Commons Sitting of 12 June 1854

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Morpeth, v. Right Hon. Sir George Grey, Bart., Secretary of State.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Excise Duties (Sugar); Landlord and Tenant (Ireland); Leasing Powers (Ireland).

STAMP DUTIES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. HUMEsaid, he rose to submit some objections, which he thought ought to be valid in a free trade House of Commons. This Bill was a matter affecting the currency of the country, and a matter which he believed would have the worst possible effect upon the commercial world. If stamp duties on bills of exchange could not be taken off and replaced by some uniform tax of a small sum on all bills, of

1361
whatever amount they might be, he had no objection to the first clause. He admitted that the schedule annexed to the Bill was in itself an improvement, because it gave relief to smaller bills, which had hitherto been heavily taxed. But with respect to the second clause, imposing duties upon foreign bills of exchange, he entertained the strongest objections, because any additional restrictions upon foreign bills of exchange must be very injurious to the general commerce of the country. In his opinion by far the best course would be to impose a small tax of 3d. or 6d. on all bills, whether inland or foreign, which might be done with little loss to the revenue; but if that was not done, then the distinction which had hitherto existed between foreign and inland bills ought still to be maintained. If the tax on bills of exchange were a good tax, it would have increased proportionately with the increase of commercial transactions, but it appeared the revenue from that source, which in 1815 was about 800,000 l., had actually fallen last year to 596,000 l. By Sir Robert Peel's Bills of 1819 and 1845, the currency of the country was positively limited, bankers being prevented issuing notes except on metal foundation, and since the latter date banks which issued between 700,000 l. and 800,000 l. in notes had entirely ceased operations, so that the currency was so much deficient. Every hon. Gentleman who had attended at all to the subject must be aware that our bills of exchange were a great commercial advantage, and that there had been times when, without them, our trade would have been at a standstill, and the whole country would have become bankrupt. With a largely increased trade and a restricted currency, it was more than ever important that no new impediments should be thrown in the way of the free circulation of commercial bills. His own opinion was that an uniform tax of sixpence, or something of that kind, upon all such bills, would tend to give much greater facilities to trade than were afforded by the present system; but if they could not come to that, let them at least not lay a new tax upon foreign bills, which had never been taxed before. Free trade was making England the emporium of the world—the great depôt for the world's produce; but if they passed this Bill and imposed this duty upon bills drawn abroad, they would be limiting their own means of paying for this produce, and preventing this country from becoming the
1362
emporium of the money market, as she was already the emporium of commerce. He saw by to-day's papers, that upwards of 500,000 l. sterling in dollars had been imported into this country in the course of the last week from various parts of the world. Of this large amount, probably not more than 50,000 l. would remain to pay debts in this country, while the remainder would be drawn upon from France, and Germany, and Holland, and other parts of Europe; and it was easy to see that the imposition of a stamp duty upon such drafts would materially interfere with the freedom of our exchanges, and put impediments in the way of commerce. It was for this reason that he intended to propose. in Committee that the second portion of this Bill should be expunged.
MR. GREGSONsaid, he approved of the Government proposal, and dissented from the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) as to the effects of the duty on bills of exchange.
MR. THORNELYsaid, he objected to the tax on foreign and colonial bills. The amount would be very considerable; for he had heard an American merchant in the City of London say that in his office alone the stamps would be 6,000 l. a year. It was not, however, the amount so much as the vexatious manner in which the tax was to be imposed that the commercial world complained of; and he did wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose financial propositions had been so liberally met by the House, had refrained from laying on a new tax which he thought Would be very prejudicial to the foreign trade of the country.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, his objections to the difference of duty was to be found in the four schedules. To be fair, the duty ought to be uniform. He objected to the principle of taxing bills of exchange; but if such securities were to be taxed at home, he confessed he could not see on what principle of justice or consistency they should be exempted abroad.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would suggest that as this was a Bill, not for the purpose of imposing a tax upon foreign bills of exchange, but for the purpose of amending the stamp laws in various particulars, of which this was only one, and as he did not apprehend that it was intended to take any vote upon the question "that the Speaker do leave the Chair," the better course would

1363
be to go into Committee at once, and to take the discussion upon the schedules when they came to them.
House in Committee, Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.
Clauses 1, 2, and 3 were agreed to.
Clause 4 (The holder of a bill drawn out of the United Kingdom to affix an adhesive stamp thereupon before negotiating it).
MR. HUMEsaid, that as this was the clause by which it was intended to impose the duty, it was his intention to take the sense of the Committee.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would put it to the Committee whether the more preferable course would not be to agree to the clauses, and raise the question of the hon. Member for Montrose on the schedules. It would be competent for the hon. Member to move the omission of "foreign bills of exchange" from the schedule.
MR. MASTERMANsaid, that these clauses involved the whole question, and submitted that the more direct and convenient course would be to take the sense of the Committee on the clause, for then the decision of the Committee would at once touch the principle of the proposal, which could not be the case if the question were merely treated as a part of the schedule.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, he took the same view of the case, for there could be no doubt that the fourth clause raised the whole question whether there was to be a stamp on foreign bills. The principle was involved in this clause.
MR. HUMEsaid, he should now move that the clause be expunged from the Bill. He did not know whether the Committee was at all aware of the large amount of bills of exchange in circulation in this country. He confessed that he himself had had no accurate idea until he had inquired into the subject of the extent to which the commerce of the country was dependent on them. The amount of bank-notes in circulation was as nothing when compared with them. According to the estimate of Mr. Newmarch, a gentleman who had paid considerable attention to the subject, there were drawn for the purposes of the small farmer and the retail tradesmen bills of exchange of the average amount of 21 l. 2s., having an average time to run of two months and seven days, to no less an amount than 6,325,000 l. The amount of bills of the average amount of 140 l., with an average time to run of
1364
three months and six days, drawn chiefly upon parties who supply themselves with goods directly from the importer or manufacturer, was 35,800,000 l. a year, while the larger bills, of the average amount of 1,965 l., reached to no less an amount than 51,000,000 l. Of the total amount of bills of exchange in circulation in this country, estimated at 160,000,000 l. or 170,000,000 l., it might fairly be calculated that one-fourth were bills drawn abroad; and as he thought we ought to do everything in our power to invite trade, instead of imposing additional restrictions upon it, he hoped the Committee would mark its opinion upon the subject by assenting to his Motion to strike out the clause.
MR. GLYNsaid, he might well agree with the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, that all stamp duties were in some degree impediments to commercial transactions, and under some circumstances he might probably concur with him in thinking that an uniform rate of duty might, perhaps, be expedient. Considering, however, that these were questions which involve the loss of a very large amount of revenue, and considering that these were not times when they could call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give up any tax, which was collected without much difficulty, he could not support his hon. Friend in the view which he took of the measure now before the Committee. He did not think that the reasons which had induced the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose that measure had been quite accurately stated. As he understood the object of the Bill, it was intended to obviate two great evils which existed under the present system. The first was a legal difficulty which had arisen, and which materially affected the holders of foreign and colonial bills; and the second was the grievance which had been felt for many years by the holders of small bills of exchange, not only on account of the pressure of the tax as it stands, but on account of the disadvantage at which they were placed with reference to their neighbours who were holders of foreign bills, and who were able to use them without being subject to any tax at all. With respect to the first difficulty, his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) had very truly stated the total amount of bills in circulation in this country at about 160,000,000 l., of which he (Mr. Glyn) estimated that about one-fifth were foreign or colonial bills; but his hon. Friend had

1365
omitted to speak of a third class, upon which this proposition of the Government mainly rested—of those bills which, purporting to be drawn in the Colonies, were in fact drawn in this country, and the innocent holders of which had, in a great number of instances, sustained severe loss, against which it had been wholly impossible for them to protect themselves. He spoke in the presence of Gentlemen who had suffered from this system, which had been carried on to a much greater extent than hon. Members probably had any idea of, and which penalties had been found altogether ineffectual to repress. With respect to the second point, he had himself presented petitions from several places relative to this subject, and he knew that there was a decided objection on the part of small dealers in the country to the manner in which this tax was at present levied. They complained, and justly complained, that it was unfair in its proportions, and bore very heavily upon them. Referring to the petition which had been presented against this Bill by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Masterman) the Member for the City of London, he was sure his hon. Friend would not deny that, upon this question, he did not represent the interests or the opinions of those large dealers in bills of exchange in the City of London, and elsewhere, who were so largely interested in it. They had caused it to be communicated to his hon. Friend that they disagreed with his views upon this subject. There might be something in the objection which was made upon the score of "trouble" if the Government had proposed that the holder of the bill should be compelled to send it to the Stamp Office, and to part with it out of his possession for the purpose of the stamp being affixed; but this difficulty was effectually disposed of by the simple provision in the Bill for affixing an adhesive stamp. He was quite aware of the complaints of trouble and inconvenience that were made when the postage stamp was first introduced, but he never heard of any complaints nowadays on that subject. If there was any ground for apprehending that the measure would materially interfere, as his hon. Friend had suggested, with the foreign operations of the country, he should be very sorry to say anything in its favour, or to take any steps to promote it; but what could be the effect of a duty of 1s. per cent upon the foreign bills of exchange negotiated in this country? At the very outside it would
1366
be only a small deduction from the commission, and would not, be felt confident, have the slightest effect upon the general transactions of the country. They knew that in the case of marine and fire insurances, although much heavier duties were imposed than that which was here proposed, foreigners still came to this country to insure; and so they would continue to do as long as England sustained her credit and her character for industry, integrity, and capital. Considering that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to remove a grievance from the holders of foreign bills of exchange, and to relieve the internal trade of the country from a very heavy impost, he had the greatest pleasure in supporting the proposition.
MB. MASTERMANsaid, he differed entirely from the statement of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn), that the great majority of the merchants of the City of London regarded the proposal of the Government with favour. He believed, on the contrary, that they were altogether opposed to the imposition of a tax upon bills drawn out of the United Kingdom. Nor could lie agree in the principle that long and short dated bills should be taxed to the same extent. It had been the policy of Parliament of late years to unshackle foreign trade in every possible way, and now they were called upon to legislate in an opposite direction, and to place a tax upon that which had never been taxed before.
MR. W. BROWNsaid, that believing that it had been the aim of Parliament by recent legislation to make London, if possible, the money market of the world, he must regard this proposal to tax foreign bills of exchange as an interference with that most desirable object. Nor could he help thinking that it was a most severe blow against the manufacturing and agricultural industry of the country.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, this had been denominated a new tax, but so far from that being the case, it was in the main a great reduction of an old tax, in fact it was a proposal to bring about an equalisation of duties upon home and foreign transactions. At present all bills drawn in the United Kingdom on places out of the United Kingdom, and therefore representing the whole of the exports of the country, were subject to rates in the following proportions:—All bills under 100 l. were chargeable with a stamp duty of 1s. 6d., but by the new scale they would be chargeable

