HC Deb 15 March 1842 vol 61 cc598-604
Lord F. Egerton

inquired, whether the Secretary for the Home Department had made an inquiry, or whether with or without inquiry, he had received information on the subject of certain charges made against the chaplain of Salford Gaol, Mr. Bagshawe.

Sir J. Graham

said, that he had received from the chaplain of Salford Gaol a letter contradicting in the most positive terms the charge that he had on more than one occasion preached sermons offensive to the feelings of the Roman Catholic prisoners. He thought the hon. Gentleman opposite must have made his statement under some misapprehension.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, that as he regarded the question put by the noble Lord opposite, with reference to the ease of the rev. Mr. Bagshawe, as put against himself, he would trouble the House with a short explanation of the facts on which his statement was made. No one would wound the feelings of another with more regret than himself, and if he found that he had unintentionally done so, he should always be ready to offer an apology and any reparation in his power. But before he considered it due to make this apology and reparation, he thought it was but right to find whether or not it really was due. He must be satisfied that he had misrepresented before he made an apology for misrepresentation. His hon. Friend the Member for Kendal had told him the other day, that a correspondence was going on upon the subject of the charges which he had preferred against Mr. Bagshawe; and in consequence of this he had made further inquiries, and he would read to the House the result of those inquiries. In the first place, he would read a letter from the rev. Mr. Macartney, a Roman Catholic clergyman, who was licensed by the Bishop of Lancashire to attend gaols, and give spiritual advice to the members of the Roman Catholic communion within his diocese:—

Manchester, March 10,1842.

"My dear Sir,—I am quite delighted that they have thought proper to deny your statements, as it gives us an opportunity to prove them, and to bring the matter more fully before the public. We are really very much indebted to them. If called on to do so, I am ready to depose on oath, that about a month ago, having called upon the gaoler about procuring some copies of the prison rules, one of which I sent to you, the gaoler, amongst other things told me, in answer to a remark I made, 'that we had not been called on for the last two or three years to see any of the healthy prisoners.' The gaoler said, that the healthy prisoners, if ever they asked for us, it was only to assist them in getting up their defence. To prove this assertion, he said,' A person wanted you the other day, and I was sure he only wanted you to assist him with his defence.' I asked him how he knew that? He replied, that he took the chaplain with him, and I understood him to say they both interrogated him, and, being satisfied that he only wanted to see me to assist him in his defence, of course he (the gaoler) did not think proper to send for me. When my memorial, which is in your hands, was presented to the visiting justice, the gaoler was called to know if any prisoners had asked to see a Catholic clergyman, and had been refused? He (the gaoler) told the visiting-justices what had occurred a few days before, and which I have just stated above, about this man asking for a Catholic clergyman, and having been refused, as they (the chaplain and gaoler) thought he wanted one only to assist him with his defence. All this I have from the gaoler himself; this is the instance alluded to; I am ready to make oath to the correctness of the above statement. I have been to see a couple of convicts to-day, the first time I have been called since my appointment, which is exactly five months today. One of these convicts, Elizabeth Irwin, twenty-seven years of age, under sentence of transportation for stealing from the person, tells me that she has asked for me above twenty times; allow for exaggeration, and it may be she has asked several times; and Mr. Bagshawe, she says, told her ' he had forgot,' but that he would see that she had an interview with the priest before she left prison to go to her punishment. This woman, I understand, has been in the New Bailey these last four months. I asked if Mr. Bradshawe was in the habit of preaching controversial sermons? I received the same answer from all who have ever heard him—namely, that the beginning, middle, and end of his discourses are controversy, always attacking the Catholic religion. Again, I am now attending a sick person, her name is Isabella Pratt; she tells me, that having been in the New Bailey about three months ago she heard Mr. Bagshawe preaching against the doctrine of the real presence, one of the most sacred articles of the Catholic belief; she says that the Catholics were so excited by his discourse, that one Irishman, after the service was over, got up and contradicted Mr. Bagshawe; two turnkeys collared the man immediately, and a report was spread through their side of the prison that the man was put on bread and water for a week, but she says this was only a report, she cannot swear to this, but can as to his speaking. She says also that it was reported that he was locked up in solitary confinement. The next Sunday she says Mr. Bagshawe commenced on the same subject as soon as he got into the pulpit. The man got up again and interrupted him. Mr. Bagshawe ordered him to be taken out, and he had to be brought round in the same gallery behind where the females sat: as the man was passing the door, which was open, he saw Mr. Bagshawe, and he shouted out to him, ' You ruffian, you ought to be dragged out of the pulpit,' and 'you'll know yet that Jesus Christ is whole and entire in the sacrament.' No one, of course, can approve of such conduct; and I merely quote the language to show what the irritation must have been to the feelings, before a prisoner could have so far forgotten himself, knowing that he would be liable to severe punishment for so doing. This woman is ready to come forward and state this on oath. I asked Elizabeth Irwin in the prison this morning if such a thing had taken place; she told me it had. Now, these witnesses do not know each other; nor does one know that I asked the other. They, I dare say, will endeavour to invalidate the evidence of persons who had lost their character, by having been inmates of the prison, but when it is considered that numbers of prisoners unknown to each other, with years sometimes between their evidence, all attest the same thing, namely, this man's harsh, tyrannical conduct, and his great antipathy to everything Catholic, I think there cannot be a doubt on any unbiassed mind as to the fact of the sermon which made the Papists ' as mad as biases.' The man who made the request was one Smith, belonging to the 17th Lancers, and the request was made by him to Mr. Roberts, and not to a turnkey, as the papers have it. Mr. Roberts is dreadfully afraid of losing his situation, and so if you can do without mentioning their names it would be much better. I believe he is writing now, but he is terrified. You may make what use you please of my name, and also of Isabella Pratt's; but all the statements which have been given to you that J am cognizant of you may have on oath. I wish, Sir, you were on the spot for twenty-four hours, that you might hear and see for yourself. "I remain, &c, A. MACARTNFY,"

