The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-06 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVEMNG, JANUARY 6, 1864.

Admission of Roman Catholic Priests as
Chaplains into Prisons.

Two subjects of great importance and interest to
Berkshire came on for discussion at the Epiphany
Sessions, held in the Assize Courts at Reading, on
Monday last, and drew together one of the largeat
gatherings of magistracy that has been observed in
the county for many years previously. The first
had reference to the appointment of a Roman Catho-
lic chaplain under the provisions of the Prison
Ministers Act of 1863, and the other to the removal
of the Trinity and Michaelmas Sessions from the
town of Abingdon to Reading, thereby transferring
all the business of the county from the former to the
latter town, on the ground of general convenience
and economy to the county funds. Mr. Benyon,
M.P., presided, and there were iu court among the
magistrates :—The Earl of Abingdon (Lord Lieu-
tenant of the county),Lord 0 verstone, Lord Norreys,
the Right Hon. J. R. Mowbray, M.P., the Hon.
P. P. Bouverie, M.P., Sir W. G. Haytar, M.P., Mr.
Walter, M.P., Sir G. Bowyer, M.P., Sir F. Gold-
smid, M.P., Mr. Darby Griffith, M.P., Mr. J. T.
Norris, M.P., Mr. S. Beale, M.P., the Hon. J. W.
Barrington, Sir Paul Hunter, Sir Warwick 'Alors-
head, Colonel Loyd Lindsay, Major Court, Captain
Seymour, Mr. Merry, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Bros, Mr.
T. L. Goodlake, Mr. Wheble, Mr. Crutchley, Mr.
Hibbert, &c.

Mr. MERRY, the senior visiting magistrate of
Reading Gaol, read the report of himself and col-
leagues of that prison for the past quarter; and the
portion relating to a Roman Catholic chaplain was
as follows :

" We feel it incumbent upon us to notice the circular of
the Rev. Canon Ringrose which has been sent to us, in
common with the magistracy of the county, because the
court has a claim on their visiting justices for any informa-
tion in their power to afford on matters connected with pri-
son rule. Mr. Ringrose's a'plication to us, under 26th and
27th Victoria, chap. 79, had reference only to the second
paragraph of section 3, which directs as follows :
" The visiting justices of any prison may, if they think
fit, without a special request being made by, but not against
the will of, any prisoner of a religious persuasion differing
from that of the Established Church, permit a minister of
the church or persuasion to which such prisoner belongs,
to visit such prisoner under such restrictions imposed by
them as may guard against the introduction of improper
persons and improper communications, provided that any
prisoner shall, on request, be allowed to attend the chapel,
or be visited by the chaplain of the gaol.'
The above section, it will be seen, leaves the ques-
tion of admitting strangerb entirely at the discre-

tion of the visiting justices, and we accordingly gave
that question the grave consideration due to a pub-
lic principle. Mr. Ringrose, in contending for free-
dom of conscience,' applies a just argument, which
must not, however, be exclusively limited to his
own position as a Roman Catholic. The act re-
quired us to consider the like claims of every mini-
ster of every persuasion differing from the Church
of England, and we could not, consistently with
the equal justice due to all, comply with his re-
quest. It is just wtthin the compass of a prisonePs
cunning and ingenuity to declare himself of
any persuasion that would afford him occasional
relief by out-door visitors from the punishment of
the separate cell. To exclude the ' improper com-
munications' contemplated by the Act, if not the
' improper persons,' would be impracticable, even
if the supervision of a largely increased number of
wardens were provided. Safe custody would be
endangered, and the discipline of the gaol rendered
nugatory. The opinion we have expressed to Mr.
