PETITION. (Hansard, 13 June 1862)

THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY
presented a Petition of Roman Catholic Inhabitants of Edinburgh, complaining of certain decisions of the Board of Supervision for the Relief of the Poor (Scotland), with respect to Roman Catholic children. The noble Marquess said that the Petition was signed by 3,740 Roman Catholic inhabitants of Edinburgh and Leith, and complained that they did not enjoy that religious freedom to which they were entitled, and which was secured to them by law, and that constant attempts were made to tamper with their religion in the persons of the most helpless class—the children of their faith who were inmates of the poorhouses. The subject was not a new one in that House, for a Petition similar in prayer to that now presented had been 538 heretofore submitted, and had given rise to some discussion, and he thought the Government were bound to interfere, to check the evils complained of. Of late years the population of Scotland had been largely, and, as he believed, beneficially, increased by the immigration of labourers from Ireland, who were all Roman Catholics, and thus that body could not be said to form an inconsiderable portion of the whole population of Scotland. It was calculated that there were about 393,000 Roman Catholics in Scotland, there being in Glasgow about 110,000, and in Edinburgh between 20,000 and 30,000. The Roman Catholics, therefore, numbered about one-seventh of the population of Scotland. These persons were engaged in the hardest and worst-paid employment, and consequently their children formed the largest portion of the pauper class, it having been estimated that of the pauper children under the charge of the Parochial Board of Edinburgh no less than one-sixth were Irish and one-third Roman Catholic, the difference between the two figures being the children born in Scotland of Irish parents. When this subject had been last discussed in that House, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) congratulated them that the statement he had made had satisfied their Lordships that there was great exaggeration in the complaints that had been made. How the noble Duke had arrived at that conclusion it was difficult to understand, as the complaints had certainly not been satisfactorily answered. If fair words and promises were of any benefit, the Board of Supervision had been profuse of them; but he was informed that after the lapse of a short time the system of proselytizing had been practised as extensively as ever. The Roman Catholic chaplains who attended the poor-houses in Edinburgh complained of the distribution of Protestant tracts among the children, in some of which were ribald verses reflecting upon the Roman Catholic religion, while in others a more decent but more dangerous course was pursued. The Board of Supervision, when complaints were made, said that the clergyman who distributed the tracts might have acted wrongly, and that what had been done was without their sanction; but no reference was made to the allegation that Roman Catholic children were punished for refusing to read the tracts. The noble Marquess referred to a written statement of Sir J. M'Neill, Chairman of the Board of Supervision, in 539 which the Roman Catholics of Scotland were told, that as they were a small minority, and must depend on the will of the majority for any toleration they received, they ought to take care how they stirred questions which might lead to their being deprived of the advantages they now enjoyed. Nothing could be more unlike the tone of a protector of the weak than such language. An impression had got abroad that the present Government did not always observe that impartiality between different religions which was incumbent upon them, especially since the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act. Their Lordships would all recollect the case of Mr. Turnbull, who had been removed from his situation in the Record Office, for which he was in every way qualified, simply because he was a Roman Catholic. He did not accuse noble Lords on the Ministerial bench of having changed their principles, but it could not be denied that in Ireland an apprehension had been excited by the conduct of a Member of the Executive that something like the cry of "No Popery" was to be raised. As a sincere Protestant, he believed that the spirit of Protestantism was a spirit of toleration; and he must say that the most objectionable kind of persecution was that exhibited when those in authority used their power to force their own opinions upon those who differed from them. He was afraid that at present that system prevailed to some extent in Scotland. He entreated their Lordships to recollect that these petitioners did not ask for any special favour—on the contrary, they expressed the utmost confidence in the administration of the Poor Law in Scotland. All they desired was that their complaints might not be referred to a Ministerial Board, in whose decisions they had no confidence, but that they might be heard in public before the recognised tribunals of the country.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, he was rather surprised at the great warmth—he might say, the great heat—with which the noble Marquess brought forward this petition; but every secret came out at last, and so it appeared that the noble Marquess connected this case, as he did everything else, with his unfortunate Italian policy; and therefore he made it a deliberate charge on the Government in connection with this wretched question, that they were influenced by the "No Popery" cry, and meant to prosecute their Roman Catho- 540 lie fellow-subjects. He really thought such observations entirely beside the question, and he should not further condescend to notice them. When this subject was brought before their Lordships last year, the Petition then presented was conceived in very temperate language, and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) stated its allegations, for which he did not, however, vouch. The