1367
only with a stamp of a penny. Bills drawn on foreign countries up to 500 l. were chargeable with a 4s. stamp, but now they would be chargeable with a stamp varying from 1s. to 1s. 8d., and it was not until bills reached the amount of 3,000 l. that the duty would rise to the existing scale. The only new element in the Bill was, that foreign bills drawn out of this country and payable in this country would be subject to the same reduced and moderate stamp which would be charged on bills drawn in this country and payable out of it. In making this great reduction on the whole mass of bills circulated in this country, it was but fair to ask that all bill transactions should, as far as possible, equally contribute to the tax. When bill stamps were first introduced there could be no doubt that it was a great trouble to the merchants sending bills out of the country to have to send them to the Stamp Office for the purpose of getting them stamped, but the introduction of an ad valorem stamp rendered that arrangement practicable which was not practicable before. He was at a loss to understand why a large amount of tax should be thrown on bill stamps in one class of transactions and why another class of transactions should be entirely relieved from such an impost. If money was to be raised on stamp duties, the duty ought to be imposed as equably and lightly as possible on the whole transactions of the country, whether those transactions were home transactions or foreign transactions. He was surprised to hear the assertion that the proposition would be injurious to the agricultural interest. When he considered that the present amount of duty on bills up to 20 l. was 1s. 6d. instead of the proposal of the Government of 2d., the present duty was an entire prohibition of that means of settling accounts; and the regularity in the settlement of small monetary affairs was a matter of no slight consideration, for nothing tended more to the uniformity of conducting business. The way in which the great warehouse-keepers of London had been able to conduct their business on small profits arose from the circumstance of their having the opportunity of drawing up their accounts at the end of each month. By reducing the rates of small bills, the same facility would be given to tradesmen in regard to small transactions that now existed in regard to large transactions. The advantages to be derived from the arrangement now proposed would not be con-
1368
fined to mere financial operations, but would have a material influence on the regulation of small transactions in business. The objection that no difference was made between long-dated bills and short-dated bills was one which he never expected would have been urged, for if there was one advantage greater than another in drawing bills, it was simplicity; and so far as he had had communication with the traders of the country, they regarded that as one of the most advantageous elements of the Bill. Then with regard to the supposed evil which this Bill would have on our foreign operations. In his opinion, so far from having a prejudicial effect on such operations, its effect would be beneficial. Although this was the first time of imposing a stamp on bills drawn abroad, the reduction on bills drawn in this country would be very great, for the duty would be reduced to one-twentieth per cent of the amount. It should be recollected that from time immemorial stamps had been chargeable on all bills circulated in France and Holland—in the chief monetary markets next to London. The imposition of stamps had not prevented Paris and Amsterdam from becoming large money markets; and, considering the greater facilities which this country possessed, he did not apprehend a consequence here which had not followed in those places. There could be no doubt that in monetary operations bills might be multiplied on one transaction to a great extent; but those multiplications would be for the convenience and profit of the parties concerned, and if there were separate profits and separate commissions on each transaction, he did not see why they should not bear a small tax. Seeing that the objections to the proposition were so slight, and the advantages to be derived from it so great, he trusted that the Committee would have no hesitation in giving it their assent.
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he approved of that part of the Bill which made the stamp an ad valorem duty, but he objected to the new tax about to be imposed on foreign bills drawn abroad. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Wilson) said, that such bills were taxed in France and Holland. Now that was the very reason which gave England an advantage over those countries. There was a time when this country was the great centre of marine insurance for the world, as it was now the great centre of the monetary transactions of the world. Why did we lose the profitable marine in-

1369
surance? By imposition of a stamp duty on marine insurances. How did that duty operate? It operated as a bounty upon the establishment of marine insurance companies in every country in the world, and not only did those companies do the business of foreign countries, but a very large portion of the business of English merchants. The Government were now proceeding on the same principle which was acted upon at that time, instead of inviting as much trade as possible to the country. It was impossible to tax foreigners without driving their business to other countries. The extent of the present evil was known, and if the money could not be spared at that moment, it would be much better to let affairs remain in their present state than run the risk of creating a greater evil.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he thought it would be much better to have only one schedule, and to make the tax as moderate as possible until it could be entirely removed. If a tax was to be imposed on bills or promissory notes, it ought to be imposed without reference to the place drawing or the place of payment.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, he thought every one would admit that, if there was not some great evil to be remedied, or some great advantage to be obtained, it was most unwise to disturb fiscal regulations, and even then any alteration ought to be considered with reference to the extent to which it might be made convenient or inconvenient and injurious to the trade of the country. The evil complained of was, that there were bills of exchange purporting to be drawn from abroad upon places in England, which in reality were drawn in England, and which, when brought forward as evidence of a claim of debt, were not considered legal documents. Now, that difficulty might be got over by allowing such documents to be stamped if the holder could show himself innocent of fraud. But the object of drawing these bills was not to evade the tax of a few shillings, but to have documents which could be discounted, and upon which money could be raised, and he considered that the proposed small stamp would not prevent the creation of these fraudulent bills of exchange. If it answered the purposes of parties to draw bills in London, dating them from New York, Madras, or Calcutta, without a stamp, they would carry on their business in exactly the same way if a stamp should be imposed, because it was not a question of the payment of a few shillings, but
1370
whether hundreds and thousands of pounds could be raised. If the object was to make such a bill a legal document, it could be effected without the imposition of this novel tax. It was not correct to say, that a similar system was adopted everywhere else. It was not the case in Hamburg, in Holland, in Prussia, or Amsterdam. It was true there was a stamp one way, but the present plan was to impose a stamp both ways. In the United States, our great commercial rival, such a stamp would not be imposed. If the object of the Bill was to do justice to this country, it could be done by reducing the rates upon inland bills of exchange, without exposing the foreign trade to a new and a novel tax. It had been said that the plan would not give any additional trouble, but the affixing of the stamp would be productive of a great amount of vexation. If the clerk should make an error in the ad valorem amount of duty, it would vitiate the bill of exchange and relieve the endorsees from their liability, and the bill would be equally vitiated, if in the course of circulation the adhesive stamp should be rubbed off. The effect of the proposition would be to place a tax upon the banking operations of the country, and he could not conceive a more unwise proceeding. Was it right, when the object of Parliament had been to remove every shackle from foreign trade, to say we will now tax foreign bills both ways? The tax would not fall on the foreigner alone, but on the commercial transactions of this country. He saw no necessity for the tax. It would throw a difficulty in the way of foreign negotiations and exchanges, for, without the aid of men dealing in foreign exchanges, the greatest difficulties would arise in effecting payment for the transfer of foreign produce. He therefore objected to the proposition upon principle, and should give his vote against its adoption.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there could be no doubt that a tax upon foreign bills, as well as upon all bills of exchange, was objectionable; but, as he understood the matter, the object of the Bill was to reduce a most oppressive and heavy tax upon inland bills of exchange, and he considered that object a most desirable one.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was very desirous, before the Committee divided, that they should understand clearly the real meaning and effect of the vote which they were about to give, because the speech of the hon. Mem-

1371
ber for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) had placed the real points of the case entirely out of the view of the Committee. No doubt, if they could dispense with the tax upon foreign bills of exchange, it would be most desirable to do so; but the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. W. Williams) was prepared to vote for the measure on account of the great relief which it would afford with respect to home bills. He could not subscribe to the proposition that this was the imposition of a new tax. It was the uniform and equal application of the existing tax by the removal of exemption with respect to foreign bills of exchange, which they had no title whatever to enjoy. It proceeded on the principle that all trade—whether a trade between this country and other countries, or whether a trade between the agricultural districts of the country and the manufacturing districts of the country—it proceeded on the principle that all trade was barter. The exchange of commodities was the basis of trade. That was a consideration as applicable in all cases to foreign as to home trade. He should be happy, if possible, to dispense with the duty on all bills of exchange; but at the present time the finances of the country would not allow of such a proceeding. He proceeded on this principle—that it was eminently desirable for all parties concerned that the basis of barter, the exchange of commodities, should be worked, whether in the home or foreign trade, through the medium of bills of exchange. This was not a mere fiscal matter, but one of the greatest commercial importance. He would appeal to those connected with agriculture whether anything could be harder than the case of the retail dealers, who, in this respect, were labouring under a scale of duties absolutely prohibitory. The hon. Member for Huntingdon had intimated that the object of that House had been to remove shackles from the trade of the country. He was not aware that that had altogether been the object of the hon. Member. The hon. Member seemed to be of opinion that the House was now retracing its steps. Now, Parliament had removed the shackles from foreign trade in order to place it on a footing of equality with the home trade, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) now asked the Committee to remove the shackles from the home trade and to place it on an equality with the foreign trade. He wanted to know why the retail trader in a town was to be pre-
1372
cluded from the advantage of raising money bills of 20 l., 30 l., or 40 l., which was the case at present, in consequence of the prohibitory duties now in existence, and which had the effect of checking, hampering, and restricting commerce—a tax, not of one-twentieth per cent, but a tax amounting to 2, 2½, 3, 4, 5, and even 6 per cent—a tax that doubled the rate of interest? That was the system now in operation with regard to the home trade—that was the system which he now asked the Committee to destroy. It was said, "Destroy that system if you please, but don't lay a tax on foreign bills." Now, his answer to that was plainly this—it was impossible at the present moment to undertake the reformation of the law of stamps on bills of exchange, except upon principles which would allow the Government to derive the same amount of revenue from that source. Moreover, he was not willing to be a party to the continuance of an exemption in favour of trade with foreign countries which was not enjoyed by our trade at home. He agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. John Macgregor) that if a bill of exchange were to be taxed, it ought to be taxed irrespective of the origin of the transaction. He should be perfectly willing to see the tax reduced when the revenue of the country would afford it; but he maintained that the principle upon which he proposed this alteration was similar to that on which the House had last year reformed the assessed taxes, and on which it had made other fiscal reforms, namely, that of reducing the taxes so as to make them moderate in amount, and uniform and fair in their application, and of removing invidious exemptions which rested upon no just principle. This matter was considered by persons engaged in trade to be one of great importance. He held in his hand a memorial which had been forwarded to him by the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Masterman), who had himself borne testimony to the great respectability and weight of those by whom it was signed. These persons, without entering into the abstract question of the merits of the duty or of its extension to foreign bills, felt that a system of equality and uniformity ought to prevail, and that the removal of the prohibitory duties, which now prevented the use of small bills in the home trade of the country, was a matter of vital importance, and of vital importance, not only as an abstract and theoreti-

1373
cal question, but because, by facilitating the settlement of accounts, by substituting definite and fixed engagements for mere vague, open credits, it would give more stability and more respectability to the whole mass of the small transactions of the country. These were the grounds upon which the Committee was asked to affirm this proposition, and it must be distinctly understood that if that House continued to the foreign trade the partial, and, as he thought, unjust exemption which it enjoyed, and which he proposed to remove by imposing a duty of 1s. for each 100 l., it would be impossible for him to proceed with the great and important change which he proposed to make in the stamps upon inland bills of exchange, because the state of the Treasury would not, under such circumstances, permit it to be proceeded with. He would not trouble the Committee, after what had been said by the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn), with any observations upon the state of the law in regard to innocent holders; but he must say that he did not think that a matter of 1s. per cent was that which was to turn the scale as between London and any market on the Continent, especially when he was aware that France, with Paris the second money market of the world, and Holland, with Amsterdam the third money market, both at this moment adopted this very principle. [Mr. T. BARING dissented.] At the mention of Amsterdam the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Baring) shook his head, but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had in his hand an official report from Holland, which showed that in that country the tax was laid upon both home and foreign bills. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) seemed to think that the whole matter of the resort of money to a particular capital was determined by the existence of a stamp of this kind. Upon this point he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would supply his hon. Friend with a single fact. At this moment there was a stamp on foreign bills in Amsterdam, but none in London. In London the rate of discount was 3 per cent. In Amsterdam it was 6 per cent. The object of this measure was not to make additional resources for the Exchequer, but to effect a reform applicable to the internal trade of the country, which, though he granted there was a difference of opinion about it in the City of London, yet in Glasgow and Manchester, and by the great body of the traders of this coun-
1374
try, the success of the measure was regarded with great eagerness and anxiety.
MR. MASTERMANsaid, he must beg to explain that the petition to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred as having been presented by him made no reference to the imposition of a stamp on foreign bills of exchange, to which he was opposed. He did not object to the reduction of the duty on inland bills, but he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had better abandon that than persevere with his other alteration.
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he wished to inquire what sum was expected to be produced by the stamp on foreign bills?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he did not believe that any man in England could give a reliable estimate on that subject. According to the best authorities, the amount of foreign bills circulating in this country was 200,000,000 l., and the duty upon them would be 1s. on the 100 l.
MR. SANDARS: Sir, as a representative of a mercantile community largely engaged in the foreign trade of the country, on their behalf I object to the novel and vexatious tax proposed by this Bill to be put on all foreign bills of exchange. To some houses the amount is considerable, to all it is a vexatious and annoying impost. And although, Sir, I quite agree with the proposal to reduce the stamp on all small inland bills of exchange, I do object, on the part of the manufacturers and merchants, to the great increase proposed to be levied by this Bill on the large bills of exchange. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has called it a mere transfer of duty from inland to foreign bills of exchange. Sir, it is no such thing, as it proposes a much heavier tax on all bills beyond the amount of 750 l., and, in fact, on amounts from 2,000 l. to 3,000 l., the amount proposed is double, raising the duty from 15 s. to 30 s. And, further, the present maximum rate is but 25 s., and it is proposed to increase this to 45 s. Sir, I repeat, on behalf of the mercantile classes of this country, I protest against this increase. I have no objection to the reduction in small sums, but I do object to the levying of that deficiency on the larger bills of exchange.
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, although the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was impossible to give anything like a reliable estimate as to the amount he expected

