The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1908-12-12
A SPEECH IN PARLIAMENT BY WILLIAM. REDMOND
Reasons Why the Kings Accession Oath and Other Penal
Enactments Should be Removed From the
British Statutes.

Orders reside, and providing for regis-
ter of such persons being kept, roticcs
o. such registers to be sent to the Sec
retary OF State In the case OF Great
Britain. and the Chief Secretary for
ireland, In tho case OF Ireland. II is
unnecessary, at this stage, to go fully
into the provisions OF the Act Of 1929;
and the other enactments which We're,
and are, highly offensive to Catholics:
but 1t will be found that the Bill which
now ask leave to Introduce simply
has for it's object the removal of all
such obnoxious enactments against the
Catholic religion. The only answer
that can be given to the reasonable
request for the repeal of these offensive
laws is that they are obsolete, and
never put in force. This may to some
way lessen tho offence which Cptholics
feel is done to them in this matter. In
1909 an organization III this country
endeavored to put the Sections of tho
Act Of 1893 in force against certain
Jesuit priests in London. Summonscs
were applied for against three MEM
bcrs of the Order but Mr.. Kcnn .dy the
police magistrate, in dismissing tho
application, observed that all these
sections were practically obsolete, and
quoted the words of the late Sir james
Stephen in his History OF the Crimi-
raj Law who said that "thcsc provis-
ions. ever since they have been passed.
have been treated absolutely as a dead
letter." Application was then made to
the knights Bench for n1andamus to
compel Mr.. Kennedy TO issue the sum-
monses. The application was refused
Chief Justice and Justices Darling and
Channell. Mr.. Justice Darling, in his
judgment, said that whatever might
have been the reasons for passing
these Statutes, which prosecuted opiIl-
ions and not acts, they were, to his
mind, against the spirit and the genius
o.: the age. For example, here was u
Statute which said that Jesuits could
not reside in this country, that the
Jesuits should he punished, and yet,
a. the same time, Catholic school
might earn Il grant Of public money.
and, SO far as he knew, the Jesuit
might teach in the Catholic school and
help to earn the grant. There is no
doubt that these laws have been, US
Sir James Stephen said, dead letter.
although recent events in London
would seem to prove that these en-
actments are used by way Of threat.
Lord Mansfield, referring to these pro-
visions Of the Act of 1929, said they
were, more properly speaking, never
designed to be enforced at I'LL, but
were made in terrorem. It is 1, rea-
sonable thing to say and claim that
the Catholics object to laws peing in
terrorem over their heads. If, indeed,
these highly offensive enactmcnts aro
dead letters, that is surely an additions
al reason why they should no longer
be allowed upon the Statute Book
(cheers). At any rate, it is a mockery
t. speak of religious freedom as long
as laws remain in reference to the
Catholic Church which do not apply
to any other religion in the British
Empire or in the world: and I take
leave to say that until these offensive
laws are removed there will be always
a sense Of irritation and injustice felt
by the millions throughout the British
Empire who profess the Catholic ro-
ligion. which, after all, is the most an
cient christian church in the world.
In addition to the repeating Of the Of
fensive sections of the Act Of 1929 and
other laws, I propose to embody in
this Bill the provisions of the Bill in.
troduced by Mr.. Gladstone in 1891. en-
titled The Religious Disabilities Re-
moval Bill. This measure which wac
backed by Mr.. Gladstone, Sir Henry