COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 11 May 1863 vol 170 cc1527-45

(Progress May 7th.)

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 3 (Additional Ministers in Prisons, and Regulation as to admission of Minister).

MR. PACKE

said, that as one of the oldest chairmen of Quarter Sessions in the House, he could not but deprecate the charge imposed by the Bill upon the county rate. He represented a county in which there was, perhaps, more religious animosity than in any other in England, and the effect of the Bill would be to produce the greatest discord among the magistrates, and great antagonism again between them and the county ratepayers. He did not share in the sentiments of the Protestant Alliance, that the measure would undermine the influence of the Church of England; but he could not understand why the Government, in introducing it, should not have made it a condition that a gaol should be established in some central part of the kingdom to which Roman Catholic prisoners should be committed, where the necessary provision should be made for their religious instruction. He begged to move the omission from the clause of the words which provided that the payment of those chaplains should be made out of the county rates.

Another Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 12, to leave out from the words "such sum," to the word "expenses," in line 15, inclusive.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the effect of the Amendment would be to take the payment out of the ordinary rule. At present the cost of the maintenance of prisoners was borne by the country, but the cost of the establishment was a local charge. If the Amendment were carried, an exception would be introduced to the general practice. As to the erection of a central prison, it would not get rid of the objection urged by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Packe.) The cost of the establishment would still have to be borne by the different localities ratably in proportion to the number of Roman Catholic convicts sent by them to the central prison.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he apprehended that the object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Packe) was to secure that there should be no power of paying those clergymen out of the county rates. What he objected to, and what he understood his hon. Friend to object to, was that the ratepayers of this country should be called on to pay taxes in the imposition of which they had no voice. Had the Amendment which he himself proposed on a former occasion been adopted by the House, the heart and soul of the Bill would have been extinguished. The same result would follow from the adoption of the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He looked on the Bill as the result of a political cabal; and he believed it to be the stepping- stone to a great object which the Roman Catholic priests in this country had for years been endeavouring to accomplish—namely, that of putting themselves on an equality with the clergymen of the Church of England.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he was ready to go to a division; but if the object of the Amendment was of as comprehensive a character as it had just been described to be, notice of it ought to have been given to the House.

MAJOR HAMILTON

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any ambiguity in the manner in which the word "they" was used in the end of the clause, which might render it doubtful whether the prisoners and not the justices might not order the payment of the clergymen?

SIR GEORGE GREY

replied, that he did not think there was the slightest possibility of any such interpretation being given to the word.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he also wished to ask whether any clergyman to whom the Bill would apply had asked for remuneration for attending a prisoner of his own persuasion? If not, the taxation proposed by the Bill was unasked for.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he desired to inquire whether the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had considered the question of having the money to be paid to those clergymen provided out of funds to be voted by Parliament?

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that if the payment were made in the manner referred to by the hon. Baronet, that would be the establishment of a new financial principle in connection with the county gaols of the country. With regard to the question of the gallant Colonel behind, he presumed that no such application had been made, since under the existing law the justices would have no power to grant any remuneration.

MR. BLACK

said, that in the case of the repeal of the annuity tax a great deal of opposition was raised to the penny rate, the object of which was to support members of the Established Church of Scotland; whereas if it had been for the maintenance of Roman Catholic priests, it would not have been in the power of all Edinburgh to extinguish it.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought it was well worth the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman whether the small sums which would be required to carry out the provisions on the Bill might not be provided out of the Consolidated Fund. His hon. Friend, of course, could not move a clause to that effect, but it would have to be done by the Government, and it would certainly have great effect in preventing the heart burnings which would probably arise out of the operation of the Bill. He had supported it all through from motives of justice; but he thought it was wise to do everything to make it work as smoothly as possible. If the Government would give any hope of considering the point, he would recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. SCOURFIELD

