учителя и любовью к своей исконной свободе, он будет стремиться не к захвату власти, а к служению, если его идеалом характера станет не «ветхий человек» с его преследующими воспоминаниями о причиненном и перенесенном зле, а «новый человек» Евангелия, вдохновленный свежим энтузиазмом ради реализации Божественного замысла в возрожденном человеческом обществе. Ни одна протестантская церковь, возможно, никогда не станет Церковью Ирландии, на что претендует одно мощное причастие с оттенком былого высокомерия; тем не менее протестантизм может внести свой вклад в национальное благочестие и прогресс, более того, он может стать еще одним оплотом христианской веры в дни испытаний и напряжений, если сможет продемонстрировать естественно религиозному народу осязаемое доказательство возможности объединения апостольского символа веры с интеллектуальными запросами современного прогресса и тем самым помочь спасти молодежь Ирландии от опустошающего материализма. Таким образом, протестантизм еще сможет совершить благочестивое искупление за множество нечестивых дел, совершенных во имя его по отношению к самому великодушному народу под солнцем.

Примечания

1.Professor Dicey in “A Leap in the Dark” (1911), p. 118. Cf. Mr. Balfour in The Times, May 3rd, 1912.2.“The Law of Constitution,” Sixth Edition, p. 162, where Professor Dicey makes a rather unhappy attempt to force the Dominion Constitution into the category of Federalism.3.The opinion of Laband (“Staatsrecht,” I., passim) as to its being found in the totality of allied Governments represented by the Bundesrath is probably nearest the truth.4.Laband, “Die Entwickelung des Bundesraths,” Jahrbuch des oeffentlichen Rechts, 1907, Vol. I., p. 18.5.Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 345.6.It is difficult to understand what Professor Dicey means by saying “unity is increasing throughout the Empire.” His argument seems like a play upon the words unity and union. In merchant shipping, copyright and other such matters, the whole tendency is towards differentiation.7.There are innumerable cases, e.g. Cruikshank's case and the Slaughter House case.8.Cf. Mr. Balfour, The Times, May 3rd.9.Cf. “Pacificus” in The Times, April 30th.10.I refer, of course, to the decisions of the Supreme Court—decisions almost revolutionary in their character—in connection with the annexation of Hawaii, the Philippines and Porto Rico. See in particular Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S., 244; also Territory of Hawaii v. Makichi, 23 S.C. Rep., 787, and Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S., 138.11.It cannot be contended with any show of reason that the grant of a constitution legally carries with it a grant of the Executive power such as to divest the Imperial Government of its authority. There is but a solitary opinion to the opposite effect—that of Higginbottom, C. J. of Victoria, in Musgrove v. Toy (Victorian Law Reports, XIV., 349).12.The veto of the central Government on the local legislature is the most decisive departure from the Federal principle. The Judicial Committee have always regarded it, in the case of the British North America Act, as a conclusive reason for rejecting the application of the Federal doctrines of the U.S. Courts to the interpretation of the Canadian Constitution. See infra, and cf. Bank of Toronto v. Lambe, 12 App. Cas., 575.13.Difficulties arise when, as in the case of the Australian Commonwealth, an attempt is made to reconcile the principles of the American Constitution with those of the English Constitution. The State Governments in Australia, equally with the Federal Government, are carried on in the name of the Crown; what, then, becomes of the prerogative doctrine that the Crown is not bound by a taxing statute, when the Federal Executive attempts to levy Customs duties under a Federal statute upon the property of a State Government? The High Court found itself compelled to distinguish between several capacities of the Crown in a Federal system. See A-G. of New South Wales v. Collector of Customs, 5 C.L.R., 818.14.In re Neagle, 135 U.S. Rep., p. 1.15.Cf. Sir William Anson, in the Law Quarterly Review, 1886.16.There is, however, a provision in Clause XXVI. of the Bill Providing that, in the event of a revision of the financial arrangements being recommended by the Joint Exchequer Board, with a view to securing an Imperial contribution from Irish revenues, and “extending the powers of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government with respect to the imposition and collection of taxes,” there shall be summoned to the Imperial Parliament such number of members of the Irish House of Commons as will raise the representation of Ireland in that Parliament from its reduced figure of forty-two to such a number (say seventy) as will represent Ireland's claim