HC Deb 19 May 1853 vol 127 cc388-422

House in Committee; Mr. Bouverie in the Chair.

(1.) 119,320l. Royal Palaces and Public Buildings.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

wished to know how the stud houses in Bushey Park (on account of which there was an item included in this vote) were occupied, whether by the horses of private persons or not? It was understood that public sales were to take place periodically of thorough-bred horses from these stud houses, and he begged to inquire whether a debtor and creditor account would be kept of the sales?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

was understood to say, that the proceeds of the sales would be brought into the public accounts. With regard to the stud houses, he was not aware what the arrangement that was come to some years ago was, but would inquire.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) 62,736l. for Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, etc.

LORD DUDLEY STUART

said, he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Sir W. Molesworth) to the Royal Botanical Gardens and Pleasure-grounds at Kew. The number of visitors to these gardens in 1841 had been only 9,134; in 1851 they had been 327,900; and last year they were 231,000. Very few of the working classes, however, were able to take advantage of the gardens; and the reason was this—that they were not open on Sundays. He thought it peculiarly desirable that hardworking men, who were shut up in close alleys and unwholesome dwellings during the whole of the week, should have an opportunity afforded them of visiting so delightful a place of recreation on a Sunday. Why were these gardens shut on Sundays? It could not be contended that they were kept closed out of respect to a due observance of the Sunday.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, the gardens were opened last Sunday to the public in pursuance of instructions which he himself had given.

LORD DUDLEY STUART

said, he was extremely happy to find that such was the case. He had gone there the Sunday before, and the gardens were not then open. There was another part of the gardens, called the pleasure grounds. That was opened only from Midsummer to Michaelmas; he hoped his right hon. Friend would give directions that those grounds should be thrown open every Sunday in the year. He would now call the attention of his right hon. Friend to Richmond Park. There was a considerable part of that park not open to the public. He meant that portion which lay between Roehampton and Robinhood-gates, and extending up to Lord Bessborough's villa. It was on a slope, and had no trees upon it, but if the people were allowed to go there they would witness a beautiful scene. It would be a great advantage to throw that into Richmond Park.

MR. MALINS

said, he would suggest that it would be a matter of great convenience to the public if there were two gates at Kensington-gardens, one for per- sons entering the gardens, and another for those passing out of them.

MR. KINNAIRD

begged to suggest, that a carriage-road should be made to cross the park from Victoria-gate to Albert-gate. At present it was very inconvenient for persons to go a considerable distance round in order to get from Paddington to Kensington.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, he entertained a strong objection to any opening for carriages in the manner suggested by the hon. Member, as it would make it necessary that the park should be opened all night—a plan that could not be sanctioned. The opening of such a road would, at the same time, cause considerable inconvenience to equestrians.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, that it had always appeared to him that public works were carried on at a much greater cost than similar works executed for private individuals. The fact was, that persons made enormous profits out of Government contracts. This was a subject to which the attention of Parliament ought to be in an especial manner called, for there did not appear at present to be a sufficient control exercised over these matters.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just resinned his seat, that it was time the House of Commons should exercise some control over the vast expenditure made on account of the Royal palaces. Since Her Majesty came to the throne, no less than 518,000l. had been expended on the palaces which were in the occupation of Her Majesty, and 400,000l. had been expended in the maintenance of other Royal palaces, not at all for the convenience of Her Majesty in any shape. Some of those palaces Her Majesty had never seen, but were occupied by certain members of the aristocracy in a state of half-pauperism. If those palaces were applied to such purposes, the parties who occupied them ought to be at the expense of keeping them in order. With regard to the vote for maintaining the Royal parks and gardens, he found that 1,000,000l. had been expended upon Royal parks since Her Majesty's accession to the throne. He did not for one moment wish it to be understood that he considered that vast expenditure to be on account of Her Majesty. She had the convenience of the parks in common with her subjects, and a great accommodation they were; but he did consider that when such a large sum of the public money was so expended, every convenience ought to be afforded to the people. Now, there was one subject to which he particularly wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth). That right hon. Gentleman had taken votes for the Woods and Forests, and also for Works which bad never appeared in the estimates before. But there was a sum exceeding 100,000L. which had been received for Crown revenues, and which was not accounted for in any way whatever. He (Mr. Williams) did not expect the right hon. Baronet would be able to answer the question satisfactorily, and he would not particularly press it upon the right hon. Gentleman, because he (Mr. Williams) found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at last pursued an honest straightforward course of paying the whole amount of the Crown revenues into the Exchequer. Next year, and for the first time in the history of this country, the people would know how the very large amount of the Crown revenues—400,000L. a year, had been dealt with. Hitherto they had been squandered without control. He hoped the right hon. Baronet was prepared to give the House some definite answer as to what was intended to be done with respect to Battersea Park. Nearly 200,000l. had been laid out in the purchase of about 300 acres of land upon the banks of the Thames for making that park. The situation was very beautiful for the purpose. It had a river frontage of two miles in length, and if it were completed it would afford the greatest benefit that had over been conferred on any portion of the metropolis. But seven years had now elapsed, and the work still remained to be done. It appeared that the Government had purchased the land at so moderate a price that a speculator had come forward and offered to take it off the hands of the Government for his own benefit. He hoped the Government would never entertain such a thought as that of giving up the land to any speculator, but that the right hon. Baronet would, with his characteristic energy, proceed with the park.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, it was true a proposal had been made by Mr. Cubitt to take the land which had been purchased for Battersea Park off the hands of the Government at the price they gave for it; but that proposal had not been acceded to, nor was there any intention of acceding to it. With regard to the appro- priation of the land revenues, it was not a matter within his department; he believed, however, that since 1851 the receipts had regularly been accounted for.

SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS

said, that he was one of the Metropolitan Commissioners, and the subject of Battersea Park had come before that body. It was true that Mr. Cubitt did offer to purchase the whole of the land from the Government; but, for reasons which it was not necessary to state, the Government declined the proposal. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) was desirous, however, since the subject had been mentioned, that some honour should be done to Mr. Cubitt for the liberal and disinterested offer which he made. As to the expenditure in the Royal parks, which had been alluded to, he was satisfied the bargain begun by George III., and continued by George IV., with the people, had been for the benefit of the latter, and it appeared by a return he moved for some time ago that while the Crown had received 32,000,000l. the nation had received no less than 94,000,000l in the same period.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he did not mean the slightest reflection on Mr. Cubitt—quite the reverse. He was surprised the hon. Baronet should have again alluded to the subject of the Crown revenues in that House. A more fallacious Return, as the hon. Baronet well knew, had never been made than that to which he had referred. If the Crown estates were properly managed, they would very nearly equal the expenditure of the civil list. He had never grudged any expenditure necessary for the comfort of the Crown, but he objected to extravagance.

