given to them by the Prison Ministers Act, it is necessary they should be compelled by Law to make adequate provision for the religious instruction and Divine Worship of Catholic Prisoners."(Mr. Maguire.) MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, that the Returns moved for had two sides, one of which only had been presented by the hon, Member to the House. The Returns would show that throughout the country great progress had been made in this matter since the Prison Ministers' Act had come into operation. As he had said last year a permissive Act on a subject of this sort would in most cases lead to controversy and this had been the case in this instance. Still, however, great steps had been taken in order to secure to persons in custody who were of a particular religion an opportunity of seeing the ministers to whose creed they belonged in order to be instructed by them. There were, however, in many parts of the country considerable difficulties, where the number of Roman Catholic prisoners were, perhaps, only four, five, or six, and where, the Roman Catholic population being few, there was no priest or chapel near the prison. In these cases it was almost impossible that there should be a regular Roman Catholic chaplain attached to the gaol; but he found that in no case mentioned in the Returns had there been any refusal of access, and in most cases there was a growing freedom of access for the priest. In the county of Middlesex, for instance, to which special reference was made, considerable progress had been made both as to access to prisoners and the assignment of a proper place for the peformance of religious worship. No one in the gaols was debarred from access to a minister of his own creed for the purpose of religious instruction. With respect to the supply of those things that were necessary for religious ceremonies, he thought that it would be found very difficult for any legislation to compel a supply, for they could hardly by legislation lay down rules to be applied to such matters. If there bad been what the hon. Member would call a sort of repulsive coldness in the reception of Roman Catholic priests in gaols he (Mr. G. Hardy) did not see how that could be got rid of by legislation. The hon. Member would take steps by his Motion to call on the House to decide the sort of thing that should in the future be done; but he (Mr. G. Hardy) must confess that he was not in favour of that kind of Motion unless immediate legislation could be founded on it. He was not surprised that Gentlemen who professed a religion which they thought was neglected should be impatient; but he trusted that the House, having thought proper to act by permissive legislation, would give a certain time to see how such legislation would act, and more especially so as facilities for religious instruction were being increased. He trusted that the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division. MR. MONSELL acknowledged the courteous and conciliatory remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, and expressed his concurrence with him that it would be inexpedient for his hon. Friend the Member for Cork, under the circumstances, to press his Motion to a division. It would be inadvisable for the House to pass a mere abstract Resolution upon the subject unless it were immediately followed up by legislation. He (Mr. Monsell), however, ventured to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that in all the prisons of the United Kingdom there should be an equal system observed in regard to the religious wants of the prisoners. It was curious to mark how differently the prisoners belonging to the religion of the minority were treated in Ireland to the prisoners of the minority as regarded faith in England. He need not speak of the prisoners professing the religion of the Established Church in Ireland, who had always the assistance of the ministers of their own faith. But he would take the Presbyterians as an example. In 1865 he found there were on an average only eighty-two Presbyterian prisoners in Ireland. Well, for the spiritual wants of those eighty-two prisoners there were fourteen paid chaplains. In the county Louth there was only one Presbyterian prisoner, and in Fermanagh two Presbyterian prisoners. Nevertheless, there was a Presbyterian chaplain with a salary of upwards of £30 to attend to each of these gaols. He by no means complained of this expenditure. On the contrary, however few the prisoners were, he believed that the ministrations of the clergy were attended with the best results. In this country, however, the greatest difficulty was experienced in obtaining for the Roman Catholic prisoners in many of the gaols the religious consolation and instruction of their own priests. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take the question into his serious consideration, and would endeavour to introduce a Bill next Session which should extend the system now in force in Ireland would continue to progress. But in the into this country, and not leave to the face of the Encyclical of the Pope, all discretion of the magistrates that which was fixed by law in Ireland. such concessions would be utterly inadequate to the demands of the Roman Catholic Church. The claim of the hon. Member for Cork now was this, that wherever there was an assembly of persons belonging to the Roman Catholic community there should be by law present a Roman Catholic priest to govern them. Many who profess Liberal opinions would, he had no doubt, arrive at the conviction that there was no true liberality or religious freedom to be found in the course they were invited to pursue, and would MR. NEWDEGATE said, he understood that the hon. Member for Cork had animadverted upon the conduct of the Middlesex magistrates. Now, he (Mr. Newdegate) had been for many years a justice of the peace for Middlesex, and he knew that the Bench of magistrates at Clerkenwell had made some wise concessions in the sense of the demands made by the hon. Member for Cork. What was the result? Had that hon. Gentleman, or any other of the Roman