Lords Sitting of 25 April 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Harbour and Fortifications of Alderney.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Alteration of Boundaries of Dioceses* (84);. Middlesex Registration Amendment* (86); Party Processions (Ireland) Act Repeal* (87); West Indies (Incumbered Estates)* (88).
Second Reading—Prison Ministers (72).
Third Reading—County Buildings (Loans)* (65), and passed.

PRISON MINISTERS' BILL—(No. 72.)
(The Duke of Cleveland.)
PRISON MINISTERS' BILL—(No. 72.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said: My Lords, I owe an apology and explanation for introducing a Bill identical in terms with that which received your Lordships' approval and sanction last year, though somewhat different in shape from that which was presented to you originally by Her Majesty's Government. That Bill was strangled by the press of measures at

  1799
  the close of the Session. Her Majesty's Government have declined the responsibility of it from an apprehension that a similar fate might attend it this year. The Bill is entituled "Prison Ministers Bill," and I have undertaken the measure mainly at the instance of those most interested in the measure. It is intended, no doubt, principally for Roman Catholic prisoners, although it does not allude to them eo nomine. The object of the Bill is to render compulsory—when a certain number of Roman Catholics have been found in a prison on an average of three years—the payment of a Roman Catholic priest for the ministration of his services. The Bill of 1863 authorized such payments, but it was not compulsory. This Bill would enforce by law that principle, thereby establishing an equality in the treatment of prisoners. Read in conjunction with the Act of 1865, the general Prisons Act, the Roman Catholic chaplain would become an officer of the prison. This Act applies equally to every other persuasion other than the Church of England, or to Roman Catholics; but it is admitted that there is so much identity between different Protestant persuasions, that prisoners of such rarely ask for the services of any minister of their persuasion; and it would rarely, if ever, occur that there was on an average of three years a sufficient number to authorize the payment of such ministers. It is, moroever, stated by Roman Catholic priests, examined before the Committee of the other House of Parliament in 1870, that a Roman Catholic prisoner when he asks for the ministration of a Protestant clergyman knows that he does wrong. Now, my Lords, I regret that such should be the case; but we must take men as we find them, and do unto others as we would that they should do unto us. Our object is in this respect to establish equality. When the number of Roman Catholic prisoners are found in a prison to correspond to the requirements of the Act, there seems to be nothing unjust in the payment being made out of the rates, because the number of prisoners is an indication that there is a large Roman Catholic population, and that that population contributes largely to the employment, support, and development of wealth in the district. My Lords, there are many prisons in this country where the Act of 1863 has
  1800
  been accepted and acted upon. We lave a large amount of testimony to this effect, taken before the Commons' Committee in 1870. We have the testimony of Roman Catholic priests, whose testimony is valuable in itself, and valuable as showing the feeling of their community; but, of course, they may be said to be parties interested, and their testimony may be received therefore with a certain degree of suspicion. But we found that in Liverpool, from the testimony of Mr. Rathbone, the Act of 1863 had been adopted with the very best effects—most especially as regards the women. In like manner it has been generously acted upon in Preston, Manchester, Wakefield, and other large towns. However, in Middlesex and London, where there are a great many Roman Catholic prisoners, the Act has not been admitted; but it was stated by Mr. Pownall, the late chairman, that if the law were compulsory, it would be generously acted upon; and he also states that a great change has taken place in opinion respecting it of late. We have the testimony before this same Committee of the House of Commons in 1870, of Sir Walter Crofton, at the head of the direction of the Convict Prisons of Ireland from 1854 to 1862, as to the good effect in Ireland, and being employed for the Prison Act of 1865, his testimony is substantially the same on the general question. There is the testimony of Captain O'Brien; and, above all, that of Colonel Henderson, formerly at the head of the Convict Prisons of England, and Captain Ducane, who succeeded him, both to the effect that it was desirable that there should be equality in the treatment of prisoners, and that it was just and expedient that Roman Catholic chaplains should be paid officers of the prison where the number of prisoners of that persuasion authorized the adoption of the Act. In he convict prisons under the Government, 11 in number, the Act has long since prevailed. In nine of these prisons here is a large number of Roman Catholics. I find no weight of testimony opposed to these views, or in contradiction to the good effects which have resulted from its adoption. Now, my Lords, I am aware that it may be said that as the measure failed last year, from want of time, that it has little chance this year; but if the measure is right and proper in itself, I trust that