to representation on a population basis. That is to say, the Irish Parliament will send some twenty-eight of its members to reinforce the forty-two members who are directly elected to the Imperial Parliament by the constituencies. It is only proper that Ireland should not be required to contribute to Imperial purposes except with the consent of the full representation to which she is entitled. But the clause will require more careful definition: for example, the Irish Parliament ought to be required to choose these twenty-eight delegates in proportion to the representation of Irish parties in the Imperial Parliament, so as not to “pack” the delegation. It can hardly be denied that the provision makes a change in the constitution of the Imperial Parliament itself, and a somewhat anomalous one. It ought to be carefully considered in Committee. So, also, ought the powers of the Joint Exchequer Board, whose decisions are to be “final and conclusive.”17.Clause XLI.18.Clause XLI. (2).19.The power of the Dominion Parliament to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada has, however, been so interpreted as to permit of a large degree of concurrent legislation. See Russell v. The Queen, 7 App. Cas. 829. The Dominion Government can also exercise a veto on provincial legislation when it runs counter to the “settled policy” of the Dominion. But in these respects the Canadian Constitution diverges from the true Federal type.20.The King v. Barger, Commonwealth Law Reports, VI., p. 41.21.Riel v. The Queen, 10 App. Cas. 675.22.Cf. Reg. v. Burah, 3 App. Cas. 889; Hodge v. The Queen, 9 App. Cas. 117; Powell v. The Apollo Candle Company, 10 App. Cas. 282.23.The Imperial Parliament can, of course, legislate for any part of the world (Cf. Earl Russell's Case, 1901, App. Cas. 446), but its power is limited in practice.24.Cf. Bank of Toronto v. Lambe, 12 App. Cas. 575.25.In McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton 316.26.I am concerned here only with the justification for the omission of constitutional restrictions. The Bill, as compared with its predecessors, is conspicuous in this respect. Such restrictions as it actually contains are dealt with by Sir John Macdonell in Chapter IV.27.Let me cite in illustration Tilonko v. The Attorney-General of Natal, L.R. (1907), A.C. 93 and 461, and Philips v. Eyre (1869), Q.B.28.Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90.29.Cf. Clause IV. (8) of the 1893 Bill.30.Such legislation must affect alike all persons similarly situated, cf. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.31.Cf. on this subject the decision of the Judicial Committee in Union Colliery Co. of British Columbia v. Bryden (1899) A.C. 580.32.“Towards a Social Policy” (1905).33.For example, the statutory limitations of the doctrine of common employment which was based on the common law doctrine that the workman had freely contracted to undertake the risks of his employment.34.Mr. Justice O. W. Holmes, of the Supreme Court of the United States, writes to me on the subject of constitutional restrictions as follows: “The police power is a 'conciliatory phrase' to cover the fact that if the infringement is not very big it will be sustained. The police power would warrant a State law limiting the height of buildings in a certain region to, say, 70 feet; but if you limited them to 5 feet you would have to fall back on Eminent Domain and pay for it—so that the beginning of constitutional rights may be measured in feet. In other words, constitutional restrictions cannot be carried to extremes, but end in a penumbra.”35.The best example of this liberalising interpretation of the police power is the famous Slaughter House Case (16 Wall. 36). Cf. as to regulation of the liquor trade Barbemeyer v. Iowa (18 Wall. 129), and Mayler v. Kansas (123 U.S. 623). For a general review of cases bearing on the restrictive words of the Fourteenth Amendment and their qualification by the necessity of allowing State Legislatures the benefit of the police power, see the case of the Utah Miners Act, 18 Supreme Court Reporter 383.36.Cf. the leading case of Metropolitan Asylums Board v. Hill and cf. Partington v. The Attorney-General, L.R. 4 H.L. 122.37.The decisions of the Supreme Court at Washington in the annexation cases are a remarkable example of this. Their decision in the case of Dorr v. United States that trial by jury did not extend to the Philippines, on the ground that it was not a right fundamental in its nature, set up a distinction which is not to be found in the Constitution itself, and therefore left it to the court to decide principles of constitutional law which are unwritten. Cf. Harvard Law Review XIX. 547.38.As to the safeguard against legislation affecting the rights of religious minorities and to laws of marriage, see Sir John