The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-09 00:00:00

that it should be maintained at law as a positive and sub-
stantial right. (Hear.) But what does this bill say ? It
provides that in any case in which it is the o? :n on of the
justices that the number of prisoners differing from the
Church of England in any prison is so great as in their
judgm.stt to require the ministrations of a clergyman of any
:,ther religious persuasion the said justice may appoint a
minister of such religious persuasion to ttend the said
prisoners, and may award him such reasonable recompense
as they may think fit. It goes on to say that the said minis-
ter shall hold his appointment at the pleasure of the jus.
tices, and shall be subject to all the rules and regulana
of the prison. Now, I appeal to your lordst;pB whether
every one of the essentials of an ends ;,went are not only
studiously omitted here but absolcelycontradicted. (Hear.)
It is left entirely to the just," if they think fit; they may
refuse to pay the mip!..ster ; they may pay him what sum
they may think fit ; and they may discharge him when they
please. Th'as certainly does not look very much like placing
the Raman Catholic Church on a footing with the Church
of England. My noble friend says that the present law does
all that is necessary ; but I differ from him there altogether-
I do not think that the provisions of the law as it stands
are satisfactory, or founded on justice. Whatever may be
the provisions of the law at the present time, it is perfectly
clear that this injustice is so great that in many of our prin-
cipal prisons they are to a great extent departed from. The
law is that every prisoner shall be visited by the chaplain
of the gaol, who of course is a minister of the Church
of England. I know the perfect honesty and con-
scientiousness of my noble friend, and I will ask him one
question If this were a Roman Catholic country contain-
ing a considerable number of Protestant prisoners, and if
they were compelled to receive, whether they would or not,
the visit of Roman Catholic priests, so that the whole period
of their confinement was not only a penal sentence, not an
:,ttempt at reformation alone, but one continued system of
proselytism, would he consider the provisions of such a law
satisfactory? (Hear.) My noble friend says that this re-
striction does not apply to the case of prisoners who desire
to see a minister of their own persuasion. The law says that
the chaplain shall be a clergyman of the Church of England;
it is the good sense of the magistrates which says to the
prisoners, "If you desire to see a minister of your own per-
suasion we will take upon ourselves to supersede the law
and allow you to see him." But is it reasonable to argue
from the supposition that men of the character and the past
lives of the majority of our prisoners will readily come for-
ward and ask for the services of a minister of their own re-
ligion ? (Hear.) A very considerable number of the Roman
Catholic prisoners have asked for the services of their own
clergy; and it is greatly to the credit of the Roman Catho-
lic clergy that in no case have they neglected the call made
upon them. (Hear.) With regard to Protestant dissenters
there have been no such demands, and for very sufficient
reasons. There are no such broad distinctions between the
different sects of Protestant dissenters as to prevent the
members of one receiving religious consolation and instruc-
tion from the ministers of the other; the Dissenting minis-
ters would not object to prisoners of their persuasion re-
ceiving the ministrations of the Church of England chap-
lain. The case of Roman Catholics, however, is widely diffe-
rent. They are instructed that to listen to the teachings
of a minister not of their own persuasion is a heinous sin.
A prisoner of no particular strength of religious feeling
would not object to listen to the chaplain of the Church of
England, because he does not consider his teaching to be of
any authority whatever; but he will most earnestly deprecate
being visited by a priest of his own faith, who has more
power over his mind, and to whom he will attribute a great
deal mere authority and responsibility than he would to the
minister of any other persuasion. We have been led to be-
lieve that reformation is the great object of punishment. I
am afraid it does not follow as frequently as philanthropists
would wish—(a laugh)—but undoubtedly it is one of the
objects of punishment, and one of the agencies which we
must use in bringing it about is that of religious instruc-
tion and consolation. Ido not know whether my noble
friend has seen a return moved for in the House of Com-
mons by Lord Edward Howard. From this return it ap-
pears that there is a very large number of Roman Catholics
in the various gaols of England. In the 11 convict prisons
of the country there are 1,388 Roman Catholics, being an
average of 126 to each prison. In 14 of the other prisons
the average number is 133, the number in each of the 14
exceeding 50. The Roman Catholics acknowledge the same
God as we do ; they acknowledge the same Saviour ; they
acknowledge the same Mediator; they look for the remis-
sion of sins from the same quarter, and the same quarter
alone ; and every moral precept which their Church teaches
is derived from that source to which alone Christians can
look for the foundation of their religious belief. Therefore,
although I may differ from the doctrines of the Roman
Catholic Church, I cannot deny that the influence of the
priests of that Church must have a powerful tendency to
guide the minds of prisoners of their own persuasion, and
to awaken those prisoners to a sense of their former life.
Either it is desirable that Roman Catholic prisoners should
have that teaching or it is not. If it is desirable, we are
bound to give it them in order to accomplish the main ob-
ject of punishment—namely, the reformation of offenders.
