PROTESTANT MAGAZINE.

MAY 1, 1863.

ROMISH CHAPLAINS IN GAOLS.

SIR GEORGE GREY, on Monday, April 20, moved the second reading of the Prison Ministers Bill. After a not very long debate it was carried by a majority of 30, the numbers being respectively-Ayes, 152; Noes, 122.

This is a matter of deep regret, and if the House of Lords does not intervene-if the present Bill is to become the law of the land, we apprehend very great inconvenience, not to say serious mischief, as the results of it.

The measure in itself is vicious-alike wrong in policy and in principle; and the debate was characterized by the fallacies and sophisms usually to be found in the speeches of those who are determined or compelled to advocate a measure for which no sound argument can be found, and for which no real necessity exists. That Ministers should be induced-not to say driven-to bring in such a measure, denotes at once the vast influence of Popery, and the reckless disregard of sound Protestant principles, by those who have brought in and supported the Bill. This fresh homage paid by statesmen at the shrine of Popery augurs ill for the future interests of Protestantism; and the partisans of Rome have too good reason to be satisfied with the success of the movement thus far.

Without any reference to one party more than to another, we have to lament that for a long time past, as regards the Romish question, our statesmen have committed grave mistakes. They have sought to make tools of Popery, and Popery has made tools of them. This applies to some of each of the various parties into which the political world is divided. And on the occasion of the Prison Ministers Bill, not only have the Romanists a majority, but the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal parties have spoken and voted for the measure-a measure offensive to the true Protestants of the country, as if the leaders of those parties felt it impolitic to incur the risk of losing the support of Romanists when such support might be required.

The Romanists are rejoicing in this. great triumph. They point out that in voted, "55 Members paired on each side; VOL. XXV.

E

They regard it as a addition to those who so that 388 Members New Series, No. 270.

have pronounced themselves on the Bill-209 in its favour, and 179 against it." The "Tablet" (April 25) then further points out" for evil remembrance" that 53 Liberals voted against the measure and against their party, and says that "the thanks of the Catholics are due to the members of the Conservative Opposition, who voted for a Bill introduced by their political opponents.

"For the present," it adds, "we have the advantage of having carried the second reading, and of a debate in which the strength of our case, and the miserable weakness of our adversaries' case, were conspicuously displayed."

We cannot say that a perusal of the debate leaves the same impression upon our minds. The weight of argument and of sound principle seems almost all one way. The weight and the authority of names as leaders of parties were no doubt unfortunately, as it appears to us, on the wrong side; and the hollow pretences and the flimsy excuses by which Honourable Members have first imposed upon themselves, and by which they have then sought to impose upon others, have prevailed, and political expediency has once more triumphed.

Sir George Grey could not see that the Bill interfered with any form of religious belief. Certainly, however, its provisions for paying Roman Catholic priests to minister in our prisons, and to raise them to a position which no other ministers now enjoy, except the clergy of the Established Church, tends to promote Popery.

How does it follow, as contended by him, that because "in every county and borough prison in Ireland there is a paid Catholic priest to minister to the wants of Catholic prisoners, the operation of the same principle should be extended to England?

Mr. Gore Langton very properly opposed the Bill. In the course of his speech he said:

"He held in his hand a number of Reports from governors and chaplains of gaols. He should not trouble the House by going through them, but should confine himself to reading two from Bristol, the city which he represented, and to which there was a considerable influx of Irish. The governor of the gaol there stated that during the year ending the 1st of January, 1863, there had been 725 prisoners in the prison under his charge, of whom 553 were members of the Church of England, 76 Roman Catholics, and 96 members of other denominations. Out of the whole number of Roman Catholics, only two had requested to see their own priest, and they had been permitted to do so. During the last quarter of a century there had been no complaint on the subject from the Roman Catholics confined in that gaol, while, on the contrary, unsolicited requests had been made by Roman Catholic prisoners to attend the Protestant place of

worship.

The chaplain of the Bridewell in Bristol wrote to him to say, that during the year 1862 the number of prisoners confined in that establishment was 1,194, of which 350 were Roman Catholics. Of the latter only two had requested to see their priests."

Amongst Members who spoke in favour of the Bill was Mr. Disraeli; he was followed by Lord Palmerston, who interspersed his speech with some jocose observations, as that the fact of the Romish prisoner not asking for a Romish priest, was no more a proof that he did not want him, than an idle boy at school not asking for a lesson was a proof he did not require a lesson.

Now there is, in point of fact, no analogy between the two cases, for we do give a chaplain, and in most cases the ministrations of this chaplain, though a Protestant, are acceptable to the Roman Catholic prisoners.

Then having spoken so much in favour of the Bill, Lord Palmerston adds, in a burst of Protestant feeling,

"I am for all being Protestants (a laugh), and if it were possible to conceive such a thing that every Roman Catholic in the United Kingdom should rise up to-morrow a Protestant, I should say it would be a blessed thing for the country. (Laughter.) "—Record, April 22.

