In the House of Lords on Tuesday the Royal Declaration
Bill was read a second time by a majority of 90 votes (96 to 6). Lord Salisbury made a very powerful speech in which he dwelt on the necessity, on the one hand, for cutting awry the offensive expressions, but, on the other, for altering the Declaration as little as possible. After the Archbishop of Canterbury had declared that, though not very favourable to the particular form of words, he intended to vote for the second reading, Lord Rosebery intervened to suggest that as it was not likely that the Bill would pass the Commons, the whole subject should be referred back to a Select Committee of a larger and more representa- tive character. Lord Salisbury, however, refused to do this. We regret that decision. It seems to us that it would be well for a Committee of lawyers and ecclesiastics to be asked whether the Protestant succession is not amply protected by the law without the Declaration, but, if not, what form of words would secure that essential protection without giving unnecessary offence to Roman Catholics. That, it seems to us, would be the businesslike way of dealing with the matter. We believe that, in fact, such a Committee would report that no Declaration is necessary, the statutory protection against a Roman Catholic succession being already all that is required.
Previous page
