The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-21 00:00:00

IRON PLATE EXPERIMENTS.

Mr. LONGFIELD asked the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty if the Iron Plate Committee had made any report on
the subject referred to them ; if so, whether he had any
objection to lay the same before the house?
Lord C. PAGET explained that if the results of the ex-
periments at Shoeburyness were simply communicated to
the members of that house there could be no great objec-
tion, but it was not advisable that all the experiments
should be made generally known. (Hear, hear.)
WICK HARBOUR.

Sir F. SMITH gave notice that on the Ist of May he
should call attention to the correspondence with the Board
of Trade with respect to this port.
DISEASES OF SHEEP AND CATTLE.

Mr. HOLLAND gave notice that on Wednesday, the
29th inst., he should move for leave to bring in a bill to
amend by extending the 17th Vic., to prevent the spread
of contagious dis-ases among cattle,
NEW WRIT,—NEW RADNOR.

On the motion of Mr. Brand, the Clerk of the Crown
was ordered to issue a writ for a new election in the room
of Sir G. C. Lewis, deceased.
PRISON MINISTERS BILL.

Sir G. GREY, in moving the second reading of this bill,
explained at some length its provisions. It appeared from
a return moved for last year, that no less than between
3,000 and 4,000 Roman Catholic prisoners were incarcerated
in the prisons in England and Wales, independently of
between 1,400 and 1,500 in convict establishments, and
he was afraid that the number at the present time
was somewhat larger. It was only right that these unfor-
tunate persons should have the benefit of the ministrations
of the clergy of their own religious persuasion. The prin-
ciple had long received the sanction of the house in regard
to the military who were Roman Catholics, for whom
chaplains were provided at home and abroad, and paid out
of the sums annually voted by the house. The bill was one
which would carry out in an unobjectionable manner those
principles of civil and religious liberty which had now for
many years characterised the bent of legislation. The bill
was not hostile to the Church of England. He trusted the
house would see the expediency and propriety of acceding
to the second reading of the bill.
Mr. G. LANGTON rose to move that the bill be read a
second time this day six months.
Col. BARTTELOT seconded the amendment.

Mr. HENLEY wished to say a lew words in explanation
of the vote he intended to give. It was admitted by the hon.
gentleman who seconded the amendment that there were
certain grievances under which Roman Catholic prisoners
laboured, and therefore no measure could be uncalled for or
unnecessary which proposed to remedy those grievances.
The returns of the prisons in England and Wales showed
the average number of prisoners to be 130 in each, and they
could not expect, however kind-hearted a person might feel
towards his co-religionists, that be would go into a prison to
attend a hundred or two hundred without remuneration for
it. He thought the provision in the bill for furnishing
Roman Catholic priests with an extract from the books of
the religious persuasions of the different prisoners should be
sufficient, and that they ought not to have access to the
books. He had no hesitation in saying:that the bill meets
a grievance admitted by those who opposed the bill, and he
should therefore give it his support.

Mr. SELWYN said he was unable to understand what
were the particular grievances which called for the innova-
tion proposed by the bill, or how it would remedy such
grievances, if they existed. He objected to the bill on va-
rious grounds. It was opposed to the rights and principles
of the Established Church, and also the rights of individual
conscience. He also objected to the proposed registration
of the religious persuasion of the different prisoners in
the mode proposed. The numerous petitions which had
been presented against the bill showed the opposition it
had met with in the country. The bill introduced last
year by the hon. and learned member for King's County
he considered the more preferable one of the two, and
he looked upon the present measure as one of com-
promise. The object sought by the bill was to give to
s seeking
Roman Catholic priests that. recognised
not ot
werenow enjoy.ki
(Hear, hear.) He considered g status and
position by the Government
mem-
ber for King's County wished by his to do directly. This
nment
whichthethey
Government did
to do indirectly by this bill what the hon. and learned
was a measure so contrary to the constitution of the country,
that he should give it his opposition.
Lord E. HOWARD supported the bill. He denied that
of a police measure that it had been introduced by the
this was an ecclesiastical measure ; it was more in the char-
acter
Home Secretary, and he thanked him for it. The necessity
of the bill had been proved by persons of great authority.
The noble lord at the head of the Government had declared
that, if they would reform a criminal, they must appeal to
hisheart through language to which he had been accustomed.
The late lamented Sir George Lewis could not see how a
principle which had worked so well in Ireland was inad-
missible in England. The opinions of the right hon. mem-
ber for Oxfordshire (Mr, Henley) had been heard that Even-
ing in favour of the bill ; while the bill itself was a sufficient
index of the views entertained by so high an authority as
the Home Secretary. Well, surely so happy an admixture
of authorities could not but have its legitimate influence in
favour of the bill. The noble lord then proceeded at con-
siderable length to demonstrate that not only wis this
measure demanded by a sense of what was due to the poorest
and most defenceless class of the community, but it was im-
peratively called for in the interest of the ratepayers of the
country.

