rose to call attention to the inadequate provision made for the religious teaching of Catholic Prisoners in the Metropolitan Prisons. There was a large and poor Catholic population in London, who were very liable to the temptations which poverty brought with it. Under these circumstances, it was natural that a considerable number of them should be found in the London prisons. At present, in the four to which he should refer, there were between 600 and 700 daily, and the religious provision made for them was a cause of great scandal. The Government had appointed Catholic chaplains in the Government prisons, with the best results; and, five years since, an Act was passed, giving to the prison authorities the power of appointing a sufficient number of Catholic chaplains, and of paying them out of the rates. Unfortunately, the Act was permissive, and he was sorry to say that it had only been put into execution in rare instances. It was long before the Middlesex magistrates allowed a Catholic chaplain to enter the walls; but, at length, in this and in other metropolitan gaols there was some improvement, but the restrictions on the visits of the priest were still very great; and while the Protestant chaplains, according to the Returns, got £2,010 a year—if all the assistance given was included, £3,000 would be nearer the mark—not one farthing was given to the Catholic priests.

resumed. He did not object to the pay given to the Protestant ministers; but it was an intensely shabby thing on the part of the visiting justices to receive the services of the Catholic clergymen without giving them a single farthing. In some cases, it was known that Catholic prisoners registered themselves as Protestants, on entering these gaols, in the hope of getting better treatment. At Tothill-fields Prison, for instance, where there were 600 prisoners, only 200 professed to be Catholics, although the fact was that 300 prisoners wore of that faith. The remaining 100 denied their religion in the hope of getting various advantages. It was asserted that the Roman Catholics were excluded from those parts of the prison in which the work was supposed to be most agreeable—the laundry and the kitchen. But this hypocrisy made them worse than they were when they entered the gaol. In every prison in Ireland, there was both a Protestant and a Catholic chaplain, and he wanted to see the same system established in the English prisons; for if religion was not an utter sham, the influence of the clergyman must be a powerful deterrent of crime, and the present system tended to keep up the standard of crime. Only last Tuesday, the Middlesex magistrates decided on building a new prison at a cost of £100,000. That was owing to the increase of crime; and he held them responsible, to a large extent, for that increase, because they did not take the proper means of eradicating crime, by means of one of the most powerful agencies known to society. He would now mention some of the restrictions imposed by the justices on the ministrations of the Catholic priests. In Coldbath-fields, although there were 329 Catholic males in the prison, the priest was allowed to visit it only three times a week, from nine till half-past twelve, and was only allowed to give one service on Sundays. An afternoon service was permitted to Protestants, but not to Catholics. The Catholic priest applied for leave to give instruction in the elementary truths of Christianity every Sunday afternoon; but the answer was, that the arrangements of the prison prevented the magistrates from acceding to the request; so that this clergyman, who did not receive a farthing for his ministrations, but in his zeal desired to teach these ignorant prisoners, was not allowed to prosecute a design so beneficial to them. At the House of Detention, Clerkenwell, where there were seventy-five Catholic prisoners, the priest was allowed to see the male prisoners once a week on the Friday, and the female prisoners once a week on the Wednesday, but no service was permitted on Sundays. At Tothill-fields Prison the Catholic clergyman asked to be allowed to appoint a Bible reader, but the request was refused. Then he asked for leave to appoint a religious teacher, but was refused. A third time he begged to be allowed to appoint a Bible reader: the answer was—"There is no such teacher for the Protestants;" but when they were pushed, the authorities admitted that there was a Protestant reader of Scripture. Could anything be so mean and shabby as that wretched evasion? The grievances common to all those prisons was that no pay was allowed to the visiting Catholic priest, and the Catholic prisoners had no teachers of their own creed, and no Scripture readers. No Catholic extern was allowed to pay a charitable visit to the Catholic prisoners, though many of the Middlesex magistrates allowed their own daughters to enter the prisons for the purpose of reforming the Protestant prisoners; and there were no means afforded to Catholic clergymen for seeing the most depraved Catholic prisoners. Another instance of intense shabbiness was that in one prison a Catholic clergyman attended 129 prisoners, and another Catholic clergyman in another prison attended 200 prisoners, and everything necessary for the celebration of Divine worship they had to pay for out of their own pockets. Early last year, when he brought this subject forward, the present Government were not in Office, but the late Home Secretary recommended another year's trial, should be allowed the magistrates. They had had that other year's trial, and their conduct continued as bigoted and as shabby as ever. He had great faith in the present Home Secretary's sense of justice, and he would ask him whether any evil had resulted from the ministrations of Catholic clergy in the Government prisons? As it was too late for legislation on the subject in the present year, he was willing to give the Middlesex magistrates another year's trial; but he wished to know whether the Government, if those magistrates did not alter their conduct, would next year introduce a Bill to compel them to do so. He did not condemn all the visiting justices, for there was a noble minority who were endeavouring to bring about a reform in the present most unsatisfactory system. He concluded by moving an Address for Returns on the subject.