said, he had opposed the Bill throughout, not on religious grounds, but on account of the administrative and social difficulties it would create. If it was desirable to pass the measure, it was desirable to carry it into effect by such means as would secure the result sought to be accomplished, and at the same time produce the smallest amount of irritation. He believed that the Bill as it then stood would in the majority of instances fail in securing the object for which it was framed; and, in the instances in which it might be successful, it would always encounter the greatest amount of opposition. The success of the measure did not depend upon the exigencies of the case, but on the particular reading of different bodies of magistrates; and if the subject had to be discussed by quarter sessions and boards of guardians, a great deal of irritation would be produced. It was a remark of M. Guizot, "There are some subjects on which publicity and discussion throw light, and some subjects on which publicity and discussion only throw fire;" and he (Mr. Scourfield) believed that the appointment of Roman Catholic priests to gaols under the Bill would be a subject of the latter class. He was sure that the Bill as at present framed would do the Roman Catholics more harm than it could possibly advantage them, and he should think that in those special cases where the appointment of Roman Catholic priests to gaols might be necessary they might contrive out of the existing elements to find a solution of the question; but he could conceive nothing more absurd than to make a man's spiritual welfare dependent upon the number of his own denomination in the same condition with himself. As a chairman of quarter sessions, he had always been anxious to prevent quarter sessions being made a debating society; but he was afraid that this subject must lead to irritating discussion. Majorities might sometimes in matters of action tyrannize over minorities; but in the matter of talking, minorities were very frequently still more tyrannical. His experience in that House did not encourage him to look with any pleasant anticipations to the effect of the measure on the deliberations of quarter sessions. He had never listened to a religious discussion in that House without going forth, not a wiser, but a sadder man. It was with a view of preventing these discussions in courts of quarter sessions that he supported the Amendment.

MR. COLLINS

said, that though he had supported the Bill, he could not but join with the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) in thinking it would be desirable that the payment of those clergymen should be made out of the Consolidated Fund. He wished to remind the right hon. Baronet that no Amendment had as yet been made in the Bill, consequently no Amendment of the nature proposed by the hon. Member for Leicestershire could be made upon the bringing up of the Report. If, therefore, the right hon. Baronet wished to postpone the consideration of the question until the Report, it would be necessary for him to make some verbal alteration at all events, in order to enable the matter to be discussed.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, it would be perfectly easy for any private Member to raise the question by moving that the expenses should be paid out of monies to be voted by Parliament; and if notice were given of such a Motion on the Report, he should be ready to give it his best consideration. Until the suggestion was before them in a definite shape, they were hardly in a position to consider it; but he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that it would be very easy for him to frame an Amendment with the object he had in view. He, however, thought that such an Amendment would be very inconsistent with the provision which gave the magistrates at quarter sessions the power of appointing those ministers; so that if such an Amendment were agreed to, the Home Secretary would be called upon to provide remuneration for those ministers over whose appointment he would have no control.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the difficulty suggested by the right hon. Baronet could be easily removed by providing that the appointment by the local authorities should be subject to the approval of the Home Secretary.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he confessed that he had heard with great pleasure the observations just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). His right hon. Friend, however, must permit him to express the regret he felt on hearing him declare his intentions to support that most remarkable Bill. His right hon. Friend seemed now to be fully impressed with the difficulty of the case. The only ground upon which his right hon. Friend said he was prepared to support the Bill, was the ground of justice. Now, justice to Roman Catholic priests might be a very desirable object, but the ratepayers of England had also, he thought, some claim to justice. He should wish to know whether it was distinctly understood that an opportunity would be afforded by the right hon. Gentleman of raising the question of payment upon the Report?

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he should certainly be willing to facilitate any arrangement for the purpose; but as regarded the question as between a local rate and the annual Votes of Parliament, it was competent to any hon. Gentleman to raise that point at that time, and it was one that should be discussed in Committee, and not upon the Report?

MR. BENTINCK

said, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand his (Mr. Bentinek's) object. What he wished to ascertain distinctly was, whether the right hon. Baronet would give them an opportunity of discussing the question upon the bringing-up of the Report?

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he understood, that if a Motion were made to that effect, the right hon. Baronet would oppose it [Sir GEORGE GREY assented], and that if the words proposed to be left out were omitted, it would not be competent for any hon. Member to move upon the Report that the payment should be made out of the public funds.

MR. MARSH

said, he was of opinion that it would be objectionable that the appointment of those chaplains should be made by one authority, and their payment by another. If, therefore, the ministers were to be appointed by the magistrates, they ought to be paid out of the local rates.