Ringrose remains therefore unaltered. The court
is not responsible for that opinion. All we could
do consistently with the prudence resulting from
experience has been done. Prisoners are made aware
of their option, and if they decline the ministration
of Mr. Ringrose the Act is clearly against coercion,
whether actual or virtual. But as that gentleman
now applies to be recognised as chaplain,' with
contingent remuneration, it is for the court to decide
not the visiting justices. The Act provides for no
such appointment as chaplain. The first paragragh
of section 3 directs that where the number of prim
soners belonging to some religious persuasion differ.
ing from the Church of England, &c., is so great,
as in the opinion of the justices, &0., to require
the ministrations of a minister of their own
church or persuasion, the said justices may appoint
a minister of their own church or persuasion to
attend at such prison, &c., and may award bim a
reasonable recompense out of the county rate.' As
this section involves the question of numbers, it
is our duty to inform the court that the average
number of Roman Catholic prisoners annually has
been about five, and of these a large propor-
tion have declined seeing Mr. Ringrose. It seems
of some importance to remark that the fact of a
prisoner not desiring to see a minister of any parti-
cular persuasion by no means infers that he is
thereby isolated from religious or moral instruction.
Ignorant as heathens, as some prisoners commonly
are, as regards Christian motives and responsibility,
them is a vast field for instruction, quite apart from
doctrinal points, which the gaol chaplain, as the
appointed officer of the county, can properly and
profitably inculcate. We recall, for example, the
two excellent formularies of Christian precept, our
duty towards God and our duty towards our
neighbour.' If a man ' loved God with heart,
mind, soul, and strength, and his neighbour as
himself, doing unto all men as he would be done
unto, kept his hands from picking and stealing,
did not covet and desire other men's goods, but
laboured truly to get his own living'—if this were
learnt and laid to heart, by whomsoever taught, the
cost and anxiety of repressing crime would be won-
derfully lightened, and we certainly need no extra-
neous ministration for this and similar instruc-
tion."

Mr. MERRY then moved that the report be re-
ceived and adopted.
Mr. GIBSON had given notice of the following

motion :
" That referring to the provisions of the Prison Minis.
tars' Act, 1863, this court cloth resolve that the Rev. J
Ringrose, Roman Catholic priest, be permitted to visit such
prisoners in the Reading gaol as shall be registered under
the 4th section of the said Act as Roman Catholics, with-
ow, any special request being made by, but not against the
will of any prisoner."
Mr. T. L. GOODLAKE seconded the motion for
the adoption of the report and contended that it
was entirely in the discretion of the visiting justices
to say " yes" or "no" to the demand or petition of
Canon Ringrose. The visiting justices had delibe-
rately and advisedly rejected it, and stated their
adherence to the resolution. He venturned to think
that the relation of visiting justices to the court on
this question was like that of Cabinet Ministers to
Parliament. The court must support them or tarn
them out. (Laughter.) Looking at it for a moment
on the semi-polemical side of the controversy, it
occurred to him that there was no possible hardship
in the case—there was not even the shadow of a
pretence of hardship. On an average in a year
there were only five Roman Catholic prisoners, and
all could at any time time send for the Catholic
priest, if they pleased, so that there was not much
to complain of. He thought that the hardship was
the other way if they enforced a pastor on an un-
willing people. He might be told that the prisoners
would not send for the priest, and therefore they
would be left without instruction. For his part,
he thought that the discipline of the gaol was cal-
' culated to convey more effectually lessons of refor-
mation than any lessons of dogmatic theology
which they might receive. But the strongest
objection to the appointment .of a Roman
Catholic chaplain was that if they did so they
must on every ground of equity and justice
admit ministers of other denominations. (Hear,
hear.) If this were done, judge of the emotions of
his friend, Mr. Merry, on approaching his kingdom
to see the effect of this synod of theological sages.
(Laughter.) These were all rival sects, and every-
thing connected with them was progressive. The
establishment had its chapel and chaplain, but how
long would Canon Ringrose be content to remain
robeless and altarleas ? (Laughter.) A Bethel tent
must be erected in which he should conduct bis
forms of worship, and provision must be made for
others ; so that " contusion worse confounded" would
reward the justices for "straining at a gnat and
swallowing a camel." (Laughter.)
