§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)said the Bill which he asked leave to introduce was practically the same measure which had been before Parliament for a good many years. It was introduced on several occasions by Members representing Irish constituencies on behalf of the Irish Party, but he regretted to say that, owing to the difficulty which private Members found in making progress with their measure, hitherto this Bill had never got beyond the introduction stage. He was taking a perhaps somewhat unusual course in asking leave to say a few words in explanation of the Bill, but he thought that course was advisable in view of the fact that it had come to his knowledge that there had been a good deal of misrepresentation with regard to the scope and object of the measure. Its object was plain, simple, and explicit. It was to place the Catholic population on terms of equality with people of other denominations. That was the real object of the Bill. The Catholics claimed for themselves and their religion, equality; they asked for no more, and they certainly would be satisfied with no less. It might be a surprise to many Members of the House—he knew it was a surprise to a number of people outside—to know that people of the Catholic religion at the present time did not as a matter of fact enjoy equality with other denominations. The popular belief, he was sure, was that the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 135 removed all grievances of which the Catholics could legitimately complain, and yet the real fact was that there still remained upon the Statute Book a considerable number of enactments which were not only irritating and unjust, but in their nature grossly insulting to the people of the Catholic faith, in this country. As a matter of fact, the so-called Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 itself contained several sections of the most offensive character with reference to the people of the Catholic religion. He had no time to deal in detail with the various enactments which it was proposed to repeal, which still existed in reference to Catholics, but by way of illustration he would refer the House to one or two sections of the Catholic Emancipation Act itself. From Sections 26 to 38 of the Act of 1829 called the Catholic Relief Act there were provisions of the most offensive character towards Catholics. For instance, there were provisions which made it an absolutely penal offence for Catholic clergymen to celebrate any of the rites or ceremonies of their religion, or even to wear the habits of their orders anywhere outside the Catholic places of worship or private houses; and Section 28 of the Act of 1829 frankly made the following declaration—
Whereas Jesuits and members of certain religious orders, convents, and societies of the Church of Rome, bound by monastic or other rules, are resident within the United Kingdom, and it is expedient to make provision for their gradual suppression and final prohibition within the United Kingdom, be it enacted.And then there was a series of sections of the most violent and insulting character aiming at the suppression of all these religious orders in the Catholic Church. There were provisions which made it obligatory on members of the Jesuit and other orders highly respected in this country to register themselves, to give notice of their numbers to the clerks of the peace in the various districts, and to send notices of their presence in England, to the Home Secretary, and in Ireland, to the Chief Secretary, in order that they might be registered, very much in the way in which ticket-of-leave men were. He was certain that there were no Members in the Horse belonging to any denomination at all who would refuse to admit that some of the best educational establish- 136 ments in this country were conducted by members of these very religious orders against which these penal enactments were in existence, and he was certain that no fair-minded man could feel surprise that a great deal of irritation and resentment was felt at this time of the world's history at the presence upon the Statute-book of England of provisions of this character. The answer might be made to him that, while it was true that these obnoxious and old-time provisions still remained, they were obsolete. They were told that they were dead letters, and were never put in force. Surely that was a greater reason for their removal from the Statute-book, because if they never intended to put these laws into force, there was certainly no reason whatever for retaining them, in view of the irritation which they caused to millions of people of a particular denomination throughout the whole of the Empire. In 1902 an application was made to a magistrate in London to put these laws into operation against certain Jesuit fathers in this city, and the magistrate, Mr. Kennedy, declared and quoted Sir James Stephen's "History of the Criminal Law" to show that these provisions had been treated as a dead letter. The King's Bench was appealed to, and the decision of the magistrate upheld. Mr. Justice Darling, in his judgment, said that whatever might have been the reasons for passing these statutes, which persecuted opinion and not acts, they were against the spirit and the genius of the age. Lord Mansfield said that, properly speaking, they were never designed to be enforced at all; they were made merely in terrorem. Was it, therefore, remarkable that the millions of Catholics of this country should object to have laws of this character held in terrorem over their heads? He passed on to another provision in the Bill, in which he also proposed to include the provisions of the Catholic Removal of Disabilities Bill, introduced by Mr. Gladstone in 1891. The Bill was backed by all the leading members of the Liberal Party; it was supported in eloquent speeches by Mr. Gladstone himself, Sir Henry James, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and the present