MAJOR HAMILTON

said, that that was the reason why he objected to the Bill all along.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

said, the greater portion of those who got into gaol were offenders not so much against real as against personal property, and the Government, by what they were now proposing to do, were adding unfairly to the burdens of real property.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the Amendment which had been moved would, if carried, prevent payments being made from any source whatever. If the words were omitted, there would be no room, for substituting general for local funds on the Report.

MR. VANCE

said, there would be some difficulty in adopting the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire—namely, of paying the Roman Catholic priests appointed to those prisons out of the Consolidated Fund; because, in that case, the people of Ireland would have to contribute to the payment besides paying for the ministers who performed such duties in Ireland out of the local rates.

LORD HARRY VANE

said, he thought there would be great difficulty in adopting the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire. He was not inclined to press upon the ratepayers, but he would remind the Committee, that inasmuch as the appointment of a minister would only be made when there was a certain number of Roman Catholic prisoners in a gaol, it was not at all likely to furnish a subject of discussion amongst the local authorities, except in a few large towns.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, many hon. Members, though supporting the Bill, confessed that the measure was likely to create much difficulty, inconvenience, and heart burnings throughout the local boards of the country. He believed that it would give rise to much unpleasant feeling amongst the people of England generally. If, however, those ministers were to be appointed by the local authorities, and paid for by the State, he should like to know how any proper control over them could be exercised? He concurred with his hon. Friend near him in thinking that it was most disagreeable to have those religious questions raised, but it was not the fault of the party with which he generally acted that they were brought forward. They, however, objected to remain silent when they were raised. He should certainly feel it his duty to vote against the payment of those ministers, in any shape, under the Bill. He objected to the Bill on two grounds; first, that it was an invasion of a constitutional principle; and secondly, an infliction of tyranny on the Roman Catholic prisoners.

LORD EDWARD HOWARD

said, that he had been in hopes that the principle of the measure had been decided on the second reading, but from time to time hon. Members talked as if that question was still in abeyance. One hon. Gentleman had gone so far as to say that the Roman Catholic hierarchy were engaged in a sort of conspiracy against this country. The Roman Catholic priests were continually spoken of as being engaged in a plot with regard to the prison chaplains. The priests, no doubt, wished that Roman Catholic prisoners should be attended by a chaplain of their own creed, but it was not the priest alone who entertained that wish, for the Roman Catholic laity also had that desire. Seeing that there were Roman Catholic prisoners in the gaols, that they did not know there was any priest to look after them, that they could not have the attendance of a priest without preferring a special request, which course would not be adopted by those whose condition most required the assistance of a priest—believing, therefore, that great injustice was done to the Roman Catholic prisoners throughout the country, he wished it to be distinctly known that there was a reverend gentleman in those prisons who could administer to their spiritual wants. They wanted no external ceremony; they wished to reach the conscience alone, because he believed it was through the consciences of the prisoners that there was a chance of reforming them. That such was the case had been shown by what was already done in Ireland and England, in support of which he might refer to page 496 of the Rev. Mr. Kingsbury's book on Pentonville Prison, where it was stated that the period of imprisonment was the time to work upon the feelings of the prisoners, who were then in a subdued and softened state of mind; and if religious instruction was then communicated to them, they became enlightened. If the Roman Catholic prisoners were to be subjected to the control of the prison chaplain alone, who was not of their religion, but who had all the authority of a superior officer, he (Lord E. Howard) held that it was a hard position for them to be placed in. He could not suppose that the Committee would make any objection to the spiritual wants of these prisoners being supplied by the appointment of Roman Catholic priests.

MR. PACKE

said, he had no wish to utter a word against the Roman Catholic religion. The question before the Committee, raised by his Amendment, was whether the Roman Catholic chaplains should be paid out of the county rates.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said he should like to know from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Packe), whether he meant to suggest any other source from which payment might be made in lieu of the county rates, in the event of his Amendment being carried?

MR. PACKE

said, it was for the Government, not for him, to say what proposal should be made in that event. If his Amendment were carried, he supposed that the right hon. Baronet or his Colleagues would insert other words in the place of those struck out.