Mr. P. WYNDHAM said there was no analogy between
the case of appointing Roman Catholic chaplains in the army
and that of gaol chaplains, and he thought the passing of
the bill would tend to create much exasperation among the
the middle classes of this country.
Mr. LYSELEY thought that the worst principle of the
bill had passed unnoticed, and that was where it was pro-

vided that, independently of the appointment or non-
appointment of the magistrates, a priest could intrude
himself into a prison without the knowledge of the magis•
traces, for which he would be entitled to remuneration.
Colonel W. PATTEN said he was anxious to say a few
words with reference to the vote he intended to give. He
had the honour of being one of the representatives of a
county where there was the largest body of Roman Catho-
lics, and he was anxious to show that there WEI 9 an errone-
ous impression in the minds of those who said there was no
grievance which could be complained of as regarded their
gaols. In the county he had the honour to represent he was
in the habit of receiving constant representations of the
hardships to which Roman Catholic prisoners were sub•
jeeted by the present law. He was bound to say that these
representations required the serious consideration of the
house. He did not approve of the bill, and in committee he
would seek to improve it ; but, knowing that grievances
existed, and that Roman Catholics were the largest and
least educated portion of the prisoners in the gaols in Lan-
cashire, who were entirely left without any of the religious
instruction given to other prisoners, he would support the
second reading.

Mr. E. BAINES, though in general an advocate of the
voluntary principle, both in education and religion, yet he
could not refuse to admit the justice of the present bill. The
bill appeared to him to be based upon two principles—that
it was the duty of the State to see that persons received re-
ligious instruction; and secondly, to uphold the rights of
conscience.

Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I am unwilling for a moment to
stand between the house and their natural impatience for a
division. (A laugh.) I will do so only for a few minutes,
and I do so from a conviction that the decision on this
question is one at which the house ought not to arrive in
an impatient spirit. (Hear, hear.) I believe the country
will not be satisfied if it believes that we have come to a
conclusion on this question without that due deliberation
which the importance and gravity of the subject demand.
(Cheers.) Sir, the objections to the bill are not of a light
character; and, on the other hand, the arguments in its
favour recommend themselves not on the ground of expe-
diency, but of justice. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, in making
some remarks on the question, I shall claim from all who
take part in this debate the exercise of a spirit of forbear-

ance. There are two great objections which have been

urged against this bill. One is that it affects injuriously
the status of the Church of England. Sir, if I thought
this measure had even a tendency to impair the authority of
the Church of England I should oppose it. In this age, when
the elements of Government are diminishing, when the power
of governing nations is every day weakening, it would be

most unwise to impair the influence of an institution tha

has contributed in so eminent and beneficial a manner to
the formation of that English character which, after all,
is the best security for the preservation of that we most

value. (Hear, hear.) And, Sir, I cannot conceal from my

own conviction that the time may come, and is even
nearer than many imagine, when in our peril and per-
plexity we may find a guide and guardian in that insti-
tution, which by the services thus rendered to us will
establish fresh claims to the confidence and gratitude of
the country. (Cheers.) Happily, in my opinion, for this
country, the still exieting privileges of the Church of Eng-
land are great and manifold ; but this should always be re-
membered—that the privileges of the Church of England,
entirely in theory, and greatly still in practice, embody
and represent popular rights. That is the source of their

strength. (Hear.) I cannot myself see what popular right
is represented by the Church of England exercising an
arbitrary power to prevent the captive who is not in her
communion from enjoying the consolations of his religion.
(Hear. hear.) Sir, I say that, on the contrary, such a
policy is injurious to the Church of England. It is the in-
terest of the Church of England—it is the interest of all
ecclesiastical institutions, and indeed of all religious bodies,
—to favour the development of the religious principle,—to
cherish, encourage, and nurture those spiritual influences
which hitherto have controlled and regulated man,—
"Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise and rudely great."
(Cheers.) I am told in this instance that there is a wider and
deeper objection, if such there can be, against this bill—that
it is antagonistic to the interest of the Church of England.
We are told by the hon. gentleman who moved the amend-
ment that he looks upon the measure as dangerous to the
Protestant spirit of this country. Sir, there are many
gentlemen in this house who are in the habir, of enlarging
upon and exalting the Protestant spirit of England. In my
opinion, it is not easy for them to use language that can ade-
quately describe the strength and power of that spirit. lt is
fervent, it is profound, it is general. But, of all the subjects
of her Majesty, the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen
are the last who ought to have a doubt as to the power and
strength of that spirit. Why, it is comparatively only re-
cently that they have experienced bitterly the power of the
Protestant spirit of this country. It is a fact that at this
moment there is only one member of the House of Com-
mons among the numerous representatives of England and
Wales—l believe I may say of Great Britain—who is
a member of the Cat holic Church, and that one is re-
turned to the house by the traditionary friendship of his
neighbours, bearing as he does an illustrious name, and the
member of a family dear to all Englishmen, whether Pro •
testant or Roman Catholic. (Hear, hear.) Of what is this
remarkable state of things a consequence ? It exists be-
cause those who advised the Catholics of this country
took a course into the merits of which I am not now dis-
posed to enter, but which was supposed by the Protestant
spirit of this country to be aimed at outraging or cunningly
circumventing the Protestant feeling of this country.
(Hear, hear.) Are we to fear for the Protestant interests of
this country if the bill now brought forward should be sanc-
tioned by the house ? What does it propose to do ? It pro,
poses, in the matter of the appointment of Roman Catholic
chaplains, to trust to the discretion of the natural leaders of
a people who, it may be from exaggerated, but certainly
from profound and sincere convictions respecting the con-
duct of the Catholic party some 10 or 12 years ago, have
returned so many Parliaments to Westminster in which

