ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. (Hansard, 14 December 1926)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, this Bill is one of the Bills which have been rushed through this House with considerable velocity at the end of the Session—I think the Second Reading was only on Friday last—and I was not able to be here at the earlier stages. I noticed that it passed with general good will and practical unanimity through your Lordships' House, and I am afraid that my remarks may tend to cause a slight ripple in that passive pool of acquiescence. But I assure your Lordships it will only be a comparatively slight ripple. It is impossible for me to oppose a Bill of this kind, because it is a Bill which extends toleration to people for the practice of things in which they believe so long as they are not contrary to the general well-being of the people.

The whole fundamental conviction upon which I stand would make it impossible for me to oppose a toleration Bill of that kind, but I am inclined to drop a word or two to the noble Viscount opposite in charge of the Bill on the question of the toleration which is exercised by his own particular communion He made a speech on the Second Reading, with which I had a great deal of sympathy and which I read with great care, in which he frequently spoke of the advantages of toleration. I hope he will repeat that speech and repeat that attitude when we come to consider such questions as divorce and birth control, and that his communion will not seek to impose on those who do not share their religious beliefs and are not in agreement with them practices which they themselves have a right to insist upon among their own members. Let us have toleration on both sides if we are to have it at all. I hope this will be borne in mind later.

I received a marvellous pamphlet about this Bill called "Writing the Reformation off the Statute Book." I dare say it is partly writing the Reformation off the. Statute Book. At the time of the Reformation the fear of Rome was very real and very imminent and we know very well that under fear unwise legislation is passed and unwise things done. We are not in that position to-day and are not suffering from any of those appre- 1639 hensions. I read in that pamphlet a great many attacks upon the most rev. Primate, who I am sorry could not remain to such a late hour to-night, and with none of them do I in the least sympathise or agree. The only thing in the pamphlet which struck me as possibly true was that one of the dangers we have to look to is not perhaps from the Roman Catholic Communion for whose benefit this Bill is being passed, but from that bastard kind of subservient allegiance to Rome which has recently grown up and calls itself Anglo-Catholic, inside the English Church. These are the people the Church of England has to fear and, possibly, we have to fear in this country, people who follow somewhat humbly the Roman Church and wish they were allowed to be in its communion.

I do not think Parliament and the country has anything to fear from this Bill. It is true it is going to give permission for processions in the streets, which to some people, such as those who called themselves years ago Kensitites—I am glad we have not heard much of them lately—might be provocative and might be offensive. But I am pretty sure that in such cases processions would not take place and wanton offence would not be given. I really rise to say that in this matter I hope we shall have equal toleration extended by the Church for whose benefit this measure is to be passed.