MR. HUMBERSTON

said, the noble Lord (Lord E. Howard) was under a wrong impression when he said that Roman Catholic prisoners had no one to care for them. He could mention two or three cases in connection with a gaol which he was in the habit of visiting, in which acts of great kindness had been shown by Protestant chaplains to Roman Catholic prisoners. He had two very strong objections to the Bill. The first was, whether the House would consent to permit a subject of that kind to be raised by every bench of magistrates in every county and borough in the kingdom? Again, as to payment, if payment were to be made to Roman Catholic chaplains, he thought it ought to be made by the State. But he thought there was a prior question to be decided; and that was how the chaplains were to be appointed. At present the country had a high class of chaplains, who gave the whole of their time to the discharge of their duties. But if there were to be two or three or more, the salaries must be on a lower scale, and there would be a different class of men offering themselves for the office of chaplain; and in consequence of the inferior salaries they would have to supplement their income by other employment, the consequence of which would be that the duty of chaplain would be performed in a less satisfactory manner than at present.

COLONEL CONOLLY

thought it would be a simple act of justice that Roman Catholic prisoners should be attended by a minister of their own religion. The system worked well in Ireland, and he saw no reason why it should not prove equally advantageous in England.

SIR ANDREW AGNEW

said, he objected to the payment of these salaries out of the county rates, but still more to their being charged upon the Consolidated Fund. On that understanding he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, there was this serious difficulty in the way of charging the payment of these chaplains on the Consolidated Fund. The control in these cases was sure to be in the hands of those who furnished the funds for payment. If, therefore, these chaplains were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, the magistrates would lose all control over them, which would create much greater evils than any which were likely to result from the Bill as it now stood.

MR. NORRIS

said, he would suggest that the question as to the mode of payment of the chaplain should stand over until the Bill was in a more advanced stage. Hon. Members who were in the habit of attending quarter sessions were aware that the Prisons Act provided a superannuation for ministers of the Established Church who performed the duties of chaplains in gaols; and he ventured to suggest, that as the Act stood, if the justices in pursuance of the Bill appointed a dissenting minister or a Roman Catholic to attend to prisoners as chaplains, they would have not one, but two or three persons, claiming compensation on their superannuation fund.

SIR FREDERICK HEYGATE

said, he was glad to hear an Irish Member say the system proposed by the Bill worked well in Ireland. But the Committee should remember that the circumstances of the two countries were different. In Ireland gaol chaplains were appointed by the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, and the Roman Catholic Church, a large body of the population belonging to each of these three Churches. With regard to England the case was different; and appointing a Roman Catholic chaplain to a gaol in England would but be analogous to the appointment of a Wesleyan as gaol chaplain in Ireland, should there be in any gaol a small number of prisoners from the Wesleyan body.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he would ask leave, before the Committee went to a division, to say a word or two. The noble Lord (Lord E. Howard) rattier implied that in discussing the question, there had been a want of becoming courtesy with regard to the feelings of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Speaking for himself—and he thought he might also speak on this point for the House—he would say that there was no man in. it who would willingly say a word against any man on account of his religious convictions. The noble Lord misunderstood the hon. Member for North Warwickshire when he understood him to say he had charged the Roman Catholic heirarchy with conspiring to obtain spiritual assistance for Roman Catholic prisoners. What he (Mr. Bentinck) understood him to say was this—in which he (Mr. Bentinck) joined him—that the Roman Catholic hierarchy were combining in a plot to obtain in this country a position of equality with the Protestant clergy. He (Mr. Bentinck) attached no blame to them for being engaged in that plot; but he held that it was the duty of the British House of Commons to take care that the plot should fail. Therefore, it was in no discourtesy towards the Roman Catholics that hon. Members opposed the Bill before the House. He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain one point. He understood him to say that that was the time to decide whether the money should be levied on the county rate or on some other fund. The question before the Committee was, whether the money was to be raised by a levy on the county rate. If it should be decided that the payment was to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund, that would entirely alter the character of the Bill. It would then become a question of Imperial legislation, and there ought to be ample time given, in order that the proposed charge on the Consolidated Fund for that purpose should be understood through the length and breadth of the country.

SIR GEORGE GREY

suggested that the object of the Amendment would be attained by t e simple omission from the clause of the words "the justices may award him payment."

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 126: Majority 66.

