HC Deb 11 April 1856 vol 141 cc875-8

On the Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday,

MR. BOWYER

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary which affected, not Roman Catholics only, but every class of Her Majesty's subjects who did not belong to the Established Church. It related to the free access of ministers of religion, not belonging to the Established Church, to prisoners in gaols belonging to their own denominations. Though the specific case of which he had given notice was that of Pentonville Prison, the principle was a general one, and affected all the gaols in England. At the present moment, when the question of prison discipline was attracting so much attention, he considered that the House would not treat with indifference the access of ministers of religion to persons who, more than any other class of Pier Majesty's subjects, required the consolations of religion. He would state the facts from a Return made last Session of a correspondence between the Home Office and Canon Oakeley, the Roman Catholic clergyman who attended the Roman Catholic prisoners in Pentonville Prison. It appeared that in 1852 a list of all Roman Catholic prisoners then under confinement in Pentonville was delivered to the priest. It contained between seventy and eighty names, and those persons he accordingly visited in the discharge of his religious duties. In 1853 and 1854 he applied again for a list of the prisoners of his own persuasion then under confinement, but he was refused. Accordingly, he wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the answer he received was, that his request could not be complied with, because it would be contrary to the spirit of the statute 4 Geo. IV. c. 64. He begged to call the attention of the House to the very words of that Statute. By section 31, it was provided— That any person, whose religious persuasion should be different to that of the Established Church, should be permitted, at his own request, to receive the services of a minister of his own denomination at such seasonable times as should be fixed by the visiting Justices. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department said in his letter that, to allow ministers of religion, not of the Established Church, to have access to prisoners, without such request of the prisoners, would be contrary to the spirit of the Act of Parliament. Now, when people talked of the spirit of an Act of Parliament, there was generally a screw loose somewhere. The spirit of a statute might justify anything, and whenever an Act was to be construed contrary to its plain and obvious meaning, great stress was laid upon what was called its spirit. But he defied any lawyer to say that the 4th of Geo. IV. c. 64, had the effect which the Home Office supposed it had. The clause gave to every Dissenter or Roman Catholic prisoner a right to call for the assistance of a minister of his own denomination; but it had no restrictive words, and, he contended, left it open to the authorities of a prison to permit access to prisoners precisely as before the Bill was passed. He held, moreover, that the construction put upon the statute by the authorities at the Home Office was contrary to the principles of civil and religious liberty. It was a restriction upon the religious rights of persons confined in gaols, and clearly prejudicial to the management of the prisons themselves, for he felt assured that the Home Secretary would admit that in the government of gaols there was nothing more useful than the ministrations of the clergy of the different denominations to which the prisoners belonged. Canon Oakeley, the priest officiating at Pentonville Prison, did not complain of any want of courtesy or liberality on the part of the authorities of the prison; on the contrary, he had always found them ready to assist him in the discharge of his religious duties, and to avail themselves of his services in the management of the prison. In many instances, before the resolution to exclude ministers of religion was adopted, they asked him to visit refractory prisoners, and thanked him for the assistance which his influence gave them in maintaining order in the prison. He would now state one case which bore out all he had said. On one occasion Mr. Oakley was requested by the parents of a prisoner to visit their son in Pentonville Prison. He was so bad, they added, that he would never ask to see a clergyman, but they were most anxious that he should at least have an opportunity of benefiting by the instructions of a minister of his own persuasion. What was the result? The authorities refused to admit Mr. Oakley, thinking that by the construction put upon the Act by the Home Office they were precluded from allowing access to a prisoner who had not requested the presence of a clergyman. Perhaps it might be said that all prisoners were visited by chaplains of the Established Church. Now, he was not disposed to undervalue the services of those rev. gentlemen; but he submitted that chaplains of the Established Church were not likely to be of any use to Roman Catholic or Dissenting prisoners. He now begged to ask the Home Secretary, whether he still adhered to the opinion that by the 4 Geo. IV. c. 64, the authorities of prisons were precluded from affording ministers of religion, not connected with the Established Church, access to prisoners belonging to their own denominations; and, whether he would take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in order that the question might be clearly decided? If the Home Office adhered to its construction of the statute, he would bring in a Bill for the purpose of altering the law, and he was satisfied that he would have the support not only of those who professed his own belief, but also of all the Dissenting members of the House of Commons, as well as of those who valued the principles of civil and religious liberty.

MR. A. PELLATT

said, that before the right hon. Baronet answered the question, he would beg to state that it was a common complaint among Dissenting ministers that they had recently been deprived of the liberty which they formerly possessed, to visit, not only prisoners in gaols, but the inmates of workhouses. He thought that was a grievance which ought to be remedied.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he was sure that his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board would be glad to answer any question which the hon. Member for Southwark might put to him with respect to the admission of Dissenting ministers to Union workhouses. With regard to prisons, nothing had been done which the law did not sanction, and, if there was anything to blame, the fault lay with Parliament itself, and not with the Home Office. He might remind the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk that the question was raised a few years ago by the Bill brought in on the recommendation of the Middlesex magistrates for the establishment of reformatories. During the progress of the Bill through that House, a clause allowing the access of ministers of religion to prisoners not members of the Established Church was introduced in Committee, but was struck out in the other House; and, upon the return of the Bill, the Amendment of their Lordships was agreed to by a majority. He had communicated to Mr. Oakeley that care should be taken that district and explicit notice should be given to every prisoner who was supposed to be a Roman Catholic that he would be entitled to be visited by the priest of his own religion if he desired to be so, but he found by the Act 4 Geo. IV. c. 64, that a prisoner could not have the service of a minister of his own denomination unless he made a request for that purpose. He was anxious to give every facility which the law enabled him in this matter, but he was not disposed to agree to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member.