Mr. WALTER, M.P., said he thought the court
was not quite aware of the difficulty in which Mr.
Gibson's motion placed them. He had no hesitation
in saying that he disapproved of the decision

of the visiting justices. That, however, was
not the question they had to discuss ; but what
appeared to him was, that they could not make Mr.
Gibson's motion harmonize with the Act of Parlia.
ment. The third section of the act contemplated
two distinct things. First, the appointment by the
court if they saw fit, of a Roman Catholic chaplain,
and the payment to him of a salary—that was if
there was a sufficient number of Roman Catholic
prisoners in the gaol to warrant such a course ; and
the second part of that section enabled the visiting
justices, if they thought fit, without a special request
being made by, but not against the will of, any
prisoner differing from the Established Church, to
permit a minister of the church or persuasion to
which such prisoner belonged to visit him at proper
and reasonable times. It appeared to him (Mr. Wal-
ter) that Mr. Gibson's motion, of which he had
given notico, did not come within the scope
Jf that Act. At the same time he felt bound to
say that he differed from the visiting justices. As
far as he read the Act, it did not appear to him
that the Court had any power to interfere with the
visiting justices in this matter. The Court had no
power but to express an opinion, which, if it was
as he felt, would be one of regret that the visiting
justices had not complied with the request of Canon
Ringrose. Whether the Court had any power to
discharge the visiting justices he knew not—
(laughter)—but at all events they had a right to
give expression to their opinion on the matter. He
(Mr. Walter) had a decided opinion on the subject,
probably in a different direction from that of Mr.
Merry, as he was satisfied that the court had no
power to interfere with the discretion of the visit-
ing justices. The court had power to appoint
and pay a Roman Catholic chaplain, but did not
possess the power to interfere with the visiting
justices when the Roman Catholic priest was not
paid. (Hear, hear.)
The Hon. P. P. BOUVERIE, M.P., thought Mr. Gibson's
motion might be altered by the insertion of a few words to
meet the Act of Parliament. He did not hesitate to express
his wish that something should be done to meet the views of
Canon Ringrese.
The Right Hon. J. R. MowartsreM.P., observed that
the Act of Parliament vested a discretion in the visiting
justices, but he thought it competent for the court to ex-
press an opinion upon any motion as to what they thought
;t discreet for the visiting justices to do. If the visiting
justices did not act in accordance with the opinion of the
court, then, at the next sessions, the court could appoint
fresh visiting justices. He thought it was hardly intended,
although the Act no doubt states it, that the whole discre-
tion should be thrown upon the visiting justices. It was a
proper subject upon which the court should express an
opinion ; but he must say that he concurred in the decision
of the visiting justices, and on the reasons which led to that
decision. While, however, what had been done in the past
was what he approved, still it occurred to him whether for
the future a different course might not be adopted. (Hear,
hear.)
Sir W. G. HATTER, M.P„ said, on looking at the Act of
Parliament it struck him that the opinion which his hon.

friend Mr. Walter had expressed as to the second branch of
the third section was quite correct, and that the visiting
justices were the only persons who could prevent a priest or
minister of a different persuasion from that of the Estab-
lished Church to attend prisoners of such different persua-
sions in the gaol. But then he thought there was a way of
obviating the difficulty. The first part of the third section
stated that the court might appoint a Roman Catholic or
other chaplain with or without a salary. Now, if any one
were to move an amendment to Mr. Gibson's motion hav-
ing reference to the first portion of the section—that was, if
instead of the motion made by Mr. Gibson it was proposed
that Mr. Ringrose should be appointed chaplain, without a
salary—the same effect would be produced, except that he
would stand in the capacity of a chaplain instead of not
holding an office of a specific character. It seemed to him
desirable that the opinion of the court should be taken
upon the matter. He was not prepared to move that
amendment, although he would give his as: ent to it
if it were moved by any magistrate. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. BOWYER, M.P., said he wished to know what was
meant by adopting the report of the visiting justices. Did
it mean that the Court concurred in everything stated in it?