said, he felt that his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) had made out a case of injustice; but there was another mode of curing the wrong than that which had been indicated. So strong was his feeling and conviction in favour of voluntary action that he was persuaded the withdrawal of every paid chaplain in every prison would leave the inmates in a better condition spiritually than they were at this moment. Workhouses, where there was no paid chaplain, were amply provided for by the voluntary efforts of the various religious denominations. His belief in the vitality of Christian truth and principle was such that Christian men and women would be found exerting their agency in whatever direction humanity most called for it.

said, he was not at all surprised that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) had brought this subject under the consideration of the House. When his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), as Home Secretary, brought in the Prison Ministers Bill in 1853, which enabled every local authority to employ and pay the services of ministers of religion in the gaols, it was certainly his expectation that in all important populations of the country effect would have been given to the provisions of the Act; but he was bound to say that his expectations had been considerably disappointed. In Lancashire and some other parts of England the principles of justice had been acted upon. At Liverpool chaplains were employed with the greatest advantage in ministering to the large number of Catholic prisoners; and in most towns in the North and North-west of England, where there was a considerable Roman Catholic population, Roman Catholic chaplains had been appointed to the gaols. He had been asked if in the Government prisons any difficulty had arisen from the want of harmonious cooperation of chaplains of different religious opinions; no such difficulty, no inconvenience worthy of notice had been experienced. It was impossible to deny that his hon. Friend had serious cause of complaint. From the nature of the duties required from prison chaplains he thought they could not be efficiently performed by voluntary agency. They demanded continuous labour, especially in the great gaols, where the prisoners were numbered by hundreds, almost by thousands, and it could hardly be expected that the poor Roman Catholics of the large towns, having difficulty enough to maintain their own clergymen, could also provide a Catholic chaplain for the gaol. He agreed that it was most important that the unfortunate prisoners should have the comforts and advantages of regular religious aid from chaplains belonging to their own communion. This was quite as important in the case of short as long sentences; for it was of the utmost moment that a prisoner in leaving the gaol should have some one interested in looking after his welfare, and seeing that he was put in the way of leading an honest life. And, in the case of Roman Catholic prisoners, who so likely to do this as the priest? This was the more necessary from the forlorn condition of many Irishmen in this country. As a matter of fact, Irishmen in Ireland were as free from crime as Englishmen in England—indeed more free, both as regarded the number and gravity of crimes. But the case was reversed with Irishmen in England, and this was attributable not to their race or condition, but simply to the force of circumstances. He had lately been looking into this subject for other objects, and he found that while the Welsh population, forming 6 per cent probably of that of England, under most favourable circumstances as to crime, committed only 3 per cent of the crime in England, the native born Irish, amounting to but 3 per cent of the population, committed 14 per cent of the crime of England. They were almost inevitably thrown into the worst localities, and had to associate with the worst characters. Who was there to take an interest in these men when convicted of crimes? Only one person, and that was the priest. He (Mr. Bruce) therefore listened, not only without sympathy but occasionally with indignation to the complaints sometimes made about the increase in the number of Roman Catholic priests and of Roman Catholic establishments in this country. Considering the vast numbers of the Irish population, they had not near priests enough. What was the remedy? The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) had told them of Protestant chaplains of gaols in Ireland who were paid at the same rate as the Roman Catholic chaplains, although there might be only one prisoner to attend to. That state of things would hardly be borne in this country, and it was to guard against such an occurrence that the Prison Ministers Act had been made permissive. The Legislature assumed that where there was a considerable number of Roman Catholic prisoners the authorities would appoint and pay a Roman Catholic chaplain. In seventeen prisons this want had been supplied, and he knew of no instance in which there had been so great a disregard of justice as in the metropolitan district. He was afraid some partiality had been shown in allowing lady visitors to enter the prisons, but he did not think there had been any attempt to conceal the religion of the prisoners, or to make converts. He believed that those magistrates who had refused to pay Roman Catholic chaplains had offered no objection to the visits of Roman Catholic priests. Justice, however, required that they should be employed and paid wherever there was a considerable number of prisoners. He could not say that he was prepared with a remedy. He admitted the evil and the injustice, but the difficulty, which had been equally felt by his predecessors, would remain, and, unless Parliament was prepared to lodge in the hands of a Minister of State, the power to over-ride the decision of the magistrate there were no means of remedying the grievance. Something must be left to the judgment and discretion of the local authorities; but the only way of dealing with some of the cases referred to was to invest the Secretary of State with a power which, he believed, might safely be lodged in his hands. The matter should have the serious consideration of the Government during the Recess.