1375
to derive from this duty, he (Mr. Macgregor) thought the least they could expect from him was to state upon what estimate he brought forward this measure. He agreed in the measure so far as to the propriety of the reduction of the duty upon inland bills of exchange; but he entirely objected to the tax proposed in relation to foreign bills of exchange. That was a tax which would amount to 2½ per cent per annum. He would certainly vote against the proposition.
MR. HUMEsaid, that the Committee ought to understand correctly upon what they were going to vote. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had altogether perverted—had altogether misstated the object of the vote. He agreed in the opinion that the proposition in respect to inland bills of exchange was a great advantage; but he objected to taxing now, for the first time, foreign bills of exchange. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had treated the question fairly. He (Mr. Hume), and those with whom he acted, said, and firmly believed, that the right hon. Gentleman would endanger the foreign commerce of the country by placing a tax upon foreign bills of exchange.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he also approved of the alteration in regard to inland bills, but he thought that the proposed impost upon foreign bills, though not large in amount, would be troublesome and vexatious, and would cause much loss to gentlemen who did not understand it. He considered that injustice would be done to foreign transactions if foreign bills of exchange were to be taxed, and recommended those who had no experience in regard to such bills to suspend their judgment, and not to imagine that because the tax was small it would be less onerous.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 173; Noes 110: Majority 63.
Clause agreed to, as were also the four succeeding clauses.
Clause 9 (Exemption from Receipt Stamp Duty by letters acknowledging receipt of bills, &c., repealed).
MR. VANCEsaid, he should move that this clause be omitted. From time immemorial it had been permitted that the receipt of bills of exchange should be acknowledged without the requirement of a stamp. and he did not see why that privilege should now be abolished.
MR. GLYNsaid, he wished to know to
1376
what extent it was proposed the clause should go? He thought it would be most vexatious to oblige persons to stamp their letters acknowledging the ordinary remittances by post.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, the law at present was in a most unsatisfactory state as regards this subject. The exemption according to law was by no means the exemption that was generally understood. The exemption from stamp duty, according to law, only applied to a person acknowledging the safe arrival of a letter containing bills of exchange or cash; but if he stated to what purpose such inclosures were to be put he was liable to stamp duty. If, in fact, a person acknowledging the receipt of such remittances said that he placed them to the credit of another, he became liable to the stamp. That was the state of the law for many years past, although he admitted it was not so understood. When this exemption was first granted, the postage was very high. Now, however, we had a uniform penny postage, and there was not the same reason for exempting from the receipt stamp letters sent through the Post Office acknowledging the receipt of bills or cash. He ought to add, that this exemption still prevailed in reference to bankers, because they have an exemption under the Stamp Act of last year, and it was not necessary for them to stamp their letters acknowledging the receipt of any moneys placed for the use of their customers.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, that the hon. Secretary for the Treasury had just stated what appeared to him (Mr. Butt) to be contrary to law; he therefore thought it a pity that such a statement should go forth without contradiction. The hon. Gentleman said that a letter merely acknowledging the receipt of bills of exchange or cash would not require a stamp; but if the person receiving them added that the inclosed would be placed to the credit of a party, it would, by the existing law, be liable to a stamp. Now, he (Mr. Butt) had had some experience in the law; but be confessed it was the first time he ever heard such a law laid down. He should be much surprised if the hon. Secretary to the Treasury could produce any law to that effect.
MR. VANCEsaid, he would propose the omission of the clause altogether. He believed that the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn) was about to oppose the clause until he heard that there was an exemption in favour of bankers. He (Mr. Vance)

1377
did not see why bankers should enjoy an exemption in this matter.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 (Stamp duties on duplicates and progressive duties to be chargeable on conveyances described in 16 & 17 Vict. c. 63),
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he begged to propose to add to the clause the words—
"And, further, the duty charged in the said Act of last Session (16 & 17 Vict. c. 63) on conveyances in England and Ireland, and charter, disposition, or contract containing the first original constitution of feu and ground annual rents in Scotland, in consideration of any annual sum payable in perpetuity, or for any indefinite period, whether for farm rent, feu duty, ground annual or otherwise, shall be abolished; and in lieu or substitution for such abolished duty there shall be a duty on the same scale as on a lease or tack of any lands, tenements, hereditaments, or heritable subjects at a yearly rent, without any sum of money by way of fine, premium, or grassum paid for the same, or, where the same shall be with such fine, premium, or grassum, and also of a yearly rent, amounting to 20 l. and upwards, then both the ad valorem duties payable for a lease in consideration of a fine only, and for a lease in consideration of a rent only of the same amount; and, further, that in computing the rent chargeable with conveyance duty by the said last-mentioned Act, a due allowance and deduction shall be made from such rent for any original rent or rents that the premises conveyed shall be subject or liable to."
In point of fact, there was practically no distinction in the interest conveyed by a lease for 1,000 or 10,000 years and a conveyance of the fee simple, and it was therefore unjust that the duty charged in the latter case should be twenty-five times as heavy as that paid in the former, as was at present the ease. This unjust distinction was at present acting very injuriously upon the operations of freehold land societies, which had been established for the purpose of enabling the working classes to build houses upon their own land. He trusted that the Committee would agree to the adoption of a similar scale of charges in the case of both the species of conveyance to which he had referred.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the considerations by which he had been governed with reference to this question were of a character which must lead the Committee to come to the same conclusion as that at which he had arrived. It was said that this was a question in which Scotland was concerned, and it was in order to meet the wishes and interests of the people of Scotland that a change in the law had been
1378
made last year. It was stated at that time, that whereas a bit of land of the value of 25 l. might be conveyed out and out for the sum of 2s. 6d., or of the value of 50 l. for 5s., or of the value of 100 l. for 10 s., yet that if anybody chose, instead of purchasing out and out, to purchase, subject to a payment of chief rent, in that case he must pay 35 s., whatever might be the amount of his purchase. That was the practice throughout the whole of Scotland, and, no doubt, it operated with extreme severity there. It was not, therefore, for the purpose of raising revenue, but of acceding to a claim which he thought eminently just, that he made certain proposals to the House, of which they had six weeks' notice, and which had occupied fully a month in going through that House. If the hon. Member made his appeal on the part of persons purchasing for small amounts, he begged to remind him that the present law was adapted to meet their case, and to relieve them from the great injustice to which they were subject. So far as the purchasers for small amounts were concerned, they were by no means prejudiced or damnified, but, on the contrary, were greatly relieved by the law as it stands. The objection of the hon. Member related to cases where the purchases were for such an amount as to make the duty greater than 35 s. That was a question that must be determined upon principle, and they must proceed upon general rules. It might be very convenient to certain parties if it were said that so long as the amount of the purchase made the duty below the old duty of 35 s., they should charge according to the principle of 10 s. per cent; but when it was more than 35 s., then they should not charge it upon that principle, but make it a uniform 35 s. But the effect of that would be to reintroduce, in a most odious and offensive form, the principle of which they were endeavouring to get rid by their fiscal policy, namely, the preference of large money purchasers over purchasers for small amounts. The hon. Member's main proposition was, that they should not charge conveyances which were subject to chief rents as they charged conveyances out and out, but simply as leaseholds. But to such a proposition as that it was quite impossible for the Committee to accede. Moreover, he held that if they were prepared to adopt the principle that all conveyances which were subject to chief rent should pay duty as leaseholds, they must also be prepared to part with their

1379
revenue on conveyances out and out. For who was there, with such a change in the law, that would not reserve the payment of sixpence a year or some trifling or nominal amount upon the purchases they might effect? The House of Commons, then, must either determine to act upon some principle which would be conformable to the distinctions embodied in the existing law, or else part with those distinctions. Now, they had enacted that all leasehold conveyances should be subject to a duty at the rate of 2s. 6d. per cent, and that all conveyances of the fee should be subject to a duty at the rate of 10 s. per cent. The hon. Member (Mr. Hadfield) would charge conveyances made under a chief rent as leaseholds, and not as conveyances in fee. But was that just? What was the real legal character of the interest acquired by a conveyance subject to a chief rent? Was it like a leasehold interest? Was not a 1,000 or 10,000 years' lease, with a nominal chief rent, as good for all practical purposes as a freehold? And ought a conveyance subject to a chief rent to be treated as in the nature of a leasehold interest, or in the nature of a freehold interest? Why, surely, in the nature of a freehold interest. The interest was in effect a freehold interest, and the Committee had no course to adopt but to charge it as a freehold interest, and that was done by the law as it stood. If the hon. Gentleman had made any proposal of an admissible character, he should be perfectly ready to consider it; but as to his addition to the clause, he felt he had no course to take but to meet it with a negative.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman understood the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield); or, if he did, he had discussed it so as to make the Committee not understand it. A conveyance was made of a piece of land from one man to another, at a given rent—say 100 l. a year—and it was a conveyance for that chief rent for ever, and it became a freehold. Another person took an adjoining piece of land of the same value, for a term of 999 years. Now, how did the Chancellor of the Exchequer tax the two persons making those two arrangements? He said to one of them, "You pay 100 l. for a piece of land which you took for 999 years, and your tax shall be 10 s.;" and he said to the other, "You took a piece of land for precisely the same rent, but not, for a time
1380
that is fixed, and you shall pay 12 l. 10 s." one the tax was fixed upon the annual rental, and in the other on the multiplied annual rental for twenty-five years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was endeavouring to persuade the Committee that he was acting upon some principle, though he admitted himself that, as regarded two properties equal in value, he charged in one case 10 s. tax only, and in the other 12 l. 10 s. He (Mr. Bright) maintained the proposition was altogether wrong, because there was no difference of interest, and in levying a tax they should be guided in those matters, as in everything else, by the actual value of the thing taxed. Consistently with his own reputation, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this question; and if he did so, he would find that the proposition which had been made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield) was perfectly just.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, he could not give his assent to the Amendment, as he read and understood it. There was no doubt that in certain cases a leasehold interest would be of much more benefit than a freehold interest, according to the terms of the contract for one or the other. But he looked upon this as dealing with taxation upon a principle. Now the law recognised a distinct difference between chattel interest and interest in fee. Even if the hon. Gentleman were about to propose some large measure for doing away with all distinctions, and for putting the system of taxation in matters of this kind on a new footing, he believed it would be difficult to do what he wished—namely, meet the justice of all cases—indeed he thought it would be practically impossible. Therefore, the law of taxation had followed the general rule, and had recognised the distinction to which he had referred, and in the matter of taxation it came to be about fair upon the whole. The question that now arose was, whether the interest described in the first six or eight lines of the Amendment was to be treated as a freehold interest or as a chattel interest. Now that it was in law and in fact not a chattel, but a freehold interest, and an estate in fee, there could be no doubt; consequently, according to the law, that taxation should be upon the principle of the Bill, and he could see no reason for dealing with this exceptional case in the way proposed by the Amendment.
MR. KIRKsaid, be trusted and hoped the clause would be postponed, and that

1381
relief would be afforded to the parties affected by it, who were by no means a small class, there being about one-tenth of the landed property of Ireland held under the Church or under ecclesiastical corporations. This property was necessarily held under leases, which were renewed every two or three years, and upon every 4l. of rent paid there was a stamp duty of 10 s., or 12 l. 10 s. upon every rental of 100 l. a year. He hoped that some relief would be afforded to persons who were subjected to this amount of taxation.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was making a proposal in reference to certain duties, and saw no reason for postponing the clause. He was sure the law of last year had relieved the working classes, and he was prepared to prove it by bringing it to the test of figures. Where a party was subject to a chief rent of 4l. a year, the duty on the transaction under the old system was 35 s.; but according to the new system, the duty formed upon a valuation of the rent for twenty-five years, at 4l. a year, would be 10 s. instead of 35 s. At the sum of 350 l., the duty became equal to what it was under the old system, and above that sum it became higher than it was under the old principle, in consequence of the application of the ad valorem system. The cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Newry (Mr. Kirk) were entirely distinct from that to which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had referred, and had not been brought before him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). It would be impossible for him to take any step, or to give any answer upon that subject, unless the matter was fully placed before him. He could only say, with regard to the objection that his proposal would interfere with the laudable desire of working men to possess small plots of land for building purposes, that the object of his proposition last year was to afford relief to the working classes under those circumstances.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that the proposed scale would press heavily on the purchasers of small freeholds. A lease for 10,000 years at a rent of 5l. was subject only to a duty of 6d., but a conveyance of the fee, subject to an equal chief rent, was charged 12 s. 6d., or twenty-five times as much. The Bill showed the absurdity of keeping up the distinction in this country between realty and personalty, which was productive of the greatest inconveniences
1382
and anomalies. A large quantity of land was let in Manchester for buildings at chief rents, and no distinction ought to be made between them and other classes of rents.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, that in Cheltenham, Bath, and other towns, land was let on leases for ever, as in Manchester. If the land was not built on at the time, a provision was inserted that the rent should be increased sometimes as much as six or seven fold in the event of its being devoted to building purposes. He wished to know what provision was made by the Bill for such contingent increase? He would not discuss the question whether the distinction between freehold and leasehold interests was a wise one, but so long as the difference of tenure was retained, they should keep up the distinction between freehold and chattel interests. He could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield, though anxious, if possible, to relieve the class of persons referred to in Manchester and other towns.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, he would support the Amendment. Although they might not be prepared to do away with the technical distinction of tenures, yet, when they came to lay on taxes, they should look to the real value of things, and not to some fanciful division of the lawyers. An interest for 10,000 years was, in point of fact, the same as the fee, and no difference ought to be made between the two in matters of taxation. In Scotland leases for years were heritable interests, and not chattels.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to find some remedy for the evil complained of. It was hard that when two parties purchased land of equal value, one should be taxed ten times as much as the other. He regretted he was not able to point out a plan, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter; it was a subject of much importance, as the present scale would prevent the acquisition of land by the working classes.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he would beg the Committee to observe that the only two speakers who supported the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer sat on the opposite side of the House, and of these the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings) had offered no opinion on the financial point, but only advocated the legal distinction. The Bill now before the Committee was intended to correct some errors in one passed last year; the Amendment