Mr. Newdegate followed, and in a speech which we wish we had space to reproduce, strongly opposed the Bill. We do not believe that Lord Palmerston, as a private person or as a public man, wishes to advance the interests of Popery; nor do we think so of the leaders of the Opposition. But they are in want of the support of Roman Catholic Members in the House, and have to bid high, and to pay a large price for it. We object to such support and to the price paid for it, and we ask again, as we have asked before, why do the Protestant electors of the Kingdom allow matters so to be? Why do they not return sound Protestants in sufficient numbers to the House of Commons to secure an Anti-Popery and a Pro-Protestant policy at the hands of any party which may be in power-of any ministry which may be in office?

"ENDOWED SCHOOLS."

A BILL with the above heading has been brought into the House of Commons by Mr. Dillwyn and Sir Charles Howard. It is another blow aimed at the Church of England. It provides that no endowed school of Royal foundation shall be deemed a Church of England school, but every one shall be

admitted, without distinction on the ground of religious belief, to be a trustee, master, or scholar thereof.

Section 2 provides that no other school shall be deemed a Church of England school unless founded for its immediate

use.

Section 3 provides that in ascertaining whether a school belongs to the Church of England or not, no rule of evidence shall be applied which would not serve to show that it belonged to some other religious body.

4. Where a school does not belong to some religious body, the religious teaching is to be determined by the trustees for the time being.

By Section 5 the Sections of the Act of Uniformity requiring declaration to be made and licence obtained before exercising certain offices are repealed as to schoolmasters and tutors. The following Petition against the Bill has been adopted by the Committee of the Protestant Association :—

"To the Honourable the Commons, &c., &c.

"The Petition of the Committee of the Protestant Association, "Humbly showeth

"That your petitioners have observed with much regret that a Bill has been introduced into your Honourable House entitled 'Endowed Schools.'

"That the British Constitution acknowledges, in its principles and laws, the sovereignty of Almighty God, and the supreme authority of His Holy Word, and has provided for the scriptural instruction of the people by its religious establishments.

"That in all schools in which the principle of giving education to youth according to the doctrines of the Church of England hitherto prevailed, it is right and just that the same principle should be maintained.

"That the proposed Bill, if it should become law, would tend to introduce into all the schools that are affected by it, a principle of infidel indifference to the religious instruction therein given, as if, in the eye of the State, all religions were equal, and as if support or sanction should be equally given or denied to all,-that the effect of the said Bill, if it should become law, would, therefore, be injurious to the cause of true religion in the land.

"Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the said Bill may not be sanctioned by your Honourable House.

"And your petitioners will ever pray," &c.

BURIALS BILL.

ON Wednesday, April 15, Sir Morton Peto moved the second reading of this Bill.

Lord R. Cecil moved, as an Amendment, that it be read that day six months.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir George Grey sup

ported the principle of the Bill. On the House dividing there wer for the second reading, 96; against it, 221; majority, 125. The Bill was therefore lost. One of the most remarkable things in connexion with it seems to be this, viz., that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, being a member for the University of Oxford, and the supposed champion of the rights and interests of the Church of England, should have voted for such a measure. The dissatisfaction occasioned amongst the clerical portion of his supporters is very great, and the papers teem with notices and paragraphs as to his not being again returned to Parliament to represent the University of Oxford.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

MR. WHALLEY has announced in the House of Commons, that he will, on the 21st of May, move, "That the House should resolve itself into Committee for the purpose of considering the propriety of repealing the Act making a grant of public money to the College of May

nooth."

THE "TABLET" AND THE PRISON MINISTERS BILL.

THE second reading of the Prison Ministers Bill was carried on Monday by a majority of 30, the numbers being 152 to 122, or, including the four tellers on both sides, 154 to 124. Moreover, 55 Members paired on each side; so that 388 Members have pronounced themselves upon the Bill-209 in its favour, and 179 against it.

As there are 654 Members in the House of Commons, and as only 388 have as yet declared themselves, the sentiments of 266 Members have yet to be learned. There are 53 Scotch Members, 105 Irish Members, and 496 English Members.

Out of the 53 Scotch Members, 37 have declared themselves upon the Bill, and 16 have as yet taken no part.

Out of the 105 Irish Members, 46 have declared themselves upon the Bill, and 59 have as yet taken no part.

Out of the 496 English and Welsh Members, 305 have declared themselves upon the Bill, and 191 have as yet taken no part.

Of the 37 Scotch Members, 27 have taken part against the Bill, and 10 in its favour.

Of the 46 Irish Members, 10 have taken part against the Bill, and 36 in its favour.

Of the 305 English Members, 142 have taken part against the Bill, and 163 in its favour.

As far as we can make out from the lists, 199 Protestant Liberals, and 167 Protestant Conservatives, have voted or paired upon the Bill, as have also 21 Irish Catholic Members, and 1 English Catholic Member.