Catholic join with those of his political opinions Members of that House, expressed any satisfaction? Not the least. Count de Montalembert, in writing on the political future of England, described the religious agitation that was going on in this coun try, of which they had had a sample that day. The Count recommended the Roman Catholics to demand the principle of religious equality for their prisoners in gaols a principle, by-the-by, which their Church repudiated whenever it had power. Was the fact not enough to prove that whatever concessions that House might make short of granting complete supremacy to the Roman Catholic Church-a supremacy insisted upon by the Pope in his Encyclical-they would give no satisfaction. On the contrary, the result of such concessions acted as a mere encouragement to agitation. So confident was he that the advice given by Count de Montalembert would be followed out, that he voted against the last of those concessions, and he privately expressed his conviction that those concessions would not be received with satisfaction, but would only lead to further demands. The hon. Member for Cork now proposed to deprive them of the discretion that was vested in the magistrates in respect to the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains to gaols, although such magistrates were responsible for the good conduct of those chaplains that were allowed to visit the prisoners. To satisfy the Roman Catholic priesthood was simply impossible. They had the assurance of the Papacy and the Roman Catholic clergy that anything short of supremacy would fail to satisfy them. The Home Secretary, consistently with the amiability of his character, expressed his satisfaction at the concessions being made by the magistrates generally upon this point, and his hope that those concessions who preferred incurring the odium cast upon them by the party opposite, rather than resign that trust which as magistrates they were anxious to discharge with a due regard to the sacred interests involved and to the best of their understandings. MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, as he understood the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) although he thought the present applica tion fair and just in itself, he refused his assent to it because he feared that it would be followed by other applications which, in his view of the case, would not be fair and just. He (Mr. C. Fortescue) hoped that the House would decide this question upon its simple merits without reference to any thing else. He denied the application of the word "concession," which had been so frequently used by the hon. Member to the proposition now made by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork. Concession meant the granting of something to a party who had no right to ask for it. The application now made was one founded upon right and justice, and therefore could not be considered a concession if granted. He concurred with his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) in thinking that the advice and instruction of a chaplain to prisoners, however few in number, were calculated to produce great good. Speaking from his own knowledge of what occurred in Ireland, and especially in his own county, he would say that the eystem of securing for the inmates of public institutions the benefit of religious administrations by law was carried out most completely, even to an extent that might be described as pedantic. He remembered with shame the treatment of the Roman Catholic minority in England when he com pared it with the more liberal treatment of the Protestant minority in Ireland. In the workhouse, for example, which he was in the justice. He had always objected to the habit of attending, there was a mere hand- present permissive state of the law, beful of Protestant paupers-often only half- cause there was an ingenious perverseness a-dozen-among a mass of Roman Catho- in the nature of Englishmen which frelics, and yet there was a regularly paid quently prevented their carrying out the chaplain of the Church of England, and a benevolent intentions contemplated by Parroom was fitted up as a chapel for Divine liament. Looking at the question as he service. Unless the principle of appoint- did, purely in the light of an act of justice ing Roman Catholic chaplains to those towards the Roman Catholic prisoners, and places in England was more generally ac- of benefit to the State, he trusted that Her knowledged and acted upon, his belief was Majesty's Government would bring in a that it would be the duty of the House to Bill in the early part of next Session to interfere stringently in the matter. make the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains in prisons necessary. MR. SYNAN observed that the Prison Ministers Act of 1863 was permissive, but the Act of 1865, which provided that n prisoner, unless he objected, should be visited by a minister of his own denomination, limited to a great extent the discretion of the magistrates. He could not agree with the Home Secretary that great progress was being made, because in 1866 it appeared there were forty-one gaols, at which ten Roman Catholic chaplains were employed, while in the latest Return, referring to 119 prisons, only fifteen chaplains had been appointed. The Returns showed that at several prisons, containing a very considerable number of Roman Catholics, no Roman Catholic chaplain was appointed. SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, he considered the speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) irrelevant to the subject. The question was a very narrow one, being confined to a question merely of prison administration namely, whether Roman Catholic priests should be allowed to attend Roman Catholic prisoners when in gaol for the benefit of such prisoners, and for the real object for which they were confined-that of their improvement, and for the good order and discipline of the prison. This was not a concession to Roman Catholics, but whether it was right or wrong that Roman Catholic priests should be admitted to