Prime Minister. The object of that Bill was 137 to remove the disqualification of a Catholic for occupying the position of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland or Lord Chancellor of England. In 1867 the prohibition of Catholics filling the position of Lord Chancellor of Ireland was removed. Speaking of this disqualification the present Prime Minister said in 1891—Sixty years ago, the principles of religious exclusion were entrenched in this country behind an imposing fortress of legal safeguards and securities. One after another of the strong places has been captured, and its walls battered down, until all that remains is this paltry little corner, a solitary and belated relic of the past, which can never be rebuilt. The finger of fate is upon it, and although by your votes you may for a few years retard, depend upon it, you cannot evade, its downfall.He asked the right hon. Gentleman to act up to the spirit of that very broad-minded declaration. He also proposed in this Bill to deal with the very offensive references which were made to the millions of his Catholic subjects by the King in the Accession Declaration. It was said, he knew not with what truth, that this was a declaration not to the liking of His Majesty himself, but be that as it might, it was admitted a few years ago by all parties in the country and in the House of Lords that the references made to Catholics in the Accession Declaration were grossly and unnecessarily offensive in every way. Unfortunately, no agreement could be come to, although everyone expressed a desire to come to an agreement as to the words to be put in the Declaration in substitution of the offensive phrases, but he proposed in this Bill to endeavour to find words in reference to transubstantiation, and to omit the following words—That the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint, and the celebration of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous.He was sure there was not a Member in that House who would refuse to agree that references of that kind were grossly offensive and palpably untrue. No Catholic extended adoration to the Blessed Virgin or any other saint. In the Catholic Church as in other churches adoration was reserved for God. In conclusion, he appealed to Members in all quarters of the House not to regard 138 this in any sense as a party matter. He himself represented one of the most Catholic constituencies in the wide world—the constituency which returned O'Connell to this House and had a great deal to do with the emancipation of Catholics, both in this country and in Ireland. He believed he could say of every Catholic in this Empire that they of the Catholic Church had no greater desire or ambition than to live in the utmost friendship and goodwill with their fellow-citizens of every denomination. But that could not be the case so long as laws of an unjust and insulting character were retained upon the Statute-book. It was one of the proudest memories of Ireland to-day that Catholic emancipation was carried forward in an Irish Protestant Parliament, Grattan's Parliament, long before the question was taken up in this country. This Bill was supported by both Catholic and Protestant, and he believed that throughout the country broad-minded men, Catholic and Protestant alike, would welcome this effort to do away with what remained of the bad old times. He asked hon. Members to pass the Bill through the House to promote that good feeling, that spirit of friendship and comradeship among all sections of the community, which could never thoroughly exist so long as the members of one communion were signalled out for unjust, unnecessary, and insulting legislation.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove certain disabilities affecting the Roman Catholic population, and to make certain alterations in the Accession Declaration."—(Mr. William Redmond.)
§ MR. McARTHUR (Liverpool, Kirkdale)agreed that the hon. Member who had just spoken had taken a very unusual course, as he had truly said in his speech, in introducing a controversial Bill of this nature under the ten minutes rule. That peculiarity was enhanced by the fact that there would be no prospect during this session of taking any further stage of the Bill, and therefore the House must now express approval or disapproval of its principle. The Hon. Member proposed to modify the Oath, which guaranteed the Protestant succession to 139 the Crown; and further, in advocating the same measure for Catholics as for Protestants, the hon. Member was really asking for the removal of those disabilities which now attached to the succession to the Crown. The next object of the Bill was to legalise monastic institutions. Why were they illegal at present? Was it not because Parliament in 1829 knew more about the true character of these institutions than we did to-day? The speeches made at that time showed that these orders were excluded because it was believed that the Jesuits in particular advocated doctrines which were dangerous to the State, at variance with public morality, and opposed to civil and religious liberty. The fact that these organisations had been driven out of France, tended to show that they had not changed their character in the intervening years. The number of these institutions in Great Britain had increased from sixteen in 1829 to 1,125 at present, so that the absence of a legal status involved no practical disability. While he was quite willing that the question of the legalisation of monastic orders should be considered by the Government of the day, he held that it should be considered in connection with the need for the inspection of these institutions. As to the third object of the Bill, the legalising of Roman Catholic processions in the streets, he himself would rather see further restrictions applied not only to Roman Catholics but to all religious bodies. The streets were not the place for religious processions and demonstrations.