96, King-street, Salford.

"T. S. Duncombe, Esq.

"P. S.—Can no security be given for the witnesses not suffering for giving evidence in this case? I refer particularly to Roberts, &c."

He had also written to Mr. Roberts, the master of the Salford Union work house, and who formerly held the situation of schoolmaster of Salford gaol. The following was Mr. Roberts's letter— Union Workhouse, Salford, March 10,1842. "Sir,—Your letter of the 9th inst. I have received, and beg to say that I am prepared to verify, on oath, that a prisoner, named Thomas Smith, did request of myself to ask 'The parson to preach that sermon over again, stating it was a capital good one, that there were many b—y Catholics in his ward, and that it made them as mad as blazes.' My answer to him was, that I had no need that I should ask him anything of the kind, as he would hear similar sermons preached again. The prisoner was a misdemeanant, committed to four months' imprisonment in February, 1839. Patrick Farrell, in the month of January, 1840, solicited to see the priest, and objected to go to chapel. He stated to me himself that his request was not granted. He was on the sick list, but not in the infirmary. The turnkey stated, also, that he wished to see the priest, and that he would compel him to attend the chapel, or lock him up. I have seen prisoners taken to be locked up for refusing or objecting to attend the chapel, and the chaplain conversed with each of them previous to their being locked up, and in one instance was anxious to compel the man to attend, lest his example should be followed by the rest of the Catholics. I pleaded with the chaplain that the man might be allowed to be confined, as he preferred it rather than be present at the chapel. As to the controversial sermons, allow me to make an entry or two from my journal. 'February 2nd, 1840.—Sunday. Text 143d Psalm, first two verses, 'Hear my prayer, O Lord, &c. He spoke of the inutility of prayer in an unknown tongue. Many say pater noster, and don't know what it means; some repeat so many prayers on Monday, so many on Tuesday, and so on. All this is formal, vain repetition, and will not be answered. [Here the chaplain paused, and said, I shall not proceed until you cease whispering. I will sit down, and afterwards finish my sermon; or I will open the Bible, and read two or three chapters.'] On Sunday, January 26, 1840, in the course of his sermon he told them that a man had stated to him what he had heard another man say, who was a member of another church, 'That if he had the power, he would destroy every heretic with the blast of his mouth.' 'Tuesday, March 17, 1840.—St. Patrick's day. Service, female side of prison. Struck twelve o'clock immediately after it commenced. Should be dismissing the prisoners at that time. The chaplain read the 3rd chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, and commented, but afterwards struck off to inveigh against the Roman Catholic, one-third of his congregation being of that persuasion. Two female officers were stationed close to the prisoners, within the altar, the prisoners immediately surrounding it in a semicircle. This was the first time officers were stationed in that place. They sat opposite to each other, and one could see the prisoners behind the other's back, and could detect the least whisper or irregularity. He spoke of the Jews considering the Romanists and Greek church as idolatrous—of the worship of images—of relics—and that others had a right to consider them idolatrous as well as the Jews. He spoke of Nero persecuting the early Christians, and of a portion of the Christian Church afterwards imitating the heathen, and persecuting the true church during the dark ages. He alluded to a Pope commanding a monarch to do penance for three days—of a monarch holding the stirrups of a Pope—of the debaucheries of Popes, and named the son of one Pope as being a murderer. Said that the Romanists had burnt the ministers of God, and had burnt his word. Would do so now, but thanks be to God, too many copies of the Scriptures were disseminated. Spoke of Luther, Huss, and of several historical matters in church history. It was twenty-five minutes past twelve o'clock when he concluded. The dinners of the poor prisoners were quite cold on the trays in the yard, waiting since twelve o'clock. This was St. Patrick's day, a treat for the Irish females. The most perfect order and silence were preserved by all the prisoners throughout the lecture.' Sir, I could multiply these notices of sermons on controversial points. I am astonished that the chaplain should deny a fact which is so notorious. I remain, Sir, your very obedient servant,