AYES.
Acton, Sir J. D.	Atherton, Sir W.
Agar-Ellis, hn. L. G. F.	Ayrton, A. S.
Angerstein, W.	Bailey, C.

Baines, E.	Gladstone, rt. hon. W.
Baring, H. B.	Glyn, G. C.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.	Glyn, G. G.
	Gower, hon. F. L.
Baring, T.	Greene, J.
Baring, T. G.	Greenwood, J.
Barnes, T.	Gregory, W. H.
Baxter, W. E.	Gregson, S.
Bazley, T.	Grenfell, H. R.
Beale, S.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Beamish, F. B.	Grosvenor, Earl
Beaumont, W. B.	Gurdon, B.
Beaumont, S. A.	Hadfield, G.
Beecroft, G. S.	Hankey, T.
Bellew, R. M.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Beresford, D. W. P.	Hassard, M.
Berkeley, hon. C. P. F.	Headlam, rt. hon. T. E
Blake, J.	Henloy, rt. hon. J. W.
Bonham-Carter, J.	Hennessy, J. P.
Bouverie, hon. P. P.	Herbert, rt. hon. H. A.
Bowyer, Sir G.	Hervey, Lord A.
Brady, Dr.	Hibbert, J. T.
Bramston, T. W.	Holland, E.
Browne, Lord J. T.	Horsrnan, rt. hon. E.
Bruce, Lord E.	Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Bruce, H. A.	Howard, Lord E.
Buchanan, W.	Hubbard, J. G.
Buckley, General	Hutt, rt. hon. W.
Butt, I.	Ingham, R.
Buxton, C.	Jackson, W.
Calthorpe, hon. F. H. W. G.	Jervoise, Sir J. C.
	Johnstone, Sir J.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E.	Jolliffe, right hon. Sir W. G. H.
Castlerosse, Viscount
Cave, S.	Kingscote, Colonel
Cavendish, hon. W.	Lacon, Sir E.
Clifford, C. C.	Layard, A. H.
Cobdon, R.	Lawson, W.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.	Leader, N. P.
	Leatham, E. A.
Coke, hon. Colonel	Lennox, Lord H. G.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Levinge, Sir R.
Collins, T.	Liddell, hon. H. G.
Conolly, T.	Locke, J.
Corbally, M. E.	Lowe, rt. hon. R.
Cox, W.	Lygon, hon. F.
Crawford, R, W.	M'Cormick, W.
Dalglish, R.	MacEvoy, E.
Davey, R.	Maguire, J. F.
Denman, hon. G.	Manners, rt. hon. Ld. J,
Dering, Sir E. C.	Marjoribanks, D. C.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Martin, J.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B.	Mildmay, H. F.
Douglas, Sir C.	Mitford, W. T.
Duff, M. E. G.	Monsell, rt. hon. W.
Dunkellin, Lord	North, F.
Dunlop, A. M.	Northcote, Sir S. H.
Egerton, hon. A. F.	O'Brien, Sir P.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. (Cov.)	O'Conor Don, The
Ennis, J.	O'Ferrall, rt. hn. R. M.
Esmonde, J.	O'Reilly, M. W.
Evans, Sir De L.	Padmore, R.
Evans, T. W.	Paget, C.
Ewart, W.	Paget, Lord A.
Ewart, J. C.	Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.
Fergusson, Sir J.	Palmer, Sir R.
Fitzroy, Lord F. J.	Palmerston, Viscount
Forster, W. O.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Fortescue, hon. F. D.	Peel, rt. hon. F.
Fortescue, C. S.	Pender, J.
French, Colonel	Pilkington, J.
Gavin, Major	Portman, hon. W. H. B.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.	Potter, E

Potts, G.	Stirling, W.
Price, R. G.	Stuart, Colonel
Pritchard, J.	Sullivan, M.
Proby, Lord	Talbot, C. R. M.
Puller, C. W. G.	Trelawny, Sir J. S.
Ricardo, O.	Vandeleur, Colonel
Robartes, T. J. A.	Vane, Lord H.
Robertson, D.	Verney, Sir H.
Robertson, H.	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Russell, F. W.	Vivian, H. H.
St. Aubyn, J.	Vyner, R. A.
Salomons, Mr. Ald.	Waldron, L.
Scott, Lord H.	Watkins, Colonel L.
Seymour, A.	Weguelin, T. M.
Sheridan, R. B.	Western, S.
Sidney, T.	Wickham, H. W.
Smith, J. B.	Williams, W.
Smith, J. A.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Smollett, P. B.	Wrightson W. B.
Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W. M.	Wyvill, M.
Stacpoole, W.	TELLERS.
Stanley, Lord	Mr. Brand
Stansfeld, J.	Colonel White
Steel, J.