Macdonell's remarks in Chapter IV. infra.39.Cf. Philips v. Eyre supra.40.This would apply to the Tenure of Office Act.41.The mere fact that the Crown had given its consent to an Irish Act would not make that Act intra vires if it exceeded the powers of the Irish Legislature. It might subsequently be declared ultra vires by a Court at any time.42.I am not at all sure that this provision was necessary. The Crown already has the power under 3 & 4 Will. IV. cap 41, sec. 4 to refer to the Judicial Committee any such matters whatsoever as it may think fit. The Canadian Government has a similar power conferred on it by the Supreme Court Act, 1875, extended by 54 & 55 Vict., enabling the Governor-General in Council to refer to the Supreme Court certain specified matters, particularly questions touching the validity of provincial or Dominion legislation. The decision of the court operates as a declaratory judgment, on which an appeal may be taken to the Judicial Committee. For example of its exercise cf. the Manitoba Schools Case. See Sir Frederick Pollock's remarks in Chapter III.43.The English judges, even when favourable to the claims of the early Irish Parliament, insisted on this limitation. Cf. the Case of the Merchants of Waterford; Year Book, Ric. III., fol. 12.44.Cf. Section 264 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894; also the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881 (44 & 45 Vict., cap. 69).45.Cf. the Naturalization Act of 1870.46.The law as to treason is not necessarily the same in the Colonies. Cf. Riel v. The Queen, 10 App. Cas. 675, and also R. v. Marais, L.T. Rep. LXXXV., p. 363.47.There can, I think, be no doubt as to the necessity. I know but one opinion, and not a very authoritative one, to the contrary, namely that of a Chief Justice of the Colony of Victoria. See Musgrove v. Toy V.L. Rep. XIV. 349, and supra.48.Even, however, if there had not been such an express grant of the executive power in the Act, the Irish Parliament might, I think, have assumed it by legislation. A colonial Legislature can, subject, of course, to the veto of the Crown, confer on the Colonial Government the prerogatives in so far as they are necessary to the domestic government of the colony. Cf. Lefroy, “Legislative Power in Canada,” p. 180.49.No doubt the statutory powers exercisable under the first two Acts would come within the control of the Irish Government.50.His office is not the creation of statute except in so far as it was necessary to place his salary on the Estimates. His office has, however, frequently received statutory recognition in connection with the creation of new Departments. Cf. the Irish Local Government Board Act (1872), Section 3.51.I have examined with some care the theory of Second Chambers in my articles in The Nineteenth Century, for November, 1910, and June, 1911. I may also refer the reader to my book on “The House of Lords and the Constitution,” and particularly to the Lord Chancellor's preface to the same. Foreign examples are dealt with in the reprint of the author's lectures on “The Place of a Second Chamber in the Constitution” (1911).52.There is this much to be said for nomination, that it does fulfil the condition laid down by Alexander Hamilton and by Story as the first canon of the bi-cameral theory—namely, that the basis of the two chambers should be radically different. See Story's Commentaries (ed. Bigelow) Vol. I., Section 690. This is not so easy to secure by election in modern times when there is suspicion of any other than a democratic franchise.53.Clause XII. (4).54.For a survey of the Second Chambers in the Colonies I may refer the reader to my article on the subject in The Contemporary Review for May, 1910.55.Kielley v. Carson, 4 Moore P.C. 63.56.I refer the reader for detailed treatment of the subjects of Irish Appeals, Constitutional Limitations, and Police and Judiciary, to the chapters by Sir Frederick Pollock, Sir John Macdonell and Serjeant Molony. I have not thought it necessary to touch on the financial provisions of the Bill, as they are exhaustively treated by Lord Welby in Chapter V.57.The Times, April 16th.58.See Mr. Cecil Harmsworth's essay on the “State of Public Business,” Chap. XV. of this work.59.Cf. for example, Jellinek's “Gesetz und Verordnung” (Freiburg, 1887), pp. 20-35.60.I may here refer to an article of mine in the Nineteenth Century for April of last year.61.Statutory changes in the common law (it would be more correct to call it “the civil law”) of Scotland are rarely made by Parliament except on the initiative, or with the consent, of Scottish members. There is a remarkable clause in the Act of Union between England and Scotland (6 Anne, Cap II., Art. xviii.) providing that “no alteration may be made in the (Scotch) laws which concern private right except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.”62.The law relating to matrimonial causes in Ireland is governed by the Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment Act of 1870, and is practically the same as the English Law before the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857.63.Power to make such re-arrangements or transfers by Order in Council is given by Sections XL. and XLIV. of the Government of Ireland Bill.