§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.) rose to call attention to recent disturbances in Hyde Park, in order to elicit some statement from the Home Secretary upon the subject. It would be in the recollection of the House that, in putting questions to the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Redmond) had displayed a certain amount of exasperation, and he could assure the Home Secretary that the occurrences to which he should refer had aroused a feeling of indignation in the minds of people belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. All right-thinking men would admit that it was a scandalous and wanton thing to make any exhibition which could by any means be construed as an insult to a religion professed by a very considerable number of Her Majesty's subjects. He did not think that he had made it quite clear on Thursday in his questions to the Home Secretary that his objection to these proceedings in the park was not based upon anything that the lecturers might have said. They all knew that the most extreme things were said in Hyde Park on every conceivable subject, and the proper course to take was to pass by and take no notice of the speeches delivered when one objected to them. He based his objection upon the fact that, not content with using very extravagant language with reference to the Catholic religion, some of the speakers on the occasion to which he alluded were so ill-advised as to produce to the public gaze certain emblems which were suggestive of the most sacred things imaginable to the Catholic mind. One of the lecturers admitted in the police-court, where a charge of assault was brought, that he had produced before the public a rosary and a wafer, which, after consecration, as they all knew, Catholics held to be the body of our Lord. The Home Secretary had said that perhaps these objects were produced merely by way of illustration, and not for the purpose of insulting Catholics. Be that as it might, there could be no doubt that the exhibition of these emblems was construed by many Catholics who were present as an insult to their religion. The lecturer was endeavouring to prove that the Catholic Church was ridiculous in many of its practices, and in order to prove, as he 868 thought, the superstition of Catholics, he held up the rosary, upon which prayers were said in the Catholic Church, and one of the wafers used in sacramental ceremonies. He was also informed that the lecturer flung the wafer on the ground in a contemptuous manner. It was true that in the police court he said that the wafer was blown out of his fingers by the wind; that, however, was scarcely probable. It must be plain to everybody that exhibitions of this kind were extremely reprehensible. He wanted to make it quite clear that, though he objected to the language often used in the parks with reference to the Catholic religion, he recognised that Hyde Park was a place where most extreme things were said about topics of every kind. They had always been accustomed to look upon Hyde Park as a place where people could say what they pleased. What he protested against was the exhibition of religious emblems. Was there no power to prevent such exhibitions under the ordinary law? He believed, having made inquiries, that it would be found that to make an offensive exhibition that was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace on the part of any class of Her Majesty's subjects was a distinct offence at law for which people could be prosecuted. The Home Secretary had rather suggested the idea that some things which would be offences in the streets were not offences when done in Hyde Park. But, could that be the case? Supposing that a lecturer had exhibited, with offensive intent, Catholic emblems just outside the Park railings, could he have been prosecuted? If so, it was surely absurd that what constituted an offence outside the railings should not be an offence within them. The Parks Regulation Act was a very unsatisfactory measure, and, if it was responsible for the anomaly which apparently existed, and to which he had drawn attention, it ought to be amended. Nothing was further from his mind than to say or do anything which could promote unfriendly feelings between Catholics and Protestants. Nothing deserved the condemnation of right-minded men more than disputes between citizens upon matters of religion; and he did not wish to interfere with any man's religion. Were he to see the emblems of any 869 Church held up to public ridicule, he should object just as strongly as he did now. He feared that if no preventive steps were taken there would be disorderly scenes in the park. He felt sure that the Home Secretary would be glad to do everything in his power to stop these exhibitions. What he asked the right hon. Gentleman to do now was to reprobate them strongly, and to search diligently, with a view to finding whether there were not some legal means of preventing them.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,) Lancashire, Blackpoolassured the hon. Member that he could not do otherwise than express a strong feeling with reference to the proceedings which had occurred in the park. He had endeavoured so to express himself the previous day when he said, and now repeated, that it was a great misfortune, to say the least, not only that intemperate language should be used on any subject in the park, but especially that such intemperate language should be used in discussing religious matters, and that there should be such an exhibition of sacred emblems as that which had excited the indignation of the hon. Member and his coreligionists. All right-minded persons regretted to see earnest and enthusiastic men, in advocating claims in support of their own view of the Christian religion, driven to act in such a way as unduly to exasperate the sentiments of those from whom they differed. The hon. Member asked whether nothing could be done under the Parks Regulation Act to put an end to these unhappy proceedings. He had endeavoured to explain the previous day, and in the answer which he had given that afternoon, that, so far as he understood the position and was advised, those proceedings were not illegal, were not disorderly, and that the police had no right or power to interfere. The right to hold these meetings was regulated by the Parks Regulation Act of 1872, and by the rules made thereunder by the Commissioner of Public Works and Buildings. Those rules enacted that—
'No public address of an unlawful character or for an unlawful purpose may be delivered, and no assembly of persons is permitted in the park unless conducted in a decent and orderly manner.870 From a police point of view, he was advised that those meetings were not indecent and disorderly, although it was admitted that the gestures used and the exhibition made by the lecturer on more than one occasion did excite certain persons listening to him to commit an assault; still he was advised that the police had no power to interfere. The hon. Member might have heard of a celebrated case in which it was laid down that an assembly was not an unlawful assembly merely because it was likely to provoke a breach of the peace.