said, he believed the remedy was much more in public opinion than in the action of the Government, and he trusted that the public would insist on the appointment of paid Roman Catholic chaplains to minister to the wants of the Roman Catholic prisoners. It was difficult for the present or for any Government to act with a high hand in this matter, but the day would come when public opinion would insist upon religious equality herein.

begged to express his gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and his willingness to leave the matter in his hands.

said, he was not very clear as to the object of the hon. Member in the statement just, made to the House; but he was glad to hear an admission that the Government had been actuated by no other feeling than one of duty in the measures they had taken for the preservation of the peace of Ulster. Language differing very greatly from this, however, had been held by Members of the Orange party, who had charged the Government with invading Ulster with an army of horse and foot, and insulting the Protestants of the North—language of the wildest and most unfounded kind, which it was agreeable to hear the hon. Member repudiate. He was glad also that the hon. Gentleman had fairly admitted that the Roman Catholic population of Ulster had in general acted with great prudence and forbearance on a recent occasion. From his intimate knowledge of all that had passed in Ulster he could fully confirm that statement. It was most fortunate for the peace of the North of Ireland that the Roman Catholic population, under circumstances in some cases of no small provocation, had, at the suggestion of their clerical advisers and others, maintained a most prudent and for bearing attitude. It was true that in some districts of the North of Ireland there might be no danger of a breach of the peace, but in other districts, where parties were more equally balanced, there was serious risk of the most fatal consequences as the result of these demonstrations. He could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that in several districts, if the public authority had not been well represented by a sufficient force, there would have been great danger of hostile collisions, and, perhaps, of a lamentable loss of life. The hon. Gentleman said that these demonstrations were for the maintenance of the political and religious principles of the Ulster, Protestants. Now, he was not going to discuss the general state of Ulster or the history and present position of Orangeism; but it seemed to him that Protestants might well maintain their political and religious principles without the demonstrations which the hon. Gentleman seemed to think essential. Was it necessary for the purpose of maintaining the principles of Protestantism and their equal rights as citizens—which were not in the smallest degree endangered—to make these displays in the face of a population which could not but regard them as irritating? Was it necessary to make night hideous with firing and with drums, which resounded all over Ulster, and which were more worthy of some African village than of a flourishing province in Ireland? For the moment these displays might be inevitable, but he trusted and believed that they were not destined to be perpetual, and that the Protestants of Ulster would not think it necessary to support their political and religious principles, which he hoped they would always maintain, by keeping up these semi-barbarous and childish observances. In one important respect the hon. Member, whose general fairness he admitted, had exerted himself to avert the dangers which might arise—and did arise—from these great assemblages. The hon. Gentleman was strongly opposed to the dangerous and reprehensible practice of carrying arms on such occasions, but, as he knew, arms were in many instances carried. With regard to the particular occasions on which the police had come into collision with the people, the hon. Gentleman could scarcely expect the Government to express any opinion, because these cases were now the subject of inquiry. He did not believe that anything could be gained by going further into these matters in that House. There was great reason for congratulation that the 12th of July had passed off so well, and perhaps the least said the best. No doubt the law of the land, as embodied in the Party Processions Act, had been openly violated in a great number of cases; but, upon the whole, peace and order had been preserved, and the measures taken by the Government had proved effectual. As to the Reports asked for by the hon. Member, he could not consent to produce them, for it would be destructive of the relations between the Government and their officers if it were the practice to produce such Reports, except in cases of the most exceptional kind and supported by the strongest reasons. He congratulated the House and the country on the comparative success which had attended the efforts of the Government to preserve the peace in the North of Ireland.