1383
went to correct another. The question materially affected the extension of the franchise. If a man took land on lease to build a cottage he would not be entitled to a vote unless it was of the clear annual value of 10 l.; but if he took the fee to the value of 40 s., it gave him the franchise. This was the most honourable franchise known to the law, and it ought to be encouraged. He was sure it was only necessary to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the facts. He had great confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion on financial points. He placed more confidence in him on such matters than he did in all the rest of his Colleagues on other matters. He was sure that when he understood the evil, he would be the first to propose a remedy; he begged therefore to press on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of reconsidering the question.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not depart from his former statement, although it was very difficult to resist the compliments of the hon. Member. The Amendment proposed to deal with a most difficult matter, but he would consider the question, and see whether it might not be possible to adopt some mode of dealing with this class of conveyances. He had started on this principle, that they had two classes of conveyances, of freehold and of leaseholds. Two rates were to be levied, and a line must be drawn between them. He was inclined to think that the conveyances in question approximated to freehold, but he would consider the question.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would not therefore press his Amendment.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 12.
Clause 13.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he wished to suggest that words should be inserted to the effect that when, in any trial at law or in equity, a deed was put in question, no advantage should be taken of the insufficiency of the stamp without previous notice to the opposite party.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, he thought there was no necessity for altering the clause to meet the suggestion of his hon. Friend. It would, however, in his opinion, be very advisable, in cases where deeds were stamped and a question arose as to their efficiency, to admit such deeds in evidence, upon a proper undertaking being given which would have the effect of a recogni-
1384
sance, or by the deposit of the difference between the actual stamp and that alleged to be requisite; so that parties should not lose the advantage of having these deeds put in evidence where it was clear there had been a mistake.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he looked upon the suggestion which had been thrown out by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. G. Butt) as one which was very well worthy of consideration, but it would be found that in the Common Law Procedure Bill, now before the House of Commons, this point had been anticipated, and, he hoped, provided for. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mullings), he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend in thinking that an alteration in the clause to that effect was hardly requisite.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 14.
Clause 15.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that the clause would increase the expenses of the parties. The officer of the Crown might very well count the words, without putting the parties to the expense of an affidavit.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not think the clause had been inserted upon light grounds. Under the Act of 1850, when the question was first brought before the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, of whether a deed was duly or improperly stamped, they were obliged to judge of this according to the contents of the instrument. In many cases they might have a presumption, amounting sometimes to moral certainty, that the true consideration was not set forth in the instrument, and the object of this clause was to give to the Commissioners of the Board of Inland Revenue power to require parties to make an affidavit in cases where they had reason to presume that fraud or evasion of duty was intended.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the affidavit was to be called for in order to show, to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, among other matters, "the quantity of words contained in any such deed or instrument." Now, upon a matter of fact of that kind, which could be so easily decided by a clerk of the 1Commissioners, he did not think parties should have to run the risk of being put to the expense of an affidavit.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he considered the provision in the clause to be of more benefit to the parties themselves than might be at first imagined. Ought

1385
the rights of parties to depend upon the accuracy of a clerk to the Commissioners? Then, again, who was to pay the expense of the employment of that clerk? He thought that an affidavit as evidence upon the subject, would be infinitely safer to the parties than any other arrangement which could be provided.
MR. G. BUTTbelieved that, practically, the clause would not operate, and that parties would stamp their own deeds. Would any man who had committed a fraud state upon his affidavit that he had so done, and thus subject himself to a penalty of 500 1.? The provision in the clause relative to the counting of words was likely, he thought, to give rise to a great deal of needless trouble.
MR. PHINNsaid, he should support the clause, which he only found fault with in that it did not go far enough, and pronounced those who made a false affidavit guilty of perjury.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 16.
Clause 17.
MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to ask, why the duty upon the Dublin pawnbrokers was not altogether done away with? In Dublin, pawnbrokers were subject to an impost which none other in the kingdom had to pay; they were obliged, under an old Act of Geo. III., to contribute 100 l. in Irish money to the police taxes of the city. Upon complaining of this to the Government some time ago, they were told that they paid no income tax, and were therefore not in the position of their fellow-tradesmen in this country. Now, however, they paid a double income tax, and he hoped therefore they would be released from the payment of the 15 l. altogether.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, the hon. Member did not appear to understand the difference between local and Imperial taxation. It was true the pawnbrokers in Dublin had to pay 100 l. a year in Irish money for the privilege of carrying on their trade in that city, but to whom did they pay this amount? Not to the Imperial Exchequer, but purely for local purposes; and then, because, forsooth, they paid this, they asked to be relieved from their share of Imperial taxation! He did not see why, because the Dublin pawnbrokers suffered under a high local burden, they should ask to be relieved from a tax which every pawnbroker in the United Kingdom paid.
MR. VANCEsaid, that the Government had certainly admitted that the Dublin
1386
pawnbrokers were hardly used when they consented to reduce the duty by one-half.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, the pawnbrokers in London paid 15 l. a year duty, while those in the country paid but 7l. 10 s. Dublin had hitherto been treated as a capital, but, as some concession to the pawnbrokers there, it had been determined to put them on the same footing as those of provincial towns.
Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
On the Schedule,
MR. M'MAHONmoved, after the words "inland bill of exchange, draught, or order for the payment to the bearer, or to order, at any time otherwise than on demand of any sum of money," to add the words, "not exceeding 5l., ld. duty; not exceeding 10 l., 2d. duty." And, after the words "promissory note, for the payment in any other manner than to the bearer on demand of any sum of money," to add, "not exceeding 5l., ld. duty; not exceeding 10 l., 2d. duty."
MR. T. BARINGsaid, the effect of reducing the stamp upon small bills of exchange would increase the number of such instruments. It would transform small book debts into small bills, and to the extent that such bills obtained currency they would be a circulating medium. If it were desired to increase the circulation, be thought it should not be by means of small bills. If a man sold goods to the amount of 10 l., instead of the buyer being a debtor upon the books of the seller, the seller would draw a bill, and the bill would go as far as it could into circulation. His opinion was, that those parties who required to draw bills of 5l. or 10 l. at long dates ought not to have much encouragement. The reduction of duty, however, would encourage such bills; it would increase the circulation of promissory notes, and not at all add to the security of trade. To those who desired additional facilities in circulation, other and better means might be adopted.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he heard with very great regret the unfavourable opinion of the hon. Gentleman upon the use of bills of exchange by persons of moderate means. For his own part, he looked upon the change now proposed as one of the greatest importance, and he considered it as likely to be attended with the greatest possible advantage. He was not in the least afraid of such bills constituting, in any objection-

1387
able sense, an addition to the circulation. No doubt all bills of exchange constituted, in some sense, part of the circulation, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman it was not with the view of escaping from the question which appeared to be involved that the proposal had been made. On the contrary, it had been made under the influence of a strong conviction that nothing could be conceived more desirable to small traders, than that they should be got into the practice of dealing upon credits of a fixed and precise character—a system which would bind them to payments at fixed dates, and lead them to make exact calculations of their means and liabilities, instead of the present comparatively dangerous system of open credits.
MR. VANCEsaid, he entirely dissented from the policy of a penny or twopenny stamp upon bills of exchange. He thought threepence was quite low enough, for small bills, instead of being an advantage, were a great nuisance, and they ought to be discouraged instead of being encouraged.
MR. FRENCHsaid, few measures would be attended with greater advantage to small traders in Ireland than this, and he cordially supported it.
Schedule agreed to. House resumed.
Committee report progress.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee, Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.
(1.) 250.000 l., charges formerly paid out of County Rates.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he begged to call the attention of the Committee to the inequality of taxation with respect to Ireland, which he considered was very little in accordance with the conditions of the Treaty of Union between the two countries. He could not allow the present opportunity to pass without calling attention to the inequality which existed in almost every Vote as regarded the taxation of Ireland and England. He had been repeatedly told by gentlemen of high standing, that the charge for the police of Ireland, which had been taken upon the Imperial Treasury, was in lieu of all injury which Ireland received in respect to other branches of taxation. Now, he had been otherwise informed, that the boon of the police payment had been given in consequence of the repeal of the Corn Laws, which had caused Ireland—an agricultural country—to suffer more than England, which might be termed
1388
a manufacturing country. Sir Robert Peel gave half of the expense of the police to Ireland as an equivalent for this alteration. The Irish police force could hardly be said to be a police force in the ordinary sense of the word, for the sum to defray that expense was not voted year by year, and it was doubtful whether the same system would be tolerated in England. But he had been told that the time would soon arrive, when the expense for police in Ireland would be very much lightened, and that a large reduction of that old force might be practicable. When the repeal of the Corn Laws was decided upon, Sir Robert Peel admitted the burden of local taxation, and pointed out equivalents in that direction for the loss which the proposed change would inflict on the agricultural interest. Those equivalents were comprised in charging on Government the expenses of the support of convicts charged with felony and misdemeanor. The expenses of prosecution were also granted to England, but not to Ireland. Expenses of medical officers of poorhouses and schoolmasters were also conceded. England had received compensation in every one of these items, as would be proved by the returns of local taxation which had been moved for, these returns showing that England had obtained remission from local taxation to the extent of between 800,000 l. and 1,000,000 l. But although Sir Robert Peel had recognised the justice of the same remissions to Ireland, not one of them had been granted. The principle, however, Was recognised on the Votes of 1847, for there it would be found that a sum of 9,000 l. had been granted towards the expenses of prosecutions. He thought Ireland was fairly entitled to the compensation promised by Sir Robert Peel when he repealed the Corn Laws. No case had been made out for depriving that country of the sums formerly granted for the expenses of prosecutions. In Crown prosecutions the sums granted to witnesses were paid out of the Consolidated Fund; but in all other prosecutions the payment to witnesses was charged on the county rates. It was unjust to place on the county rates in Ireland expenses which were not charged in a similar manner in England. He hoped the Government would agree to a Committee to inquire into the whole subject.
Vote agreed to, as was the next vote, 17,306 l., Prisons in the United Kingdom.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding 371,933 l., be

