SECOND READING. (Hansard, 17 March 1871)

THE EARL OF MORLEY
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to extend the principle affirmed by Parliament in the Prison Ministers Act of 1863, which in practice had not worked satisfactorily. By that Act the prison authorities were permitted, in cases where the number of prisoners of any particular creed was such as to justify such a proceeding, to appoint and pay a minister of their persuasion to visit such prisoners. That measure was, however, a purely permissive Bill, and it had been found by a Committee of the House of Commons which sat last year that its provisions had by no means been uniformly adopted throughout the country, and the results expected from it had been far from being realized. Thus, in some prisons, ministers of different religious creeds were appointed, paid, and placed exactly upon the same footing as the Church of England chaplains; whereas in others, although such ministers were appointed and paid, they were not permitted to 164 perform a service within the walls of the prison, but were merely allowed to visit the prisoners in their cells; and in others, again, no salaries whatever were given, although the ministers were at liberty to visit the gaols. He ventured to submit to their Lordships that this was not acting according to the spirit in which the Act of 1863 was passed—such a state of things was neither politically sound nor just—it was contrary to the principle that the workman is worthy of his hire. The object of the present measure was to remedy the defects of the Act of 1863, by authorizing the Secretary of State, upon complaint being made to him that the number of prisoners confined in any prison, belonging to any religious persuasion other than the Church of England, was so great as to require the ministration of a minister of their own persuasion, and that the prison authorities had failed to appoint such a minister under the power given them by the Act of 1863, to require the prison authority to appoint such a minister. The power of the Secretary of State was restricted to the case of prisons in which the average number of prisoners of the particular denomination during the three preceding years had not been less than 10. The minister so appointed was, so far as circumstances would allow, to be placed in exactly the same status as the Church of England chaplain of the prison, and was to be paid a salary not less than that given in a schedule attached to the Bill, ranging from £25 where the prisoners to whom he has to administer do not exceed 20; to £150 where such prisoners number between 200 and 300; and £200 where they exceed 300. The Secretary of State was further authorized to make regulations with regard to such ministers, which were to take effect after they had been laid for a certain period before Parliament.

EARL DELAWARR
said, he strongly approved of the Bill, which was directed against a state of things which was a scandal and reproach to our legislation. The Bill, if passed, would be a great step towards securing perfect religious equality. It was disgraceful that the prison authorities should have the power of refusing to remunerate the Roman Catholic priests who attended to 165 the spiritual wants of prisoners professing that faith. He complained, however, that the Bill made no provision for the payment of Roman Catholic priests in cases where the annual average number of prisoners for three years was below 10. Another defect in the measure was that it did not name the persons by whom complaint was to be made to the Secretary of State in cases where no Nonconformist minister had been appointed to gaols. But unless such a provision was inserted in Committee there was a risk that this Bill likewise would prove inoperative, because no complaints would be made.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
approved the general principle of the Bill; but he thought care would be required in Committee that no words were used which should override the Prisons Act of 1865. He admitted the propriety of remunerating Roman Catholic chaplains of prisons; but he thought the burden of payment should not be thrown upon the county rates. He thought the words in Clause 4 would give power to the Secretary of State to insist upon Roman Catholic chapels being built in every gaol—a course that would in some instances entail an unnecessary burden upon the county rates.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
hoped the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley) would state in what manner he intended to remedy the defect pointed out by the noble Earl who had just spoken. Many persons might desire to see the controversy on that question settled; but if any great additional burden should be thrown on the county rate—already very heavy—for the erection of Roman Catholic chapels considerable dissatisfaction might be created.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
said, there was a proviso to the 4th clause that all regulations made by the Secretary of State should be laid before Parliament within one month after they were made, and if they were not objected to within 40 days, they would be deemed duly made within the powers of this Act, and would have the same effect as if they were regulations contained in the 1st Schedule to the Prisons Act, 1865.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
asked whether, among the powers given by the Bill to the Secretary of State, it was intended that he should have power to 166 decide whether a Roman Catholic chaplain should be enabled to celebrate high mass in prisons?

THE EARL OF MORLEY
said, the Secretary of State would have power to Afford any such minister proper means and facilities for the performance of his duties and the religious instruction of such prisoners and the due celebration of the ceremonies of his religion.

§ EARL STANHOPE
suggested whether it would not be advisable to place some restriction on the power of the Secretary of State to authorize the construction of chapel buildings within prisons?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, the object of the Bill being to provide the offices of religion for such prisoners as might not hold the opinions of the Established Church, they could hardly refuse the means and facilities requisite for the performance of those offices. That might necessitate the erection of additional buildings in some particular cases, though probably not in very many; and he did not think it would be right to withhold all power whatever of sanctioning such additional accommodation. To do so might be to render the Bill quite nugatory in certain instances. When the regulations were laid before Parliament it would be seen in what manner the powers given to the Secretary of State were to be applied.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
said, the point raised might be considered before the Bill went into Committee. It would probably be necessary to vest a discretion in the Secretary of State on the matter; at the same time, care ought to be taken not to overburden the county rates. As the provision in question would involve a power of taxation, it would be requisite to alter the form of the Bill before it went to the other House.

§ THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND
thought it was a question whether the expense of that accommodation ought not to be borne by the State, instead of by the county rate, the burden of which was already so great in some districts that any considerable increase would excite a strong feeling in many parts of the country.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
cordially concurred in the principle of the Act of 1863, and as that had not been found to act satisfactorily in some respects, the present Bill proposed a just and proper 167 remedy. He apprehended that it would be necessary in extreme cases only to provide additional buildings in goals; but, at the same time, he thought an opportunity should be given to Parliament of discussing whether, in any particular instance, the Secretary of State had gone beyond the proper limits contemplated by the Act, or had charged the county rates unduly for the erection of prison chapels. If Parliament was not to have some veto on excessive expenditure, he did not understand why the rules and regulations were to lie for 40 days on the Table before coming into operation. There ought to be some special provision that either House should have the power, either by an Address to the Crown, or by a direct negative, to stop expenditure of which it did not approve.

§ VISCOUNT HALIFAX
stated that the object of requiring the rules and regulations to be laid upon the Table was that either House of Parliament might, if so disposed, interfere before they came into force.