NOES.
Adderley, rt. hon. C. B.	Hodgkinson, G.
Agnew, Sir A.	Holford, R. S.
Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.	Holmesdale, Viscount
Archdall, Captain M.	Howes, E.
Aytoun, R. S.	Humberston, P. S.
Benyon, R.	Hunt, G. W.
Bernard, hon. Colonel	Jolliffe, H. H.
Black, A.	Kekewich, S. T.
Blackburn, P.	Kennard, H. W.
Booth, Sir R. G.	King, J. K.
Bridges, Sir B. W.	Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Bruce, Major C.	Knatchbull, W. F.
Buller, J. W.	Knightley, R.
Burrell, Sir P.	Langton, W. G.
Butler, C. S.	Langton, W. H. G.
Caird, J.	Lefroy, A.
Cairns, Sir H. M'C.	Leighton, Sir B.
Cartwright, Colonel	Leslie, W.
Cobbold, J. C.	Lindsay, W. S.
Cole, hon. H.	Long, R. P.
Coningham, W.	Lyall, G.
Cubitt, G.	Lysley, W. J.
Cubitt, W.	Mackie, J.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.	Mainwaring, T.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Malcolm, J. W.
Duncombe, hon. W. E.	Manners, Lord G. J.
Dundas, F.	Miller, W.
Du Pre, C. G.	Mills, J. R.
East, Sir J. B.	Mordaunt, Sir C.
Edwards, Colonel	Morgan, O.
Egerton, Sir P. G.	Morris, D.
Egerton, E. C.	Morritt, W. J. S.
Egerton, hon. W.	Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
Ellice, E. (St. And.)	Mundy, W.
Enfield, Viscount	Mure, D.
Ewing, H. E. Crum-	Murray, W.
Farquhar, Sir M.	Newdegate, C. N.
Finlay, A. S.	Nicol, W.
Foljambe, F. J. S.	Norris, J. T.
Gard, R. S.	North, Colonel
Gower, G. W. G. L.	Onslow, G.
Hamilton, Viscount	Pakenham, Colonel
Hanbury, R.	Palk, Sir L.
Hardy, G.	Paull, H.
Heygate, Sir F. W.	Pennant, hon. Col.

Peto, Sir S. M.	Sykes, Colonel W. H.
Phillips, G. L.	Thynne, Lord H.
Powell, F. S.	Traill, G.
Powys-Lybbe, P. L.	Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.
Repton, G. W. J.	Vance, J.
Ridley, Sir M. W.	Vansittart, W.
Sclater-Booth, G.	Verner, Sir W.
Scott, Sir W.	Walcott, Admiral
Scourfleld, J. H.	Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Selwyn, C. J.	Watlington, J. W. P.
Seymer, H. K.	White, J.
Shelley, Sir J. V.	Whitmore, H.
Smith, Augustus	Willoughby, Sir H.
Smith, Abel	Wyndham, hon. P.
Smith, S. G.	Wynn, Sir W. W.
Spooner, R.	Wynn, C. W. W.
Staniland, M.
Stewart, Sir M. R. S.	TELLERS.
Sturt, H. G.	Mr. Packe
Sturt, Lt.-Col. N.	Mr. Bentinck