MR. BROTHERTON

said, he agreed with those who thought it desirable to establish public parks about this great city; but, as it certainly was the richest city in the world, the inhabitants ought really to put their hands in their pockets, as they did in the provinces and country towns, to provide parks for themselves. In Manchester the people had subscribed 30,000l. for parks.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished for some explanation respecting a charge in the estimate before them. First, they had "Richmond Park, 2,105l.;" next, "Ditto (department of Ranger), 2,740l. 3s." What was the meaning of the last item, and what was the salary of the Ranger?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

replied, that there were various expenses connected with the department in that charge. The actual salary received by the Ranger (the Duchess of Gloucester) was only 200l.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) 145,774l. New Houses of Parliament.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to know who superintended the expenditure of the interior of the House. He found a charge for lighting with oil and wax the offices and division lobbies of the House 6,8212., and for gas in both Houses 2,8422., being nearly 10,000l. for lighting alone.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, the lighting was in the department of the Serjeant-at-Arms; the lighting of the roof was under the control of Mr. Meeson; the gas was supplied by contract.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, as the gas was cheaper than oil and candles, it would be better to use that more generally.

MR. SPOONER

said, there was an item on account of carcase walls and ordinary finishing of the building, including warming and ventilating works, 91,700l. He believed that a sum of 25,000l. had been already expended on the ventilation of the House. What was this sum for? Was not the House ventilated already? Certainly, the ventilation was very unsatisfactory, for the House was always alternating between great heat and great cold. He had been told by Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney that the whole present apparatus for ventilation was useless, and that he would undertake for a few hundred pounds to take it all out, and keep the House regularly ventilated. He (Mr. Spooner) had no hesitation in saying that the ventilation of the House was most disgraceful. Unless some explanation was given, he would bring forward a Motion on the subject.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, this 91,700l. was chiefly for the carcase walls and progress of the works, and had no reference to the ventilation of the House. As to the ventilation of the House, he was well aware of the talents of Mr. Gurney, and there was no doubt he could make an alteration in the ventilation; but it would cause a large outlay if the whole plan was changed. Mr. Meeson had been engaged for one year, and it was but fair that he should have a trial.

MR. BAILLIE

said, no answer had been given to the question as to whether the expenditure of the Houses of Parliament was under the control of the Treasury or the Board of Works.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

The expenditure for the new works was under the control of Sir Charles Barry, who gave an estimate for the year to the Board of Works.

MR. SPOONER

Was the whole expenditure under Sir Charles Barry's control, without any control from the Treasury or the Board of Works?

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

It is under the control of the Treasury. All the Commissioners of Works had to do was, when Sir Charles Barry certified that a certain amount of work was done, an examination was made to see if it had been performed, but the control was in the Treasury.

MR. J. WILSON

said, he must admit the unsatisfactory state of the expenditure on the Houses of Parliament. The subject had occupied the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself, who had called on Sir Charles Barry to render such accounts as would enable them to ascertain the state they were in, and he hoped shortly to lay before the House full accounts of all that had been done.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to know of the hon. Secretary to the Treasury, whether Sir Charles Barry had made any estimate of the future expense of the Houses of Parliament. Two estimates had been made—the first was 700,000l., and the second amounted to more than 2,000,000l. Was there any new estimate made, or would one be made?

MR. J. WILSON

said, he could not exactly promise a new estimate. What was being done was this:—that the Treasury was determined to know exactly the condition in which the expenditure was, and when that information was gained they would turn their attention to the cheapest mode of finishing the building. They were clearly of opinion that things could not go on as they were.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to understand whether Sir Charles Barry was allowed to go on spending money, no one knew how? Was there any control over him?

MR. J. WILSON

said, he was afraid there was very little; but better care would be taken in future.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) 10,000l. Stationery Office.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to inquire whether that sum would be sufficient to complete the office?

MR. J. WILSON

was bound to say that the sum in question would not be sufficient to finish the office, as it was intended to make such an enlargement as would enable a number of Government hooks and records to be kept in that office, which were now kept in buildings for which a large rental was now paid; so that, although probably 10,000l. more would be required, there would be an eventual saving.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) 91,279l. Holyhead Harbour.

MR. THORNELY

said, that this was the seventh year in which there had been a vote for the improvement of Holyhead harbour. The original estimate was 628,000l., and he wished to know if that sum would cover the whole of the expenditure?

ME. J. WILSON

said, with regard to a work of such magnitude, he could not say that the estimate in question would cover the expense.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he was sure the estimate would not nearly cover the expense. It was supposed by some persons that Holyhead would not answer as a harbour of refuge, and that the original plan had been deviated from. It was a subject very interesting to Irishmen, and he should be glad to know whether the plan was likely to answer.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, his attention had been only recently called to the subject. When he came into office, the control of harbours of refuge was in a somewhat anomalous position. The Admiralty was not answerable for the works which were under the control of the Treasury, although they were answerable for the expenditure. He believed that the estimate for Holyhead harbour would be sufficient to defray the cost. He said that with confidence, as the works were under the direction of Mr. Rendel, and reliance was to be placed on his estimate. He was told by all who saw the works that they were executed in the best possible manner; that the plan would prove successful, and that it would be a harbour of great use in the Channel communication between Great Britain and Ireland.

MR. BUCK

said, he wished to call the right hon. Baronet's attention to the necessity of a harbour of refuge which should afford shelter to shipping on the coast of Wales and the northern part of Devonshire,

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, the subject of harbours of refuge had been too long-neglected in this country, and, considering our maritime position, he was surprised it had not before engaged the attention of the Government. Between Harwich and the Tyne there was not a single harbour which, in boisterous weather, a ship could possibly run into for refuge, with the exception of the Humber in certain states of the wind. Both in Cornwall and Devon a harbour of refuge was much wanted; but the House must proceed by degrees in this matter. A large sum of money was required in the present year for works of this kind at Holyhead, Portland, Alderney, and Dovor, and when the works there were accomplished, it would be then the time to proceed to such other works as were considered necessary. He could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buck) that the subject alluded to by him should receive consideration, so far as he was concerned.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he had heard with great gratification the statements of the right hon. Baronet, that these works would be completed within the estimated expense. When they were commenced, there was a great difference of opinion among the engineers as to the expense, and some of the most eminent made estimates, the lowest of which was upwards of 1,000,000l.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) 226,000l. Harbours of Refuge.

