A PROTESTANT MINISTER GOES TO GAOL FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7759, 4 October 1886, Page 6

A PROTESTANT MINISTER GOES TO GAOL FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE.

A curious case of martyrdom, or as many think of martyrdom by mistake, is at present exciting a good deal of interest in Edinburgh. The victim is the Rev. P. Leys, a clergyman of the United Presbyterian Church. For refusing to deliver up his grandchildren to his son, their father, who is a Roman Catholic, he has been sent to prison by the First Division of the Court of Session, and is now ft prisoner in the Calton Gaol, Edinburgh. The ground of his refusal was his knowledge that his son wished to get possession of the children for the purpose of having them educated in the Roman Catholic faith. Of this fact he was able to produce satisfactory proof in Court. His son, it seems, is unable himself to maintain or to eduoate his children; but a letter was read from Father Clark, London, guaranteeing the expenses of their board and education at a particular institution near Sheffield for two years. Rather than be a party to his grandchildren being thus disposed of, Mr. Leyß has defied the order of the Court and has cheerfully gone to prison. He is receiving a great many expressions of sympathy. The United Presbyterian Presbytery of Edinburgh has sent him a letter of condolence, which has greatly cheered him. Many of those, however, who sympathise with him most deeply are of opinion that he has carried his conscientiousness to a foolish length. Even his brethren of the Presbytery were careful to tell him that in expressing their sympathy with him they did not impugn either the law or its administration. In his statement before the Court of Sessions, Mr. Leys stated Nearly six years ago, when the children came to me, their father was ft Protestant, as their deceased mother had also been. About four years ago my son became a Roman Catholic, and, as may be supposed to one with my convictions and in my position, this was a cause of unspeakable distress. In tears and grief we apprehended then that the boys would be taken from us to be trained in charity at some Roman Catholic institution, as we well knew their father himself could not maintain them. But no, the thing was never once mooted by him. He knew very well the views and habits of myself and of my family in respect of religion. He knew well the character of my elder daughter, to whose care he specially committed the boys, and that the training of them in the principles of evangelical faith would be a supreme and all-pervading object. He never once interfered—nay, at the distant intervals when he came to see his children he joined in appearance and in their presence at our daily family worship, and went with us and with them to a Protestant church. The boys never knew their father was a Rnman Catholic until his recent aotion compelled their knowledge of it. It has been alleged that my daughter and I have prejudiced the minds of the boys against their father. Nothing can be further from the truth. We knew well how important it was to the moral welfare of the children that they should love their father, and encouraged and cherished it, with the result that little as they saw of him or heard from him, their love to him was beautiful and surprising. Now, my Lords, these years since their father became a Roman Catholic have been eminently formative years in the character of the children. They are remarkably quick and intelligent. They thoroughly understand the principles of evangelical truth, which we hope and believe have become the supreme influence in their life, and; their piety founded on these principfes is singularly bright and happy. The thought of being taken from us and sent to a Roman Catholic seminary has filled them with distress by day and dreams of terror by night. Physically they are not strong, and those who on this point know them better than I do believe that to send them to such a seminary would endanger their life. But, my Lords, at their advanced stage of religious intelligence, to force them into compliance with Roman Catholic practices, or to subvert their present conviotions by sap and mine,would naturally lead to the confounding in their minds of all religious principle whatever, and to the demoralisation of their nature. In view of the moral and spiritual ruin which I believe threatens them, I cannot surrender the children without doing violence to my deepest and strongest convictions of duty. My Lords, I crave with all submission to observe that the first Christian men who were brought before a Court enunciated a great principle, previously embodied in the teaching of their' Divine Master, when they said " We ought to obey God rather than man." This is a principle which can be very readily perverted and abused by fanatics and fools and knaves ; but none the less it iB a great principle which threw into the ancient world an idea altogether new, and has proved one of the mightiest factors, I might say the mightiest factor, in the emancipation of the human conscience, and the moral discipline of the human spirit. Now, as I have said, I cannot surrender the children without doing violence to my deepest and strongest convictions of duty. And, my lords, let me say in closing that I am aware of the risk I run. I think I have counted the possible cost, dreadful as that would be to me and mine. I am, however, an old man, in enfeebled health, fit now for but little active duty, and things should now have little attraction for me under the sun. And thiß distressing history, which also has been appointed me to encounter ere I close my journey, has done muoh to darken to me the sky of time. I ought also to say that it has added to all my other distress that I must in any way stand in opposition to this Court. <• But, my lords, in view of the Supreme Bar, and with my convictions, I cannot, I dare not, do otherwise. , The Lord President : 1 understand you decline to surrender the custody of the children?

Mr. Leys : Yes, my lord. The Lord President : Are you prepared to inform the Court where the children are ? Mr. Leys : No, my lord. Mr. Leys was then taken into custody, and removed to prison.