1389
granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Government Prisons and Convict Establishments at Home, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to have some information on one or two points connected with this subject. Under the law which had lately been superseded, a prisoner who had been sentenced to transportation passed the early period of his sentence in separate confinement. He wished to know whether that period of separate imprisonment was still kept up, and if so, whether the period of separate imprisonment was abridged in the same way as the general period of punishment was abridged in comparison with the old punishment a transportation? On the question of tickets of leave, also, he wished for information. He understood that some returns connected with this subject were to be presented to the other House; and he asked if the noble Lord the Home Secretary, had any objection to lay the same returns before the House of Commons?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that by the Bill of last year no change whatever was made in the manner in which the first period of a convict's imprisonment was passed. That remained exactly as it was; and a convict on being sentenced passed the first period of that sentence in separate confinement. The period of that confinement used generally to amount to twelve months, sometimes more. But it appeared to him, from information he had received from various quarters, that separate confinement continued for that period was too long, and was, generally speaking, injurious both to the bodily and the mental health of the prisoners. It had been reduced now to nine months as the maximum, but in cases where, from the peculiar constitution of the individual, it appeared that even that period would be injurious, there was a power to shorten it still further. It was right to say that two opposite opinions were entertained with respect to the separate system by those persons who had the superintendence of prisons. Some persons, whose opinions were entitled to great respect and weight, contended that the system was attended with a very beneficial effect—that it gave opportunities for reflection, and for listening to the exhortations of the chaplain, and thus facilitated the work of reformation. There were other persons who thought that the separate system laid, generally speaking, too great a strain upon
1390
the mind, and that, except for short intervals, it ought not to be followed. He believed that the truth lay between the two—that those persons who were strong-minded might turn the period of their separate confinement to good account, and that in the cases of those who were not so circumstanced the period ought to be shortened. With regard to the returns, he believed there would be no objection whatever to furnish that House with all the information that was laid before the other.
MR. HENLEYsaid, since the alteration of the law with respect to secondary punishments, and indeed for some time before, there had been a tendency to sentence criminals for long periods of imprisonment in the county gaols. Now, in many of these the separate system of confinement was in force, and in others preparations were made for enforcing it; and from this circumstance he thought that any information which the noble Lord could furnish as to the working of the system would be of great value to the visiting magistrates of these gaols. It was true, as the noble Lord stated, that upon some constitutions the effects of separate confinement were detrimental; but the approach of the change was in most cases so gradual that the convict might remain subjected to its influence for months before his condition would justify an application to the Crown for a remission of the sentence, which, however, when it was made, was always sure to be answered.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was in some misapprehension as to what he had stated. He was speaking of the cases of persons sentenced to a punishment equivalent to the old penalty of transportation, not of the case of persons sentenced to one or two years' imprisonment. What he meant to say was this—suppose a convict was sentenced to an imprisonment. equivalent to seven years' transportation, time first nine months of that period would be passed in separate imprisonment, where be could have communication only with the officers of the prison. After that period he would be removed to what was called the association ward, where he would have intercourse with the other prisoners; and after being, there for some time, he would be sent to Portland, or seine other public works. Now, the discretion of shortening the first period of imprisonment did not he with the Crown, but with the governor of

1391
the gaol, who could, when he saw fit, remove the man at once from the separate cell to the association ward.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he understood that; but what he meant to say was, that many county gaols built under Government superintendence had been constructed on the separate system, and had not, he believed, sufficient accommodation for associated confinement. He still thought magistrates and others would feel a difficulty in dealing with persons sentenced to imprisonment for a year or eighteen months, and it was with reference to that point that he had asked the noble Lord to produce his information.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he agreed that the earlier period of the sentence should be passed in separate confinement. He had always regarded the punishment of separate confinement with great apprehension, and thought that it ought to be undergone for a very limited period. He was glad, therefore, to learn that the noble Lord had decided on reducing the maximum period to nine months. Perhaps, the noble Lord would state how long that reduction had been in force.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: In the course of last autumn.
MR. PALKsaid, he begged to ask if the discipline undergone by the prisoners at Dartmoor was the same as that undergone by other prisoners, and whether the noble Lord had not seen cause, in the course of his experience, to doubt the efficiency of separate imprisonment?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that Dartmoor was set apart for those convicts whose constitutions unfitted them for the severe discipline undergone at Portland and other places, and therefore there was, of course, some difference between them. With respect to the separate system, his opinion was, that it was, upon the whole, a beneficial one, and essential to any fair trial of reform. The prisoner was left in the cell with the books that were provided for him, and where he could see only the chaplain and the other officers of the gaol, all which tended to produce a proper impression upon his mind, so that he had no doubt the general effect was good, if it were not carried too far.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that the statement made by the noble Lord would give rise to alarm in Ireland, where the prisons lately built had been built on the separate system. Through the misconduct,
1392
he might say, of the Irish Government, they had had prisoners kept in prisons in separate confinement for four years and seven months, but had never received any evidence of such men being injured, either mentally or bodily. He considered that the system had worked well, and that the Government ought to fairly investigate and try it before they called upon counties in which prisons had been built on the separate system to alter and provide accommodation for the association of prisoners.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord that the separate system was good, but might be carried too far. He rose, however, to ask a question with respect to a case that had been mentioned to him. It appeared that a gross malefactor had been released from prison on the promise of his friends to find him employment. But that employment lasted only for a short time, and he was informed that the man was again resorting to his former licentious and dangerous mode of living. He wished the noble Lord would inform the Committee when convicts were released on the promise of their friends to find them employment, what security was taken that that employment would be permanent?
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he wished to say a few words upon the general subject of transportation, and for that purpose he would take the five Votes relating to prisons and convicts together. It appeared that these Votes had a constant tendency to increase; for last year their total amount was 898,000 l., this year they amounted to 988,871 l. They were told last year that transportation was to cease; but last year the Vote under that head was 69,000 l.; it was now 92,000 l. For the same reason, he expected that the home charges would have increased, but, on the contrary, they appeared to have diminished; last year the charges for prisons was 407,000 l.—this year it amounted only to 371,933 l. It would be very unfortunate if, after all that had been done, they should be obliged to return to the old system; but from all that he had seen in the newspapers of the misconduct of some of the liberated prisoners, he was much alarmed and afraid that that would be the case. He wished, therefore, that the noble Lord would tell the Committee what the present working of the system was, and what was its prospect of success.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, before the noble Lord replied, he wished to ask

1393
him how the present remnant, if he might so call it, of transportation was carried out? Last year it was explained that it was intended to send a certain portion of convicts to Western Australia, and he inferred from the Votes that the Government was now sending out a portion of convicts to that Colony. He wished to know, likewise, on what principle it was determined who were to be sent to Australia, and who not? Was it considered a more severe punishment than penal servitude in England? or was the selection arbitrary and accidental? He also wished to ask whether the Government intended to increase the number of prisons in England, and, if so, whether the new prisons would be established on the same plan as that at Dartmoor?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, with respect to the question of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), he had to state that when a prisoner was in a condition to find employment it was difficult to obtain any security that his professed intentions would be followed out; but sometimes application was made for the pardon or release of a prisoner, whose offence was not serious, on the condition that his friends or family would employ him. They in such cases acted on the probability that the condition was well founded, and took the chance of the prisoner being employed by his friends. But in the case of leave, they had a hold upon the prisoner, for, if they heard that a prisoner who had been released misconducted himself, the very condition of the leave was, that he would be liable to be called back again and compelled to serve out his sentence. He was glad to state, however, that, out of a considerable number of prisoners so sent out, a very small proportion had been reported as misconducting themselves, or deserving to be called back to prison. In a few cases steps had been taken to bring persons back to the public works from which they were released, but the number was greatly diminished. With regard to the question put by the noble Lord (Lord Seymour), the excess of expenditure arose from the increased price of provisions in Australia; but they had reason to think that, on the whole, the substitution of retention at home for transportation would be attended in the end with a considerable diminution of expenses. It certainly was intended to increase the accommodation, if he might so call it, in the means of lodging prisoners at home;
1394
and there was no likelihood of any deficiency of public works on which to employ profitably for the public the actual number of prisoners who might be kept in this country. A few were still sent to Western Australia—he believed about 900 had been sent over—and the selection was necessarily left to the officers in command at the depât for prisoners. A selection was not made of the worst offenders, but of those who were most likely to be useful in the colony to which they were sent. Whether they called it a more severe or less severe punishment than retention in England, they were not selected with reference to the gravity of their offences, but rather with a view to their fitness for employment in the colony.
COLONEL SCOBELLsaid, the increase in the Estimates to which the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) referred related chiefly to salaries, and would have little to do, therefore, with the increased price of provisions. He was of opinion that the new system of secondary punishments would break down, and he was surprised that the world was not large enough to allow of places where they could send their convicts to.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he found one item of 9,000 l. for clothing and for travelling expenses to prisoners on their liberation. From the noble Lord's remark, it appeared that the greatest rogues were not sent out to the Colonies, but were retained at home; and it appeared from this item that the number of prisoners so retained could not be small. He did not think this was a pleasant subject to contemplate.
MR. FITZROYsaid, he should be happy to set the right hon. Gentleman's mind at rest with regard to this subject. In the course of last year 1,194 convicts had been liberated in England with tickets of leave, and of that number only three had had their tickets of leave revoked. For the purpose of saving them from the temptation to which they would be naturally exposed if let loose upon the world in a state of destitution, with their names utterly branded and unable to provide for their sustenance by honest means, it was thought desirable, and more especially since the Government had endeavoured to make their labour productive, to set apart a portion of their earnings weekly, to be given them on leaving, the amount varying according to classes, the first class being 9d. a week, the second 6d., and the third 3d. These several sums, small as they were in weekly divi-

1395
sions, in the course of years amounted to sums sufficient to procure sustenance during some days; but of course it would be trifling with the promised accumulation if they were put to the expense of conveyance to the place of their destination out of this small sum; therefore their fare to the places they chose to name as the most likely in which to find employment has been paid in addition: and it was thought right to give them a small allowance of clothes, that they might not attract observation, but reach their destination in a proper state. It was to meet these different sums that the Vote of 9,000 l. was taken; and as in the course of the year 3,000 persons would be discharged, exclusive of those discharged in Ireland, he did not think that amount excessive. With respect to the increased expenditure in Australia, it arose from the necessity of raising the salaries of the officers employed, in consequence of the high price of provisions; and with respect to additional accommodation, a new wing had been built at Portland Prison, and Brixton Prison had been purchased and fitted up for 700 female convicts, which would leave that additional accommodation for males at Millbank.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he agreed that the amount was not excessive, and that it would be extremely cruel to send these men out without some fund for their maintenance for a short time. He wished to know whether the 1,194 ticket-of-leave men included any whose sentences had expired?
MR. FITZROYsaid, the 1,194 men were those to whom tickets of leave were granted as a commutation of punishment, upon the scale of three years' imprisonment for seven years' transportation, and four years' imprisonment for ten years' transportation, and whose conduct had been sufficiently meritorious.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished for an explanation of an item under the head of special service, "provision for Roman Catholic priests, 550 l." He would like to know what special services were performed, and whether the charge, which was perfectly new, was intended to be a continuous charge or not?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I suppose the hon. Gentleman wishes to know why Roman Catholic priests were allowed to attend prisoners.
MR. SPOONER: It is not stated that it is for attending prisoners.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: That item of 550 l. is payment for Catholic priests attending convicts in Government gaols.
MR. SPOONER: Are they paid as chaplains, and are they only retained in Government prisons?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Yes; in the Government prisons. It is an estimate of the sum for the current year for Catholic priests who attend those convicts in Government prisons who are of the Catholic religion.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he must confess that the explanation of the noble Lord was perfectly unsatisfactory to him. He believed it would not be satisfactory to the Committee, and he was quite sure it would not be satisfactory to the country. This was a new Vote. They had never yet been asked to pay Roman Catholic priests, and if the Roman Catholic priests were paid, there was no reason why Dissenting ministers of every class should not be paid. He wanted to know why the distinction was made that Roman Catholics were the only class to be recognised by the Government. He felt that the plan of the noble Lord was totally unjustifiable, and ought not to be introduced to the Committee without being fully explained. Why was the Roman Catholic priest to be paid for attending to what he considered to be his duty? It was not a question of toleration, for as the law stood, every person who dissented from the established religion of the country had a right to be visited by the priest or clergyman of his persuasion. On entering the prison he was asked to what sect he belonged, and he was then told that if he wished to have the spiritual instruction of a minister belonging to the denomination to which he belonged, he had only to apply to the governor, and the governor was under orders immediately to send for him. The Committee would recollect that was to be on the special application of the prisoner himself, and that was as large a limit of toleration as the most tolerant could expect. He was surprised that a Minister of the Crown should ask them to pay priests for instruction in a religion which the Sovereign had declared, by Her assent to the Articles of Religion, "an idolatrous fable and a dangerous deceit." It was perfectly inconsistent with the Protestant Constitution, and with the terms on which the present family held the Throne. Were they to go on thus by degrees and abandon the whole principles of Protestantism? He called upon a Pro-