SIR LAWRENCE PALK

said, he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. He would remind the Committee that it was proposed to place upon the county rate a charge the nature and extent of which they had not fully considered. If the "minister" to be appointed under the Act was placed upon the same footing as the chaplain of a gaol or prison, in common justice he ought to be placed on the same footing in a pecuniary point of view. He must receive not only the same allowance, but the same amount of retiring pension. That change would eventually become a serious charge upon the counties. Now, he was one of those who thought it most unconstitutional to raise taxation from those who were wholly and entirely unrepresented. If such a course of proceeding were adopted, the House of Commons had bettor abrogate its functions altogether and delegate its powers to the magistrates in quarter sessions. He protested against the adoption of the principle, because he considered it unconstitutional. It might be said that it was a question of very small importance, and that probably the Bill would be a dead letter in almost every county. He believed that would be the case, for he did not think there was a county in England which would take advantage of the powers conferred by the Bill, except Lancashire. The measure would, however, if carried, cast upon the magistrates an amount of responsibility and an amount of odium which it was unfair to impose upon them. The House shrunk from that responsibility, and wanted to get rid of a disagreeable question by effecting a compromise which would prove to be worthless. As a county magistrate, he begged to protest against such a course of proceeding, and against making courts of quarter session the arena for polemical discussions. Perhaps his Amendment would hardly touch the grievance which he had shadowed forth, but it was the best suggestion which he was able to make. At present there was no organized body by which the opinions of the ratepayers could be elicited, but he thought it would be possible to ascertain the opinions of the ratepayers by means of the boards of guardians; and if they should consider it right and proper to adopt the provision made by the Bill, no one would rejoice more than himself. But he did think that if some protection was not given to the ratepayers, an amount of discord and disaffection would arise which it would be very unwise to create. Again, he did not see how it would be possible to limit the principle laid down by the Bill. If adopted, it must be extended still further, and larger demands would, from time to time, be made upon the ratepayers. He would say to those hon. Gentlemen who opposed him that when on their return to their different counties they were asked their reasons for their opposition, they would have to declare that it was right and proper to tax those who were unrepresented, and that they had not sufficient confidence in their constituents to intrust them with the power which he (Sir L. Palk) proposed to give them. To carry out the sentiments which he had expressed, he proposed to insert in the clause after "think fit" the words, "with the consent of the boards of guardians of any county wherein the said gaols, prisons, and houses of correction are situated."

SIR GEORGE GREY

observed, that the effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be to prevent the justices from paying any money without the consent of the boards of guardians. That principle, if sanctioned by the Committee, would not stop there, but would eventually become applicable to every discretionary payment made out of the rate, so that the county justices would be deprived of that administration of local funds which was now in their hands. Now, it might be right or it might be wrong to do that, but it would not be proper to bring about such a change by a short Amendment in this Bill.

MR. SCOURFIELD

expressed a hope that the hon. Baronet would not press his Amendment to a division.

Amendment negatived.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

said, he would then propose to add to the clause the following proviso:— That when the justices or other authorities of any borough or separate jurisdiction commit persons to a county prison, any expenses incurred under this Act shall be paid by the treasurers of such boroughs or separate jurisdictions in proportion to the population of such places and the county.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he thought it would be much better to allow the matter to come under the general and ordinary arrangement of the law.

MR. HUMBERSTON

said, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet. It would be impossible to divide the expense in these cases.

Amendment put, and negatived.

SIR ANDREW AGNEW

said, he wished to express his belief that some misapprehension prevailed in the last division, many hon. Members having been frightened at the idea of the expense falling on the Consolidated Fund. He did not seek to raise any vexatious opposition to the Bill; but as he wished to take the opinion of the Committee on the principle involved in the clause, he would move its omission.

Question put, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 166 Noes 71: Majority 95.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Qualified Repeal of portion of 4 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 30).

MR. HIBBERT

said, he wished to move the insertion of words to provide that in case the visits of any minister admitted to a gaol under the provisions of the Act should have been discontinued for the period of fourteen days, then the existing law, with reference to the duty of the chaplain of the Established Church to visit all the prisoners, should again come into force in respect of the prisoners to whom such other minister had been admitted.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the attendance contemplated by the Bill was a regular one, and therefore he saw no objection to the words proposed by the hon. Member.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

said, he would suggest the introduction of the word "licensed," or the word "ordained," in reference to the ministers of dissenting denominations, so as to provide some security for the character and position of the ministers visiting a prison.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that in framing the Bill the term used in the old Gaol Act had been adopted. He thought the justices would find no difficulty in dealing with the clause as it stood.

MR. HUNT

pointed out, that as a prisoner was not to be compelled to receive instruction from the minister of a denomination to which he did not belong, a prisoner might altogether escape religious instruction by saying that he was of no religious persuasion.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he understood that the Church of England took credit for all prisoners who made no declaration of their faith.