noble Earl was kind enough to give him (the Duke of Argyll) previous notice, not only of the general tenor of the Petition, but also of the individual cases to which it referred, and he wrote to Sir John M'Neill, from whom he had received a statement in reply, which he had submitted to their Lordships, and which he believed satisfied them that there was very considerable exaggeration in the allegations of the petition. He did not say that there might not be some individual cause of complaint, but certainly he thought he satisfied the House that the rules adopted by the Board were intended to defend Roman Catholic children from proselytizing influences. The noble Marquess had given him no notice that he intended to refer to particular cases; the notice on the paper was simply that he would present a Petition from Roman Catholic ratepayers in Edinburgh. The noble Marquess had alluded to two particular cases, of which he was entirely ignorant, having received no notice respecting them, and he was not therefore prepared with any answer with respect to them. He would, however, take that opportunity of alluding to a somewhat similar case mentioned by the noble Earl behind (the Earl of Wicklow) some weeks ago, and with respect to which some correspondence had taken place. That case would show the extent of exaggeration of which he complained. On investigation it completely broke down. An Irishman, named Gillan, a twister in Glasgow, married; his wife died, and he enlisted in the army, committed his only child to the care of Mrs. Flint. He went to India, but for some time corresponded with Mrs. Flint. Ultimately, the child was thrown for support on the parish. Mrs. Flint was a Protestant, and the board took the natural course of continuing the child with her to whom the surviving parent had intrusted it. Several Roman Catholic relations of the father were living near, but they made no inquiries as to the child until it was five years old, when they applied to hare it removed. The child had at first been placed in a Roman Catholic School; but 541 not learning there, it was placed in a Protestant school, and the board declined to remove it. None of the parties who came forward were ready to come under an obligation to the parochial board, to relieve them of the child's maintenance or education; and he remained in the school, where, several Roman Catholics having placed their own children, it was to be supposed there was no proselytism. The fact was, that Roman Catholics in going to Scotland had, in some instances, the desire to conform to the religion of the country. In this very case it turned out, on reference by the parochial board to the War Office in May last, that Gillan had enlisted, not as a Roman Catholic, but as an Episcopalian. If the noble Marquess had given him notice of the cases he meant to mention, he would have made inquiries into the facts; but he repeated, there were no grounds whatever for the sweeping— he might say monstrous — accusations which had been made against the parochial board and the Board of Supervision.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW
knew nothing of the facts, except as stated in the Petition he had formerly presented. He wished, however, to know why the parochial board had placed this child in a Roman Catholic Seminary, if they had reason to believe that its parents were Protestant?

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
, in answer, said, that the correspondence with the War Office took place only last month, and till then the Board of Supervision had reason to believe that Gillan was a Roman Catholic.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW
said, he believed that the child had been placed in a school where the Protestant version of the Scriptures was not read. There was a universal feeling among the Roman Catholic population of Scotland, from the Bishop down to the poorest labourer, that they were not treated with justice in this matter. It was therefore absolutely necessary for the restoration of confidence that some inquiry should take place; and he trusted it would be instituted without delay. When similar complaints arose in England, an inquiry was immediately granted; and it was still more necessary in Scotland, where it was believed that the Board of Supervision was not impartial. He might remark, in conclusion, that the persons whose petition he presented last Session had complained to him that the noble Duke, while giving a general contradiction 542 to their allegations, had not produced any counter-statement whatever, far less one of a satisfactory character.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, the Board of Supervision would have no objection to produce the correspondence which had taken place between them and the petitioners to whom the noble Earl referred.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said, the noble Duke had not answered any one of the statements made by the noble Marquess. He hoped, that if it were true, as stated by the noble Marquess, that Sir John M'Neill had told the complainants that if they did not keep quiet they would be subjected to even worse treatment than at present, the Government would at once interfere. It was natural to suppose that the local boards would allow their religious feelings to influence them in the performance of their public duty; and it was clearly the business of the Board of Supervision to see that the law was carried out in the just and liberal spirit in which it was framed. The principle of the Poor Law was that relief should be given without reference to religion, and he trusted the Government, in the performance of its duty, would see that justice was done to all parties.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
reminded their Lordships that the Board of Supervision had actually issued a regulation to the effect that Roman Catholic priests should be allowed free access to conduct the education of Roman Catholic pauper children. It was impossible to suppose that the Board of Supervision had any wish to proselytize.