COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 15 June 1863)

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
thought it very objectionable to make it compulsory to appoint a chaplain when the prisoners amounted to a given number, because this Bill in its present shape would allow the visits of the Roman Catholic minister residing in the neighbourhood when the number of Roman Catholic prisoners was small, and the Amendment would take away the discretion of the justices when, even though the number was twenty, it might be very desirable to allow those visits to be continued. It would be going much further than the case warranted, and would defeat the object of the Bill by entirely altering its character. In Ireland the law was, that the grand jury were to appoint chaplains whenever required by the court; and the appointment did not depend upon the number of prisoners.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
did not think that the argument for making the Bill compulsory had been answered. In Ireland, practically, the appointment of additional ministers was left to the direction of the court.

§ LORD CLONCURRY
said that this power of appointing Roman Catholic chaplains to gaols had not worked well in Ireland. He believed that the Roman Catholic clergy might have long since rooted out the crime which disgraced that country if they had so chosen, but they had not done so; on the contrary, malefactors fully believed that they could be absolved from the most fearful crime by their chaplain. In the case in which Sir Francis Hopkins was fired at with intent to murder, the intended victim did not die, but was able subsequently to identify his assailant. 888 When, after the malefactor's execution, the body was given to his friends, the Roman Catholic bishop and clergy headed a procession of not less than 50,000 people, the majority of whom believed that by this act the salvation of the criminal had been secured.

§ LORD CAMOYS
opposed the Amendment. He was sure, that if the Bill became law, the magistrates of his county (Oxford) would honestly and faithfully do their best, if there were any necessity, to carry it into execution; and he believed the same might be said of the magistrates of other counties. He had heard it said that in Scotland the Bill would be wholly inoperative, because the magistrates would refuse to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains. He did not believe it—on the contrary, he believed they would act like their. English brethren, and would conform to the provisions of the law. He thought it would be unwise to affix any number of prisoners, for the number would be constantly fluctuating. To-day there might be twenty-one, and to-morrow only nineteen. He wished to thank the Government for having brought in the Bill, and to thank also the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) for the independent manner in which he had supported it on the second reading, though his sense of the noble Earl's conduct would have been deeper had it not been for an expression used by him. The noble Earl spoke of the Roman Catholics as paying to other beings that worship which was due to God alone. That was an imputation of idolatry, and, as a member of the Roman Catholic Church, he could not pass it by unnoticed.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
said, he was afraid he had been rather unfortunate in the expressions he used the other evening, in stating the grounds on which he was thoroughly convinced of the superior claims of the Protestant religion over that of the Roman Catholic. He stated that he believed the Roman Catholics to entertain some very erroneous doctrines, and that they acted on principles entirely repugnant to the Scriptures. At the same time, he stated his opinion that both the Protestant and Roman Catholic religion, notwithstanding the differences between them, rested upon the same foundation, and that he could not but believe the teaching of the Roman Catholic priest, although it might be considered erroneous in some respects, would yet have a beneficial tendency towards persons of that religion. The next 889 morning after the debate he received a newspaper, which said he had been guilty of the grossest misconduct in presuming to say that the Roman Catholic religion rested on the same foundation as the Protestant, because the one rested on the Bible and the worship of God, and the other was the worship of a piece of bread. He begged their Lordships' pardon for quoting such offensive language. On the other hand, he received a letter from a Roman Catholic—a letter remonstrating with him for having stated that both religions rested on the same foundation; because the writer said the Roman Catholic religion rested on the Scripture and the Church, while the teaching of the Protestants was a work, not of God, but of the Devil; and that upon that teaching alone did the Protestant religion exist. These were the views on each side of his statement, which he thought was a reasonable statement, but in respect of which he had been charged on the one side with the grossest blasphemy, and upon the other with the most utter ignorance of what the Protestant and Roman Catholic religions were. In making the statement he had alluded to, it was, he assured the House, not his intention to attempt the conversion of a single Roman Catholic, or to say anything to hurt the feelings of either side. He had simply expressed his dissent from some of the Roman Catholic doctrines. He concurred with the noble Lord who had just sat down, that the Amendment was objectionable in laying down any precise limit in reference to the number of prisoners that would require the appointment of a Roman Catholic chaplain in any prison, on the simple ground that the number was continually varying. There was another objection to the Amendment, which had not occurred to some of his noble Friends. It had been stated that in Ireland the appointment of chaplains was in a great measure vested in the Roman Catholic bishops, for this reason that no priest could accept office unless with the sanction of his bishop; and if he were an imprudent man, he might impose on the magistrates the very man they objected to. That would be the case in England if the Bill were compulsory, and the Roman Catholic bishops might secure to themselves the right practically of appointing chaplains. That would not he the case if the Bill were permissive, because the magistrates would appoint and dismiss; and if the Roman Catholic bishop refused to sanction the appointment of any chap- 890 lain except those the magistrates objected to, the injury done to the Roman Catholics would be done, not by the magistrates, but by the Roman Catholic bishops, who would not only deprive their people of religious instruction in their own faith, but would place them in the hands of the Protestant chaplains. He was willing that Roman Catholic prisoners should receive religious instruction, but it was absolutely necessary to keep the appointment and control of the chaplains in the hands of the magistrates, and that could only be done, in his view, by making the Bill permissive instead of compulsory.