MR. HUNT

said, that a Return relating to Shrewsbury Gaol showed that eleven prisoners had asserted that they were of no religion; and he maintained, that if the clause were passed as it stood, those eleven prisoners could claim to be excused from attending any religious service at all.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the objection raised by the hon. Gentleman would be met by the insertion of the words, "any prisoner belonging to any church or religious persuasion," which would exclude prisoners belonging to no religious persuasion from the operation of the clause.

SIR LAWRENCE PALK

said, that the matter was a serious one, as it affected the discipline of the prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Church of England claimed those who were of no church at all, and he hoped that that was correct; but the Bill would prevent her doing so. In his opinion, the Bill, which seemed to be the worst Bill the House ever passed, had one redeeming quality—it would be perfectly innocuous, because he did not believe that there was a single county that would carry out its provisions. In one or two cases it was possible there might he furious fights at the quarter sessions, and perhaps occasionally a chaplain might be appointed, to be discontinued at the next sessions; but in the majority of the counties and boroughs of England he was convinced that the Bill would be a dead letter. The principle of the Bill was so bad that it would render all prison discipline impossible. But there should be no ambiguity in regard to the matter which was under consideration.

LORD STANLEY

said, he wished to point out that in all probability prisoners would enter themselves as of no religious persuasion, for the mere purpose of getting excused from attendance at chapel.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that if the clause were amended as he proposed, the Bill would not affect them at all.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, that the right hon. Baronet's Amendment would not meet the case of a person representing himself as a Mormonite. Or, suppose there was a single prisoner of one dissenting denomination, and no minister was appointed to attend him, he might refuse the ministrations of the chaplain and get no religious instruction at all.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the case was exactly met by what occurred with Roman Catholic prisoners, who objected to attending the regular chapel service. They were locked in their cells while the service was going on. In practice it was found that prisoners belonging to Protestant denominations did not object to attend the religious services in the chapel.

MR. HUNT

said, the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would meet his objections.

MR. BLACK

said, he wished to ask whether benevolent ladies who, following the example of Mrs. Fry, were in the habit of visiting prisoners in gaol, would still be allowed access to them. He was of opinion that a Mrs. Fry would do more good than half-a-dozen different chaplains, who, after the Bill had passed, might object to their particular preserves being poached upon.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent visiting justices continuing to authorize the admission of these ladies.

COLONEL SYKES

asked, whether it would be competent for county boards to engage chaplains for each of the ten denominations which had recently been enumerated.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he saw no reason why they should not, if any gaol should happen to have 500 prisoners of each of these different denominations.

MR. HENLEY

said, he doubted whether the last words of the clause were necessary. It was competent as the law stood for the keeper or the visiting justices to exempt prisoners from attending chapel if they objected to it. The rule generally was that they were locked in their cells while the service was going on, and it was overloading the statute book to no purpose to insert the words.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the object was simply to make the law accord with the general practice.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, he wished to propose a clause enacting that a salary should not be given to any chaplain appointed under the Bill, except to Roman Catholic chaplains. The Bill gave free access to all prisoners, and that was all Protestant Dissenters required. Whatever differences there might be in regard to ecclesiastical matters between Dissenters and the Church of England, there were no differences between their doctrinal views which would warrant the payment of separate chaplains.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the clause was unnecessary. If a Protestant Dissenting minister volunteered his services to attend prisoners in gaol, no doubt the visiting justices would accept them.

Clause negatived.

On Motion that the Preamble be agreed to,

MR. HUNT

inquired, whether in prisons, where ministers of other persuasions than that of the Church of England were appointed, it would be lawful for persons who might volunteer to visit the prisoners with a view to religious instruction to do so.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the law in that respect would remain exactly on its present footing. The visiting justices might still allow the prisoners to be visited just as they were at present.

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to give notice that on the bringing up of the Report he would move that any persons appointed as chaplains under the Bill should have a list of the prisoners whom they were entitled to visit shown them by the gaoler, but should not have access to the prison books, or be at liberty to raise any question as to whether A or B was of any particular persuasion.

Preamble agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday.