LONDON CORRESPONDENCE.
(FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT.)
LONDON, FRIDAY.—It may be within the recollection of your readers that one of the last measures of the session of 1862, which occupied the attention of parliament was the prison minister’s bill, the object of which was, to enable the inmates of jails, not being members of the Church of England, to obtain the spiritual ministratione of clergymen of their own faith. The measure was violently opposed by the fanatics in and out of parliament, who declared that it was promoted by the government for the benefit of the Catholic community only, and that it was a concession to Liberal members connected with Ireland, in recognition of the general support which they had given to her Majesty’s ministers. I need scarcely say that the Liberal members, as well as the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had charge of the bill, repudiated those allegations. The former declared that they supported the measure on the broad principle of civil and religious liberty, while Sir George Grey defended himself on the score that, as the responsible minister of the crown, he deemed it to be his duty to bring in the bill as a measure of state policy, altogether, irrespective of party considerations. Such representations had, however, little weight with the dervishes of Exeter Hall and the Protestant Alliance, who pull the strings which set in motion such short-sighted and narrow-minded legislators as Mr. Newdegate and Mr. Whalley in the House of Commons and the Earl of Clancarty and Lord Shaftesbury in the House of Lords. It is but justice, however, to the leaders of the Conservative party in the Upper and Lower House to state that they gave acordial support to the measure, and that the principal amendments introduced by the opposition were negatived on every division. The Earl of Derby in the Lords and Mr Disraeli in the Commons used all their influence to pass the bill, but unfortunately it contained a solitary blemish which, as predicted at the time, deprives it of all its value. The measure is, in fact, permissive and compulsory, and hence its failure. The word may appoint a chaplain was substituted for shall. Sir George Grey made the bill permissive, in the hope that the sense of equity, if not the generosity, of the visiting justices of prisons would lead them to act in compliance more with the spirit than with the letter of the act, but experience proves the accuracy of those who assisted at the time that unless the word ‟shall” was substituted for a ‟may,” the measure would become a dead letter, and would soon be added to the long list of obsolete acts of parliament that now cumber the statute-book. The independent Liberal party below the gangway at the ministerial side of the house also warned the government that, if the object of the bill was to be carried into effect, it would be idle to expect that the bigots and fanatics among the ‟great unpaid” would voluntarily open the doors of the jails throughout the country for the admission of Catholic chaplains. Sir George Grey, however, apprehended that the measure might be lost altogether if he were to make the amendment suggested. He feared that the Lords would throw out the bill on the second reading—so, in a moment of amiable weakness, he wrote may when he should have written shall. The right hon. gentleman, at the same time, threw out a hint to the opposition that if it should be found in practice that the act was inoperative by reason of the visiting justices of prisons refusing to admit Catholic chaplains to administer the consolations of religion to unfortunates of their own faith, it might become necessary to introduce a short bill repealing the permissive clause, and substituting one of a compulsory nature. An interval of four months has elapsed since the passing of the act, and although Catholic clergymen have applied to be allowed to avail themselves of its privileges, the ‟great un- paid” have invariably declined their applications. At the Surrey quarter sessions, held at Kingston-on-Thames a day or two since, the memorial of the Rev. Michael M’Enery, the Roman Catholic clergyman of Wandsworth, praying to be allowed to attend the Catholic prisoners in the House of Correction in that town, was considered. It seems that there are at present 700 persons in the House of Correction, of whom 137 are admitted to be Catholics. The Rev. Mr. M’Enery represented in his memorial that as it was impossible for him to visit each and all of those prisoners in their separate cells, it was desirable that a room in the jail be allotted to him in which he could address them collectively. He also prayed that the visiting justices would exercise in his behalf the power conferred by the act of parliament, and grant him, a stipend for his services, on the ground that attendance at the prison would necessarily engross the whole of his time. The visiting justices at once declined to comply with the petition. This decision the quarterly court of magistrates, assembled at Kingston, was now called uponn to affirm. Among the gentlemen who attended the court was Sir William Jolliffe, the member for Petersfield, and formerly Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury under the administration of the Earl of Derby. The honourable baronet expressed his regret that the visiting justices should have refused to comply with the prayer of the petition, and observed that, during the passage of the prison ministers’ bill through the House of Commons, he had done all in his power to make its provision compulsory, and not permissive, as he feared that in practice it would become a dead letter. Captain Spring and Mr. Long, both influential magistrates in the county, supported the view taken by Sir William Jolliffe, but when the question was put, the decision of the visiting justices was affirmed by an overwhelming majority. Mr. Austin (a member of the court) then gave notice that at the next Epiphany sessions he would move that a Roman Catholic chaplain be appointed to the House of Correction at Wandsworth at a salary of one hundred and fifty pounds per annum. As the county of Surrey contains a number of metropolitan parishes, and as in one of its prisons alone rather more than one-fifth of the inmates profess the Catholic faith, it is evident that if in such a place the act of parliament can be treated as a dead letter by some twenty or thirty gentlemen sitting with closed doors, it is idle to expect that the intentions of the legislature can be carried out. In the adjoining county of Berks also the Rev. Canon Ringrose, of Reading, has been refused admission to the Catholic prisoners in the jail. It is to be hoped that the Catholic members will, during the recess, collect all the information in their power on this subject, so that in the approaching session of parliament steps may be taken to amend an act of the legislature, which, however well intentioned, can be set at naught by a few bigoted and irresponsible individuals.