CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 14 May 1863)

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he objected to impose on the ratepayers of the country what he believed would prove a most onerous and oppressive tax, and one which would be most distasteful to the great majority of them. He would therefore propose in Clause 3, the omission of the following words:— And they may, if they think fit, award to him a reasonable sum as a recompense for his services, such sum to be deemed a part of the expenses of the prison to which he is appointed, and to be paid out of the funds legally applicable to the payment of such expenses.

MR. PACKE
said, he would second the Motion. When he proposed a similar Resolution in Committee on the Bill, he was asked what alternative he would propose. His answer now was, that he would leave the chaplains so appointed to be paid for the duties they fulfilled in the prisons in the same way as they were paid for the duties they fulfilled out of the prisons. No Dissenters or Roman Catholics were paid out of public funds for their work out of gaols, and he saw no reason why they should be paid for their work in the gaols. If the Amendment were carried, he should be prepared to move words to the effect that recompense for the services of the chaplains who might be appointed should be paid out of voluntary contributions.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the Amendment very closely resembled that introduced by the hon. Member for Leicestershire the other evening, and rejected by a considerable majority of the House, and he must therefore oppose it on that occasion.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
wished to correct a mistaken inference which might be drawn from a statement made on a previous evening by the hon. and learned Member for Bute (Mr. Mure). That hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that there were 173 1692 Catholic prisoners in the Glasgow gaol, and that not more than three of those had been visited by a Roman Catholic clergyman. On reading that statement he (Mr. Maguire) had written to the Catholic bishop of Glasgow in reference to it. The right rev. Dr. Murdoch replied that until he read in the newspapers the statement made by the hon. Member for Bute, neither he nor any of his clergy were aware that a Roman Catholic clergyman had the power of visiting a Catholic prisoner in the gaol who had not sent for him. He further stated that some time since he petitioned the Prison Board to allow the Sisters of Charity to attend on the female prisoners of the Roman Catholic religion, and that petition was met with a refusal. Immediately afterwards the governor of the gaol told one of the clergy that he could not see any other prisoner than the one who sent expressly for him. He (Mr. Maguire) thought that would be a satisfactory explanation of the statement made by the hon. Member for Bute.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he did not approve the Bill. He was afraid the Government were placing themselves in an ambiguous position by the measure. He regretted that circumstance, and he regretted still more the support which the Bill had received on the Opposition side of the House. However, as the House had already decided that no alteration should take place in respect of the remuneration to those clergymen, he thought it was useless for his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck) to go to a division.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, that he would not trouble the House by dividing.

MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to propose an Amendment having for its object to provide that the keeper or other officer of a prison should from time to time give clergymen admitted under the Bill a list of the prisoners of the Church or persuasion to which such clergyman belonged. The clause as it stood provided that those clergymen should have access to a book for the purpose of acquiring that information. His plan was in substitution of that in the clause.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
saw no objection to the Amendment.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the clause was a portion of the Bill which he thought contained a direct invasion of the great 1693 principle of religious freedom. By the provision they were about to authorize the appointment of persons who belonged to a church which had no regard to the principles of toleration, and which was very different from the Church of England.