JOHN ROBERTS."

The evidence he had read came from persons of undoubted respectability, and it fully corroborated what he had alleged. Under these circumstances, he considered that no apology was due to Mr. Bagshawe, but instead thereof, he thought that much was due to the unfortunate persons whose misfortunes he had communicated to the House. He trusted the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) would grant him the committee he asked for; and if he had a committee, and it was fairly constituted, he was satisfied that evidence could be produced sufficient to satisfy an impartial mind that a thorough reform of Salford gaol was needed, and also that the present chaplain ought to be discharged.

Mr. O'Connell

said, that he had on former occasions abstained from mentioning names, but he would then observe that the Rev. Mr. Macartney was as respectable a man as any among the Roman Catholic body. He should give notice that after Easter he would bring the case of Roman Catholic prisoners confined in gaols within the united kingdom before the House.

Lord F. Egerton

merely wished to state to the House, that the Gentleman respecting whom this discussion had been raised had thought it his duty, through him, to deny the matters of fact charged. There were three charges respectively made against the chaplain. First, with reference to the permission given to Roman Catholic priests to attend prisoners, the chaplain declared, that it was not the part of the chaplain to admit, or to exclude, or to send for any Roman Catholic clergymen; but, at the same time, he stated the case of two men who had committed to the gaol for burglary, who appeared not desirous to see their priest as a minister of religion, which would have been authorised according to rule; that so far was the chaplain from preventing the admission of such clergyman, that he told the prisoners if they wished to communicate with him, they would be allowed to do so. He was informed there was no answer. He had to add, on the part of the chaplain, that these charges had come before him merely from what had accidentally passed in that House, and that he was otherwise totally unaware that such complaints were to be made against him. He would further beg to state, that there had been a unanimous resolution come to by the visiting magistrates of the gaol—a body of gentlemen of various political and religious opinions—acquitting the chap- lain of blame; and the governor who was by his duty compelled to be present at the sermons which were preached, and who was a dissenter, averred that the rev. gentleman had never made sermons of a controversial character. This was the resolution of the magistrates:— Resolved, that after diligent inquiry, it is the opinion of the visiting justices that the charges against the chaplain are unjust, and they consider the rev. gentleman has always displayed a most benevolent spirit; and also, that they can find no instances in which the application of a Roman Catholic prisoner to receive the visits of a minister of his own communion had not been acceded to. He had produced this document to show that if there was a statement on one side, there was a counter-statement on the other; though he was unacquainted with the rev. gentleman himself, yet he had understood from one of the visiting justices that he bore a most irreproachable, character.

Subject at an end.