  1801
  your Lordships will re-affirm it, and it is better that it should not slumber, as in time it would no doubt be sanctioned by Parliament. It might, perhaps, be more simple that the Act of 1863 should be repealed, and this Act incorporated with the general Prisons Act, although, my Lords, there might be a gain in simplicity of legislation, yet the difficulties to be surmounted would not have rendered such a course expedient. I trust that your Lordships will agree to the second reading of this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Duke of Cleveland.)
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNErose to move an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. His ground of objection to the measure was that he was connected by property with Scotland, and the people of that country, however anxious they might be to deal fairly with their Roman Catholic countrymen, did not desire that a compulsory measure of that kind, which would put a heavy rate on them, should be passed by Parliament. Moreover, he held the Bill to be quite unnecessary, the Prison Ministers Bill being law. He was not prepared to discuss the proposition that whore there were a certain number of prisoners of a particular religious persuasion, they ought to receive the ministrations of a minister of their own faith; but when the original Prison Ministers Bill was before Parliament, Sir George Grey said it should be left to the discretion of the justices to decide whether the number of prisoners of any denomination was such as to require the regular ministration of a minister of their persuasion; that if they were of that opinion, they were to select and appoint the minister; and that being responsible for the discipline and good order of the prison, they would have the power of excluding any whose presence they might think dangerous to good order, and that they might revoke the appointment at pleasure. The right hon. Baronet further said that the appointment would not necessarily carry with it remuneration; but that if the justices decided affirmatively, the salary should be paid out of the ordinary fund applicable for the maintenance of the prison. He further said that it was not necessary nor probable that the provisions of the Bill would be applicable
  1802
  to the great majority of prisons. But if the Bill now before their Lordships passed and became law the justices would be left no option in the matter; and the decision of a question which deeply affected the good management and the maintenance of discipline in the gaol—for the minister would be altogether independent of the prison authorities—would be in the hands of the Roman Catholic Bishops; for though nominally the appointment would be with the Secretary of State, really it would be with the Roman Catholic Bishops. No such principle would have been admitted at the time the original Bill passed, and he hoped their Lordships would not now give it their sanction. He was free to acknowledge that the existing state of things in the largo prisons of the metropolis was not satisfactory; but as these prisons were the exception, and as it was highly probable that a change would be arrived at without this Bill, he submitted that a general measure of the kind was unnecessary. He objected to the compulsory appointment of a Roman Catholic chaplain where the average number of Roman Catholic prisoners was only 10. It should be remembered that wherever the Roman Catholic prisoners were numerous provision was almost invariably made for their religious instruction. And, moreover, they should remember that the full demands of the Roman Catholics could not be easily met—for their representatives before the Select Committee of last year demanded not only ministers of their own faith, but schoolmasters, Roman Catholic warders, a separate place of worship, and money for vestments and other matters. In fact, the more that was given them the more they expected. The close visitation which the Roman Catholic priests thought necessary in gaols was not at all the practice in Roman Catholic countries with which he was acquainted. Then, as to the salaries of these ministers, the Bill proposed that they should be paid according to a scale dependent on the number of prisoners under their charge—ranging from £25 for 20 prisoners up to £200 for 300 and upwards. Now, that scale, as he need scarcely remind their Lordships, greatly exceeded the capitation grant for the Army, and was sometimes twice as much. It was said that in Ireland Protestant chaplains were paid for

  1803
  attendance at workhouses in which there were only a few Protestant paupers, or none at all; but he was consistent in this matter, for in his own Union he opposed the payment of the Protestant chaplain, there being only two Protestants in the house, until it was forced on the Guardians by the Poor Law Commissioners. Then, again, there were at least 25 or 80 different denominations of Christians—were each of these entitled to have their prison ministers?—and, if they were, where was the money to come from to pay them? He asked them to reject this Bill—first, because the Act of 1863 had been carried out to the full extent that had been promised; and, secondly, because exceptional legislation in the interests of the Roman Catholics ought not to be encouraged. In Spain, Austria, Bavaria, and Italy, the Roman Catholics had shown themselves intolerant, and Prince Bismarck and other able statesmen, including the Minister of Roman Catholic Bavaria, felt themselves obliged to oppose the pretensions of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics. It was said that the Protestant institutions of this country were so secure that we had nothing to fear from the Roman Catholic authorities; but Ritualism had made Roman Catholicism fashionable, and he feared it had done more—that it had separated the rich from the poor. Considering the influence which the Roman Catholics were endeavouring to obtain in the electoral contests, he thought Parliament ought to guard against their movements.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that this was a measure with the same object as that which had been passed by their Lordships last year, but which, being threatened with strong opposition in "another place," and as the time of the Session was then running short, it had to be abandoned. He trusted, however, their Lordships would not go back from the principle they had affirmed when they passed that Bill, notwithstanding that the noble Lord on the cross-bench (Lord Oranmore and Browne) seemed to have spent a considerable portion of the vacation in picking holes in it, and collecting materials for the speech with
  1804
  which he had just favoured them. He ventured to differ from the noble Lord, and to say that when a Roman Catholic priest or the clergyman of any other denomination gave his services in rescuing prisoners from a course of crime, he rendered a benefit to society at large, and was entitled to a reward from the community. In such a matter as this a common principle should be acted on throughout the country, and religious antipathy should never be allowed to step in and interfere with the application of that principle. This Bill provided for the appointment by the justices of ministers of any denomination when the number of prisoners required it, and appointed them graduated salaries; it also enabled the Home Secretary to make the necessary regulations for affording due facilities to the minister for the performance of his duties. It provided further that these regulations should be laid before Parliament before they came into operation. On the other hand, the Bill enacted if the prison authorities made default in complying with its requisition, the Secretary of State might make an order enforcing compliance, and might withhold the grant from the Consolidated Fund. In his opinion, if this Bill should be passed, the magistrates in Quarter Sessions would be relieved from those difficulties which now frequently beset them, as many of their Lordships who had been obliged to take part in county debates involving sectarian strife could testify. He trusted their Lordships would read the Bill a second time, and subsequently pass it, and thus add another stone to the edifice of toleration which had been gradually built up in this country.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he would not enter into the merits of the question at any length, because their Lordships discussed a similar measure last Session; but he wished to say that he intended to support the second reading, for he frankly owned that he should be sorry to see it thrown out. He was aware that in some counties there was a strong feeling against the Act of 1863, and that that feeling had led in some instances into a disregard of the Act; and from experience as a magistrate, he was aware that some hardship did exist in the case of Roman Catholic prisoners under the existing law. That hardship had been, he thought, in some cases

