§ MR. REYNOLDS moved that the House at its rising adjourn to Monday next.
335§ MR. MOOREBefore we proceed to the regular business of the House, I am compelled to call attention to a subject full of painful recollections, but upon which I am compelled by a regard to my own character and position in this House—humble as I am—to offer a few words; and in doing so I can assure you, Sir, and the House, that if yesterday, in giving expression to the indignation which I felt, and which I was constrained under the circumstances of the case to utter, I trespassed in the slightest degree upon the rules and regulations of the House, there is no person who regrets it more than I do. If I infringe upon those rules at any time, it is owing entirely to my want of knowledge of those rules, not to any indifference either to the rules of the House, or your authority, both of which I hold in the greatest respect, and which it is the interest as well as the duty of us all to maintain unimpaired. But while I say this, and bow most implicitly to your decision, that the opinion which I was about to express would have been disorderly if uttered then, I cannot allow any misconception to exist as to the opinion which I was about to express. My opinion was, that the hon. Member for West Surrey had spoken not only with irreverence, but with a levity which almost amounted to indecency, of the sacred name which all classes and generations of Christians have called "Blessed,"—that he used that name in a manner which ought not to have been permitted in an assembly of professing Christians. And yet it was of that name that the hon. Member for West Surrey applied such expressions as "false miracles and impostures." Sir, there is a decent as well as an indecent mode of conducting an argument; and I would appeal to any assembly of Englishmen whether, if instead of the Mother of God, the name of the mother of the future Princes of these realms' had been so used, the indignation of the House would not at once have checked the insult? Sir, there were other expressions which the hon. Gentleman did not hesitate to use, but in regard to which I will imitate the conduct of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, and not suffer to pollnte my lips; but I will say that to apply these terms to Christian ladies who have dedicated their lives to charity and to God, ought not to be permitted in any assembly of English Gentlemen; and I appeal not only to the accomplished and cultivated minds of English gentle- 336 men, but to the instinctive feelings of men, to prevent the repetition of these obscenities of senility, and to repel these dastardly insinuations—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must retract the word dastardly.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLAs the hon. Member has called the attention of the House to this subject, I beg, though I was not in the House at the time the interruption took place, to say a few words. I was in the House when the Speaker ruled the question of order, and it appeared to me that nothing could be more correct, nor more in accordance with the rules and regulations of the House, than the statement of the Speaker on that subject. Of course, it is not for the Speaker either to fall short of the Orders of the House, or to enforce them beyond their due meaning. For my part, I do not wish that the Orders of the House should either be enlarged, or that the rules of debate should be made too stringent. But this I must say, that every hon. Member must regret if anything fell from any hon. Member in the course of debate offensive to the feelings of other hon. Members. It must, I think, be the wish of the House that, not only from respect to their own dignity, but from respect and deference to the feelings of others, hon. Gentlemen should avoid topics which can in any way be considered disrespectful or offensive to the feelings of others.
§ MR. JOHN O'CONNELLOn this subject, Sir, I have been somewhat anticipated; but I shall still feel it my duty to put to you the question of which I gave you notice. That question was—
An hon. Member of this House, the Member for Surrey, having spoken in terms of levity and insult of certain practices connected with the religion of other Members, which, although not enjoined upon them as of faith, are, and have long been, sanctioned by competent authority and recommended for devout observance; and the same hon. Member having proceeded to speak in similar terms on subjects usually held in reverence by Christians of all denominations—involving an allusion, the terms of which is impossible for a Christian to repeat, to the Mother of our common Redeemer—is it to be understood that such conduct, tending as it does to outrage not only right feeling and charity, but Christianity itself, was in order; and that a repetition of it will, therefore, be permitted in the British House of Commons?I think that nothing can be more unfortu- 337 nate with regard to our future proceedings, than that such language should he tolerated among Christian men. I will not allude to the matter in stronger terms, because the language may he held to have been to some extent withdrawn, by the regret which the hon. Member used for his expressions. I agree with my hon. Friends that that apology is not sufficient; but I think it will be fatal indeed to our future proceedings if we have not some guarantee that such expressions, or expressions similar to them, will not be repeated. If it should go forth to the world that in the House of Commons, a Christian assembly, such expressions, touching matters which are held sacred by all Christians, are allowed to pass, I, for for one, cannot hope that order in this House will be preserved, for it will be impossible to sit patiently and listen to them.
§ SIR R. H. INGLISSir, after the expressions of the hon. Member for West Surrey last night, immediately that he found the language he had used was noticed in terms of complaint, that if he had given pain to any one he humbly begged their pardon—after the speech we have recently heard from the hon. Member for Mayo, that he felt it both his interest and his duty to maintain the order of the House, and that he also was sorry for any violence he might have used, and after the statement of my noble Friend the First Minister of the Crown, deprecating the introduction of language which would give needless pain to any man—I think it would he much better that no further notice were taken of this subject.