said, one might imagine from the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that there were no party processions in Ireland but those of Orangemen. He (Mr. Vance) recollected a procession of 80,000 persons, which was formed in Dublin to follow the remains of M'Manus, who had been convicted of treason; and also another procession in honour of those who were called the "Manchester martyrs," which was most alarming from its numbers, and from the principles of those who took part in it. Neither of those processions were interfered with, and he therefore maintained that the Party Processions Act had been very partially administered. The processions which toot place in the North of Ireland were, for the most part, composed of loyal men, and were in support of the English connection, while those which took place in the South were composed of men who were not well affected to the Queen and Government of this country. The people of Ulster would never cease agitating until this penal enactment of the Party Processions Act was repealed.

appealed to the hon. and learned Member having charge of the Bill (Mr. T. Chambers) to withdraw it in consideration of the important measures now before Parliament, and the late period of the Session at which they had arrived. He moved that the Order be discharged.

said, he could not consent to the Motion; the appeal made to him had taken him by surprise. The measure had been passed by a majority of 99, and had before been sent to the Upper House on several occasions; it was a measure which touched the family honour and fears of many thou- sands of families, and under these circumstances he could not but deem himself entirely unworthy of the position he held if he insulted the House by withdrawing a measure endorsed by a majority of 99 votes. Admitting that measures of overwhelming national importance were before Parliament, he denied that any measure touched more nearly the honour of the people. He therefore trusted the hon. Member who had given notice to move an Instruction to the Committee (Mr. Monk), which he disliked as much as he disliked the Bill, would either move it or withdraw it, that the Bill itself might be proceeded with.

said, he wished to correct the hon. and learned Member's chronology. It was not true that this Bill had been often sent to the House of Lords; it had never been there but once, and that was ten or twelve years ago; it was only once introduced into this House in the Parliament of 1865, and only once in the Parliament of 1862, on both of which occasions it was rejected. Although the second reading had been carried, the Bill had struck no responsive chord in the hearts of the people. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the measure did touch the honour of many families in the country. It wounded the most tender and delicate feelings of countless thousands of wives, sisters, brothers, and families.

said, he had always supported this measure, the opposition to which was carried on in a manner which he thought contrary to Parliamentary usage, and unworthy of the House.

said, he could not be suspected of hostility to the Bill, but he would advise the withdrawal of it, considering the late period of the Session, and the treatment which the Bill encountered. He was ashamed to think, that a subject which ought, at any rate, to be discussed with a degree of decorum and respect should be made the vehicle for levity and attempts to discover words of double meaning and bad signification. Amendments were moved which were simply designed to cast ridicule on the Bill. As it would be almost impossible to force the Bill through the House against the determination of those who I appeared to be so little particular as to the means they used to obstruct it, he would recommend his lion. Friend (Mr. T. Chambers) to withdraw the Bill.

