a n^ wq / 159 A . DO THE SICK UNDER YOUR CHARGE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC PERSUASION, RECEIVE RELIGIOUS AID FROM THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN OF THE PRISON ?— IN SOME OF THE PRISONS THEY DO, AND IN SOME OTHERS NOT. PRAY WHY. IS IT THAT THEY DO NOT?— IT IS OWING TO AN IMPRESSION, I BELIEVE, MADE ON SOME OF THE PRISONERS THAT HE IS NOT A REGULAR OR PROPER PRIEST, AND UNDER THAT FEELING I HAVE SOMETIMES SUGGESTED TO THE GOVERNOR TO ALLOW ANOTHER TO COME INTO THE PRISON ( THE RICHMOND BRIDEWELL); AND WHEN A PATIENT WAS VERY ILL OR DYING, I DID NOT CONCEIVE IT WOULD BE RIGHT NOT TO ALLOW IT, AND HAVE ALWAYS OBTAINED THE CONCURRENCE OF THE GOVERNOR TO ALLOW ANOTHER CLERGYMAN TO VISIT THAT PERSON. IS IT THE GENERAL IMPRESSION AMONG THE PRISONERS AT NEWGATE, THAT MR. MORRISSY IS A SUSPENDED PRIEST, AND THEREFORE NOT QUALIFIED TO ADMINISTER THE RITES?— I BELIEVE IT IS. THEN IN THE CASES TO WHICH YOU HAVE ALLUDED, YOU REFER EXCLUSIVELY TO EXTREME CASES OF ILLNESS ?— YES. IN WHICH CASES ONLY ANOTHER PRIEST IS ALLOWED?— THESE ARE THE ONLY CASES IN WHICH A REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE TO ME BY THE PRISONERS. WILL YOU STATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING MR. MORRISSY'S APPOINTMENT?— THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. MORRISSY IS CONNECTED WITH A LONG TRAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES GROWING OUT OF THE ACT WHICH FIRST ENABLED THE GRAND JURY TO PRESENT FOR A CATHOLIC CLERGY- MAN ; THE GRAND JURY THEN APPOINTED THE CATHOLIC CLERGYMAN WHO HAD BEEN IN THE HABIT OF DISCHARGING THE DUTY GRATUITOUSLY; HIS NAME WAS THE REV. MR. MURPHY, NOW DEAD ; WHEN HE WAS APPOINTED AT A SALARY HE WAS INTERDICTED. DID YOU EVER HEAR THE GROUNDS OF THE INTERDICT ?— THE GROUNDS OF THE INTERDICT MUST EVIDENTLY APPEAR TO CONSIST IN THE PERHAPS NATURAL DESIRE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP TO SECURE THE EMOLUMENTS OF THE OFFICE FOR THE CLERGYMAN OF THE PARISH, LEADING TO AN UNPLEASANT CONTEST BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP AND THE GRAND JURY, AS TO ' THE VIRTUAL RIGHT OF APPOINTMENT; THE GRAND JURY IN ASSERTING THEIR RIGHT, EVINCED NO PARTIALITY, FOR THEY APPOINTED THE PERSON WHO HAD BEEN IN THE HABIT OF DISCHARGING THE DUTY GRATUITOUSLY, AND WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE IS ANY OBSTACLE TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE RITES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ANY ONE WAY, BY ANY MINISTER WHO DOES NOT BELONG TO THAT PARISH ?— CERTAINLY, WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE OF THE OFFICIATING CLERGYMAN ; THE SAME THING OCCURS IN THE PROTESTANT CHURCH, BUT THERE IS A DILEMMA ON BOTH SIDES AS BE- TWEEN THE LAW AND THE CANONS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH: THE LAW REQUIRED THAT THE SAME CHAPLAIN SHALL PERFORM THE DUTY IN ALL THE PRISONS, THOUGH THEY WERE NOT ALL IN THE SAME PARISH. BY THE LAW OF THE LAND AS IT NOW EXISTS, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST OF THE PARISH SHOULD BE APPOINTED ?— YES, THAT IS NOW THE LAW. THEREFORE THE LAW OF THE LAND IS IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE SUPPOSED REGULATION ?— NO DOUBT; BUT THEN THE QUESTION ARISES, SHALL THE GRAND JURY THEREFORE TURN OUT THEIR PRESENT OFFICER WHOSE MORAL CHARACTER HAS NEVER BEEN IMPEACHED, AND WHO HAS RE- QUESTED ME TO LAY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE VARIOUS CERTIFICATES OF HIS STRICT MORAL CHA- RACTER. I SHALL ONLY FURTHER SAY THAT EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE ON THE PART OF THE GRAND JURY AND OF THE SHERIFFS TO APPOINT A CLERGYMAN WHO SHALL BE APPROVED OF BY THE ARCHBISHOP, BUT COULD NEVER SUCCEED. ONE OF THE SHERIFFS BEING ORDERED BY THE COURT TO APPOINT, WROTE TO DR. TROY, REQUESTING THE NAMES OF EIGHT CLERGYMEN WHOM HE SHOULD APPROVE OF, AND THAT HE WOULD APPOINT ONE OF THEM : THE ARCHBISHOP DECLINED DOING SO, AND WOULD MERELY RECOMMEND ONE, WHOM OF COURSE THE SHERIFF WOULD NOT NOMINATE, BECAUSE HE WOULD THEREBY RELINQUISH THE RIGHT OF ELECTION : HE ACCORDINGLY NOMINATED SEVERAL RESPECTABLE CLERGYMEN, BUT THEY WERE NO SOONER APPOINTED THAN INTERDICTED. HENCE IT BECAME A STRUGGLE WHETHER THE GRAND JURY OR THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT OF NOMINATION, AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE GRAND JURY FINDING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO GET PERSONS WHO WOULD BE APPROVED OF BY THE ARCHBISHOP, NOMINATED MR. MORRISSY, WHO HAS DILIGENTLY DISCHARGED HIS DUTIES FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS. BUT THIS DIFFICULTY IS NOT ONE THAT IS LIABLE TO RECUR, THE LAW HAVING DECIDED THE CASE IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE GENERAL PRACTICE ?— NO DOUBT; AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER HAD IT BEEN ALWAYS SO. HAVE THE PAROCHIAL COMMITTEES APPLIED TO YOU FOR ANY INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT OF THE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF THE PRISONS ?— NO, NOR TO THE INSPECTOR, OR THE APOTHE- CARY, AND IF THEY HAD APPLIED TO ME BEFORE THE PUBLICATION OF THEIR REPORTS I SHOULD HAVE BEEN VERY READY TO GIVE THEM ANY INFORMATION. Dr. William Harty. ( 13 May.) 549- I i magistrates,