ON the 14th of May Mr. W. Redmond, M.P., moved the second reading of his Roman Catholic Disabilities (Removal) Bill in the House of Commons. At the close of his speech he “appealed to the House to send to the whole world a message which would gladden the hearts of millions of Catholics in all parts of the Empire,” and added that “that appeal was made in the interests of good feeling and friendship, of equal treatment to all religions, and of broad-minded toleration.” Let our readers note the absolute hypocrisy and inconsistency of these latter words, as coming from the lips of the representative of arrogant exclusiveness and intoleration. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kavanagh, a member from the south of Ireland, who spoke “as a Protestant.” Truly Protestantism has fallen upon evil times. Then arose the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, and in a speech of considerable length, gave his cordial support to the demands of the Bill. He even went further: “Speaking for myself,” he said, “I should prefer to see the Declaration abolished, because I am satisfied that it is not needed in any way to safeguard the Protestant succession, for which I am quite as anxious as anybody else, and because experience has shown the enormous difficulty of providing any alternative Declaration which will be satisfactory to all the religious interests and susceptibilities involved.” He suggested that, if the Declaration was to be retained, the matter of change of form should be remitted to a Committee representing all interests.
Mr. Charles M’Arthur, Unionist member for Kirkdale, Liverpool, moved the rejection of the measure. His speech, which was able and well to the point, was weakened by the statement that he “should not be sorry if it was possible to find some other words which were less irritating to Roman Catholics without weakening in any way the guarantee of the Protestant succession.” Mr. Boulton, Liberal member for Ramsey, Hants, seconded the motion in a vigorous speech. Sir J. H. Kennaway (Honiton, Devon), Mr. Massie (Cricklade, Wilts), Mr. Sloan (Belfast, South), Mr. Moore (Armagh, North), and Dr. Hazel (West Bromwich), supported Mr. M’Arthur’s motion for the rejection of the Bill. It is disappointing to observe, however, that almost all these speakers in opposition were prepared to concede some change in the form of the Declaration. None of them appeared to rise fully to the occasion, or to send a really bold and heroic note of Protestant faith and courage through the Chamber. The spirit of compromise was too much in the air.
When the House divided, the second reading of the Bill was carried by 133 votes to 123—a majority of 10. Mr. A. E. Dunn (Camborne, Cornwall), then moved that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. The motion was carried by 124 to 121—a majority of 3. It is stated that Mr. Haldane and Mr. Lloyd George supported the Bill, and that the Nationalists present numbered sixty-eight, or more than one half the number voting for it. The final result referring the Bill to a Committee, we are informed, has “caused great disappointment to its promoters, as making its further progress this session practically impossible.”
Apart from the partial weakness of the Protestant speeches, the most ominous feature of the debate was the deliverance of the Prime Minister. Mr. Asquith is bold enough to assert that because the Protestant succession to the Throne is secured by the express provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, the abolition of the Protestant Declaration will make no difference. Such an opinion cannot be entertained for a moment. Our forefathers, who knew by painful experience the intrigues and deceptions of Popery were the best judges, and they felt that the Throne needed this additional safeguard. In fact, it appears that at one time all members of Parliament and other servants of the State had to take the Declaration, so decided was the Protestantism of the country, and so afraid of Popish inroads. This was an excellent state of affairs, and it would be good if it were restored to-day. One of the Irish M.P.’s who supported this Bill, taunted the Protestants as “mere cowards,” and said that “if they believed Catholicism to be so pernicious and dangerous, their logical course was to repeal the Emancipation Act of 1829.” We have no hesitation in adding, Amen. This would be the logical course indeed; but it is to be feared another Reformation will need to take place, under divine influences, before such a repeal will be accomplished.
In view of Mr. Asquith’s self-security, the question may be asked, “Is everything perfectly secure in regard to the Protestantism of the throne with all the present safeguards?” Do we not find that the present King, notwithstanding his solemn engagements, attended with public honours a Romish Mass for the dead in London, and do we not also know that he attends Romish services on the Continent? It seems that the present safeguards, instead of being too stringent, are not stringent enough. They need to be strengthened rather than weakened.
Again, it is a curious commentary upon Mr. Asquith’s policy that this is the moment when Rome is pouring her emissaries in large numbers into Great Britain. Cast out by France and other continental countries as a menace to the public weal, they are making the land of Protestant freedom their house of refuge. The Jesuits are the dominant party, and they are doing their utmost day and night to undermine our Protestant institutions. When the enemy is coming in like a flood, Mr. Asquith proposes, not to lift up a standard against him, but to remove some of the standards that already exist in order to please the friends of the enemy. If this is Protestantism, it is Protestantism drunk with the wine of a false charity. May the Lord protect us from the subtle wiles of the devil! At the present moment, several military gentlemen of high standing are urging upon the country the need of increasing our national defences in view of the menaces of foreign nations. It would be well if Mr. Asquith would take a leaf out of their book in the matter of the defence of our civil and religious liberties. The enemy is not merely at a distance gathering his forces; he is already in, and is pouring his troops—in the guise of friendship—into our cities and villages, waiting for the auspicious moment to arise and conquer. The reign of Rome is the reign of slavery, ignorance, and immorality. Our defences require not to be lessened, but to be largely increased and extended, if we want to preserve to coming generations all that life’s worth living for in our native land.
In conclusion, we cannot but deplore the fact that there does not seem to be one man in our Houses of Parliament to-day who possesses all the qualities necessary to make a real outstanding Protestant witness for truth. Protestants there are a few of a kind, but where are the largeness of soul, strength of moral character, zeal for God and righteousness, uncompromising maintenance of all that is best in our civil constitution, qualities that characterised our Puritan ancestors, and that were never more needed than they are to-day? They are conspicuous by their absence. We live in an age when compromise is men’s meat and drink, and when the moral backbone is weak and flexible. May the Lord, in His great mercy, send a day of power!
Daring Advance in Sabbath Desecration.
One of the most daring encroaching on the sanctity of the Lord’s Day has been made by the Directors of the Caledonian and Glasgow and South-Western Railway Companies. The former purpose running steamers to Rothesay, while the latter intend running trains in connection therewith. It gives us some pleasure to know that Rothesay and Gourock have protested against this open defiance of the Lord’s Commandment. Hitherto the “Sunday” steamers on the Clyde did not belong to such powerful corporations as the above.