§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the disturbances which recently took place in Hyde Park at meetings, where speeches of an insulting character were said to have 703 been made against the Catholic religion; whether he has seen the statement made by one of these speakers in the police court, that he produced upon the platform and held up a rosary and some wafers; and whether it is proposed to allow such demonstrations to continue in view of the great provocation thereby given to the members of the Roman Catholic Church?
§ MR. MICHAEL DAVITT (Mayo, S.)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in June last the magistrate at Worship Street Police Court expressed a strong opinion upon a similar occurrence?
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYI am informed that on the last two Sundays meetings have been held by Protestant lecturers in the park, but they have not, from a police point of view, been otherwise than decent and orderly. The disturbances were caused by persons who were annoyed at what was said, and assaulted the lecturers at the close of the meetings. A rosary and wafers were produced, but by way of illustration only. Nothing was said or occurred which would have justified the police in interfering; but they will hold themselves prepared to deal with any disturbance that may arise, and to exercise all the powers conferred on them for the decent regulation of these meetings under the Parks Regulation Act. With reference to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for South Mayo, I was not aware of the fact until he called my attention to the remarks made so long ago as last June with reference to meetings of this sort. I can only say, in common with every Member of the House, that I deprecate any extravagant language or violent assault on the religious susceptibilities of any one. ["Hear, hear!"] I can only express the hope that these lecturers may be able in future to express their convictions without arousing feelings of animosity.
§ MR. W. REDMONDIs it not a fact that exception was taken in this case, not so much to the language user as to the exhibition of emblems which are reverenced by those who hold the Catholic religion? May I ask whether some steps could not be taken which, without interfering with free speech, may have the effect of prohibiting the 704 insulting exhibition of emblems which are reverenced by Catholics, such as the rosary and the wafer?
§ MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)May I ask whether one of these so-called Protestant lecturers was not a servant of Cardinal Manning, and was not a man who had turned Protestant? [Laughter and Nationalist cries of "Order!"]
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYI am not aware of the fact just stated by the hon. Member for South Belfast. My information is that these emblems, which are held so sacred by the hon. Member's co-religionists, were used upon this occasion, not, as I have said, for the purpose of insulting anyone, but by way of illustration. If, when so used, they gave offence to other persons, I regret it, but when the hon. Member asks me whether the police have power to stop the exhibition, I can only say that all the police can do in the matter is to exercise the powers conferred on them under the Parks Regulation Act. I do not think they can interfere further than they have done at present.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN (Donegal, W.)I beg to ask whether conduct such as had been alleged to have taken place on this occasion is not eminently calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, and whether, under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman does not think it comes within the cognisance of the authorities?
§ > SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYNo, Sir; under the Parks Act there is no such power. It may be different in the streets, but in the parks the police have no power to interfere otherwise than when an actual breach of the peace occurs.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYAre we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that it is perfectly legal to publicly turn the Protestant religion into ridicule?
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYI am not called upon to answer a question of that sort. I have expressed my own hope that these proceedings may be conducted in a different manner in future, and I have also said that the police are prepared to try to keep these meetings as peaceable and orderly as possible.
§ MR. W. REDMONDMay I ask whether, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot take any steps in this matter, he 705 will at least give an expression of opinion as to the exhibition of emblems at these meetings? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if the police have no power to stop the exhibition of sacred emblems, the probabilities are very greatly in favour of Catholics in this country doing it themselves? [ Cries of "Order, order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order. That is a matter of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman has already expressed his opinion as to the exhibition of emblems.
§ MR. W. REDMONDI rise, Sir——[Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThere really must be some limit to this. [Cheers.]
§ MR. W. REDMOND,again rising amid loud cries of "Order!" said: Mr. Speaker, I desire to give notice——
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order. I have called on Mr. Logan for the next question.
§ MR. W. REDMONDOn a point of order, Sir, I desire to ask whether, when an hon. Member is dissatisfied with an answer given to a question put by him, he is not within his right in giving notice that he will take future action in the matter?
§ MR. SPEAKERNo. Sometimes an hon. Member, before he sits down, gives notice, but strictly speaking it is not in order to do so.
§ MR. W. REDMONDI hope that Irishmen—[loud cries of "Order!"—I hope that Irishmen in London will do it themselves.