prisoners who belonged to that Church. If it was wrong to permit them, there was an end of the question. Prisoners, however, were not sent to gaol merely for their punishment. The State was certainly interested in the reformation of her prisoners, and as the only means of reforming prisoners was through the instrumentality of religion, and as it was impossible to expect the Roman Catholic prisoners to be reformed by the doctrines of a religion in which they did not believe, he regarded this so-called concession as a simple act of MR. KINNAIRD remarked, that though it was true the contributions to the gaols were not so large for the Nonconformist body as they were for the Roman Catholic portion of the population, the principle was alike the same in each case. The gradual addition to the public expenditure was worthy of serious attention, and he believed that all that was necessary in this case was to resort to voluntary efforts, which had been found successful in so many other directions, and which, if adopted, would put an end to the continual squabbles on all hands for payment from State funds. MR. NEATE desired to allude to an important and delicate point which had not yet received any attention during the progress of this discussion-the principle of concealing the confessions of prisoners who were sentenced to death. He did not think that it was necessary that the details should be published; but, before the House assented to any proposition for the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains, it should be distinctly laid down that it was incumbent on the priest to say whether the prisoner had confessed his guilt or not. The peace of mind of twelve honest jurymen, even occasionally of the Judge, was involved in the question, and their minds ought, above all priestly considerations, to be set at rest, so that they might not be afflicted with those unpleasant misgivings which, in the absence of any confession of guilt, would prey upon their minds at the most unseasonable hours. ["Question!"] The objection applied equally in the appointment of clergymen of any denomination, for, but for the interposition of the priest or clergyman, the criminal, finding all his hopes gone, would frequently yield to the dictates of that natural morality which was superior to the morality of any priest, either Protestant [" Question!"] or Roman Catholic. SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN said, he was sure his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Neate) would not be the man to call upon an ordained priest of God to violate his ordinated vow, which would be the result of adopting the suggestion with which he closed his speech. Believing as he did that the desire of the Catholic Members who supported the Resolution before the House was not to increase the resources of the Church to which they belonged, but simply to carry out their conscientious views, he should support the Resolution. He did this mainly on the ground that in his opinion the magistrates of England are at this moment acting in reference to this matter in a manner the House ought not to countenance; and for this reason: the Judges upon whom the duty devolved sentenced convicted criminals to terms of imprisonment commensurate with their offences; but after this had been done, the magistrates, whose duties were, in fact, simply ministerial, inflicted a cumulative punishment by depriving the prisoners of the ministrations of the Church to which they belonged. MR. MAGUIRE, in reply, said, that he had in some respects been misrepresented by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. He did not deny that progress had been made, or was still being made, but said that progress had been very slow. The Roman Catholic Members did not want chaplains to be appointed in cases where they were not required; but they said that, in common justice, a chaplain should be appointed to minister to Roman Catholic prisoners in cases where there were many of them confined in gaols. The Roman Catholic Members of the House represented 9,000,000 of Her Ma jesty's subjects, and they would not rest until they had obtained that justice and equality to which they considered them selves entitled. He asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), who had made so many professions of his desire to do justice to the Roman Catholics, to carry out his professions by placing a Government Bill on the table of the House next Session, to make the law compulsory instead of permissive. He would not now press his Motion to a division. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. PARLIAMENT-DIVISIONS OF THE . HOUSE.-RESOLUTION. SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN rose to call attention to the practice of the House in not allowing Members who went by inadvertence into the wrong Lobby in divisions to have their votes recorded in the manner in which they wished to give them, and said it was his intention to move a Resolution which would enable mistakes of that kind, when made hereafter, to be corrected. He had himself, in June 1864, been the victim of the existing rule, having then gone into the wrong Lobby, and con sequently had his vote recorded in the opposite sense to that which he intended. The effect of that was that, there being a majority of 1 against the view which he desired to support, a Bill of considerable interest was thrown over for that Session. A similar inadvertence in 1856 was committed by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. Wykeham-Martin). There were instances of even some of the most experi enced Members of the House-including Government "tellers" themselves-sometimes going into the wrong Lobby by mistake; and on the occasion of the first division taken upon the Resolution of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire respecting the Irish Church, the majority was 60; while on the second division when the Resolution was put the majority was 56; the difference between the two majorities being caused by two Scotch Members-for even Scotch Members at times made mistakes-going into the wrong Lobby. A Member, if he made a mistake by going into the wrong Lobby, ought to have an opportunity of correcting it. In the IIouse of Lords the practice was different; and although he should not wish to follow the House of Lords in all things, the Resolution which they had, at the instance of Lord Redesdale, adopted to meet the case of Members of that House going into a wrong Lobby, might, he thought, very well be made the rule of practice in the taking of divisions in the House of Commons. He begged, therefore, to move a Resolution in precisely similar terms. MR. P. WYKEHAM - MARTIN seconded the Motion. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That if any Member shall, by mistake, go out with the Ayes or the Noes (as the case may be), having intended to vote on the other side, he shall wait until the other Members in the same Lobby shall have passed out, and, on presenting himself to the Tellers, he shall desire that he may not be counted with them, he having entered the Lobby by mistake; and the Tellers shall thereupon come House of the circumstance, and the Speaker or with such Member to the Table, and inform the Chairman (as the case may be), shall thereupon ask such Member whether he was in the House when the Question was put, and, if he shall answer in the affirmative, the Speaker or Chair man (as the case may be), shail then ask such Member whether he desires to vote Aye or No on such Question, and the vote of such Member as then declared by him shall be taken by the Tellers in the House, and reported by them accordingly."-(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.) LORD HOTHAM said, he hoped the House would not agree to the Resolution. The only effect of such a Motion would be to point out to the country that mistakes were made from want of attention which were anything but creditable either to the individual Members or to the House. Why was not the House told the names of the Members who had been in the wrong? How they came to be in the wrong box? Whether they were in the House when the Question was put? It argued very little for the competence of Members if, when they were told "Ayes to the right, Noes to the left," they did not know which way to go. If hon. Members were asleep, or on the terrace smoking, or reading newspapers in the vicinity of the House, or, in short, doing anything except what they ought-attending to the Business of the House in their places-that was their own fault, and the matter was, in his opinion, not of such importance as to require special legislation. It would be much better to go on in the old paths, and not draw too much attention to their faults. MR. P. WYKEHAM-MARTIN said, the mistake in his case had occurred on a Wednesday, when he had been in the House almost the whole morning. It was the first time he had voted in his life, and he was standing at the Bar, when the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair said the " Ayes" were to go to the right. He thereupon went to his own right, aud that was the way in which the error arose. As to the Resolution of the hon. and learned Baronet, he did not think it was a matter of much importance one way or another. SIR HENRY WINSTON - BARRON said, he was astonished that any hon. Member should oppose so simple a Motion. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Hotham) a most punctual and painstaking Member of the House himself; but that was no good reason why he should object to the adoption of a rule by which mistakes in voting might be avoided. was MR. BOUVERIE said, the hon. and learned Baronet must remember the legal maxim, Vigilantibus non dormientibus subVOL. CXCIII. [THIRD SERIES.] veniunt leges. He did not think it desirable to make Resolutions to encourage mistakes. The rules and practice of the House assumed that Members knew what they were about, understood the Questions that were put, and gave their votes intelligently. The rules and practice were simple, if hon. Members would only take the pains to comprehend them. If they endeavoured to provide for those weaker Members who made mistakes after dinner, they would be led into confusion, the proceedings of the House would be brought into ridicule, and there would be much less care taken to prevent mistakes. MR. ESMONDE said, he hoped the hon. and learned Baronet would withdraw his Motion. Its operation, if carried, would, he was afraid, be something like that which was said to have followed the invention of life buoys, when the sailors were constantly falling overboard, knowing that the means of safety were at hand. SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN said, he was sorry that the Leader of the House had not made any observations on a matter affecting the conduct of the Business of the House; but after what had fallen from the few hon. Members who had spoken he would not press his Resolution. MR. DISRAELI: The hon. and learned Baronet has alluded to me, and as I should be very sorry to be suspected of any want of courtesy to the House, I must say that once or twice I was on the point of rising, but was prevented addressing the House by reason of the fact that other hon. Members were the first to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I should, if I had had an opportunity, have given an uncompromising opposition to the Motion of the hon. and learned Baronet, which would have, as it appears to me, produced this effect: we should have had two divisions on every subjectthere would be a division and a revision of a division in each case. That practice would create many mistakes. I think it is always unwise to alter our rules of procedure without grave consideration, and I think that in this case we have not sufficient data upon which to base such considerations. I do not think we are entirely acquainted with the motives which occasion these apparent mistakes. I have sometimes ascribed them to a desire in hon. Members for change of society; and on many occasions it has been the case that hon. Members going into the wrong Lobby have been in a state of some social excitement. As I think also that an |