MR. THORNELY

said, that a note was appended in the estimates, stating that the particulars of the expenditure for each harbour, accompanied by reports of the engineers in charge of the works for the year to 31st March, will be found in a return to be presented to the House of Commons as a separate paper in the present Session. He thought they ought to have these particulars before they gave the vote, and not afterwards.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he saw the amount for Dovor harbour was only 34,000l. He wished to know whether there was to be any further estimate for that harbour.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

replied, that the plan respecting Dovor harbour had been recently under revision. 34,000l. would complete the work as far as the present contract went; but to render the works really effectual it would be necessary to prolong them to a considerable extent. It was now proposed, after the 34,000l. was expended, so far as the contract went, to carry the works 800 feet further into deep water of course, as they went into deeper water, the expense would be greater, but it was not intended in the present year to expend more than the 34,000l.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he wished to knowupon which of the Channel Islands the expenditure for the formation of a harbour of refuge was to be made?

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, there were two works in progress in the Channel Islands—one at Jersey, which it was not intended to carry out—and another, a most important one, in the Island of Alderney, which was a work of very great expense, because it had to be carried on in deep water. After having consulted with the best engineers, and having considered the subject both at the Board of Ordnance and at the Admiralty, it had been determined to proceed with those works at Alderney.

MR. ALEXANDER HASTIE

said, he wished to call attention to another part of our coast very much in want of protection of this kind. He referred to the harbour of Aberdeen, where the Duchess of Sutherland steamer had lately broken up in a very short period of time, and a great many lives had been lost. Between the Tay and Peterhead there was no harbour for the protection of shipping.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, he had before expressed his opinion as to the necessity of proceeding by degrees in this matter. The sum asked on account of the formation of harbours of refuge in the present Session approached very nearly 400,000L.; and it would be necessary, therefore, to wait before any further expenditure on this head could be entered into. With reference to the accident alluded to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hastie), the loss of life by the wreck of the Duchess of Sutherland steamer seemed to have been caused not so much by the want of protective works at Aberdeen, as the want of ordinary caution on the part of the authorities there.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, he wished to ask in what time the works at Alderney would be completed, and what would be the expense?

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, it was impossible to work more than seven months out of the twelve at Alderney. It would, perhaps, take seven years, and the estimated expense was about 600,000l.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) 2,5561. Portpatrick Harbour.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to know when the works at this harbour were to be finished? An assurance was given some years ago that it should not appear in the estimates again.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, the hon. Gentleman was right in stating that an assurance had been given that this harbour should not again appear in the estimates; but a storm had demolished a portion of the works, and it was thought necessary to replace them. Since the estimate was presented, a fresh survey had been made, and the amount reduced by 1,000l. He regretted that so large a sum had been expended at Donaghadee and Portpatrick, and thought he could assure the Committee that, while he remained at the Admiralty, a similar vote should not be asked for.

COLONEL BLAIR

said, there was a probability of a railway being made from Dumfries to Portpatrick which would render the harbour more useful.

MR. FREWEN

said, that he did not know why money should be laid out on this harbour more than another.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, as the hon. and gallant Member (Col. Blair) had stated, it was hoped that the railway between Dumfries and Portpatrick would be continued. At all events, 100,000l. having been expended on the harbour, he thought it would be bad economy not to spend 2,500l. to repair the breach caused by the storm.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) 45,600l. Public Buildings in Ireland.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 45,6001., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of repairing and maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1854.

MR. SPOONER

said, he rose to move the omission of a sum of 1,2352l. 13s. for repairs at the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. He did not desire to go into the question of principle, which he had brought before the House in a direct manner in the course of the present Session. He had been then defeated, but still had been encouraged by a very large minority. On that occasion an hon. Member (Mr. Scholefield) had moved an Amendment, and the hon. Member had then objected to the Motion merely because, being founded upon principle, it did not comprise every analogous example of the principle. That objection could not apply to the present Amendment, for the case was quite a solitary one, there being no similar vote. In 1845, the late Sir Robert Peel carried a measure allotting 30,000l. to build a new college at Maynooth, and charged the Consolidated Fund with a nearly equal annual sum for its maintenance; and yet the Board of Works came year after year for grants for the repair of this new college, which had been constructed out of a Parliamentary grant. In 1846, there was a sum of 578l. voted for repairs; in 184s., 2,685l.; in 1849,1,128l.; in 1850,1,240l; and in 1851, 1,236l. He had in 1848 divided the Committee against the Vote, which, however, was then carried by a majority of 109 to 38; in 1849, by 96 to 27; in 1850, by 68 to 55; but in 1851 the vote was only carried by 121 to 119. Encouraged by this evident progress of opinion in the House of Commons upon the question, he felt himself justified in repeating his proposition upon pecuniary grounds. The vote certainly was small, but it was wholly unreasonable; and, therefore, upon this ground, without relinquishing his opinion that it was a sin for a Protestant Parliament to vote any sum for the maintenance of Popery, he should move that the grant be omitted.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 44,364l. 7s., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of repairing and maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, to the 31st day of March 1854.

MR. KENDALL

said, he was much obliged to the hon. Member for bringing forward the question, in which he represented an overwhelming amount of public opinion in this country.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that he also should support the proposition of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) on the ground that when the grant was obtained, in 1845, Sir Robert Peel promised that not a single farthing more should be asked from Parliament for this college.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, that his recollection of what took place on the occasion of the grant being made to Maynooth, in 1845, by Act of Parliament, was entirely different from what had just been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams). He would, however, in the first place, refer to some of the statements of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. It was not the fact that this was a new building; on the contrary, it was an old one, and until Parliament granted 30,000l. for its restoration, it was one of the most dilapidated buildings in the country. Every farthing of that 30,000l. had been expended on the respon- sibility of the Government on the repair of the building, only a very inconsiderable sum having been devoted to its enlargement. The annual grant was expended, not in maintenance of the building, but in that of the students and professors. When the Government of Sir Robert Peel made the proposition to fix a certain sum as an annual charge upon the Consolidated Fund, it was a question whether they should name 30,000l, a sum sufficient for the maintenance of the students and of the establishment apart from the repairs of the building, or whether they should add to this amount a sum sufficient to cover the annual repairs of the building—and it was then decided by the Government, and if he was not mistaken it was stated either by himself or by his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel), that they deemed it expedient that this college, so endowed and upheld by Parliament, should be annually brought under its review, in connexion with the Vote to cover the expense of repairs. It did not appear that the annual repairs would average more than 1,200l. a year, and unless they desired to starve out this establishment, to have it no longer waterproof, and to expel sum professors and students, some such the as that now asked for was necessary.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), on the ground that he objected to all religious endowments whatever. He had visited Maynooth, and had found that both the old and the new buildings were kept up; and that no fewer than 400 students were accommodated in them—a number far too large, he thought, for the market. He wished to know whether voting on this Motion would preclude his asking questions as to any other part of the vote, because he thought the proposed charge of 5,790l. 11s. for Phoenix Park, lodges, gardens, demesnes, plantations, &c, was a monstrous expenditure; and he should like to know whether there were no items of receipt from the sale of grass or timber?

The CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. Gentleman would not be prevented from putting questions on that subject.

MR. CORRY

said, the object of Sir Robert Peel in introducing the Maynooth Endowment Act was to avoid the annual recurrence of irritating discussions on this subject; but that object would be quite defeated by a vote of this nature. He had referred to the speech of the late right hon. Gentleman in 1845, and he found that he had declared that the annual charge of the establishment would be 26,3601.; and therefore in fixing the endowment at 30,000l. he had left a sum of nearly 3,600l. available for repairs. He should vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member.

MR. MIALL

said, he should take the same course, because he should have opposed any similar vote, whatever the religious body might be that was to have been benefited by it. One characteristic all these ecclesiastical items appeared to possess in common, namely, that when once put in the estimates they remained there until the Committee thrust them out.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

said, he would call the attention of the Committee to a passage in the speech of Sir Robert Peel, when he put the establishment of Maynooth on its present footing, in which he proposed that the Board of Works should undertake the repairs of the College, as they undertook the repairs of other public buildings, and that the costs for its repairs should be included in the annual estimate of the public works. He, therefore, considered that the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) had misapprehended the purport of that speech.

SIR WILLIAM VERNER

said, he must beg to call attention to the oath that was taken by Roman Catholic priests educated in the College of Maynooth before they were appointed to parishes. He thought it was the duty of the Government to institute an inquiry into that oath. It was endeavoured to be set aside on more occasions than one, even by the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, who gave evidence before Parliamentary Committees. They endeavoured to make it appear that there was no such oath taken by the Roman Catholic clergy except the oath of allegiance. That was perfectly right; it was an oath of allegiance, but to whom? To the Pope of Rome, and not to Queen Victoria, to support the canons and councils, and to put aside altogether the Scriptures. When they transported Ribbonmen for taking an illegal oath, why should they allow Roman Catholic priests to take the same oath to all intents and purposes? He maintained that the oath taken by the Ribbonmen in Ireland was the oath taken by the Roman Catholic priests. Were those proper persons to have the management of the education of the children of the country? He said that the person who took that oath was as deserving of punishment and transportation as any Ribbonman.

SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY

said, he was opposed to all ecclesiastical endowments; but he must say that, to begin by objecting to a small sum like this,' would be very like straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel. When the House of Commons was prepared to do justice to all classes, he should be glad to support such a proposition, but in the mean time he should vote against the Amendment.

MR. LUCAS

said, he was quite prepared to vote against all endowments whatever; but he wished to draw attention to the fact that in this very Vote there were several other items of a similar character. There were sums of 38l. for repairs of the chaplain's house at Dublin Castle, and 39l. for furniture; 90l. for repairs of the chapel royal, and apartments in the basement; and furniture, 51l. 6s. 8d.; Irishtown Church 24l. 15s. repairs, and 13l. 4s. furniture; the chaplain's apartments at Kilmainham Hospital 4l. repairs; the chapel 117l. repairs, and 18l. 10s, furniture; Royal Hibernian Military School Protestant Chapel 51. repairs, Roman Catholic 44l. 10s. repairs, and 21. for furniture. If the Amendment was so framed as to eave out all these items, he should not object; but as the Motion stood, it was on the face of it a gross act of injustice.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) would himself move the addition of the items he had mentioned. Personally there was nothing that he (Mr. Hadfield) would so strongly oppose as the endowment of the denomination to which he himself belonged. Indeed they had struggled against the Begium Donum, and they had at last got rid of it, so that they came there now with clean hands. If the representation were only in the hands of the people, they would have none of these baneful discussions about religious endowment.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he did not go a single inch with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) in the principles which he had been in the habit of propounding in that House; but on the broad principle of being opposed to all religious endowments from the public purse, he would vote for the proposition of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Meath, instead of continually telling them what he would do, should put his intentions into a form that had something like reality, and which would show that he really was ready to fight with them against all religious endowments.

MR. LUCAS

said, that in reply to the appeal which had been made to him, he had only to observe that the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) had given notice of a Motion which was to come on upon the 31st of this month, for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question of religious equality in Ireland; and it was on that account that he objected to nibbling Motions like these. With respect to the statement of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hadfield), he had only to say that he had received a circular begging of him, in pathetic terms, to support the Irish Megium Donum, on the ground that its recipients professed the evangelical doctrines of the Westminster Confession, and because they hoped that he was an enlightened supporter of the Protestant interests.

MR. W. J. FOX

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had confounded the Nonconformists of England with the Presbyterians of Ireland. English Nonconformists were not inconsistent upon this question. They had last Session, after repeated efforts, succeeded in abolishing the payment made to certain Nonconformist ministers. They had also opposed the Irish Presbyterian Regium Donum, and there would have been a chance of getting rid of that vote too if they had been supported by the Irish Members. He thought they ought to fight out this principle in detail, as well as upon the general ground.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that there were three or four other items in the votes that were open to the same objection, and he begged to add them to the proposition of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. There was for Irishtown church a sum of 37l. 19l.; chaplain's house in Dublin Castle, 77l.; and the royal chapel and apartments in basement, 141l. 6s. 8d.; making a total of 256l. 5s. 8d. There was a charge also for chaplains, both Catholic and Protestant, in the hospital of Kilmainham; but he did not wish to withdraw the means of religious consolation from the poor pensioners. He begged to propose, that in addition to the sum of 1,235l. 13s. for Maynooth, the sum of 256l. 5s. 8d. should be also disallowed, making together 1,491l. 18s. 8d.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 44,108l. 1s. 4d., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of repairing and maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1854.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 43; Noes 80: Majority 37.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, if carried, would merely have this effect, that the doors and windows of the College of Maynooth would not be repaired; that the rooms would not be properly lighted, and so forth; but he wished to put it to those hon. Members who had voted in the last division on the principle of opposing all religious endowments, whether the question stood now in the same position as it did before the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams). That Amendment tested the feeling of the Committee on the question of religious endowments; and as the Committee had refused to take away all votes for religious purposes, and as the question of principle was thus decided, he wished to put it to hon. Members whether they would single out one endowment belonging to that denomination in Ireland which obtained the least of public support, and deprive it alone of its share of the public money? He hoped hon. Members would sec that the question was totally altered now, and that the question was not whether they would vote against religious endowments generally, but whether they would single out one denomination for refusal.