—Editorial Note.64.The control by Government, of course, does not extend to the magistrates' judicial functions.65.Recorders and County Court Judges are appointed by the Irish Government.66.Clause XXI. of the Bill provides for this.—Editorial Note.67.“Money for loans in Ireland shall cease to be advanced either by the Public Works Loans Commissioners or out of the Local Loans Fund” (Clause XIV. (3)).—Editorial Note.68.If transferred to the Irish Government.69.The Office of Arms is now directly controlled by the Lord-Lieutenant, and it is a question whether it should not remain so.70.The clause in question which set up a Court to be known as the Exchequer Division with a quasi-federal jurisdiction has not been repeated. See Chapter I. of this work.—Editorial Note.71.Clauses II. and V. provide for the reservation of the Constabulary for a period of six years from the appointed day, at the end of which the force is to be transferred to the Irish Government. The Dublin Metropolitan Police is transferable at once.—Editorial Note.72.Under the Bill it is permanently reserved, i.e., “excluded.”—Ibid.73.Provision is made by Clause IV. of the Bill for the appointment of heads of Departments who shall be known as “Ministers.” See Chapter I. of this work.—Editorial Note.74.This convention of the English Constitution, which rests on a Standing Order of the House of Commons, is embodied in the Bill (Clause X. (2)).—Ibid.75.A similar provision appears in the new Bill, but the character of the Executive Committee is much more explicitly defined. See Clause IV.; also Chapter I. of this work.—Editorial Note.76.Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, at pp. 177-8.77.The principal authority is Hodge v. Reg. (1883) 9 App. Ca. 117, 132. See also the Maritime Bank of Canada's case (1892) A.C. 437, 442.78.Ex parte Carew (1897) A.C. 719. It is not clear that the judgment was adequately considered.79.See Russell v. Reg. (1882) 7 App. Ca., 829, 839.80.Citizens' Insurance Company of Canada v. Parsons (1881) 7 App. Ca. 96, 109.81.Webb v. Outrim (1907) A.C. 81. The appeal which before the Constitution Act of 1900 lay direct to the Crown in Council from the Supreme Courts of the several Australian Colonies is not abolished.82.3 and 4 Will. IV. c. 41, s. 4. Under this section the question whether the Royal assent should be given to a Bill of the Irish Parliament could certainly be referred to the Judicial Committee, but it seems doubtful whether an Act already passed could be so dealt with, as the matter would then be beyond the competence of an Order in Council.83.See Prof. Harrison Moore in Law Quart. Rev., xx. 236.84.The Syllabus of March 8th, 1861 (Proposition 57) condemned the proposition that “any other religion than the Roman Catholic may be established by the State.”85.To illustrate this, I quote first from a Roman Catholic writer of distinction: “Religious liberty may be introduced when it is required for the common good, to prevent greater evils, or when it has been a necessity” (Hergenröther, Vol. II., p. 364). “Where modern States exist with freedom of conscience and several religious denominations with equal rights, it is impossible further to carry out the principles of the Church. In these days the Church is confined to the purely ecclesiastical domain, and her whole endeavours must be directed to preserve her necessary freedom, or if she does not possess it, to win it back” (Hergenröther, Vol. I., p. 65). The next quotation is from a modern Protestant historian “The Pope would like to have freedom of conscience in Sweden and Russia; but he does not wish for it on principle, but only as a means which may be used by Providence to propagate the truth in those countries. Pius IX. and Mgr. Pie were agreed that only in countries where the Catholics are in a minority might religious freedom be wished for by Catholics” (Nielsen “History of the Papacy in the Nineteenth Century,” Vol. II., p. 263). See also Ueber die Entwickelung des Katolischen Kirchenrechts im 19. Jahrhundert, Von Dr. Fritz Fleiner.86.Mr. Gladstone (“Church and State,” p. 185) enumerates eight principles adopted by modern Governments with regard to the support of religion and the treatment of its varieties. He subsequently reduces them to four; the first in which heresy and schism were visited with civil penalty pro salute animæ for the cure of the individual.