§ MR. W. REDMONDsaid, his question was not so much with regard to whether an assembly was lawful or not, but it was directed rather to a public and offensive exhibition calculated to lead to a breach of the peace.
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid, that the Regulations made no mention of any exhibition of emblems. If, however, upon consideration, it was found to be possible to make Regulations to prevent improper exhibitions of emblems, he would be happy to consult with his right hon. Friend to see whether any improvement could be made in the Regulations of the park. But he was of opinion that the police could not have acted otherwise than they did. He hoped that some good might be effected by a general expression of opinion on the part of the House which might induce people to be more moderate in the expression of their convictions.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)maintained, the opinion of the police to the contrary, that the exhibition in the park about which they complained was indecent, and if persevered in the result would be disorder, and he would be one of those prepared to justify the disorder. If the law was not prepared to deal with the lecturer, the people were justified in resenting the insulting expressions and exhibitions of the lecturer. Twenty years ago similar exhibitions took place in many parts of Lancashire, and the result was a loss of life and the wreckage of property. A lecturer named Murphy went through the towns of Lancashire and gave exhibitions of a most offensive character before Roman Catholics. Stalybridge was the scene of a riot, and the town was under a state of siege for nearly a month. He hoped that the right hon. 871 Gentleman might be able to induce the police to alter their opinion, and to get them to use pressure within the law, as in Ireland, to prevent a serious disturbance.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)said, it was a matter of regret to him that the hon. Member had not remained satisfied with the answer of the Home Secretary when the question was put two days ago. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman said everything then which reason and a due regard for public meeting warranted. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the representations of hon. Members, would hesitate to interfere with the right of public meeting and free speech and the right of discussion in public places, even if ignorant and misguided men might abuse a right which was generally used with consideration to other people's feelings and to the advantage of the community as a whole.
§ MR. W. REDMONDsaid, he objected neither to the meetings nor the speeches, but to the insulting of the sacred emblems.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSpointed out that the last speaker appealed to the Home Secretary to bring pressure to bear within the law, to exercise his position as Home Secretary to induce the police to anticipate disturbances by removing the cause of them.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he advocated the use of the right hon. Gentleman's authority to get the police to prevent these men from making exhibitions of sacred emblems, an exhibition which alone would cause disturbance in the park.
§ MR. BURNSsaid, the hon. Member might personally not like the exposure of religious emblems, which naturally offended men of particular religious persuasions, but if the Home Secretary complied with the hon. Member's request where was this restriction going to end? If wafers to-day, why not political banners to-morrow? ["Hear, hear!"] He would rather that men exercised unconditionally the right of free speech at public meetings even to the point of actual abuse rather than see the right tampered with in any way whatever. The feature of English life which most forcibly struck visitors to this country, even from Ireland, was the freedom the 872 working classes enjoyed in London for the unrestricted discussion of everything they considered to be a grievance. He was astonished to hear this demand for pressure within the law coming from Irishmen. He would appeal to his Irish friends not to press this matter further. If they did they would have every London representative against them, and the result would be excited meetings of Protestants and Catholics at this very spot in Hyde Park, and notoriety given to men who had misbehaved themselves and who would be flattered by the advertisement they had received. What he should like would be to see the latitude enjoyed in London extended at once to Dublin and every Irish city.
§ On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
§ MR. L. P. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)said, Catholics contended that the exhibition of religious emblems complained of was not only offensive but insulting; and it should really be considered a breach of the common law. If the Home Secretary had not power to deal with the matter under the park regulations, or under the common law, then the Act ought to be amended so as to make this exhibition an offence. The hon. Member for Battersea forgot that no charge of giving offence of this kind had ever been brought against Catholics in Ireland. What was complained of now was not the holding of meetings, but the use of language calculated to be offensive. He would rather submit to language of this kind than to interference with the right of meeting, but what was complained of could be remedied without such interference by preventing the exhibition of emblems in an offensive manner.
§ MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)said, he listened with pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea, who enunciated the principle of equal rights and liberties for all, and his views would commend themselves to every liberty-loving subject. It might be that emblems had been displayed in an offensive manner; he had no independent evidence one way or the other; but in Ireland they had to fight for freedom of speech from generation to generation; and in Dublin and Cork processions, with banners, emblems, and 873 music not liked in the North had been tolerated by the executive, whilst men had gone to prison for getting up similar Orange processions in Ulster. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member who introduced the matter had dealt with a difficult subject with good taste and in a manner which left little to complain of; and he hoped he should not offend hon. Members opposite if he said that by the Canon law of Rome there was no toleration for opponents of Roman Catholicism either in this world or the next. [Laughter.] He hoped all parties in London would avoid the needless giving of offence, and he had no doubt the result of the discussion would be still further to vindicate the rights and liberties of which Englishmen were proud.