They will not accept your teaching ; they are not desirous
of it ; and it is not your duty to force it on them. But it is
your duty to let them have religious instruction which they
will attend to. My noble friend does not dispute that in
some cases this instruction is now given. The only point in
dispute is whether it should be given gratuitously or should
be paid for. My noble friend does not dispute the propriety
of allowing Roman Catholic clergymen to give instruction
in prisons; but he contends that they should do so on their
own responsibility and at their own expense. It is quite
true that there are prisons in which there are very few
Roman Catholic prisoners ; and in these it is never im-
possible and seldom difficult to procure the attendance of a
Roman Catholic clergyman ; but there are many prisons in
which it would be unjust and impossible to call on the Ro-
man Catholic clergyman to give his services without any
remuneration, if it be desirable that the prisoners of his
religious persuasion should have the advantage of these
services. (Hear, hear.) I belong to a county in the gaols
of which there is the greatest number of Roman Catholic
prisoners, while my noble friend belongs to one in thei gaol
of which there is perhaps the smallest number. This I may
account for our taking different views on the subject. I find
that in the borough gaol of Liverpool there are about 350
or 360 prisoners who are members of the Church of England.
The Protestant chaplain of that prison receives a sum of
LlOO a year for his services. In the same gaol there are
460 Roman Catholic prisoners. The Roman Catholic priest
attends twice a week, and the remuneration for his services
to about 100 more prisoners than are attended by the Pro-
testant chaplain is just nil as against the £4OO paid to the
latter gentleman. (Hear, hear.) My lords, it is impossible
to look at those returns and to argue in the face of the facts
which they disclose that you are dealing justly and equit-
ably as between the ministers of the two religions. (Hear,
hear.) Why does not my noble friend object to the system
which exists in Ireland, and under which there is compul-
sory payment out of the county rates of the Roman
Catholic chaplains employed in the gaols of that country.
If it would be a mortal sin to do this in England, we are
sinning deeply in Ireland, because there the law not only
gives you the opportunity, but compels you to do itl (A
laugh, and " Hear, hear.") Certainly, among my oble
friends coming from the north of Ireland, who are most
strongly opposed to the Roman Catholic religion, li)have
never heard any objection raised to the payment out f the
county rates of the Roman Catholic chaplains in the gaols
there. (Hear, hear.) I think it of no small importance
that the magistrates should have the appointment. I think
it of importance that the priest should feel that he is ap-
pointed by the magistrates, subject to their jurisdiction, and
responsible to them for the performance of his duty. It
therefore appears to me that the bill is one which meets
the justice and the equity of the case, and does not go be-
yond it. (Hear.) It does not place the Roman Catholic
Church in a position different from that of other denomina-
tions. Still less does it place it on a footing in the slightest
degree of equality with the Established Church. I should
regret very much if the bill had that effect ; but it
has not. What it provides is that where duties are to be
performed—laborious, painful, and responsible duties—you
shall not, if they are services to the State, insist on their
perfomance without remuneration ; that you shall make a
fair return for services which you may deem valuable, in
carrying out the work of prison reformation. I am well
aware not only that I differ on this question from several of
my noble friends around me, but that this measure has met
with much misapprehension and prejudice—honest preju-
dice, no doubt—and that it is not likelyto be popular in this
country. But where I have clearly seen my way with
regard to the justice and policy of a measure, I hope that I
never have shrunk, and that I never shall shrink, from
incurring the risk of unpopularity ; and I think I made
a much greater sacrifice than in taking a course which
connects me with unpopularity out of doors when I
find myself differing on this questiont fromsionsit
noble
friends around me, with whom, on most occasions has
long
way to
long been my happiness to act. All considerations of this
sort, however, must considerations of policy
g
and justice, and believing the measure to be founded not the higher principle
only upon policy and justice, but upon it hi
of Christian charity and religion, I deem my duty to give
a conscientious and cordial vote in favour of the second
reading. (Cheers.)
After a few remarks from Lord BERNERS in ex-
planation,
The Earl of HARROWEY considered the bill would
introduce a new subject of discord throughout the country,
without any adequate advantage.
The
Earl of CHICHESTER supported the second read-
ing of the bill.
The Bishop
no hesitation inofvoLtinOgNfpoOr
matter of justice ; but
to be d
hethNtolluegshbailt. jtuhsetimceeawsuasrenothliwkealsy
aon
nief
the shito
contrary,
rdhaar
yve:
bent hh aa
adt
forwardedquestion
i by the adoption of
the first time in this country they should permit whether for
public ins ti tu-
permit the appoint-
ment of Roman Catholic priests to our
aa nndd create t 1:
eae
tions. If adopted, the bill must be carrgiedeat
asked why they should step out of their Nvfurther
difficulty. He asked the house to reject the
The Earl of Cork, Lord Arundel of Warallidolultro,
Earl of Donoughmore supported the bill.
Lord MELVILLE and the Bishop of CASHEL opposed
the bill.

The house divided. The numbers were—
Contents
Non-contents
Majority WI —35
The bill was then read a second time.