The second in which they were similarly visited, but chiefly in the view of preventing the infection of society within which limits they had appeared. The third in which disqualifications of a civil kind are imposed instead of penalties. The fourth is that in which all forms of religion claim from Government a precisely equal regard, as respects either civil privileges or positive assistance (pp. 187, 188). Zeller (“Staat und Kirche,” p. 6) reduces the principles to three; substantial identity of Church and State; complete separation; partial separation and identity.87.As to meaning of “establishment,” see Bradfield v. Roberts (1899), 175 U.S. 291.88.The German Reichsgesetz of July 3rd, 1869, expressly repeals all civic disqualifications based upon religion (Laband, Vol. I., p. 148).89.See as to cases which have come before the Swiss Courts (Buckhardt, p. 484).90.Keith: “Responsible Government in the Dominions,” Vol. III., 1423n. In Gignac's “Compendium Juris Canonici ad Usum Cleri Canadensis” (1901) is a statement of the large rights which the Catholic Church has acquired in Canada in virtue of treaties.91.See, as to the effect of this section, Barrett v. City of Winnipeg (1892) A.C. 445; also Brophy v. Attorney-General of Manitoba (1895) A.C. 202.92.“There is at present no general marriage law for the Dominion, and it is disputed whether the Dominion Parliament has power to pass such an Act. Each province has legislated with respect to this subject. The Government of the Dominion have just referred to the Supreme Court (March 11th) a stated case regarding the respective jurisdictions of the Dominion and provinces in regard to a marriage law. The Quebec provinces argued that there is no power on the part of the Dominion Parliament to submit such a case to the Supreme Court. The point stands over until May 7th.” (The Globe, Toronto, March 12th.)93.Brown v. Curé de Montreal, L.R. 6, P.C. 157. See O'Keefe v. Cullen, Report by Fitzpatrick; also 7 Irish Reports, 319.94.The Times, March 1st, 1911.95.It is only right that the rest of the letter should be quoted: “But it is, in my opinion, much to be regretted that by the promulgation of the decree, and even more by the language which appears to be sometimes used to secure obedience to it, the Roman Catholic Church should introduce confusion into domestic life and give rise to unnecessary and disquieting doubts as to the legal validity of marriages already contracted, or as to the lawful status of persons who may hereafter marry.”96.“Ecclesia haec matrimonia mixta communiter improbavit atque detestata,” Lehmkuhl Theologia Moralis, Vol. II., p. 511.97.See Statement by Monsignor Bidwell in Dublin Review, 148, p. 327; also article “Apostolicæ Sedis.” Vacant, Dictionnaire Théologie Catholique.98.Reiffensteuel, Vol. II., p. 245, asserts that the privilege is not lost by immemorial custom, even as to civil matters.99.It is perhaps hardly necessary to remind the reader that Lord Welby was a member of the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between England and Ireland which reported in 1896.—Editorial Note.100.The “true” revenue differs from the collected revenue, by making allowance for duties paid in the one country on articles consumed in the other.101.Any charge in excess of £1,000,000 on the Constabulary was to be borne by the Imperial Exchequer.102.Probably over-estimated.103.True Revenue £8,000,000, Irish Expenditure £6,000,000, Contribution £2,000,000.104.It is not clear from the Bill or the explanatory paper, whether the Irish Postal Revenue will be paid into the British Exchequer in the first instance, or retained in the Irish Exchequer. I presume the former.105.