The difficulty in the matter might be got over by a motion
being made that the report be received only, and then it
would be open for the Court to proceed with the considera-
tion of Mr. Gibson's motion.
A discussion upon this point ensued, and it was ulti-
mately unanimously resolved that the report of the visiting
justices of Reading Gaol be received and filed, and entered
with the orders of the sessions.
Mr. R. Giesoet then brought forward the motion of which
he had given notice, namely—" That, referring to the pro-
visions of the Prison Ministers Act, 1863, this Court re-
solves that the Rev. J. Ringrose, Roman Catholic priest,
be permitted to visit such prisoners in Reading Gaol as shall
be registered under the fourth section of the said Act as
Roman Catholics, without any special request being made
by, but not against the will of, any prisoner." He said it
was much to be regretted that the visiting justices should
have refused permission to Canon Ringrose to attend upon
the Roman Catholic prisoners. And he could not help
thinking there was a little feeling in the matter ; for he
recollected that immediately after the breaking up of the
Court at the last Quarter Sessions at Abingdon, Mr. Merry
met him and remarked, " Halloo, Sir, you have stolen a
march upon us." From this he thought that Mr. Merry must
have fancied that he (Mr. Gibson) had done something
underhand. If Mr. Merry entertained any such opinion,
he (Mr. Gibson) desired to assure him that he must be
greatly mistaken. On the Saturday previous to the sessions
already alluded to he met Canon Ringrose at Reading, and
he spoke to him on the subject of being permitted to visit
Roman Catholic prisoners in the gaol. He certainly had no
intention of doing anything that could in any way be con-
strued as "stealing a march" upon any one, neither had
he any disposition to be a party to an act that could fairly be
regarded as xnfair or unreasonabie. He knew that in the
garrisons, both in England and in the colonies, Roman
Catholic priests were admitted. As in garrisons, where
there were many Roman Catholic soldiers, no danger was
appa ehended nor difficulty experienced, he did not think that
anything of the kind would be experienced where the prisoners
there were only few in number. He therefore much regretted
that the visiting justices of Reading Gaol, in the exercise
of the discretion vested in them by the Act of Parliament,
should have thought fit to deny Canon Ringrose the admis •
sion he sought. Nor did he regard it as fair towards their
brother justices that they should have done ko, several of
whom were RomanCatholics,and the representatives of some
of the most respectable families in the county. On the former
occasion when Mr. Merry met him he said, " If we grant
this, we must do so to all sects of religion." Now, in refe-
rence to this, he would observe that it was comparatively few
Dissenters that were sent to gaol. He had been a magistrate
in a neighbourhood where there were more than 3,000 Dis-
senters for above 20 years,and from that district he had not
known a single Dissenter committed to gaol. He wanted
to know, then, where could be the danger of admitting
the ministry of a Dissenting persuasion ? (Hear, hear.)
From the letter sent to Mr. Ringroseby the visiting justices
he understood that it would be inconvenient to allow him to
visit the gaol, because there had only been on an average
five prisoners ; but he could not understand this, since there
regretted extremely that it was solely in the power of the
v
to receive ies in finding labour for the prisoners. He
or reject Roman Catholic prts.
hTiahsdiitsi,nhg been
justices
ece°
nc difficultyeived, was unsatisfactory, because it might so
happen that three Roman Catholic' magistrates might be
appointed as visiting justices, and they would, of course,
take care to have a chaplain for prisoners of that persuasion;
but then, when their terms of office expired, they might be
succeeded by gentlemen holding different views, and the
arrangements made by their predecessors would probably
be set aside. It was not right that things should be left in
this way. Since it was clear that his motion could not be
put to the vote, he trusted that some amendment might be
proposed to effect the same object, and hoped that the visit-
ing justices would consider their duty to the Legislature
and also towards Roman Catholics.