1397
testant House of Commons to desist from such a course, and would certainly move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of 550 l.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding 371,383 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Government Prisons and Convict Establishments at Home, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Though I may not be so vehement a Protestant as the hon. Gentleman opposite, I flatter myself that I am as good a one. If violent speeches in this House, hard words, and cutting off Estimates could convert all our Catholic fellow-subjects into Protestants, I should join with the hon. Gentleman opposite, subscribe to his speeches, and vote for his Motion. But, unfortunately, neither his efforts nor mine, nor both combined, could have the effect which he desires; and therefore, as it happens that we have a large portion of our fellow-countrymen who are Catholics, I think that it is better to treat their religion with respect, and to give to those who are of that faith the means of becoming better Christians than they may happen to be in the condition to which they have been reduced. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that in principle what is now proposed by this Vote is new; because the system which I wish to extend to all the Government prisons has for several years been in practice at Millbank. There has been there a regular allowance to Catholic priests for attending those convicts who are of the Catholic religion. Upon the admission of convicts, they declare the religion to which they belong; and those who declare themselves to be Catholics are regularly attended by the Catholic priest, who performs divine service upon Sundays, Good Fridays, and Christmas-day, and who attends once a week for the male and once a week for the female prisoners, to discourse with them collectively, and to give exhortation individually to those who may require it. At Millbank, also, when a convict is so ill as to show that he ought to have religious consolation, a priest is sent for, if he is a Catholic, and he gives him his ministration. That system was established before my time. I think that it is a good and proper one, and it is my intention that it should be extended to all the Government prisons, and for that purpose this Vote is proposed to the Committee in the Estimates of this year. It
1398
really does not occur to me that the Protestant succession to the Throne is likely to be endangered by that treatment of Catholic convicts, and I cannot seriously, therefore, share in the alarm of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is of opinion that we should wait always until a convict wishes to have a priest, and then that the priest should come at his own expense, and, from a proper sense of duty alone, should perform the service which is required of him. Now, in the first place, I observe, in answer to that, that the man who most wants spiritual exhortation and assistance is the man who is least likely to ask for it. But what is the object we are aiming at by prison discipline? It is not merely punishment, but it is a combination of punishment with reformation. We want to avail ourselves of the period during which a man is confined in prison to alter his mind, to give a new turn to his thoughts, and to inspire him with ideas and feelings which probably never entered into his mind before. We wish to turn him out a better man, less dangerous to society, and more likely to become a useful member of the community. How are we to accomplish that? The Protestant has the ministration of his clergyman. The Catholic, of course, cannot advantageously receive the ministration of a clergyman of a religion not his own. You cannot expect that the exhortation and admonition of a Protestant clergyman can have a great effect upon the mind of a Catholic convict, any more than you would expect that the exhortation of a Catholic priest would have much effect upon the mind of a Protestant. If the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, for example, were to be addressed by a Catholic priest—I am sure it is not likely—I am quite aware there is nothing in his tone of mind to be mended—I do not think he would derive much advantage from the exhortations of a priest of the Catholic religion. If you want to get at the mind and the heart of the man, you must employ somebody who can reach that mind and teach that heart, and therefore I say that the purpose for which the man is confined in prison will be marred and defeated if you do not give him during the time the assistance of the priest or clergyman—call him what you will—of the religion to which that man belongs. Well, Sir, I think the system established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) is as good as can be devised. The priest has weekly access to the con-

1399
victs, and any convict who declares himself a Catholic is not at liberty to refuse to attend Catholic worship. He, like the Protestant, is obliged on Sunday to attend according to his faith; but if a Catholic wishes to become a Protestant, or a Protestant wishes to become a Catholic, a fortnight is allowed for reflection, and according to his ultimate conviction he may change from one to the other. The Catholic priest does not come in contact with the Protestants, and therefore the hon. Member need not be alarmed that prisons will be turned into places of conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism. I am sure the Committee will feel that, on the other hand, your prisons are not to be employed for the purpose of turning Catholics into Protestants. That is not the purpose for which prisons are established, and such conversions would be no advantage to persons who pretend to gain from such a change of religious opinion. I cannot persuade myself that the Committee will feel any doubt of the propriety of such a provision. What we want is, to give to men who have committed crimes, who have been sentenced to punishment for those crimes, the opportunity, while undergoing sentence, of having their minds mended and their sense of right and wrong either created or improved, and that can only be done by affording them the opportunity of religious instruction from the minister of religion whose doctrine is their own, and who can therefore appeal to those feelings which either education or nature has implanted in their minds.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, that the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) amounted to this, that provision should be made by the State for those inmates of gaols who happened to be members of the Church best able to pay its own ministers—the Established Church of England—but for those who happened to be members of one of the poorest Churches, the Catholic Church, no State provision should be made. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more monstrous or unjust than such a proposition. His hon. friend used the old argument that Protestantism was all truth and Catholicism was all error. [Mr. SPOONER: Hear, hear.] His hon. Friend might be right, and perhaps, as a member of the Church of England, he did not very widely differ from his hon. Friend as to what were the errors of the Catholic Church; but he thought that neither his hon. Friend nor any one else
1400
had a right to dictate to any person in this country, what was truth or what error. Last of all, should such dictation be allowed in a country, whose very Protestantism was a standing protest on behalf of the right of private judgment. With respect to the subject immediately under the consideration of the Committee, it was either the bounden duty of the State to provide for the religious instruction of convicts of all sects—in which case the State should entertain no exceptions—or such religious instruction ought to be left entirely to private benevolence; and if the latter alternative were adopted, the Church of England must, of course, withdraw from any ultra pretensions in this respect altogether. The hon. Member's statement as to this being the first time the proposed system of employing Roman Catholic priests had been proposed to the country was incorrect, as the Estimates themselves proved that there already existed several votes for this purpose. He regretted to recognise the hon. Member for North Warwickshire as again pressing forward to raise the religious bigotry—he could find no better word for it—of the Committee, and the injudicious course adopted by the hon. Member in this respect went far to prove how this unhappy spirit of bigotry could blind the eyes and abuse the judgment of even excellent and sincere men, and force them to resort to the exposition of all kinds of harsh and unnecessarily bitter views on these religious questions. He hoped the Committee would be liberal enough to sanction this Vote, and do so by a large majority.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, who had given notice of an Amendment to discontinue the payment of the salaries of the Church of England chaplains and assistant chaplains of gaols, in the event of this Vote, which the hon. Member intended to support, being, contrary to his wishes, struck out, that this was a Vote for Roman Catholic priests only. He (Mr. Newdegate) could not understand how, on principles of religious equality, which he professed, the hon. Member could vote for this grant to Roman Catholic priests only, and consent to the exclusion from similar assistance of all other Dissenting ministers. He (Mr. Newdegate) wanted to know why the clergy of the Presbyterian denomination were not to be provided for—why the clergymen of the Scotch Church were not to be provided for—why the ministers of

1401
all the sects dissenting from the established religion in this country were not to be provided for—and why it was for clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church only that this provision was to be made? He thought the noble Lord the Home Secretary had left that point completely untouched. The noble Lord had told the Committee that hitherto Roman Catholic prisoners had had the opportunity of demanding the attendance of Roman Catholic priests whenever the prisoners requested their attendance. But the noble Lord was not content with this. He wanted that the system which had been adopted recently at Millbank should be extended to all the Government prisons, that Roman Catholic clergymen should be paid regular salaries to attend, and that Roman Catholic prisoners, whether desirous of the ministration of those priests or no, should be compelled, nolens volens, to attend them. He maintained that this, so far from being a tolerant system, was a system of coercion. Why were they to enforce upon the prisoners attendance upon these Roman Catholic priests, when the prisoners did not wish to attend them? Were they so convinced that their teaching would be advantageous as to be justified in making the attendance on it compulsory? Was the noble Lord quite sure that he was warranted in assuming that these Roman Catholic priests would reach the hearts of the prisoners, and inspire them with a reverence for law and order? He much doubted the noble Lord's authority upon that point. He thought that when the Home Secretary acted on the principle that if a prisoner desired the attendance of a priest, or of a minister, of whatever religion he himself professed, that priest or minister should be sent for, and should attend the prisoner demanding his assistance, he had gone the whole length which the principles of toleration could require. But he was prepared to admit further, that if the priest or minister incurred expenses in responding to the call, it might be quite right that those expenses should be paid, because the prisoner being confined and unable to go to the priest or minister himself, and there being no right to deny him the attendance of a priest or minister when he desired it, there might be a fair case made out for the payment of the expenses of a journey undertaken in compliance with his wish. But that was not the system proposed under this Vote; that was the system which the House was asked to
1402
abandon by adopting this Vote. The object of this Vote was to compel prisoners, who declared themselves Roman Catholics on their entrance into the prisons, to attend to the ministration of the Roman Catholic priests contemplated by the Vote. This would not be toleration; it would be coercion. There must indeed be some religious instruction, and in England we had an Established Church—the truth of the doctrines taught by which the State acknowledges; and he (Mr. Newdegate) thought that if a prisoner did not dissent from that Establishment, he should be obliged to attend religious services in connection with it. When a man had forfeited his liberty, and did not deny the truth of a religion which the State believed to be true, the State had a right to compel his attendance upon that religion; but it was different with a religion which the State did not believe to be true. The State had no right to exercise the coercion, which, in the case of Roman Catholic prisoners, it was now proposed to exercise. Although the noble Lord said a fortnight would be allowed to a convict to consider to which clergyman he would be transferred, the system was a system of unjustifiable religious coercion, not of toleration, and moreover identified the Government with a religion which was not the State religion. The noble Lord introduced this as a slight change; but surely he might have received a warning from the letter of priest Oakley, who wrote to the noble Lord that he and other Roman Catholics would consider that by this Vote there would be established Roman Catholic chaplaincies, which would be a long step towards, if not at once equivalent to, the establishment of their religion. He (Mr. Newdegate) was of opinion that one established religion was enough for a State. Hon. Members need not suspect him of intending to vote for the establishment of another and conflicting Church connected with the State. There were the strongest reasons why there should be no difference in dealing with Roman Catholics and Dissenters. The Church of Rome alone aimed at supremacy. The Roman Catholics professed that they would be satisfied if they obtained toleration. Was that the case? The priests of the Roman Church have full toleration, but they are not content; they are seeking establishment for their Church, and if you grant them establishment, they will at once claim supremacy. It is an old story, a large item in the history of this and every European

1403
country, that the ambition of the Roman priest is everywhere and always the same, always insatiate and insatiable. It is hopeless to appease such ambition by concession; each concession is treated but as a stepping-stone to further aggression. There was no limit to that Church's ambition or demands. In this respect Rome differed from all other sects. She attempted in this country not only the establishment of the Church of Rome, but a separation into a distinct community of the professors of that faith. Cardinal Wiseman might be said to be an exponent of the polity of the Church of Rome in England. ["No, no!"] If hon. Members disputed Cardinal Wiseman as an authority, it might be doubted whether they were good Roman Catholics. What said Cardinal Wiseman, however? That the Roman Catholics must not be confounded with other Dissenters. In a lecture delivered on Sunday, December 22nd, 1850, at St. George's, Southwark, Cardinal Wiseman said—
"There is at present clearly a religious conflict going on in this country. The Catholics here are not, and never have been, merely a collection of persons holding certain opinions in common, but are a systematised organised religious community, representing here the Catholic Church of the universe."
In his next lecture the Cardinal still further explained this matter—
"Wonderfully, indeed, has our little Church recovered and righted itself, and established all that was essential for the great ends of religion. But still all that has been done could only be as preparatory to the final completion of its restoration. Unity of purpose, of methods, of laws, is an essential characteristic of our Church. Varieties of discipline, uncertainty in modes, diversities of practice, necessarily remain after such an anomalous state as our forefathers lived in, and the effectual remedy can only be found in the combined action of the Church's rulers, which has existence solely in a regularly constituted hierarchy. For in a country divided into vicariates, however numerous, each has a perfectly free and independent action, as much as if each were situate in a different country. There is no organic bond of union between them, no one who can convoke them into synod, no power to give their joint acts a general authority."
Again, Cardinal Wiseman said that a uniformity of method and laws was essential. He added—
"Hence great diversity in matters of practice might prevail among them without any regulating and adjusting power. But in a hierarchy this is at once corrected. The bishops of the see are connected together through a metropolitan, or primate, if there be more than one archbishop; he can unite them, and from their combined decisions, canonically approved and sanctioned, emanate rules and principles of conduct which bind all and secure uniformity."
1404
Now, considering the principles thus laid down, he (Mr. Newdegate) certainly did not think this the time for picking out Roman Catholic priests for special promotion in derogation of all other Dissenters. For it was clear that, although under their former organisation, under the ancient and comparatively free religious organisation of the Roman Catholics in this country, under the ancient usages by which the canon law of Rome had been limited in its operation upon the Roman Catholics of England, matters had gone on tolerably; that now there was an attempt on the part of the Pope, his cardinal, and his priests, to separate the Roman Catholics of this country into a distinct community, governed in all things by foreign laws and principles alien from the State and from the rest of the community. This was of all times that at which it was most dangerous to admit of any distinction between the Roman Catholic priests and the ministers of other religious bodies dissenting from the Established Church. To do so, would be to sanction the Papal aggression of 1850, by fulfilling the objects of it. These, however, were not the only considerations that condemned this Vote. He would ask the noble Lord, also, to consider whether recent evidence went to prove that these Roman Catholic priests have within the last year manifested such subordination, such reverence for the law, or such obedience to authority, as would lead to the belief that they were likely to inculcate these duties of obedience and reverence to the law upon prisoners committed to their teaching, or as would encourage any prudent man to advocate any increase of their power? Why, in a case which had been tried in Ireland, before Judge Torrens, one Roman Catholic priest (the Rev. Mr. M'Loughlin) called as a witness for another priest (Mr. Campbell), then upon his trial on a charge of violating the marriage law, had distinctly stated his opinion that the law which called upon the Roman Catholic priest to ascertain that neither of the two parties coming to him to be married had been a Protestant within twelve months was an unjust law, which he should be justified in evading by every means in his power, and that he would, if he had the opportunity, do all in his power to evade and defeat the law. Judge Torrens, in his charge, thus commented upon and condemned the conduct of these two Roman Catholic priests—
"That, with regard to the aspersions which