£11,339,000 minus £7,562,000 = £3,777,000.106.The Constabulary charge is fixed at first at £1,337,000. If in the six years of Imperial control the cost rises to (say) £1,500,000-£1,500,000 will be the sum transferred; but the Bill does not say what is to happen if the cost were to fall to (say) £1,300,000. Explanation is needed as to the effect of the proviso that regard is to be had to the prospect of any increase or decrease expected to arise from causes not being matters of administration.107.60 and 61 Vic. c. 66, 7 Edward VII. c. 44.108.6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 29; 7 Will. IV., and 1 Vict., c. 25; 5 & 6 Vict., c. 24.109.Civil Service Estimates, 1912-1913, Class III., p. III.110.6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 13; 2 & 3 Vict., c. 75; 22 & 23 Vict., c. 22.111.Civil Service Estimates, 1912-1913, Class III., p. 119.112.Taking Census of 1911 as a basis, see Civil Service Estimates 1912-1913, Class III. pp. 111 and 119, Reports of H.M. Inspectors of Constabulary for England and Wales, 1910, p. 135.113.“Against Home Rule,” p. 155.114.4 Bingham, “New Cases,” p. 574.115.Judgments of the Superior Courts in Ireland published under the direction of the Attorney-General for the information of magistrates (1889), p. 23.116.Attorney-General v. Kissane, 32 Law Reports, Ireland, p. 220.117.4 Bingham, “New Cases”, p. 574 supra.118.“The Motu Proprio ‘Quantavis Diligentia’ and its Critics,” by the Archbishop of Dublin, p. 10.119.Speech upon the Address, February, 1909.120.This sum has, since the 31st of March, been considerably reduced.121.Part I. of this Chapter incorporates the statement on the Land Question prepared by the Right Hon. W. F. Bailey, Estates Commissioner for the Commission on Congestion in Ireland, presided over by the Earl of Dudley. It has been brought up-to-date, but otherwise it is almost word for word as the learned Commissioner wrote it.122.Cf. Mr. Balfour, The Times, November 7th, 1911.123.A considerable portion of this chapter appeared in the form of an article in The Contemporary Review in the year 1887, but it has been rewritten by Lord Fitzmaurice for the purposes of this work. We have to thank the Editor of the The Contemporary Review for his kind permission to make use of the original text—Editorial Note.124.Speech of October 28th, 1738: “Grattan's Speeches,” i., 183.125.Grattan to Fox, April 18th, 1782: “Fox's Correspondence,” i., 403.126.“Grattan's Speeches,” i., 129.127.“Fox's Correspondence,” by Lord Russell, i. 412.128.Lord Rockingham to Lord Shelburne, May 25th, 1782, “Parliamentary History,” xxxiv., 979.129.“Life of Lord Shelburne,” iii., 144.130.“Fox's Correspondence,” i., 417, 418.131.“Life of Lord Shelburne,” iii., 145.132.See “Life of Grattan.”133.“Fox's Correspondence,” i., 416; “Life of Lord Shelburne,” iii., 143.134.“Life of Lord Shelburne,” iii., 146.135.Fox: “Speeches,” ii., 64, 65.136.“Grattan's Speeches,” Vol. III., 355, 409; January 15th, February 22nd, 1800. “Fox's Correspondence,” i., 426; “Life of Lord Shelburne,” iii., 149; “Parliamentary History,” xxx., 957 (Speech of General Fitzpatrick).137.Speech of July 19th, 1782.138.Speech of Grattan, January 15th, 1800: “Speeches,” Vol. III., 355.139.“Fox's Correspondence,” i., 431.140.“Life of Lord Shelburne,” iii., 150.141.