MR. MIALL

would only say, in reply to the noble Lord, that hitherto those who had taken the view that he (Mr. Miall) did with regard to this question, had entered into combination with hon. Gentlemen opposite in order to carry out their object wholesale. The decision of the Committee, however, prevented that object from being carried out, but that should not prevent them now from endeavouring to effect their purpose in detail.

MR. SPOONER

said, he must protest against the supposition that his vote had been registered against State endowments in general for religious purposes. His vote had been given without any reference to those other items alluded to by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas), and of which, let him add, he could find no account in the estimates. Three times had he asked for an explanation of the vote they were going to take, but all explanation had been denied him, and he was now wholly unable to say what they had voted upon.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

begged very respectfully to point out that the position in which he and other hon. Gentlemen were placed who objected on principle to all religious endowments by the State, was by no means altered by the Vote which had been just come to, and he begged, therefore, to adhere to his opposition to the Vote.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he must reiterate his conclusion that those who were about to vote against the grant would be merely singling out the Roman Catholics of Ireland, on whom alone to visit the exercise of their principle.

Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 44,364l. 7s., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of repairing and maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1854.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 54: Majority 20.

List of the AYES.
Anderson, Sir J. Lockhart, W.
Arbuthnott, hon. Gen. Long, W.
Bagge, W. Lowther, hon. Col.
Baillie, H. J. MacGregor, J.
Barrow, W. H. M'Gregor, J.
Bell, J. M'Taggart, Sir J.
Biggs, W. Malins, R.
Buck, L. W. Martin, J.
Butler, C. S. Massey, W. N.
Butt, G. M. Masterman, J.
Cairns, H. M. Miall, E.
Chambers, M. Milligan, R.
Child, S. Mitchell, W.
Clinton, Lord C. P. Montgomery, Sir G.
Cobbett, J. M. Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Pellatt, A.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Phinn, T.
Davies, D. A. S. Robertson, P. F.
Drummond, H. Scobell, Capt.
Duncan, G. Scott, hon. F.
Ferguson, J. Seymour, W. D.
Floyer, J. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Fox, W. J. Smith, W. M.
Freestun, Col. Smollett, A.
Goodman, Sir G. Stuart, Lord D.
Gore, W. O. Taylor, Col.
Gwyn, H. Tollemache, J.
Hadfield, G. Turner, C.
Hamilton, Lord C. Vance, J.
Hastie, A. Vansittart, G. H.
Hastie, A. Verner, Sir W.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Walcott, Adm.
Jones, Capt. Williams, W.
Jones, D. Woodd, B. T.
Keating, H. S. Wynne, W. W. E.
Kendall, N.
Kershaw, J. TELLERS.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F. Spooner, R.
Lee, W. Frewen, C. H.
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Atherton, W.
A'Court, C. H. W. Baines, rt. hon. M. T.
Berkeley, C. L. G. Monsell, W.
Bethell, R. Murrough, J. P.
Bowyer, G. Osborne, R.
Brady, J. Peel, F.
Brotherton, J. Phillipps, J. H.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E. Power, N.
Charteris, hon. F. Price, Sir R.
Clay, Sir W. Ricardo, O.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E. Russell, Lord J.
Crowder, R. B. Shee, W.
Dent, J. D. Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Fagan, W. Swift, R.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Tancred, H. W.
Fox, R. M. Thicknesse, R. A.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. Thornely, T.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Towneley, C.
Greene, J. Walmsley, Sir J.
Hanmer, Sir J. Wilkinson, W. A.
Heard, J. I. Willcox, B. M.
Henchy, D. O. Wilson, J.
Herbert, rt. hon. S. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Hervey, Lord A. Wyvill, M.
Hutt, W. Young, rt. hon. Sir J.
Ingham, R.
Keating, R. TELLERS.
Lucas, F. Hayter, W. G.
Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W. Mulgrave, Earl of

The following Votes were then agreed to:—

On the next Vote (22), 3,368l. Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England,

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he felt it his duty to take the sense of the Committee on this Vote. He thought that the revenues of the Church were quite sufficient to maintain all charges on account of the Commission, without calling upon the general taxpayers of the country to meet an expenditure undertaken for the sole benefit of one Church.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 3,368l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray a portion of the Expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, to the 31st day of March, 1854.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 44: Majority 19

Vote agreed to; as were the following Votes:—

On the next Vote (27), 1,700l. Salaries of certain Officers in Scotland,

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 1,700l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges, formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue, to the 31st day of March, 1854.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he had always objected to the maintenance of such officers as Her Majesty's "Limner," Her Majesty's "Clockmaker," and Her Majesty's "Historiographer," included under this Vote. He had hoped that some assurance would have been given that the country would no longer be called upon to defray such a useless expenditure.

MR. WISE

said, he wished to direct attention to the item for Queen's plates in Scotland under this Vote. He was not sufficiently learned to define the reasons which had originally suggested such grants of public money; but he supposed it was to encourage the breeding of horses. He did not object to racing, but he thought that to support it by public money was a mal-appropriation of the public funds.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he had objected for several years to these plates being granted out of the public money. The amount for Scotland was very small as compared with the sum in the next Vote devoted to a similar object in Ireland, against the granting of which he should certainly divide the Committee.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, that if there was to be a division against the Queen's plates in the next Vote, it would be inconsistent to allow a similar item to pass unobjected to in the present Vote. He therefore moved that it be reduced 200l.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he believed that the origin of these grants had another object in view beyond the encouraging the breeding of horses. He believed that there was no public amusement which afforded such general satisfaction in this country as horse-racing; and if it was alleged that it only induced gambling, he must say that, if such was the case, those who engaged in it would not be deterred by its abolition from pursuing their avocations in a still more objectionable form. He sincerely hoped that the Committee would not, by rejecting the Vote, carry its economical notions ad absurdum, and at the same time deprive the working classes of Scotland and Ireland of a principal source of amusement.

MR. ANDERSON

said, that despite what had been said, he did not believe that the people of Scotland took the smallest interest in racing.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 1,482l. 7s., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges, formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue, to the 31st day of March, 1854.