1405
had been cast on the law under which Mr. Campbell was prosecuted, not so much by the prisoner's learned counsel, who had, perhaps, only complained of the Statute in the ordinary tone of an advocate, as by the language of one of the witnesses, who, although in the garb of a clergyman, had declared, on his oath, that he considered it his duty to evade the law in question—God be praised that the court and jury were in a different frame of mind! God be praised that they had no consciences which taught them to act contrary to the law! It was their duty not to endeavour—not to struggle with themselves to evade the law, but to exert themselves in order that the law should be properly administered. In the course of his judicial experience, extending over a period of fifty years, he had never heard so daring a denunciation of the law as that pronounced by the clerical witness to whom he had alluded."
Again, towards the conclusion of his charge, the learned Judge repeated that his experience of half a century afforded no parallel instance of defiance of this law in open court as had the conduct of these two priests. He (Mr. Newdegate) humbly submitted that such conduct was not calculated to inspire confidence in the priesthood as examples of obedience to, or reverence for, law. But this was not all. There had been within the last year melancholy evidence of how little the teaching of the priests of Rome was calculated to bring malefactors to contrition even for the grossest and the foulest infractions of the law. Nothing had produced a deeper or more melancholy impression upon the public mind than the accounts of the condition of mind to which wretched criminals had been brought when on the very verge of eternity—when about to expiate their guilt under the just operation of the law. The circumstances attending the execution of the murderers of Mr. Bateson (Grant, Quin, and Coomey) had produced a deeper impression upon the public mind of this country than almost anything that he ever remembered. These men, after a long delay and protracted search, had been arrested and convicted of one of the basest, most cold-blooded, and vindictive murders ever committed, and when they were brought to execution all who were present were shocked by the fact that these men were induced, by the Roman Catholic priests who attended them, to consider themselves as martyrs and heroes. [Cries of "No!"] He (Mr. Newdegate) would not have made that statement without having adequate proof of it, but as hon. Members chose to question the authenticity of the fact he had stated, and it was too grave to be trifled with, he trusted the the opportunity; and in the other they had
1406
Committee would hear the evidence in support of it. He had read three reports of this melancholy transaction; he would now read an extract from the account given by the correspondent of the Times, who was present at the execution—
"In the course of the conversation which ensued, Coomey particularly entered into religious topics, remarking that he never, in the whole course of his life, felt so happy as he did at that moment, with the confidence before him of, in a brief time, meeting his Saviour. Quin said that if a reprieve should come, he would not accept it, as he should never be better prepared to die than he was at that time."
Here was another extract from the same account—
"The last rites of the Church having been administered to them in the chapel of the gaol by the Rev. Messrs. Hughes and Smith, the procession was formed to the press room. In passing from the yard to the press room an accident occurred which, though trifling in itself, tended to show Quin's state of mind. Clothed in their dead dress, the two men passed through the yard, each in company with his spiritual adviser, and during the time they were shaking hands with some of the officers of the prison, the Rev. Mr. Smith had passed some distance in advance of Quin, when the latter came skipping after him like a school girl, threw his arms round his neck, and drew him on with a lightsome, hurried pace for a short distance."
This was in accordance with the account of what had happened that morning. Mr. Swanzy, the sub-sheriff, called upon them in the morning, and on going up to them said, "he was sorry to see three men in their position." "Sorry!" said one of them, in a tone of surprise, "why it is glad you should be, sir!" He then asked them whether they had any statement to make to him in relation to the offence for which they were about to die? "No," said Coomey, "Our Saviour said nothing when he was executed!" The circumstances of the execution, as narrated in the public journals—and none of the three reports which he had read varied in any material point—certainly justified him in saying that, under the ministration of these priests, these miserable murderers had been brought to consider themselves as martyrs; and, when the noble Lord opposite expatiated upon the probability of the Roman Catholic prisoners finding their hearts touched by the ministration of these priests, he thought they had a right to point to these two instances which had occurred within the last year. In one of these a Roman Catholic priest had broken the law, and another in his evidence, had defied it, declaring that he would break it if he had

1407
seen men, brought to the verge of eternity by their own misdeeds, persuaded by their spiritual advisers, in that solemn hour, that they were suffering martyrdom. This Vote, he believed, was not only not consistent with the principle of toleration, but it was peculiarly misapplied to the circumstances of the present time, because it tended to encourage the ambitious and aggressive projects of the Church of Rome, and because recent facts had shown that the Roman Catholic priests were not in a temper of mind to promote among the prisoners in our gaols those feelings of reverence for the law and contrition for its infraction which were the objects of all punishment and all penal establishments.
MR. DRUMMOND: Sir, I think that this debate, which no one regrets more than I do, has been altogether occasioned by the ill-advised form in which the Vote has been proposed. If this Vote had been proposed as a general arrangement for the advantage of all classes of prisoners, let them belong to what denomination they might, it certainly should have had my reluctant support, because I think that the true principle is, that you should not give public money to any sect but that which the State supports. I am speaking of an abstract theory, but you cannot stand now in your present circumstances upon that theory. You have gone too far. It is needless to quote the Queen's Coronation Oath with respect to the Roman Catholic Church. You must remember what her oath also says with respect to the Presbyterian Church of Scotland; and you must recollect, also, what the Presbyterian Church of Scotland says to all your episcopacy—
"Whene'er you see a Bishop, Jock, The Pope's nae far awa'."
Now, Sir, I found only this morning, oddly enough, in a provincial paper sent to me, a letter which appears to me a very proper letter, signed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary at War, with respect to the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian clergymen, and the clergymen of all religious sects, who are to attend our soldiers in their different cantonments; and it seems to me that this principle ought in justice to be applied to our gaols. You cannot put aside or make a distinction between one sect and the other. It is all very well for one hon. Gentleman to say, "I have a particular objection to this," and another, "I have a particular objection to that," but it will not do for the State to act on any such objections. The
1408
State must act on some plain, honest, recognised, intelligible principle. Then, again, it is not because I have the smallest doubt that Roman Catholic priests will do again just what they have done for a thousand years, that I take this view of the question. I do not shut my eyes to all the danger which they will produce in the State; but I say that this is not the way to meet them. You are reverting to the old error, which was to meet political danger by theological tests. If you find the Catholic priests misconducting themselves in gaols, punish them for so doing, but do not enter into the question of their theological tenets. Here, however, is a great practical difficulty. I would like to be informed how the Government are to know Roman Catholic priests. [Laughter]. Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but the fact is at the present moment you have no means of knowing them. Will any hon. Gentleman give us a clear and legal definition of a Roman Catholic priest? You have no legal evidence of what constitutes a Jesuit. You brought a Jesuit into the House of Lords and you could not prove it. I revert, then, to the very first words I pronounced in this House—you ought long ago to have redeemed your pledge and established the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, and then you would have had a clear means of knowing who were and who were not Roman Catholic priests, and you would have had some security that they should be respectable men. Certainly I think there is very great danger likely to arise from persons calling themselves priests being employed in connection with your army and gaols ad libitum, but until you have some authoritative means of knowing what they are, you must incur that risk. You have such means with respect to Presbyterians, because you have a Presbyterian Church established in Scotland, and you have the same security with respect to the various dissenting bodies in England, which have all distinct and recognised heads to whom you can apply; but you have no such means of information in the case of the Roman Catholics. But then my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) says, that in the oath taken by the Queen, the Roman Catholic religion is described as an "idolatrous fable and a dangerous deceit." Why, you may make an idolatrous use of anything. I have known many sailors who would not sail on a Friday. Is Friday an idolatrous day? For my part, I think it as harmless as any other

1409
day in the week. Some sailors are particularly anxious to sail on a Sunday. Is Sunday an idolatrous day? The truth is you may make an idolatrous use of what you please; and, after all, I very much fear that, if we were to come to close quarters, my hon. Friend would say that was idolatrous, which I believe to be the most holy rite exercised in Great Britain at the present moment, I mean the holy sacrifice presented on the Catholic altars. But there is no occasion to introduce theology into this question; and what I say that unless you can prove some misconduct on the part of Roman Catholic priests, of Presbyterian clergymen, and of all persons dissenting from the Church of England, you are bound, in the present state of society, having gone so far as yon have gone in what you call toleration, to put them all on the same footing of equality, whether you agree with them or not.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he fully concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, in thinking that the State should act upon some simple, uniform, and intelligible principle in its dealings with the various religious denominations of the country; and it appeared to him that the State fully met that condition when it established one religion as the national religion, and gave all others complete toleration. In his opinion, the only object of an Established Church was, that the nation, on great public occasions, and in national institutions, should have a public and national organ of religion; and that in such establishments as prisons, when a chaplin was appointed, he should be a clergyman of the Established Church. If they were to maintain the connection between the Church and State, they should take care that the religious officers of all national institutions and establishments should be connected with the Established Church. In all cases the prisoners were asked on their entrance what religion they belonged to. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) said they had a precedent for the present Vote at Milbank; that the precedent had been established by his predecessor; but there was no knowing what changes might not be introduced under the argument of precedent. If they were to have chaplains in their prisons, they certainly ought to be of the established religion, or they ought to have no chaplains at all.
MR. CROSSLEYsaid, he rose in consequence of the remark made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, that if
1410
this Vote were passed in favour of the Roman Catholics, there ought to be a similar Vote in favour of Dissenters of all denominations; now he begged to observe that the Dissenters objected to the endowment of ministers of all persuasions, not excepting those to which they belonged. He altogether repudiated the word "toleration," for he believed that God had given to no one the power of tolerating his reliaion and he could neither ask a favour nor receive one from a fellow-creature with regard to it.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, he was as anxious to treat the Roman Catholic Members of that House with as much respect as the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) himself; but lie trusted they would not be too sensitive, and that they would not take offence at the bare statement of facts by any hon. Member. The noble Lord said he was as good a Protestant as the hon, Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner); but there was this remarkable difference between the Protestantism of the noble Lord and that of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, that whilst the noble Lord advocated what he himself believed to be error, the hon. Member at least advocated what he believed to be truth. Looking at the Vote they were called on to make, and to the consequences of it, he must say he could not be a party to doing in his public capacity what he would not do in his private capacity. They were told that the same rule ought to be applied to all sects; that would be undoubtedly true, as soon as they ceased to acknowledge a National Church; but so long as they upheld a National Church inculcating Protestant principles, let them not adopt the strange and startling inconsistency of paying those whose views were antagonistic to it; and who were bound, if they could, to overthrow that Church. That at least was an inconsistency to which he would not be a party, and, therefore, he should feel it his duty to vote against this grant. The sum, indeed, was a small one—only 550 l.—and, therefore, he ran the risk, perhaps, of being charged with niggardliness. That, however, was not so, for if it were a Vote of 500,000 l. for any other purpose than that of inculcating what he believed to be a religious error, he would cheerfully assent to carry it; but in its present shape he could not support it, as it involved a principle in violation of the Constitution of the country. He remem-