Major COURT said it was of importance to the Roman
Catholic prisoners in Reading Gaol that they should receive
their religious impressions from those who were devoted to
that purpose. lie did not think it possible for a Roman
Catholic priest to enter that gaol with any notion or im-
pression upon his mind to create what were called prose-
lytes, or to do anything else than inculcate those high Chris-
tian principles which were accordant with the Protestant
faith. He could not instruct them in any other way
than their own chaplain. He (Major Court) regarded it
as the positive duty of the Court. so far as lay in their power,
to make provision for tho entrance of Mr. Ringrose to in-
struct the Roman Catholic prisoners. He had known Mr.
Ringrose for 30 years, and always observed in him every,
feeling and conduct of a perfect gentleman ; therefore he
did not think it would at all endanger the discipline of the
gaol to allow him to perform clerical duty for the benefit of
those particular prisoners who were ready to receive in-
structions from him.
Mr. TUCKER said he had no desire to interrupt a full and
free discussion of this sort ; but, according to the version
which had been given of the Act of Parliament, the motion
could not be taken into consideration by the Court. The Act
of Parliament did not give the Court power to do what the
motion asked it to do. (Hear, hear.) That was as clear as
possible from tie explanation of the Act given by Mr.
Walter. If Mr. Gibson had come before the Court and
asked them to appoint a Roman Catholic chaplain, or any
other chaplain, he would have been in perfect order, and it
would have been competent for the Court to consider and
determine the question ; but he submitted that Mr. Gibson
came and asked them to do what the Act of Parliament did
not give them power to do. He regretted that they had to
discuss a religious question of this sort, for, say what they
would, they could not divest it of its religious aspect.
(Hear, hear.)
The Hon P. P. BOUVERIE, M.P., said he agreed with
Mr. Tucker that he did not thiak it possible for the Court
to carry out Mr. Gibson's motion, but by the alteration of

a few words they might give effect to the intentiops of the
Legislature. The reformation of the prisoner was the great
object of prison discipline, and as it was found that many pri-
soners exempted themselves from attendance upon service
on account of declaring themselves to be either Roman Ca-
tholics or members of other religious persuasions, this Act
of Parliament was passed sothat religious instruction might
be provided for all such cases. He, therefore, was anxious
that a chaplain for Roman Catholic prisoners should be pro-
vided—that he should be an officer of the county, properly
paid, so that he might be subject to the regulations of the
Court. He should propose the following amendment :
" That, referring to the provisions of the Prison Ministers
Act, 1863, this Court requests the visiting justices of Read-
ing Gaol to obtain the services of a priest of the Roman
Catholic Church to vi,it any prisoners under their charge
(who, by declaring themselves of that creed, exempt them-
selves from the visitation of the chaplain of the gaol), at
such moderate salary as may be agreed upon by them, and
to report what they may do thereupon to the Court from
time to time."
The hon. gentleman was here reminded that the amend-
ment could not be put, because, involving an expenditure of
money, it was necessary that notice should be given. Upon
this some of the gentlemen conferrred together to modify
the amendment, during which time
Mr. WALTER, M.P.. rose and said it ;was much to be re-
gretted that the gentlemen who concurred in this matter
had not met to determine the form in which to put a propo•
sition to the Court so that it could be adopted. He listened
to the amendment of his hon. friend (Mr. Bouverie), and it
appeared to him to be open to the objection of the original
resolution, because it was drawn up under a misapprehen-
sion of the Act of Parliament. The Act had two objects.
