The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-01 00:00:00

PRISONS BILL.

A short discussion then ensued as to the House going
into Committee on this Bill, for the purpose of discussing
clause 14. Several Members on the Opposition side of
the House wished to have it postponed, on the ground that
sulicient notice bad not been given, and that Members
were not aware the Bill would be brought on, but which
ended in the House going into Committee, and Mr. Ber-
nal taking the Chair.
Claure 14 was then proposed, and
Sir R. INGLIS objected to it. The clause was no-
thing more than a declaration by the Legislature that
there was no distinction in the truth or falsehood of any
statement of religious belief. If the system proposed by,
this clause were introduced into the prisons, the same sys-
tem might be introduced into workhouses, into the regi-
ments, and into the ships of war. There was no point at
which they could stop, if they once recognised the prin-
ciple contained in this clause. He therefore moved that

Clause 14 do not stand part of the Bill.
Mr. PAKINGTON seconded the motion.

Sir A. DALRYMPLE opposed the clause.
Sir E. SMITH was ready to allow every unfortunate pri-
soner his priest or minister to attend him, but he objected to
the clause because he knew that a Catholic Priest, or a Dis-
senting Minister would not be satisfied with affording consola-
tion to those who belonged to their sect, but would interfere
with those who did not below, to their religion.
Sir C. B. VERE opposed the clause on the ground that it
was against the principles of the Establishment. So long as
they had an Established Church it was impossible that they
could levy money for the payment of the minister of any sect.
Those persons who were put into prisons must take all the con-
sequences incident to their situation, and one of those was that
they must take that religious instruction which was provided
for them.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought it right to say a few words
upon that clause. It was moved at a time when he was not in
the House ; but it was well re,,eived, and was strongly sup-
ported by the Noble Lord (Stanley), and though he had some
doubts upon its propriety, finding it was so supported he was
willing to adopt it, provided that the general superintendence of
the Chaplain was secured.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the
clause as it now stood, secured that object, and therefore he
supported it. Suppose there were fifty persons constantly in
gaol belonging to one communion, and the minister of that re-
ligion gave up a great portion of his time, it might be fit and
and proper that he should receive some remuneration ;
wliereast there: were only one in gaol belonging
td rthat . persuasion, it would not .be fit and proper
that be should be paid for giving up only a portion'ef his time.
The Hon. Member for Worcestershire found fault with the re-
muneration being left to be given by the Justices if they should
see fit—but without these words he (Lord J. Russell) would
not be so well pleased with the clause. With respect to the ar-
gument of the Right Hon. Baronet. We allowed soldiers to
attend chapels of any kind, because it could be done without in-
convenience—but they did not send Dissenting Clergymen on
Board their ships, because that would be inconvenient. That
was recognizingthe principle of convenience, and it, he thought,
would be well applied here.
' Colonel WOOD—With respect to soldiers, they were allowed
to attend Catholic or Presbyterian Chapels, but they did not
pay them. He objected to the clause altogether, but especially
that it should be left optional for the Magistrates to decide
whether it should be put in force or not. The Legislature
ought to say at once whether the clergyman ought to be paid
or not, otherwise it would introdure constant angry discussions
at Quarter Sessions. If the Legislature carried the clause, he
thought the number for whose instruction the Minister was to
be paid, ought to be left optional with the Justices.
Mr. BLACKSTONE wished to ask if the Noble Lord was
prepared to carry out the principle in the workhouses of the
country. He thought it was an insidious plan of increasing
the power of Catholicism in this country.
Mr. BAINES—Was the Protestant religion so weak that it
would be endangered by sending five or six priests to give re-
ligigious instruction to a few prisoners—the idea was prepos-
terous.

Mr. LANGDALE said the real question was, whether 50
or 60 of the lowest class of society should be altogether with-
out religious instruction, for it was clear that they would not
receive it from the Establishment. They were not, then,
punishing the prisoners, but also society, who were deprived of
the chance of reformation in the gaol.
Mr. DARBY—The clause came before them in a curious
way. The Noble Lord would not allow that it was his—it was
disclaimed on the part of the Dissenters by an Hon. Member ;
so that he could not but think it was brought forward exclu-
sively for the Roman Catholics. The admission of Roman
Catholics into prisons he considered was a part of a great sys-
tem to undermine the Established Church of the country, and
he must therefore object to the clause.
Mr. PLUMPTRE objected to the :clause, as it established
a principle which he as a Protestant could not sanction.
Mr. ACLAND objected to the clause ; he wished to ask
the Attorney-General to explain what was meant by the words
(ne and the same religion ?
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the Clause..
Against it... ..............................
Majority in favour of the Clause...
On our re-admission we found,
Mr. O'CONNELL on his legs supporting the clause which
allowed Committees of Ladies to visit Female Prisoners. He
thought it would be a most unchristian act to exclude those
females. If his religion called for such exclusion he should he
ashamed of it..—(Cheers.) No Catholic would feel justified in
acting in such a way by Protestants.—( Hear, hear. )
Col. WOOD said, this question ought not to be left in doubt
and uncertainty.
The Bill, as amended, was then ordered to be printed, and
taken into further consideration on Friday next.
PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL the House went
into Committee on the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. COLQUI-lOUN moved as an amendment that the nine
Sheriffs of Counties, where Circuit Courts are held, be added
as ex officio Members to the Central Board.
Mr. F. MAULE opposed the addition, and
Sir GEORGE CLERK supported it.
The House divided, and the the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against amendment
Sir W. RAE then objected to the Inspector of Prisons
being a member of the Board, and moved an amendment to
that effect.
Mr. HAWES said the Inspector of Prisons was the man
who of all others, ought to be on the Board, because he might
naturally be supposed to be well acquainted with Prisons.—
( I lear, hear. )
Mr. COLQUITOUN objected to the Inspector being on
the Board.
Mr. WALLACE contended that he was a suitable person,
from the knowledge which he must necessarily possess.
Mr. F. MAULE thought great advantage would arise from
the Inspector of Prisons having a seat at the Board, and he,
therefore, trusted, that the lion. Gentleman opposite would
agree to his being an honorary member.
After some remarks from Lord Stormont, Mr. Hawes, Mr.
Hume, Mr. Pringle, Sir J. Duke, and Sir George Clerk,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 5l
Against it ........ 101
Majority against the amendment... —so
'The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses up to 7 were agreed to.
On Clause 8 being proposed which rendered the Keeper of
a Jail liable for the debts of any debtor whom he allowed to
esc
Sir, G. CLERK thought it would be impossible that this
clause would work well. lii small counties a person might be
imprisoned for a large sum, and the Keeper, who would have a
very small salary, would not be able to find sureties.
The LORD ADVOCATE had no objection to omit the
Clause, as he saw the hardships it might give rise to.
Mr. PIIING LE said, by omitting the clause creditors would
lose the security they now had, as the Magistrates touk secu-
rity from the gaoler, and they were liable for the escape.
Sir G. CLERK would have no objection to strike the clause
out, if the Learned Lord were prepared to bring in a Bill to
abolish imprisonment for debt in Scotland.
After a few words from Mr. Elliot, Mr. Blair, Mr. Fergu-
son, the clause was struck out.
Clauses up to 17 were agreed to, with a few verbal amend-
ments.

136
81
-55