Motion negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(28.) 6,412l. 7s. 5d. Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 6,424l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1854,

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, there was a strong feeling out of doors against the continuance of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—a feeling which he believed was shared in by the people of Ireland themselves. He wished, therefore, to ask, whether the Government intended to introduce any Bill to do away with that office, and whether the Vote asked for was merely for this year?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was not able to say that since the formation of the present Government the question of continuing the existence of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had been formally under the consideration of the Government. At the same time, the hon. Baronet should understand that the Vote was necessary for its present continuance.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he thought that the answer of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was excessively unsatisfactory. Whatever the hon. Member for Westminster might say, the expression of opinion was strong in Ireland upon this subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given the frank denial which they should have expected from any member of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, no hesitation in adding to the taxation of Ireland. Now what the people of Ireland complained of was, that the Government drew from that country a large amount of taxation which was not spent upon it. The feeling in Ireland against the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy was nearly unanimous.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was not aware how the answer he gave to the question of the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) failed in point of practice. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Col. Dunne) would put to him another question, he would endeavour to improve upon his answer. The question asked by the hon. Member for Westminster was evidently intended to be put to some other Member of the Government; and out of courtesy to that hon. Member, in the absence of the Member of the Government to whose department the subject more properly belonged, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) answered it. The question was to the effect, whether the Government had any plan before them for the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? In reply, he stated that no plan of the kind was brought under the consideration of the present Government since it was formed. Now, there might be a great evasion in his answer, but he confessed he could not see any.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he would accept the challenge given him by the right hon. Gentleman, and he now begged to ask him whether he was aware of any intention on the part of the Government to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I am not aware of any such intention.

COLONEL DUNNE

I am satisfied with that answer.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, there were two items in the present Vote to which he objected—the one was 184l. 12s. 8d. for the Chaplain of Dublin Castle. Inasmuch as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was allowed a liberal salary, he thought his Excellency could afford to pay for his own chaplain. There was also an item of 1,574l. 6s. 2d. for fifteen Queen's plates, to be run for at races in Ireland. To those two items he could not assent. He would, therefore, move to reduce the vote by those two sums.

MR. HENCHY

said, that representing the county in which the races were principally run, he could safely say the people of Ireland attached very great value to these plates, and he thought they were very much indebted to them for their breed of horses. It would be ungenerous to withdraw these plates, and his constituents would feel it very severely, as a great body of them were engaged in pursuits connected with racing.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that he objected to the people of England and Ireland being taxed for the purpose of horse-racing, for it led to a system of gambling, worse, perhaps, than almost any other that existed.

MR. WISE

said, in England the Queen's plates were provided out of the Queen's private property, and he thought the Votes for Ireland and Scotland were for purposes that ought to be supported by private individuals.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR

said, he thought the financial reformers of that House would fall into contempt if they took away such paltry votes as these. They had now voted the money for the plates in Scotland, and he protested against a measure of this kind being allowed to one country which they would not allow to another. Considering the heavy calamity with which Ireland had been visited, and the spirit of oppression under which the people suffered, he thought the present moment would be an unfortunate one for depriving them of the opportunity of enjoying the exhilarating sport of racing.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 4,665l. 1s. 2d. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1854.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 31;. Noes 92: Majority 61.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

The two following Votes were then agreed to:—

(29.) 17,134l. Chief Secretary, Ireland. (30.) 7,472l. Paymaster of Civil Services Office, Ireland.

On (31) 30,153l. Board of Public Works, Ireland,

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the estimates, expense, and results of the different drainages executed under the orders of that Board, and the various complaints of persons interested in these drainages. There were two Committees appointed to inquire into the subject of drainage. The report of one of them was held cheaply by that House, and particularly by the Government, although he thought that it deserved much attention, inasmuch as it was made by gentlemen who were above all suspicion. The first Committee was appointed to estimate the right and the amount to be paid under the consolidated annuities. These had been pronounced to be unjust by a Committee of the House of Lords, but they had been offered by the present Government as an equivalent for a permanent impost. The second Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject of arterial drainage, of which the Earl of Rosse was Chairman. The Report of that Committee was as strong as it could be as to the estimate of those works. Upon the faith of that estimate twelve of the landed proprietors in Ireland undertook those works, believing them to be of great benefit to the country; but the original estimates generally were exceeded by three times their amount, and in many cases they went even beyond the value of the land. He did not think that any reparation could well be offered to those proprietors for the injustice to which they had been exposed. The misfortune was that all subjects of this nature affecting Ireland were placed in the hands of the Treasury. The Treasury was a bad executive; and the Lord Lieutenant and the Government of Ireland were in no way responsible for these works, which, he must be permitted to add, had been carried on in a manner that was disgraceful to a civilised country. He believed the intentions of England towards Ireland were now, and always had been, of a benevolent character; but the execution of those intentions had been most injurious to that country. He would take that opportunity, then, of warning Irish Members that they would do well to consider this question before they were called upon to enter on the general subject of taxation in Ireland.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not understand it to be the wish of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne) that the Committee should at that moment enter fully into the important question he had referred to. He would, therefore, content himself with assuring the hon. and gallant Member that it was a subject which had not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that they would take the earliest opportunity of going into the consideration of the whole question.

Vote agreed to.

(32.) 32,000l. Secret Service.

MR. WISE

said, he could not conceive for what purpose this secret service money was required.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he had opposed the Vote for a number of years, and was glad to find that latterly there was a considerable diminution in the amount asked for. He hoped that next year it would be still further reduced.

LORD DUDLEY STUART

said, there was no vote granted by the House of Commons which the public looked upon with greater suspicion, not to say dislike, than this Vote for secret service; and that feeling was not likely to decrease in consequence of certain suspicions which had lately spread throughout the country with regard to secret services, and the watching and inquiring about the proceedings of various individuals, whose names it was not necessary for him then to mention. He wished to know if the sum now asked for was the same in amount as that which was voted last year?

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

begged to ask if any portion of the Vote was applied to the support of the detective police?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, in reply to the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart's) question, that it was the same sum as was voted last year; and to the question of the hon. Member for Southwark, that no part of it was appropriated to the detective police.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following three Votes:—

On (36) 8,830l. Insolvent Debtors Courts.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, he wished to know whether the Government were aware that a considerable saving might be effected by transferring the business of the Insolvent Debtors Courts either to the Courts of Bankruptcy, or to the County Courts, or to both?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

thought the question was one which could hardly be dealt with on the estimates.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, the duties performed by the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors Courts were exceedingly light; and as the salaries of the County Court Judges had been increased, and as the time of some of them was not fully occupied, he did not see how the transfer suggested could be objected to.

MR. J. WILSON

said, the hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in supposing that the duties of the County Court Judges were light. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that it had recently been found necessary to provide additional accommodation on account of the increase of business.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, if the hon. Gentleman referred to the Returns, he would find that even in the County Courts of the metropolis there was a good deal of time unoccupied.

MR. FITZROY

said, the hon. Gentleman was not aware, perhaps, that in the country a great deal of the insolvent business was done in the County Courts.

Vote agreed to; as was also—

(37.) 107,405l. Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges, Scotland.