No doubt it was the intention of the Legislature to empower
county justices to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains and
to pay them in certain localities. He (Mr. Walter) took
part in the discussion in the House on the Bill, and paid
great attention to the whole matter, so that he felt satisfied
he was correct when he stated that the first clause of the
third section had reference particularly to Lancashire,
Liverpool, and places of that kind, where there were large
numbers of Roman Catholic prisoners. In those places it
was intended that the county justices, if they thought fit,
appoint Roman Catholic chaplains and pay them. But that
was not the whole of the Act. The second part of the third
section had a totally distinct purpose—that, where the Court
of Quarter Sessions did not exercise the power of appointing a
Roman Catholic chaplain, visiting justices should have the
power of relaxing the rules of the prison so as to admit Ro-
man Catholic priests or other ministers, and thereby cora,.
ply with the Act. He wished to etate to,the Court his strong
opinion upon this subject. If it had been proposed by Mr.
Gibson, or.any other magistrate. that thii Court should ap-
point a Roman Catholic chaplain and pay him a salary, he
should have opposed it. He did not think that this county
was one contemplated by the Act of Parliament for the
appointment and payment of a Roman Catholic chaplain.
There was not a large number of prisoners here, and there-
fore he did not think that the first part of the act applied.
But the second portion of the clause was to meet the cir-
cumstances of a county like this. The Roman Catholic pri-
soners were few in number, and the Roman Catholic priest
should have the right or privilege of visiting such, subject
to the regulations laid down, and provided that no objection
was made to it by the prisoner. That he took to be the
meaning of the act, and, with the view of carrying out its
meaning, he had framed an amendment, viz. :
" It is the opinion of this Court that the visiting justices
would do well to carry out the provisions of the Prison
Ministers' Act contained in the second part of the third sec-
tion of the act."
He submitted this amendment because, while, on the one
hand, the Court only had the power of appointing and
paying a Roman Catholic chaplain, they had no power to
enforce visiting justices to make any such arrangement.
He was therefore anxious to collect the opinion of the
Court as to whether the visiting justices had done wisely
in refusing Mr. Ringrose the permission asked for. When
he listened to Mr. Merry's string of objections as to the
difficulties, impossibilities, confusion, trouble, and want of
discipline that would arise supposing they attempted to
carry out this act, it struck him that they were very much
the same sort of objections they would hear if we were at
tempting to obtainjustice for Protestant prisoners in Roman
Catholic prisons in Spain. They would not hear a word about
conscience or matters of that sort. But he believed that there
was no difficulty in the matter. He believed that the half-
dozen Roman Catholic prisoners in Reading gaol could be
visited by Mr, Ringrose (providing that they did not object)
without any breach of prison discipline whatever—(hear) ;
and if there happened to be any prisoners of' the Wesleyan,
Baptist, Independent, or Jewish persuasion, the same pro-
vision should be made, and there should be no difficulty in
carrying out this Act of Parliament. He would undertake,
if be were a visiting justice, to carry out the law without
giving to Mr. Ringrose. or any other minister, any undue
license. (Hear.) He was as anxious as any one to main-
tain prison discipline, and he did not see that it would in
any way be affected by giving effect to the new law. His
object in proposing this amendment was to collect the sense
of the Court as to the expediency, or otherwise of carrying
out that modified or limited provision in the second part of
the third section of the Act, believing it to be their duty to
promote every means for the religious instruction of the pri-
soners.

Sir GEORGE BOWYER, M.P., said—ln the course of the
discussion this had been spoken of as a religious ques-
tion. He denied that it was a religious question. It cer-
tainly was not so. Mr. Goodlake had used the word
polemical, but it had nothing to do with polemics ; it had
nothing to do with theology. The Legislature in passing
that Act was not actuated by any sectarian or religious
motive whatever. The Act was passed on general public
grounds. It was an Act for the improvement of discipline
in the gaols of the country, and for securing to prisoners in
those gaols who did. not belong to the Established Church
that instruction and religious assistance according to their
own persuasion, without which it was utterly vain to expect
any amendment in those prisoners. That was the object of
the Act, and he hoped that no one would after this say that
it had anything to do with a religious question. He under-
stood that the chief objection of Mr. Merry to any proposi-
tion of this sort was that if they appointed a Roman Catholic
chaplain they must do the same with regard to prisoners of
other persuasions differing from the Established Church.