§ MR. REYNOLDSSir, I heard last night a second edition enlarged of this under current now running against those establishments which belong more particularly to the Catholic Church—I mean the nunneries. I heard it last night. I heard it by second-hand—I was not present—I heard it by retail, for I read it in the papers—that the hon. Member for West Surrey—and he was not interrupted by any English Member except the hon. Member for Arundel—read the phrase used in describing those convents. I am glad I was not present, because of the rule, and it is a wise one, that no man shall be called to order unless he uses language personally offensive—or at least the offence may be enlarged from one to at least fifty Members, who profess and believe sincerely in the truth of the Catholic religion, and I am one of them. It was an insult to me 338 as well as to them, and I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without expressing my indignation at language thus used. And although the right hon. Baronet, who is a high authority in this House, and as a peacemaker is a high authority, remarkable always for allaying passion rather than increasing it, remarkable for throwing oil on troubled waters, has endeavoured to do so, that will not do. He states the hon. Member for West Surrey has apologised. It reminds me of the Irish adage, "Cut my head and give me a plaster." Apologises, for what? "Nunneries are either prisons or brothels." An apology for that? Why, Sir, I have visited many of these nunneries to which reference is made; I have relations in many—I have two daughters in one of them receiving their education. There is not a Catholic Member in the House who has not blood relations in some one or other of them. These establishments have been maligned—brutally and beastly maligned. And, Sir, I do know that in the convent to which I have referred, the ladies who receive education there, are not imprisoned. They are permitted to walk through the grounds attached to the convents under proper superintendence. Well, Sir, even at the risk of exciting an ill-timed laugh—an ill-timed laugh, I say, not to call it by any harsher name than that—I will state what I was about to state, that I know many of those convents that are not prisons. I shall not degrade myself, nor degrade the establishments that I thought had escaped the foul vituperation, by stating that they do not come within the other base epithet. But I attribute it to the same spirit which drove out the inmates of the convent in Switzerland, robbing them of their property, and exposing them to the inclemency of the weather. I was glad to hear the noble Lord at the head of the Government was not present when the first insult, was offered by the hon. Member for West Surrey; but he was present at the second, and I did, to-day, hear many express their astonishment that, during the hour and a quarter which he occupied in reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon—during that hour and a quarter, he adverted to a great variety of speeches—to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, to the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, and to other speeches—that he did not apply one word of censure to the speech of the hon. Member for 339 West Surrey. And let it not be said that the speech of the hon. Member for West Surrey was the only speech of an offensive character against my creed and my country delivered last night, for I consider the speech of the noble Lord himself may be called No. 2. I heard the reference to education, and the interference of the Catholic clergy, and it filled me with anything but feelings of pleasure. I heard reference made to the probability of ecclesiastics of my Church releasing soldiers and policemen from their allegiance. Sir, I felt at the time that if the observation was good for anything, it was good for this, namely, to release me, as a Roman Catholic Member of Parliament, from the oath which I took at that table, and which is the oath I have taken as a magistrate, and as a Member of Parliament, that, by no article of my faith, can any prince, excommunicated by the Pope of Rome be deposed, or his subjects released from their allegiance. That oath is taken by every soldier that is a Roman Catholic, by every sailor, and every policeman. I am not charging the noble Lord with any intention to assert that Roman Catholic authority can, by possibility, even of the Pope himself, abrogate that oath, or release me from the punishment of its violation; but it left a bitter feeling. I have smarted under it, and I hope it will not be repeated.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLI beg to state, after what has fallen from the hon. Member for Dublin, I understand him to say that I was here when the hon. Member for West Surrey gave offence to many Members, and that I did not make any observation on the subject in the speech which I afterwards delivered. The fact is, I was not in the House when the hon. Member for West Surrey made that observation, and not having been here, I thought it better for me to refrain altogether from alluding to it. And having stated this as the fact, as the hon. Gentleman has alluded to my speech of yesterday evening, I must say I do not concede that on a question regarding the division of temporal and spiritual concerns, I am debarred from using any argument which bears upon that point. I do not think that in putting that argument, I said anything which ought to give offence to any one. I have heard, and other Members must have heard, when questions in relation to the Church of England have arisen in this House, those topics have been freely discussed. I must say, 340 whilst I wish that no Member of this House should give offence to any religious feelings, I do not wish those limits to be restrained, and that we should not discuss freely matters affecting either the Roman Catholic or the Protestant Church.
§ Subject dropped.