“Parliamentary History,” xxxiv., 675, 678; “Memoirs of the Whig Party,” by Lord Holland, I. 147; “Life of Lord Shelburne,” iii., 554, 555.142.Letter on the Affairs of Ireland, 1797.143.28 Geo. III., c. 28.144.Much interesting light has been thrown on the history of the struggle in 1782-1783 between Grattan and Flood, by the publication of the Diary and Correspondence of Lord Charlemont, in the Reports of the Historical MSS. Commission, Twelfth Report, Appendix Part X., 1891. The abstract doctrine of the legislative supremacy of the British Parliament, and not only the practical application of that doctrine, was strenuously disputed by many of the leaders of Colonial Opinion in America as well as in Ireland at the commencement of the XVIIIth century, as a reference to the literature of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act of 1766 will show. The doctrine itself was one of the consequences of the Revolution of 1688, which true to the general principle of exalting the importance of the British Parliament, abolished on the one hand the right of the Crown to tax the Colonies by virtue of its prerogative, and on the other asserted a right in the British Parliament to legislate and tax in the “settled” Colonies of the Crown concurrently with the local representative assemblies, and, if necessary, over their heads. The same class of arguments were used both by Colonial and by Irish statesmen against the claims of the British Parliament to interfere as between them and the Crown; but the Irish case was always the stronger of the two, because her advocates were able to start from the admitted right and position of Ireland as a kingdom, with a Crown of her own. To the claims of the British Parliament, the Whig statesmen, recognising their danger in practice, tried to set constitutional limitations, and hence grew up the distinction, on which the elder Pitt relied, between the right of Great Britain to impose by law internal taxation within the Colonies for the purposes of revenue, and her right to levy external taxation for the regulation of Colonial trade. This distinction, however, from a legal point of view, Lord Mansfield showed, would not bear examination, and he laid down the law to be, that the Parliament of Great Britain had an absolute legislative supremacy over her Colonies—and by implication over Ireland—in all cases whatever, whether for internal or external objects; whether to impose a tax, or to regulate trade; whether to levy money, or to make general enactments; and this doctrine it was which was recorded in the Declaratory Act of George III. of 1766, relating to the Colonies, the counterpart of the Declaratory Act of George I., relating to Ireland. (See Bancroft, Vol. III., Ch. xix., The Absolute Power of Parliament; “Life of Lord Shelburne,” Vol. I., Ch. iv., p. 253.)145.“Life of Lord Shelburne,” i., 285.146.Montesquieu, “Considérations sur la Grandeur et la Decadence des Romains.”147.Lecky.148.For further details see Dublin Castle and the Irish People.149.Bright.150.Poor Law Commission (Ireland) Report 1903-1906, p. 12.151.“Dublin Castle and the Irish People.”152.Gavan Duffy: “Young Ireland.”153.“In Ireland,” said Lord Normanby, “the landlord has the monopoly of the means of existence, and has a power of enforcing his bargains which does not exist anywhere—the power of starvation.”154.Gavan Duffy: League of North and South.155.I have done so in “Dublin Castle and the Irish People,” see p. 264, et seq.156.Mr. Commissioner Bailey.157.John Stuart Mill.158.A debate took place in the House of Lords on the subject on February 17th, 1905. The correspondence between Mr. G. Wyndham and Sir A. MacDonnell on the latter's appointment appears as an appendix in “The Outlook in Ireland” (John Murray. 1912.)159.Mr. Barry O'Brien's “Life of Parnell.” Vol. I., p. 93.160.“Federation and Empire,” p. 315. (H. Henry & Co., 1896.)161.This Table has already been published in a chapter which I contributed to “Home Rule Problems,” edited by Basil Williams (King, 1911).162.“Home Rule Problems,” pp. 67-72. (King, 1911.)163.“Parliamentary Debates,” Vol. CCCXVIII., p. 688.164.A Quarterly Review of the politics of the British Empire, which is entirely free from any partisan prepossessions.165.See Kipling's “Ulster.”166.“Irish Nationality” (Home University Library.)