A GREAT united Protestant Demonstration was held in the Royal Albert Hall, South Kensington, on Tuesday evening, the 4th February. The purpose of the meeting was “to uphold and maintain the Protestantism of the nation, and to demand the suppression of the Mass and the Confessional in the Established Church.” The vast area of the hall, capable of holding several thousands, was crowded in every part. Admission was by ticket only, and it was intimated that over 2,000 applications for tickets, made late, could not be complied with. In an official list of noblemen and others, described as “present at the meeting” or in avowed “sympathy with the object of the demonstration,” the names were mentioned of the Duke of Hamilton, the Marquis of Ely, the Marquis of Ormonde, Lords Carysforth, Egmont, Erne, Gosford, Middleton, Powerscourt, Avebury, Brabourne, Grimthorpe, Kinnaird, Llangattock, Overtoun, Rossmore, St. Oswald, Sinclair, Stratheden and Campbell, and Wimborne. The House of Commons was represented by Sir C. E. H. Vincent, Sir E. W. Greene, Sir B. W. Foster, Sir W. B. Gurdon, Sir J. H. Haslett, Mr. J. W. Mellor, K.C., and over a score of other M.P.’s, both Liberal and Conservative, including several Welsh members. Some 35 societies, comprising the Church Association, the National Protestant Church Union, the Loyal Orange Institution, and the Protestant Alliance, were represented on the London Committee of the United Protestant Societies, which convened the successful gathering, the fervour of whose Protestantism and unanimity in its defence was strikingly apparent throughout the proceedings.
Viscount Middleton, who presided, and was received with loud cheers, said they were met that night to reaffirm their hearty adhesion to those principles of religious liberty which were first formulated in the sixteenth century, and which found their final consummation in the Revolution of 1688—(cheers)—an upheaval which secured for the people an open Bible and ushered man into the presence of his Maker without any intermediary between God and man, save the one Great Mediator. The Revolution of 1688 did more than this. It threw off once for all the shackles of Romish superstition, and granted to us for the future freedom of thought, freedom of action, freedom to worship God according to our own consciences, and all the benefits that had followed in their train. They met that night for three special purposes. First, they desired to protest against the placing in positions of public trust and of public influence any but those who were utterly loyal to the principles of the Reformation; any of those who either openly avowed or tacitly confessed their desire for corporate reunion with Rome. How impossible that was he need not there say. Secondly, they protested against any attempt being made to minimise the Royal Declaration as to the views and convictions of the Sovereign—in other words, the Coronation Oath. (Cheers.) He was one of those who, until last year, thought it was possible that some modification of the terms of the Oath might be made, but what took place in the Committee of the House of Lords last year disabused him altogether of any such impression. (Cheers.) Thirdly, they were met to protest earnestly against the introduction into this realm of any of the objects of celibate and militant orders of the Roman Catholic Church, who said they had been driven from their own country by persecution, and hence had resorted to that land which had always opened its doors to the oppressed and the persecuted. Now, was that the fact? (“No.”) He was afraid it was not. There was no doubt that England had never closed the door upon any who were persecuted or oppressed, but what were the facts of the case? Was it not the truth that from almost every Roman Catholic country in which they had established themselves, sooner or later these militant orders had had to take their leave? And why? Because they were subject to no authority save that of their own superiors. (Cheers.) They had definite aims and objects in view, which they pursued regardless of the laws of the country in which they were settled, regardless even of the authorities of their own faith—for they admitted no allegiance to bishops or superior ecclesiastics of their own Church, and acknowledged only the head of their own community, who, he believed, always resided in Rome. Let them hand down this glorious inheritance unimpaired in all its noble proportions, and undimmed in the brightness of its lustre, to their children and their children’s children. (Enthusiastic cheers.)
Mr. H. Miller, secretary of the meeting, read communications expressive of regret at their inability to attend and of sympathy with the objects of the gathering from Mr. W. Johnston, M.P. (who was engaged in the East Down contest), and the Bishop of Sodor and Man. Letters regretting absence were, Mr. Miller added, received from sixteen peers and twenty-two members of the House of Commons.
Lord Kinnaird moved—”That the steady growth of the Mass and the Confessional within the Church of England is mainly due to the abuse of patronage by the Government and by the Episcopate, and especially to the action of certain of the Bishops, who seek to substitute their own personal rulings for the ascertained and well-known law of the land, as laid down by the King’s judges.” In moving this resolution his lordship expressed his conviction that a conspiracy existed in this country to substitute for our Protestant faith a religion without muscle, backbone, or principle. (Cheers.) That great demonstration was evidence that they did not intend their Protestant inheritance to be taken from them. (Cheers.) While England welcomed all oppressed peoples they would not allow those people to alter our constitution in any way. (Hear, hear.) He alluded with satisfaction to the fact that a similar resolution to that which he proposed had been unanimously carried at great meetings in Bristol, Brighton, and elsewhere. Adverting to the growth of the Mass and the Confessional in the Established Church, he said they must see that the laws of our Protestant Church were maintained without interfering with the individual or right to private judgment. They would, too, have the co-operation of their Nonconformist brethren in maintaining the Protestant inheritance of the Church of England. The United Committee convening that meeting had done great good in bringing together the leaders of the Evangelical Churches in this land. A national crisis required to be met by a national movement, and the movement must proceed from the laity. Evangelistic work was rendered more difficult by the Ritualistic and materialistic forms of faith that were being propagated so insidiously. He exhorted them to do their utmost to maintain unimpaired the great Protestant inheritance that had been handed down to them. (Cheers.)