  1805
  exaggerated; but he was aware of cases in which a very large number of Roman Catholic prisoners were kept without the ministrations of a clergyman of their own Church, and he thought the only way of preventing such occurrences was by changing what was a permissive provision into a compulsory one. Another reason for passing the Bill was this—that anyone who had followed the course of legislation on this subject must be aware that we were coming to the point to which this Bill would bring us. Formerly, only one religion was recognized in our gaols—namely, the State religion; and the only chaplains provided for prisoners were clergymen of the Established Church. But as time went on various reasons for changing that system presented themselves to those who had the management of gaols. Gradually the ministers of various denominations were admitted, and the Act of 1863 was passed, giving the justices a discretion in this matter. Now, though the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains was left to their discretion by that Act, he could not but think the intention of the Legislature was, that where the number of Roman Catholic inmates reached a certain number such chaplain should be appointed. He thought Parliament had not intended that the justices should have any very wide option, and, therefore, as in some places the justices had refused to give effect to the Act, he could not see that there was anything unfair in now passing a compulsory measure. This Bill was almost a reproduction of the Bill of last year as it left their Lordships' House. While that Bill was under discussion, an important clause was struck out, and he thought reasonably. It was one which gave the Home Secretary the power of directing that a Roman Catholic chapel should be erected in the gaol should he think it advisable. He would now beg to direct the attention of his noble Friend who had charge of this Bill to the wording of the 4th clause, which, he thought, might allow the Secretary of State to direct that the Roman Catholic service should be performed in the Church of England chapel of the gaol. That, no doubt, would be very distasteful, and the attempt to force such an order on reluctant justices might give rise to serious difficulties. He thought that the number of prisoners that should compel the justices to appoint
  1806
  a minister of their persuasion should be higher. He thought, also, that the scale of remuneration required revision. These, however, were mere matters of detail, which could be dealt with in Committee, and he hoped their Lordships, following the course they had adopted last year, would not hesitate to affirm the principle of the measure by giving the Bill a second reading.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that as he had the honour of passing the Bill of last year, which was precisely similar to the present, through their Lordships' House, he would be glad to say a few words. First, he would say that the Government were as decidedly in favour of this Bill as they were in favour of the former, and that the only reason why they had not themselves introduced the Bill was because of the multiplicity of subjects which they had to deal with in "another place," and, therefore, they thought it was good policy not to undertake any other measure which would have little chance of passing if in their hands. He would not attempt to go into the details of this Bill, but would merely state that, if passed, it would render effective—and, indeed, would carry out—the spirit of the Act of 1863, as to the working of which Act he might observe that experience had shown that there was ample justification for introducing the present measure.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he was not disposed to shut out any delinquent from the instruction of his spiritual adviser, and in the county with which he was connected he had always voted for allowing a Roman Catholic chaplain to visit the Catholic prisoners detained in gaol; but he could not go so far as to put a Roman Catholic chaplain in the position of being an officer of the gaol. If that were done, similar claims might be put forward on behalf of four or five other denominations, each claiming to have a separate place of worship in the gaol, and the result would be the destruction of all prison discipline. Another objection which he entertained to the Bill was, that it would make the Roman Catholic chaplain, when once appointed, practically irremovable, except with the consent of the Secretary of State. Such a provision was not calculated to operate beneficially, for it would render the maintenance of prison discipline difficult if a Roman Catholic chaplain who might

  1807
  have offended against the rules of the prison knew that he could not be removed, except by the circuitous process of memorializing the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He conceived that his objections to the Bill could not be removed in Committee, and therefore he felt bound to vote for the Amendment.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, it seemed to him, as it did to the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), that the 4th clause was very ambiguous. Now, if it were intended that the present prison chapels should be fitted up for Roman Catholic worship, it would be better to say so. When the Bill was in Committee, it would be more satisfactory if the language were made clear and intelligible, for at present it seemed to give the Secretary of State large powers clothed in considerable ambiguity.
  LORD REDESDALEthought that if the Secretary of State made the appointment it was only right that he should provide for the salaries and expenses.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 58, Not-Contents 22: Majority 36; Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  ALTERATION OF BOUNDARIES OF DIOCESES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the alteration of boundaries of Dioceses—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of YORK; read 1a. (No. 84.)

  MIDDLESEX REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Registration of Deeds and Wills in the county of Middlesex—Was presented by The Lord TRURO; read 1a. (No. 86.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.