On (38) 56,950l. Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland,

COLONEL DUNNE

said, that the generality of prosecutions in Ireland were carried on at the expense of individuals, and not by the Crown. But if the system of taxation was to be equalised between the two countries, he thought the same alleviation in regard to the expenses of prosecutions should be extended to Ireland as now prevailed in England. Another point to which he desired to call the attention of the Government was, that in England the schoolmasters under the poor-law were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, whereas in Ireland it was not so.

MR. M'MAHON

said, he trusted that some alteration would be made in the present system with regard to the appointment of Crown prosecutors. He believed that at present the failure of justice was in too many instances to be traced to the fact of effete nominees of the Attorney General having to contend with young, active, and more experienced men than themselves.

MR. BROTHERTON

said, he wished to know if the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) would wish to see equality between the two countries carried out so as to include the payment of the constabulary in Ireland from local rates, as in this country, rather than be borne as at present by the Consolidated Fund?

COLONEL DUNNE

would have no objec- tion to that change, provided everything else were placed upon the same footing. The police were introduced by England, but Ireland also supported 25,000 soldiers for the general purposes of the Empire.

SIR JOHN YOUNG

said, he would admit that the present mode of assessing the county rates in Ireland was defective, and he recommended that the attention of Irish Gentlemen should be directed to the subject. He thought it was a fair matter for inquiry, and it was one to which he was ready to devote his best attention. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) he was not at all disposed to substitute the English system for the present mode of carrying on Crown prosecutions. At the same time he was far from saying that the Irish system was perfect, and he believed that means might be taken, by a different organisation in the localities, for collecting the evidence in a more perfect shape previous to the trial. The subject had already engaged the attention of the Irish Judges, and in the course of another year he hoped that some satisfactory conclusion would be arrived at.

MR. F. SCULLY

said, he thought the aged gentleman at present filling the office of Crown prosecutor in Ireland, should be got rid of, and by that means the system of public prosecutions could be amended.

MR. M'MAHON

said, it was impossible to have justice in Ireland unless the English system were adopted in respect to the prosecution of criminals.

Vote agreed to.

(39.) 36,000l. Police of Dublin.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he very much objected to the payment of this sum out of the Consolidated Fund. There might be some reason why the general police force should be placed on the fund—they were partly a military force; but he could see none for the Metropolitan Police.

Vote agreed to; as was also—

(40.) 240,000l. Certain Charges formerly paid out of the County Rates.

On (41) 16,839l. General Superintendence.

MR. LUCAS

said, he had a Motion in connexion with this Vote to bring before the House, which would create discussion, as it referred to the treatment of Roman Catholic prisoners. It was, he thought, too late to discuss it then, and he considered that it would be better that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

After short discussion on postponement,

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he had no objection to take the discussion on the bringing up the Report; but he could not consent to stop the progress of the Committee now, merely because the hon. Gentleman was not ready to make his statement.

Vote agreed to.

(42.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 407,667l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Government Prisons and Convict Establishments at Home, to the 31st day of March 1854.

MR, LUCAS

moved that the Chairman do report progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he trusted the Committee would not agree to the proposal. There was certainly no reason for reporting progress so early as eleven o'clock.

MR. LUCAS

said, the noble Lord had put the case as if he (Mr. Lucas) was not prepared to bring on the question. He had not put it on that ground, but upon the ground that it would lead to a longer debate than there was time for this evening, and because several hon. Gentlemen who wished to take part in the discussion were now absent. In the details appended to the Vote be found several sums, amounting to 4,520l., for chaplains and other religious instructors in these prisons. In the vote for Irish prisons, sums were included for Protestant chaplains, for Roman Catholic chaplains, and for Presbyterian chaplains; in other words, in Ireland the fact was recognised that there were criminals of different religions, and some sort of provision was thus made for their religious instruction and reformation. But in the Vote for Government prisons in England not a single sixpence was asked for the payment of Roman Catholic chaplains, nor was anything paid in the local or country prisons for Roman Catholic chaplains, though a large sum was proposed to be voted for the maintenance of prisoners in those gaols. County gaols were entirely under the management of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; the rules were sent to him every year, and any alterations, amendments, or additions which he made were obligatory and binding upon the local authorities. County prisons, as well as Government prisons, were therefore, as re- garded this question, under the management of the Home Secretary. What provision, then, was made for the religious instruction of Roman Catholic prisoners? None either in England or Scotland—with the exception of Millbank. Now he wanted to have an opportunity of laying the whole of this case before the Committee in detail; for it was impossible, without discussion, that so gross an injustice and absurdity should continue to be perpetrated. The motive of prison discipline was reformation; but with regard to Roman Catholic prisoners, reformation was begun with a profession of hypocrisy. The case was a grave one—it would require an answer from the Government, and it would certainly lead to a lengthened discussion on the part of Gentlemen who took the same view as himself. He had, therefore, no alternative but to press his Motion. To take the division now and the discussion afterwards was an absurdity, and he had only proposed it by way of joke.

MR. VERNON SMITH

thought the proposition of the hon. Gentleman very unreasonable; but if he was really determined to persevere with it, he (Mr. Smith) begged to submit to the noble Lord the leader of the House whether, with a view to the expedition of business, it would not be better at once to postpone the present vote, and proceed with others to which there was less objection. He begged at the same time to express a hope that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department would take an early opportunity of giving the House some explanation on the kindred subject of transportation? He found that there was an enormous increase proposed under this head, and it was mentioned that 120,000l. was to be taken "to provide additional accommodation for convicts on the cessation of transportation." Now he, for one, was not aware that transportation was completely to cease. There had been as yet no discussion in that House on the subject; and, from what he had gathered out of the discussion in another place, it was left in doubt as to what position the question stood in. He thought, then, that they were entitled to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department to give them some explanation of what this "additional accommodation" consisted, and also what secondary punishment he proposed to substitute for transportation?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he had no objection to the course proposed by his right hon. Friend with reference to the present Vote. With respect to the very important subject mentioned by his right hon. Friend, it was undoubtedly desirable that, on some rather early occasion, the views of the Government with respect to transportation should be stated to the House. It would, indeed, be necessary before long to bring in a Bill on this very subject; and, either on the introduction of that Bill, or on the discussion of this Vote, the views of the Government should be stated by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Motion, and Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Votes were then agreed to:—

On (49) 2,006l. Professors, Oxford and Cambridge,

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that having objected to the vote for Maynooth, he felt himself called upon to object to this vote also. It was very discreditable to the two Universities that they should require this annual vote. He understood that the college revenues of one of these Universities amounted to 150,000l. a year, and those of the other to 180,000l. Now he must say, colleges possessing this vast amount of wealth ought to be ashamed to come upon the public taxes of the country for this vote. The House had a return a few years ago of the number of persons who attended the lectures of the professors, from which it appeared that the attendance was most ridiculous. He hoped, therefore, that the vote would be withdrawn.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he also begged to enter his strong protest against this grant to the Universities. Those Universities excluded the majority of the people from the benefits which they yielded, and it was a piece of effrontery to tax this same majority of the people for the support of institutions from which they were excluded.