§ In addition to that he would remind his hon. friend that this, after all, was a Protestant country, and that while the carrying of the Host in procession might be desired by Roman Catholics it would be a very offensive proceeding to Protestants. There was one further? reason for which he would ask the House to reject this Bill; it was that the Roman Catholic Church, while it had always been willing to accept toleration; had never been willing to grant it to others. ["Oh."] That was true all the world over. Wherever ecclesiastical power was supreme, whether in Spain, in Malta, or in Ireland, there was persecution. He asserted to-day that the lot of Protestants in Ireland was infinitely worse than the lot of Catholics in Great Britain. They frequently read in the newspapers of the persecution of Protestants in Ireland. For instance, only the other day, at Riversdale, in County Sligo, Protestants, because they refused to join the National League, were subjected to the most severe boycott and intimidation. On its merits he trusted the House would condemn this Bill as one which was not required to deal with any immediate grievance, and as one which would condone lawlessness on a very large scale. He asked those who believed in our Protestant Constitution as the guarantee of civil and religious liberty, for Protestant and Catholic alike, to join him in voting against the introduction of the Bill.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 412.)
143| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Bellow, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Agnew, George William | Bennett, E. N. | Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras, W |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Alden, Percy | Boland, John | Cooper, G. J. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Brigg, John | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Bright, J. A. | Cox, Harold |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Craik, Sir Henry |
| Balcarres, Lord | Bryce, J. Annan | Crean, Eugene |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Burke, E. Haviland- | Cullinan, J. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Dalrymple, Viscount |
| Barker, Sir John | Butcher, Samuel Henry | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Delany, William |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) |
| Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. |
| Beale, W. P. | Chance, Frederick William | Dillon, John |
| Bell, Richard | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Duffy, William J. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Clynes, J. R. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Elibank, Master of | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Power, Patrick, Joseph |
| Erskine, David C. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Pullar, Sir Robert |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Radford, G. H. |
| Farrell, James Patrick | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Reddy, M. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Macpherson, J. T. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Ferens, T. R. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Rees, J. D. |
| Ffrench, Peter | M'Callum, John M. | Renton, Leslie |
| Field, William | M'Crae, Sir George | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Richardson, A. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | M'Kean, John | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | M'Killop, W. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Gilhooly, James | M'Micking, Major G. | Robinson, S. |
| Grinnell, L. | Mallet, Charles E. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Marnham, F. J. | Roche, Augustine (Cork) |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Roche, John (Galway, East) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Masterman, C. F. G. | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Meagher, Michael | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Gulland, John W. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Seely, Colonel |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Middlebrook, William | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Halpin, J. | Montague, Hon. E. S. | Sheehy, David |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Mooney, J. J. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Morrell, Philip | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Muldoon, John | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Murnaghan, George | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | Summerbell, T. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Hazleton, Richard | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Napier, T. B. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Nolan, Joseph | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hodge, John | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Hogan, Michael | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Nuttall, Harry | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Brien, William (Cork) | Waldron, Laurence Ambrose |
| Hunt, Rowland | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Jackson, R. S. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | O'Doherty, Philip | Watt, Henry A. |
| Jardine, Sir J. | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh |
| Jenkins, J. | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry W.) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | O'Dowd, John | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Jordan, Jeremiah | O'Grady, J. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Jowett, F. W. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N | Williamson, A. |
| Kavanagh, Walter M. | O'Malley, William | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Shee, James John | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Kettle, Thomas Michael | Paul, Herbert | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Kilbride, Denis | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Young, Samuel |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Pease, Rt Hn J A (Saffron Walden | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Lamont, Norman | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | |
| Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Pirie, Duncan V. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Gordon, J. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cory, Sir Clifford John | Hamilton, Marquess of |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Clark, George Smith | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Clough, William | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Rose, Charles Day | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Kerry, Earl of | Sandys Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Stone, Sir Benjamin | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) | |
| M'Calmont, Colonel James | Thornton, Percy M. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. M'Arthur and Mr. Moore. |
| Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Redmond, Captain Donelan, Lord Edmund Talbot, Mr. Boland, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. Haviland Burke, and Mr. Young.