The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-13 00:00:00

them on Sundays, Good Fridays, and Christmas days. The
. priests attended once a week in ministration on the male
prisoners, and once a week in ministration on the female
prisoners. At Millbank also, when a convict was ill, so as
to show that he ought to have religious consolation, if he
was a Catholic, the priest was sent for to give him mini-
stration. That system was established before his time,
and he thought it a good one, and it was his inteetion
that it should be extended to all the Goveinmont prisons,
and for this purpose an additional vote was proposed to
the house in the estimates for this year. It did not occur
to him that the Protestant succession or the throne was
likely to be in danger by .this vote. (Laughter.) He
could not seriously deal with the alarm of the hon. gentle-
man. He was not of opinion that they should wait always
till a convict wished to have a priest, and that then the
priest should come at his own cost. In the first place, the
man who most wanted spiritual assistance was the man
who was least likely to ask for it. What was the object
they were aiming at by their prison discipline ? It was not
mere punishment : it was a combine:don of punishment
with reformation. They wanted to avail themselves of the
turn to his thoughts, to discipline him with ideas and
feelings, which probably never entered his mind before. '
They wished to turn him out at the end of his period of
confinement a better man, and less likely to be dangerous
to the community. How were they to do it ? The Pro-
testant bad the ministrations of his clergyman, but the
Catholic could not advantageously receive the ministra-
tions of a clergyman who was not of his own faith. They
could not expect that the ministration of a Protestant cler-
gyman would have great effect on the mind of a Catholic
convict any more than they could expect that the minis-
tration of a Catholic clergyman could have great effect on
a Protestant. If the hon. member for Warwickshire were
to be attended by a Catholic priest he did not suppose that
he would derive much advantage from it. They wanted to
get at the mind of the man, and they must employ some-
body who could reach it. They must, therefore, employ
the clergyman of the man's own persuasion. The system
was introduced by Sir G. Grey, and under it a Catholic was
not at liberty to refuse attending Catholic worship; he, like
a Protestant, must attend divine worship conducted by his
own clergyman. If a Protestant wished to turn Catholic, or
a Catholic .wished to turn Protestant, he had a fortnight for
reflection, and then he acted according to his ultimata de-
oision ; but a Catholic priest did not come into contact with
a Protestant, and therefore the hon. member need not be
alarmed that our prisons would be turned into places
for converting Protestants to Catholicism. But he was sure
the house would feel that our prisons were not to be used
for the purpose of turning Catholics into Protestants. That
was not the purpose for which prisons were established
He could not persuade himself that the house would feel
any doubt that such a provision as that which they now
asked for was a proper one. What they wanted was to
give men who ha,d committed crime, who had been sen-
tenced to punishment for those crimes, while undergoing
that sentence, an opportunity to have their minds im-
proved, to give the a sense of right and wrong, and that
could only be done by giving them the opportunity of re-
ligious instruction from some minister of religion whose
doctrine was their own, and who therefore could appeal to
those feelings which their nature or their education might
have implanted in theii minds (Cheers.)
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD regarded the proposition of his
hon. friend as dictated by narrow and bigoted views. He
was willing to pay for chaplains of the Church of England,
the richest in the country, while he refused to give any-
thing to the priests of the poorest.
Mr. NE WDEGATE supported the amendment on the
ground that every concession to Rome was an encourage-
ment to the aggressions of Rome. If Romanist chaplains
were admitted into our prisons, justice demanded that all
dissenters ought to be placed upon the same footing. To
accept this proposition would, in fact, be to sanction the
erection of another Established Church.
Mr. DRUMMOND thought the vote ill-advised.
Mr. CROSSLE I opposed the • vote on the ground that
the State ought not to pay any sect whatever for religious
instruction.
Mr. HOitSFALL could not on principle consent to the
proposed vote, because it involved the teaching of error.
It, moreover, involved a violation of theconstitution. And
ho did not see how those who consented to this grant could
refuse to endow the Roman Catholic priesthood.
Mr. W. J. FOX eulogised the religious zeal and moral
qualities of the Roman Catholic clergy ; and expressed
sorrow at see ng hon. members of the same persuasion
striving to obtain a miserable pittance of public money
for their own purposes. His own principles pledged him
to oppose every attempt to bestow the public money for
religious purposes; and, therefore, he should support the
amendment, though he should do so with regret.
After a few words from Mr. J. BALL,
Sir J. PAKINGTON admitted the necessity of pro-
viding spiritual instruction for the inmates of our gaols,
but said it could only be given upon one of two principles.
It should be given either through a chaplain of the estab-
lished religion, or the gaol should be thrown open to all
sects. But the proposal of the Home Secretary did neither
the one nor the other It had not the merit of toleration,
inasmuch as it benefited only one sect, and was evidently
the result of pressure. Under these circumstances he
should support the amendment, but if the vote had been
for the spiritual instruction of those prisoners who did not
belong to the Church of England, he should have assented
to it. •