there has been only one Catholic member. Why, if there be
any class of men who can be said to faithfully represent the
feelings of the country, it is that composed of the magis-
trates in counties, cities, boroughs, and corporations. They
must be the chief men of the counties and towns, and they
must adequately represent the feelings of the country; and
who can suppose that under this influential representation
there can possibly be any misrepresentation of the Protes-
tant sentiments of the country ? I cannot share in any ap-
prehension on the subject. And when we are told, as we
have just been told, that one of the objections to this bill is
that it throws on the magistrates assembled at quarter ses-
sions, and on similar occasions, the weighty responsibility
of considering the question of the appointment of a Roman
Catholic chaplain to a gaol, I must say that I cannot under-
stand why men who have been appointed magistrates—why
men intrusted with the exalted duties of such an office—
should not bear the burden of such a responsibility. (Hear,
hear.) Are we to lie told that in the case of those gentlemen
honour is nct to be attended with responsibility? (Hear.)
I think, therefore, that, whether we look at the influence of
this bill on the status of the Church of England,or whether
we look at its probable influence on the Protestant spirit of
this country, or on the Protestant character of our institu-
tions, it is but forming a mean conception of that Church,
it is but taking a poor view of that influence, if we suppose
that the bill before us can possibly endanger the one or
diminish the other. (Hear, hear.) That is an opinion which

I cannot for a moment entertain or sanction. We must look
at this bill in its real character, and not in the light of those
visionary apprehensions which have been raised by some
gentlemen and which are not only not sanctioned by fact,
but cannot be entertained with a due regard for the real in•
terests of the Church. (Hear, hear.) As my right hon.
friend the member for Oxfordshire said, it is a bill to do an
act of justice. It is said the Roman Catholic prisoner has
never required the assistance which this bill proposes to ex-
tend to him, but the objections which have been raised to it
on that ground appear to me to be founded on a complete fal-
lacy. This is a bill to do justice, not merely to the Roman
Catholic prisoner, but to the Protestant community. On
what possible ground, after having adopted those principles
with regard to the treatment of criminals which have been
confirmed by a long series of legislation, can you justify that
legislation to Protestant England if you say that there shall
be in the gaols of the country a considerable portion of the
penal population whom you will take no care to reforrr, and
whom you are prepared periodically to let loose again on the
country, unreformed by the influences of religion ? (Hear.)
Great fault has been found with this bill because it was a
permissive bill. But the same speakers who have urged that
objection tell you at the same time that the circumstances of
the case, even if the policy were admitted, only require a very
limited application of it. They say that in all the gaols of
the country interference only is necessary in some eight or
ten. It is a permissive bill, therefore, because the evil to be
remedied is limited in its character. (Hear, hear.) You can-
not make it compulsory in courts of quarter sessions to ap-
point Roman Catholic chaplains to gaols where there are no
RismsaC anena
limited,tenirmC aen,tahynwoodl
uhi
bseprison.
secure
utahrlleisoteuhrbrsai
tl
ellietral yi
you meet
dmidomaenepi
itpt
st
carried
aat
thnr
oaenttdht
whoa enthgrievance
c h Aalone
tl tnlpracticalthe
is required, while you avoid that partial legislation which
is always a blot. (Hear, hear.) You have a bill brought
forward which is general, and that is the basis of all sound
legislation, but you have made the application limited in
Practice because the necessity of the case only requiries it.
You have provided a remedy for the evil and inconvenience,
while you have not violated the sound principle that your
legislation should be general and universal. That there are
no Dissenting criminals who require the consolations of
their particular pastors is a fact of which the hon. member'
for Sheffield may be justly proud—C" hear, hear," from Mr.
Hadfield)—and I congratulate him upon it; but if I were a
Dissenting criminal I think I should require the consolation
ofsh my
allfimndini
thatster
this
iasn
isd naop dr
iovui
lbe tg we hwehni
ct
hh i
ws
ibl Ilb
eh aesx
epracsisseed we
. I
hope the house will pass the measure. It is a measure in
harmony with all the legislation which this house of late
years hashyaesasarnsbcebteeinoennelaodentgoednauc wl
tpkhonensoeseludfbjects. (Hear, hear.) I
am told that it introduces a new and dangerous principle.
wh
several years
I ask, is the new principle? The principle is one
presence the gt
he de' s atantof s odu
Rwhof
ymiet willc(Hear, be equally Imperilled
by their presence in a regi thee
ha
n hasCCha ut
hr forcoh
of England be imperilled by chaplains in a gaol,
surely
hear.) If the
presence of a Roman Catholic chaplain m
tm English gaol