said, the advice just given came with considerable weight from the noble Viscount, because he had been for a long time desirous that a Bill of this kind should be passed, but the conclusion he arrived at could hardly be justified from his speech. With great frankness and plainness the noble Viscount had characterized the opposition to the Bill, which had been carried somewhat beyond the limits of Parliamentary usage; but he doubted whether it would be a salutary precedent to withdraw a Bill on account of such opposition. This was not a Cabinet question. Many highly respected Members of the Government were not favourable to the principle of the measure; but, personally, he felt bound to do what he could to assist the hon. Member in charge of the Bill. For many years he had felt the pressure of this subject to be extreme. Among certain classes the change proposed would not be without a disturbing effect on domestic relations; but these classes were limited and select, and it was the mass of the community we must look to in dealing with such a question. When he considered the weight of testimony given by ministers of religion, among the most respected in their several communions—men among the Roman Catholics, the Nonconformists, the Established Church—High Church and Low Church—including such a man as Dr. Hook, who might, perhaps, be described as the first parish minister of his day—when he considered the pressure of motives which had induced so many persons, who had practical experience of the consequences produced by the present state of the law, to support the proposed change he did not shrink from the responsibility it would entail. Some twelve or fourteen years ago he formed the opinion that the fairest course would be to legalize the marriage contracts in question, and legitimize their issue, leaving to each religious community the question of attaching to such marriages a religious character; and the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers) had shown a wise judgment and a conciliatory temper in reducing his demand to a minimum, and introducing a Bill to do no more than obviate the ruinous consequences of the present state of the law. The conduct of the hon. and learned Member gave him a strong claim to the support of all except those who conscientiously objected to the measure. The Bill was read a second time on the 21st April, by 243 against 144; the subject had been under discussion many years, so that the arguments for and against the proposed change of the law were well known, and it was not the fault of the author of the Bill that the Committee had not been taken long ago; and it was not equitable now to ask him to withdraw the Bill on the score of time. It had been remarked that there were other questions that were likely to occupy time during the remainder of the Session. He knew not the means of information possessed by hon. Members, or how it was they were able to form a judgment that those questions were likely to occupy so much the time of the House; whether that were so or not, he would express his opinion that they were bound to encourage the author of the Bill to set his face against obstructive opposition, and to aid him in securing a fair treatment of the Bill.

said, he did not share the opinions of the First Minister, but he denied that the Bill was being met in a factious spirit. He must complain that it had not been put down for Wednesday, when it would have had a chance of being discussed. He protested against the system of having piecemeal discussions of important questions — ten minutes one day, and five minutes three months afterwards. The real question was the abolition of affinity as distinct from consanguinity; and, as the time was coming when relationship by marriage would cease, he protested against the exceptional legislation proposed by the Bill. What could be more absurd than to say that a man should be allowed to marry his deceased wife's sister, but not his deceased wife's daughter? It was following an unintelligible line to say that a man might marry the blood relations of his wife, but that a woman should not marry the blood relations of her husband. He should offer every opposition to the Bill, because it did not proceed upon a principle which could be defended.

said, he wished merely to state that it was a mistake to suppose that the Church to which he belonged — the Roman Catholic Church — was opposed to these marriages. He had received a requisition from Roman Catholic theologians of the diocese of Dublin, urging him to support the Bill. It was true that the Roman Catholic Church required a dispensation in the case of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but a Roman Catholic could have no dispensation for anything that was not in itself essentially lawful.

said, he wished to remind the House that in discussing this question it was scarcely possible to avoid a review of the entire marriage law of England, Scotland, and Ireland. About four years ago, a Royal Commission, composed of the very ablest men of both Houses, of the Bench, and the Bar, was appointed to inquire into the whole question of the marriage law. The Report of that Commission had been made last November, and it would be sufficient to say that it was drawn up by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), to indicate that it was characterized by remarkable ability and research. He thought the present Bill ought to be postponed. What he objected to was partial legislation on the subject of the marriage laws.

said, he thought that the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) was exceedingly adverse to going on late at night with business to which he was opposed, but very anxious to go on with any matter he was anxious to forward.

said, he did not rise to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins). He merely wished to call attention to the fact that the marriages proposed to be legalized by the Bill were detested in Scotland, though the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Carnegie) had risen to defend the speech of the Prime Minister, who had spoken as if he wished to propose that the word "not" should be struck out of the Seventh Commandment.