Mr. HADFIELD vindicated the principle of the State
paying no religious sect whatever.
Mr. LUCAS, alluding to the objections of Nonconfor-
mists to receive money from the State in return for spiri-
tual instruction, read returns relative to several prisons,
which he contended showed that if they did not receive the
money neither did they perform the work. The Roman
Catholics and the Church of England discharged a duty,
but the Nonconformists did nothing. B2sides the Church
of England there was, therefore, nobody to perform the
service but the Roman Catholics • and, performing the
work, they naturally asked the noble lord, the Home Sec-
retary, for the payment. With respect to Mr. Spooner's
_amendment, he contended that the hon. member did not
carry out his own principles, inasmuch as he only proposed
to strike out one item of payment .to Roman Catholic
chaplains, whilst the vote included half-a-dozen others.
Mr. MILES said the vote might be small, but it in-
volved a great principle—the principle of establishing
Roman Catholic chaplains in Government prisons in Eng-
land This was a Protestant question, and he trusted it
would be so dealt with by all classes of Protestants.
Mr. MIALL briefly addressed the house, amidst loud
cries of " Divide."
Mr. SPOONER, in reply, defended himself from the
charge of having used "hard words." Ho was aware that
there were other grants to Roman Catholic priests; but
this being a new vote, he felt it right to make a stand
upon it. (Hear, bear.) His simple object in opposing it
was to raise a Protestant voice in that house. (Hear,
hear.) lie believed that to vote a suns for the propaga-
tion of the Roman Catholic religion would be a national
sin. (Laughter.)
The committee then divided.
For the amendment
Against it 136-22
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD inquired whether he could bring
on his amendment to further reduce the vote by the amount
of the salaries of the chaplains and the assistant chaplains.
Mr. BOUVERIE said he could not. By the practice of
the committee, when an amendment of this kind was car-
ried, the smaller sum was considered to have been voted.
The CHAIRSSAN then reported progress.
EXCISE DUTIES (SUGAR) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
LEASING POWERS (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
TENANTS COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Sir J. YOUNG could not assent to the principle of this
bill, and therefore must oppose the second reading.
Mr. MAGUIRE thought this matter ought fairly to be
discussed, together with the other bills which had been
read a second time. He prbposed that this measure also
should be read a second time pro forma, and then the whole
matter could be discussed in committee.
Lord PALMERSTON said it was impossible to enter
into a discussion on this bill at that late hour. However
willing the Government might be, the house was not.
Mr.DISRA.ELI thought that the practice of passing
bills pro forma was an injurious one. He could not con-
sent to such a course on this occasion.
After a few words from Mr. LUCAS,
Mr. J. O'CONNEL proposed that the day for going into
committee on the Landlord and Tenant and Leasing
Powers Bill should be fixed at a late period of the session.
This, he thought, would obviate all difficulty.
A discussion then took place, in which Mr. M`Malion,
Mr. Lucas, and Mr. Maguire took part. As each hon.
gentleman resumed his seat, a larger and, larger body rose,
and the number of Irish members trying to catch the
Speaker's eye was becoming quite appalling, when
Mr. BROTHERTON moved that the house do now
(20 minutes past 1) adjourn.
Mr. DI iRAELI said that before that question was de-
termined it was important to arrange what was to be done
in reference to the order for- the second reading of the
Drainage of Lands Bill, which had been fixed for a morn-
ing sitting. When the subject had been mentioned at an
earlier period of the evening, the general feeling of the
house appeared to be against a morning sitting—(hear)—
but hon. members also felt a delicacy in disturbing the ar-
rangement for going into committee at 1.! o'clock, until the
hon. member for eorsetshire (Mr. Ker Seymer) had been
communicated with. That communication bad been made,
and the bon. gentleman had no objection to the order being
discharged. He (Mr. Disraeli) therefore proposed that the
order should be discharged accordingly.
The SPEAKER said that the motion for the adjourn-
ment of the house must be disposed of before the right
hon. gentleman's proposition could be entertained.
Mr. V. SCULLY asked if the second reading of -the
Landlord and Tenant Bill had been postponed or not. The
learned serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Shea) he knew was under
the impression that the three bills should go on together.
The SPEAKER said the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland)
Bill and the Leasing Powers Bill had both been read a se-
cond time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday,
Sir J. YOUNG said he had no conception when he
moved these bills that any one was intending to oppose
them. In committee there woul Ibe ample opportunity to
discuss them. The clerk read the titles distinctly in an
audible voice, and if hon. members did not oppose them he
could not help it. So far as he knew there had been no
agreement with any one about these bills. There was a
great deal of difference in these bills. The third bill was
opposed by a large majority in the house.
Lord PALMERSTON suggested that the bill should be
fixed for Thursday—not that it could come on then, but
they could then determine on what day the bill should be
taken.
After some further conversation, Mr. BROTHERTON with-
drew his motion for adjournment, and the second reading
of the bill was fixed for Thursday.
COURTS OF COMMON LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. WHITESIDE said he should withdraw this bill.
char The
ed order for the bill being committed was then dill- I
g.

MORNING SITTINGS.
On the motion of Mr. DISRAELI, the twelve o'clock
orders for this day were postponed until Friday.
Mr. DISRAELI moved that the Lands Improvement
Bill, which stood for committee at twelve o'clock on Thurs•
day, should also be postponed.
Sir J. YOUNG resisted the motion.
Mr. DISRAELI announced his intention to oppose all
morning sittings at this period of the session, considering
that there was no pressure of public business.
Lori PALMERSTON said the government would not
trouble the house to divide on the motion.
The twelve o'clock order for Thursday was, therefore,
discharged.
Sir J. YOUNG then jnoved that the Lands Improve-
ment Bill should be committed on this day week, at
twelve o'clock, but this motion meeting with opposition,
it was ultimately withdrawn.
The house then adjourned at ten minutes to 2 o'clock.

PERlL—Advicee from- Peru mention that nearly a
hundred' persons had just left Lima, on gold-searching
expeditions among the mountains of the interior. From
Mexico it is stated that the news of the ratification of
the Gadsden Treaty by the Senate at Washington had
reached Vera Cruz cal gm, 11th of May.