The Rev. W. Cuff, ex-President of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, who seconded the motion, said the Government had dabbled with all sorts of ecclesiastical matters, and had undertaken to father and mother the national schools and a great deal of the education of the country. They had granted large sums of money for educational purposes, and he submitted that they must have known when they granted those amounts for national schools that they were helping by hundreds the men who were teaching those Romish doctrines against which they were met to protest. (Cheers.) He charged the Government with flouting and shelving every side of the Protestant question, and declining to meet it honestly. This was not a question of a Tory or a Radical Government merely—it was a question of Protestantism on one side and of Roman Catholicism on the other. Though a Nonconformist by conviction, he stood by his brethren of the Church of England in their protest against turning the old Protestant Church of England into a Roman Catholic concern. (Loud cheers.) In this there were hundreds of thousands of his Nonconformist brethren behind him. (Cheers.)
The resolution was then put, and carried with unanimity and enthusiasm.
Lord Overtoun proposed—”That loyalty to the free Constitution of Great Britain renders it needful that the Sovereign should give a personal pledge of his rejection of the distinctive errors of the Church of Rome. This meeting, therefore, pledges itself to resist any attempt to tamper with or in any way weaken the plain meaning of the Royal Declaration, recognising, as it does, that the Revolution of 1688, to which we owe the existing Declaration, was the natural sequel to the Reformation of the sixteenth century, and forms at once its complement and its safeguard.”
Mr. Luke White, M.P., said, as a Nonconformist, he gladly seconded the resolution. The House of Lords Committee endeavoured to attain two objects—one to make the Declaration less offensive to Roman Catholics, and the other to maintain the efficacy of the Declaration. It was found that the twofold object could not be attained. The Roman Catholics did not confine their objection to the mere form, but to the purpose of the Declaration. (Hear, hear.) Lord Salisbury, in the House of Lords, said they did not want the words withdrawn without the removal of the clause referring to the succession. We must consider the circumstances that made it necessary for our forefathers to make the Declaration in strong and unmistakable language. It was for us to maintain the Declaration unimpaired. (Cheers.)
Prebendary Webb Peploe, who was cheered, said it was the duty of the nation to maintain its glorious inheritance for the sake of those who had gone before and for posterity. (Cheers.) They claimed that it should remain intact. They would uphold it, therefore, because it was efficient as it stood. If altered it would be inefficient. Would the alterations proposed in the Bill of last year have satisfied those whom it concerned? (“No.”) Cardinal Vaughan declared boldly that the Declaration was a blasphemy against God, because it touched the creed of the Roman Catholics. Their answer to Roman Catholics was that if any king changed his faith, then let him change his position. (Loud cheers.) They had had enough of Roman Catholic monarchs in the past, and there was no place for them in Buckingham Palace or elsewhere. (Cheers.) It was said to be a hardship that the King should have made the Declaration. As Supreme Governor of the Church of England, was it hard that he should declare his faith? What was fair for the clergy in subscribing to the Thirty-nine Articles was fair for the King. (Cheers.) It was a necessity not of blasphemy, but a necessity of charity, that the King should declare what was the faith of every Protestant churchman. It was right for the Sovereign, remembering the dangers of the past, that he should tell the world that he looked upon the opposite doctrine as idolatrous. What if the King had had to curse Roman Catholics as they had cursed Protestants? Let them safeguard their inheritance. If any change should be proposed it must not be until the whole nation had been appealed to and a new Parliament elected. (Cheers.)
The resolution was carried amidst cheers.
Mr. Benjamin Nicholson moved—”That the inaction of successive Governments in allowing the open violation of the law, which expressly provided for the exclusion of monks and Jesuits from residing in this country, and in refusing to provide for the impartial inspection of nunneries, is unstatesmanlike, seeing that the experience of all civilized countries has shown that the existence in any country of such communities is pernicious to society, and a danger to all good government.” The past history of the Jesuits, he said, fully justified action in preventing the further incursion of monks into this country. It was questionable whether we had not tolerated their presence too long. (Cheers.) Did they want persons in this country who were obliged to obey the general of their order without any regard to the laws of the country in which they resided? (“No.”) The Jesuits took part in the Armada, and were at the bottom of the Gunpowder Plot. Protestants felt certain that they were now plotting against the liberties of the people of England. Had the times changed with Rome? (“No.”) He thought it was high time the Government enforced the laws against Roman Catholics. Owing to the malpractices of the Jesuits they had been turned out of nearly every country in Europe. He hoped the liberties of the people would be safeguarded. (Cheers.)
Rev. W. R. Mowll urged the people to recollect the importance of preserving and utilising the word “Protestant.” (Cheers.) It was a word that the Jesuits and Ritualists hated. The present and former Governments ought to be ashamed of themselves for permitting nunneries to exist without inspection. Prisons were inspected by magistrates. They demanded, as a people, that those conventual institutions, more than 800 in number, should be visited. (Cheers.) If the Chairman could be appointed as inspector, would he take the speaker with him as assistant? (Laughter.) It was an awful condition of slavery that existed, and up to now they had not had a Government of sufficient pluck to inspect them. They were abominably conducted. The girls were sweated, and could barely exist on the supply of food they got. He denounced the conventual system as utterly un-English. They held that home life was the essence of the national life. Never would those poor girls be allowed outside those walls. This was going on in liberty-loving England. (“Shame.”) Some of the finest characters were shut up in those living prisons. The system he condemned was unreasonable as well as unnatural. It was absolutely unscriptural, and had not the support of one passage of God’s Word. (Cheers.) The Jesuits were responsible for a large proportion of the troubles we suffered at present. The people must be their own parliament in this matter, and must see that the Word was preached. It was that alone which would uplift the nation and destroy the power of Jesuitry. (Cheers.)
The meeting dispersed after singing the Doxology.