said, he must express his opinion that the Bill was a proper Bill, and if the hon. Member for Boston should propose to add his clause to the Bill and withdraw his opposition he would support the hon. Gentleman.

said, that all the information which he had been able to gather from different parts of Scotland convinced him that the great majority of the people of that country were hostile to the Bill.

said, that if the Bill were to be advocated on the ground that marriage with a deceased wife's sister ought to be permitted because it was not prohibited by Scripture, that principle should be carried to its full extent, and it should be contended that all marriages not prohibited by Scripture should be legalized. He would not vote for the Bill, which was opposed to the religious feelings of the people of Scotland.

moved the adjournment of the Debate on the ground that some hon. Members had misunderstood the question as put from the Chair. In. particular he had noticed that the Lord Advocate had voted in contradiction to his speech.

said, he could assure the hon. Baronet that his vote was entirely consistent with his sentiments on this subject.

moved that the Chairman report Progress. After many years' opposition, the Prime Minister, for the first time, had spoken in support of the Bill. That might be a valid reason on the other side of the House for passing this measure, but Members on the Opposition Benches retained their old objections to it. The right hon. Gentleman made one remarkable suggestion; that the marriages should be legalized where they were solemnized, but that their actual cele- bration or non-celebration should be a matter left to the religious community in such case. A more direct casting down of the apple of religious discord among all bodies, whether of Churchmen or Dissenters, it was impossible to conceive. How was the necessary consent to be given in each case by the religious body, or by the ministers; in either case was it not plain how clergymen and individuals would all be at daggers drawn with each other, and what an amount of acrimony would be introduced into every locality? The suggestion having been thrown out by so high an authority as the Prime Minister as a sort of obiter dictum, they ought to pause and give the country time to examine the downward path down which it was invited to go. It was now one o'clock, and he begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

moved that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. The hour was very late, and as the House would resume business at noon it was but reasonable that Members should have a night's rest and a good breakfast before they met again.

moved, in Clause 1, page 1, line 8, to leave out "which has been celebrated since the passing of the fifth and sixth of William the Fourth, chapter fifty-four," and insert "heretofore celebrated or contracted."

said, it was proposed to make these marriages valid when celebrated before the registrar, but not when celebrated in church. That was a most anomalous state of things, and they ought to have the opinion of the Government upon it.

said, the object of his Amendment was to render the law in respect to these particular marriages uniform in Scotland and all the other parts of the Empire.

said, the Bill proposed to make a total innovation in the principle on which our marriage law was usually governed, because it would make the validity of the marriage depend on the place of contract and not on the place of domicile of the parties.

said, the measure was adverse to the feelings of the most religiously disposed people in Scotland, and he would use the forms of the House in every way to prevent its introduction into that country.

maintained that there was a growing feeling in Scotland in favour of these marriages.

denied that there existed in Scotland the strong and general aversion from these marriages which was alleged to exist.

maintained that the people of Ireland of every class and every rank regarded these marriages with utter abhorrence. Certain excellent but misguided Catholic divines certainly did support them, in order that the Catholic Church might be enabled to grant dispensations in certain cases; but not deeming this a sufficient reason for passing the measure, he should give it all the opposition in his power.

said, he would support the Bill, as he hitherto had done, because it was not a Bill intended, as some appeared to think, to compel a man to marry his deceased wife's sister, or to provide a dead wife's sister for every man to marry.

said, that although willing to support the Bill as far as it related to England, he regretted that he could not assist his hon. Friend (Mr. T. Chambers) in extending its provisions to Scotland.

read extracts to show that the first draft of the Bill only made such marriages legal for the future, whereas it was now proposed to legalize all these marriages where they had occurred.

observed that it was impossible to discuss a subject of this importance at that late hour —a quarter to two.

said, he was willing to make the measure non-retrospective as far as Scotland was concerned, if the Scotch Members wished the children of the unhappy few to remain illegitimate.

moved that the Chairman report Progress.