In answer to this he would say that he did not ask the
Court to give to prisoners of his own religious persuasion
that which he was not willing should be given to prisoners
of other persuasions. (Hear, hear.) But he must mention
this circumstance to the Court, which had not been suffi-
ciently considered. It was that the Roman Catholics were
placed in a very peculiar position with reference to this
question. He believed he was correct in saying that there
was scarcely any instance of a Dissenter objecting to the
ministrations of the Established Church. The Established
Church was Protestant : they were Protestant, and they
did not object to the ministrations of that Church. But
with regard to Roman Catholics the case was different.
They did object to receiving the ministration of any persons
except they were priests in the Roman Catholic Church.
Such was the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and
one reason was no one but a priest could administer those
sacraments according to the tenets of Roman Catholics
that were absolutely essential. Therefore, as a matter of
fact, the Roman Catholics were placed in a different posi-
tion from Dissenters. Yes, Dissenters might receive the
ministrations of the gaol chaplain, but Roman Catholics
could not receive those ministrations in a relc-
gious sense without violating their duty to their
Church. In Ireland the principle of having different chap-
lains was carried out without any difficulty, and he could
not understand why the same should not be done in this
country. (Hear, hear.) And then with regard to the fact
of Roman Catholic prisoners here being only about five
annually, he did not understand why that should make any
difference. Why should those five be placed under more
disadvantageous circumstances than 50 or 500 ? The rights
of five were the same as 60 ; they had the same right to the
ministrations of their own clergy, and if they wanted to do
them real good they could only do it through the religious
instrUction and appliances given them by the ministrations
of their own religion. The policy of the law was not to
neglect the reformation of prisoners because. they were few.
If only five their reformation was as much the object of the
law, and the Legislature intended them to be taken as much
care of as if they were 500. The question of numbers was
only to be taken into consideration when the payment of
salary had to be determined. (Hear, hear.) On that
morning he had a conversation with Canon Ringrose, and
he stated that salary to him was perfectly immaterial, and
he was quite willing to give his ministrations without any
salary. He could not help remarking that it had been said
in the House of Commons and other places that the Roman
Catholic clergy had a secondary object in view in getting
admission into gaols. Everybody was not so fond of being in
a gaol, or of a gaol, as Mr. Merry. (Laughter.) Most
people considered it anything but an agreeable thing
to have to go to a gaol. The Catholic clergy
could have no object in going but to do their duty. It
was a painful duty, and they were only anxious to do it_
As for proselytizing, it was perfectly absurd. How could
they do it I Look at Reading Gaol, and they saw it was a
place of separate confinement. The priest had given to him
a list of the names of the prisoners belonging to his church ;
he goes into their calls and sees them separately, and then
goes away. How could that be proselytizing ? It was a
most absurd thing to mention. He was quite certain there
could be no difficulty whatever in the visiting justices so
regulating the visits of Mr. Ringros to prisoners of his
persuasion that no inconvenience to prisoners could occur,
no improper communications could take place, and no im-
proper persons could get into the gaol. He hoped that the
Court would agree to the amendment of the hon. gentleman,
Mr. Walter.
Mr. MERRY, a visiting justice, said he should be glad to
save the time of the court and to clear away a vast quantity
of misapprehension. The Rev. Canon Ringrose was a gen-
tleman whom they had met on the most respectful terms,
and they had told him that they would inform all Roman
Catholic prisoners he would attend if they desired him. Mr.
Ringrose had not been denied access to prisoners,when they
had requested to see him.
A suggestion was made that the discussion was proceed-
ing while the amendment had not been seconded. As it
was found that Mr. Gibson's motion was illegal it was ruled
that Mr. Walter's amendment should become a substantive
motion.
Lord OVERSTONE rose and said he would avail himself