MR. BLACKETT

said, he wished to take that opportunity of putting a question to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. In a discussion which took place some weeks ago, the noble Lord, in speaking of the improvement which might be introduced into the Universities, used language to this effect—namely, that he should not invite the assistance of Parliament, unless the Universities should show themselves to be unwilling to propose certain reforms themselves; and he believed the noble Lord used the expression of "within the space of either one, two, or three years." Now, there was a very unhappy vagueness about this statement; and he put it to the noble Lord, whether, in the interest of the Universities themselves, and in order especially to give the University of Oxford a fair notion of what he intended, it would not be better to fix some definite period within which, if the Universities did not bring forward some satisfactory measures of reform, he would think it his duty to invite the assistance of Parliament.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he must beg to be allowed to mention, in the first place, with reference to the Vote then under discussion, that it had been stated several times on behalf of the Universities that they felt aggrieved that certain stamp duties should be levied upon them, especially upon taking degrees, and that they considered, on the whole, that they were more burdened by public taxation than benefited by the votes annually accorded them by the House of Commons. This statement he had certainly heard from quarters entitled to respect, and so far he might say that the whole question of this Vote combined with the burdens laid upon the Universities, was being considered by Government, and that if any arrangement could be made so as to render it unnecessary to ask for this Vote, they would be glad to adopt it; but at present, especially considering that the grant to those ancient institutions was the result of an engagement with reference to the civil list between that House and the Sovereign, he could not consent to withdraw the Vote. With respect to the question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Blackett), he did not think he had stated any specific time—either one, two, or three years—beyond which he should consider the Government were free to propose any enactment which they might think necessary for the government and management of the Universities. What he had said was, that he did not think it would be expedient to proceed at present—meaning in the course of the present Session. The hon. Gentleman had asked him to fix a definite time beyond which he would not delay inviting the assistance of Parliament; but he (Lord J. Russell) would rather not fix any particular time. His would, however, hold the Government free to proceed after the present Session—he would consider that they were not bound to wait beyond that time.

SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS

said, he must meet the statement of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) with a similar answer to similar statements. The hon. Member had periodically made the same complaint, and as the reply, in facts and figures, was the same, truth required that the same answer should always be returned. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said, the Universities paid a large sum in stamps for degrees, &c. The Universities paid double the amount in stamps—double the amount, in fact, which was received in the shape of fees. The grant to the professors was an act of liberality on the part of the Crown, for the purpose of encouraging learning. The grant at first was paid out of the revenues of the Crown, but by an arrangement on the part of that House it had been transferred from the Crown to the civil list. It was rather too much for that House to say now, that having got the control of the public funds, they would put an end to the bargain. About twenty years ago, another hon. Member for Lambeth brought forward a proposition of this kind; and Mr. Spring Rice, the present Lord Monteagle, then one of the Lords of the Treasury, laid on the table the documentary evidence, by which what he had just stated was proved to be the fact. If Government would not exact the stamp duty on degrees, he had no doubt the Universities would not be unwilling to consider how their claim to the smaller sum could be waived. With reference to the time to be given the Universities to come forward with their plan of reform, the noble Lord specifically said to the Universities, Government will not interfere if you will consent to destroy professorial chairs, and disregard the wills and intentions of founders; but Government could hardly expect that the Universities would adopt such a course indicated to them. SIR DE LACY EVANS said, he thought the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge stood on a very different footing from the University of London, for which a similar vote would next be taken. Oxford and Cambridge had very large property belonging to them, and the system of education there was most expensive. It was very proper to promote the education of the people; but the most opulent classes of the country received their education at Oxford and Cambridge, and the charges were abundantly large. Knowing that those Universities were richly endowed, that they possessed many sinecure appointments, and that the higher classes alone were educated within their walls, he did think it inconsistent to ask the public to contribute the sum of 2,000l. under the name of professors.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, he agreed that the University of London was on a very different footing from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The latter not only excluded those who could not conform to the established religion of the country, but prevented any divulgement of facts with regard to finances and endowments, by the imposition of oaths. They ought to look with great jealousy on societies that would not give the slightest information as to what were their incomes, or how they were derived. They must assume that their resources were abundant, and, therefore, a contribution from the State unnecessary. He was a great friend to education, and was glad to see the system of instruction by professors extended; but he thought the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had money enough of their own, and should oppose the vote.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) had stated that this grant was the consequence of a bargain on the part of the Crown; but he would like to know who authorised the Crown to make such a bargain. Some of the Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge possessed estates yielding 10,000l., 15,000l, 20,000l., and even 30,000l. a year, and he thought it was most unjustifiable that the representatives of the people should be asked to provide lecturers for such institutions at salaries of something like 100l. a year each. He would not divide the Committee if he had the assurance of the noble Lord that the Government would take these matters into consideration.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, he thought the argument of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) had been either entirely evaded or overlooked. The argument was this: That this sum was the property of the Universities; that it was granted by the Crown; that Parliament chose to take upon themselves the payment of sums for which the Crown was pledged; and now, having done that, they wanted to break the bargain, and come and talk there of honour and integrity.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following four Votes:—

On (54), 2,750l. Theological Professors at Belfast,

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 2,750l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of the Theological Professors at Belfast, and Retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution, to the 31st day of March, 1854.

MR. MIALL

said, he understood this Vote would be given for the purpose of religious teaching in Belfast. A majority of the Committee had objected to a vote of a similar character with regard to Maynooth College, in Ireland. The principle laid down was, not that they objected to the Roman Catholic religion as such, but to public money being given for religious teaching of any kind. In consistency, therefore, they were bound to refuse this Vote.

SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS

said, the hon. Member could only answer for himself and the views which dictated his vote, but he for one had never scrupled to declare he objected to paying any money for teaching that which he conscientiously disapproved. In conscience he disapproved of the teaching in Maynooth, and on that ground he objected to the vote with regard to Maynooth; but that was not the ground on which he conceived himself justified in objecting to any other vote on the table of the House.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, the great objection of the Nonconformists was to any allowance of the State for the teaching of religion, and, therefore, he should join in voting against this sum.

The CHAIRMAN

asked if the hon. Member for Rochdale proposed to divide?

MR. MIALL

said, he should certainly divide the Committee upon the whole of his class of votes.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 700l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of the Theological Professors at Belfast, and Retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution, to the 31st day of March, 1854.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 130: Majority 109.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

The following Votes were then agreed to—

The House resumed; Committee report progress.