1411
bered when Sir Robert Peel proposed the additional grant to Maynooth, hon. Gentlemen who intended to vote against it were told that there was no principle in their doing so, as they had already voted for the smaller sum, and it was, therefore, evident that they only regarded the question in a financial point of view. Well, on the present occasion, he, at all events, was anxious to view the question before the Committee as one of principle, and not of finance; and he could not conceive how any hon. Gentleman who supported the Vote of to-night could hesitate, if Her Majesty's Ministers were to propose to-morrow the endowment of the Roman Catholic priest-hood, to support that proposition also.
MR W. J. FOXsaid, that the Protestantism of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to consist of a desire to allow no portion of the public money to go in support of any but his own Church. The hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that Protestantism originally was a protest against any man's authority over the conscience of another, and therefore that it implied fair and impartial dealing, equal rights and privileges, to all who chose to exercise their own judgment in religion. He confessed that his own Protestantism led him to regard all sects and Churches with impartiality. He thought it must be consolatory to the Nonconformists to find in this debate no serious mooting of any question as the payment of Nonconformist ministers for attending Christians of their denomination who were so unlucky as to get into gaol. It would almost seem, from what had passed in the course of this discussion, that whilst those who did not conform to the rites and observances of the Church of England were a very large majority of the population, more numerous, even, than both the Episcopal and Catholic Churches taken together, the criminality of the country was wholly divided between those two denominations. He would not, of course, assume that as a certainty, but he believed that, when it did so happen that persons belonging to the various Nonconformist denominations were entangled in temptation, and plunged into crime, there was a disposition always, so far as their ministers were allowed to do it, to attend them in their prisons, and to make every effort to recall them to penitence and to the paths of integrity and honesty. He should be surprised indeed if it were otherwise. That volume which all Christians agreed in
1412
reverencing was so full of precepts both to visit the prisoner and to reclaim the erring, that he held the ministers of every Church whatever who were deficient in that duty to be so far unworthy the name of Christian ministers, priests, clergymen, or by whatever appellation they might he called. He believed there would be in this country, if the matter were left entirely free, an ample disposition in the Churches of every name, character, and denomination, to provide for the religious instruction of those who had unhappily become tainted with criminality. He believed that Christian charity, as it existed in all Churches, would be sure to inspire zeal in this great work, which would be done all the more effectually from its being undertaken spontaneously, and without any view to remuneration. He believed that disposition existed not only in the various Protestant sects, but he must claim for the Roman Catholic Church the simple justice of acknowledging that her priests and her missionaries had ever been distinguished for the readiness with which they braved dangers and privations, and endured everything that humanity could in their devotion to the sacred functions of their calling, and in their attention to the poor and miserable prisoners, and even to the most abandoned. He thought the history of the Roman Catholic Church was replete with such noble examples, and therefore it was that he regretted to find the Roman Catholic Members of that House, instead of taking equal ground with the other Dissenters from the Established Church, rather striving as it were to compete with it, and to get a miserable pittance out of the public money which was devoted to ecclesiastical purposes. He coincided generally with the opinions which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield), and should certainly vote for the Motion of which he had given notice if the Committee came to divide upon it; but he could not agree with him as to the vote which he had announced his intention to give upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). He for one felt himself pledged by his own principles to oppose every endeavour to bestow the public money for religious purposes; and he would feel, in so doing, that he was only dealing by the Roman Catholics as he would deal with the Protestant Dissenters or with any other denomination. In fact, be would as readily vote for the

1413
abolition of the whole of these grants of the public money for providing religious instruction to the inmates of gaols, as he would vote against any portion of that money falling to the Roman Catholics. Allusion had been made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) to the sort of extraordinary enthusiasm under which certain Roman Catholic criminals had met their fate, but cases of that sort could be easily matched in the records of Protestantism, from which it would be seen that criminals of the deepest dye had made such professions of repentance that they had been almost canonised as saints, and had attracted enthusiasm and admiration on account of their miserable professions of conversion under the very shadow of the gibbet. He believed that without employing men under the direction of the State, the Church of England could find men better fitted for the task, and who would accomplish their work much more effectually, than was now done under official appointments, which, successful in a few cases, were lamentable failures in the great majority. Acting on the principles which he had laid down, he felt bound to vote with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Spooner), and on the same grounds he should give his support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham.
MR. J. BALLsaid, the question before the Committee was simply this—whether, if from motives of public policy it was deemed desirable to retain the services of ministers of religion, they should have the means of subsistence given them or not. The Committee were now asked to vote against a payment on page 15 of the Votes, and to leave untouched payments for the same objects in pages 28 and 29. It was said that Dissenting congregations would not accept remuneration. Now, the Dissenters from the Establishment in Ireland did receive salaries as chaplains when their services were required in that capacity. If the State required their aid and their time, the State ought to pay them. In Spike Island the services of the Roman Catholic chaplains had been most valuable, and having established the principle in that case, it ought to be extended over the United Kingdom.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was desirous that his vote should not be misunderstood. He must say the explanation offered by the noble Lord the Home Secretary was wholly insufficient to justify the placing the Vote at all upon the paper, but
1414
more especially in the shape in which it had been brought forward. The noble Lord failed to explain how the money was to be distributed, whether upon some fixed principle or otherwise. Another part of the noble Lord's explanation was very unsatisfactory to him, and he thought it must also have been so to the Roman Catholic Members of the House—he meant that part of it already adverted to by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox), in which he seemed to assert that every rogue who got into gaol must be either a member of the Church of England or of the Church of Rome. They heard a good deal in that House of the large body of Dissenters throughout the country—of the Wesleyans, Baptists, Independents, and others; but the noble Lord seemed really to think that all these people were so very virtuous that there was no chance of any of them ever becoming inmates of a gaol, and therefore that there was no necessity to provide for their spiritual instruction. Now he wished to make the admission—to make it broadly and in a manner impossible to be misunderstood—that he held it to be necessary to provide for the spiritual instruction of all inmates of goals; and he had already asserted that principle in the Juvenile Reformatory Act for the county of Middlesex. The provisions of that Bill, however, rested upon a very different basis from the grant now proposed. In providing spiritual instruction for the inmates of gaols, the noble Lord must proceed upon one of two principles, either he must appoint chaplains of the established religion of the country, and say "every unhappy person who becomes an inmate of a gaol becomes subject to the general law of the country," and be spiritually instructed by the chaplain; or else he must take the more tolerant course, saying, "although these unhappy, people have entered here, I will do violence to no man's conscience, but will allow him to be instructed according to his peculiar religious opinions." He believed the latter to be the more generous, as it was the wiser course, and it was the course which he was prepared himself to adopt and recommend. But the plan of the noble Lord Accomplished neither the one nor the other, for the Vote seemed to him to be founded upon no principle whatever—it had only the character and appearance of being dictated by the pressure of one particular denomination of Christians. He wished it, therefore, to be well understood that he objected, not to the amount proposed, but to the shape in which it was proposed. He

1415
agreed with an hon. Friend of his, the Vote ought to have been a Vote for the spiritual instruction of those inmates of gaols not members of the Church of England. He objected to this money being voted for distribution amongst Roman Catholic chaplains only, because, in many of the gaols, none of the inmates might be of that religion, while many of them might belong to other dissenting bodies. Were the Vote brought forward in the shape suggested, he would have no objection whatever to it, provided the money was distributed fairly amongst all classes requiring aid. But he would most distinctly vote against the grant in its present shape, assuming it to be unwise, invidious, and bearing the appearance of providing for one class of Dissenters alone.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he was one of those who repudiated State pay altogether. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball) had remarked that the Dissenters in Ireland pursued a different course. It was a great grief to the Protestant Dissenters of England, that the public money should be touched by the Dissenters of Ireland. He deeply regretted that they should come to Parliament like common beggars, and apply for stipends to the disgrace of their own principles. He, as a Dissenter, required no assistance from the State, and, acting on that principle, he should vote against the proposed grant.
MR. LUCASsaid, it was unfortunate that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had been placed by the facts of the case in such a position that be was sure to incur blame from somebody. The case was just this, that the noble Lord had done the only thing possible to be done. He had proposed a Vote for Catholic priests, because it appeared to be required. He had not proposed a Vote for Protestant Dissenters, because it did not appear to be required. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox) had twitted the Catholic Members for making a demand of this kind. He said, why did the Catholics not imitate the Protestant Nonconformists, and go and visit such of the members of this communion as were unfortunate enough to get into prison, from pure Christian love and benevolence, and without pay? That was a beautiful theory. There was something romantic in it; but unhappily it was not borne out by experience. For example, he held in his hand a return which showed that at Dartmoor Prison there were 998 prisoners, 761 of whom were members of the Church of England. Among the
1416
prisoners, there were 88 Dissenters, who were not visited by any dissenting minister at all. The theory of the hon. Member was romantic, but the practice at Dartmoor did not seem to carry it out. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic clergyman at Dartmoor did the work without payment; it was not his theory that the servant was not worthy of his hire. But he did the work; and if the money was not forthcoming, he did the work without the money. Again, at Millbank, besides the prisoners belonging to the Church of England, there were 115 Presbyterians, 85 Dissenters of all classes, 292 Roman Catholics, and 4 Jews. The Jews sent an assistant rabbi to attend to the 4 members of their communion confined there; but the Nonconformists, who had this sublime theory of never taking State money, allowed their 200 prisoners to languish without any religious consolation whatever. That was really an answer to the question why the noble Lord proposed this Vote. The Catholics rendered the service, and they came to the noble Lord and asked him that they might have payment for the service which they rendered. The hon. Member for Oldham advised the Catholics not to take money, but to perform the service gratuitously. The truth was that the Catholics did perform the service, and that gratuitously; but the Nonconformists neither performed the service nor did they take the money. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) ought really, in common sense, to strike out of this Vote everything of which he did not approve. Did he approve of the Vote for Roman Catholic priests in Ireland? [Mr. SPOONER: No, no!] Part of the sum which the hon. Member now proposed to the Committee to vote went to the payment of Catholic priests at Philip Town, Spike Island, Mountjoy Prison, Newgate Prison, and two or three other places. He (Mr. Lucas) was anxious that the hon. Member should not persevere in his Amendment without a full knowledge of the facts, and that they should have the benefit of so illustrious a convert with his eyes open. The hon. Gentleman was actually proposing a Vote by which he asked the Committee to pay 150 l. a year to the Roman Catholic chaplain at Mountjoy Prison; and 150 l. a year to the Roman Catholic chaplain at Newgate Prison; and 200 l. a year to the Roman Catholic chaplain, and 100 l. a year to an assistant Roman Catholic chaplain, at Spike Island. If we had the blessing of a national Church Establishment, nothing

1417
would be paid except to those who professed the Roman Catholic faith. If that was so, they could not pay Presbyterians. The hon. Member must strike out the sums for Presbyterian chaplains. He must not violate the sacred principle of an established religion—he must not contaminate the national faith. In Scotland the Presbyterians was the established religion— but in Ireland the Presbyterians were Dissenters, and therefore they must be excluded from the Vote, if the Nonconformist Members really believed the principles which they professed, and on which they asked the Committee to deprive the Catholics of the benefit of this very meagre vote. There was another point. Already, with respect to the reformation of criminals, a Committee upstairs were considering the example furnished by Mettrai and other kindred institutions, because they said that an effect was produced in those establishments which they wished to produce in the reformatory prisons in this country. In fact, we founded institutions on the basis of those establishments, and then paid public money to carry out a faint shadow of the example so set, and yet there were those who professed to believe that Roman Catholic priests could not produce that effect on the minds of those submitted to them, which was ascertained by Committees upstairs to have been produced whenever the experiment had been tried. This was partly a question of justice; but it was not so much a question of justice as it was of common sense. They professed to believe that religious training was necessary to the reform of the criminal, and the question was whether they would adopt the means which they professed to believe necessary. Professing as they did on other occasions that these means were necessary, hon. Gentlemen who desired that the Vote now in question should be struck out of the Estimates declared that they would not have the means, and they did so upon the inconsistent ground which he had pointed out, and which he was persuaded the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) would reform before the voting on the coining division.
MR. MILESsaid, he could not suffer the observations of the hon. Member for Meath to pass without some little notice. The hon. Member seemed to have mystified, as was usual with him, the object of religious instruction. He (Mr. Miles) quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that in this Vote was included the prisons in Ire-
1418
land who have Roman Catholic and Presbyterian chaplains. But they were now discussing a perfectly new Vote, applicable entirely to England. ["Hear, hear!"] He should be glad to hear what was the special service for which this 550 l. a year was to he paid. He was sure that the noble Lord the Home Secretary did not state exactly his ideas upon the subject. He, however, understood the noble Lord to say that this Vote was for England. Therefore, as a Protestant country, professing Protestant principles, they were asked to legitimatise Roman Catholic chaplains in gaols. This, though a small Vote, carried with it a great principle—namely, the toleration of the Roman Catholic religion in our public establishments. He wished to know how the noble Lord intended to carry out his proposition. The noble Lord did not explain whether this Vole was to be entirely for convict establishments. He wanted to know, with the present means of information, how the noble Lord proposed to place the Catholic chaplain in communication with the Scripture reader, for time Scripture reader, he took it, went through every denomination of prisoners for the purpose of reading the Scriptures to them? This was truly a Protestant question. If the vote upon the Middlesex Reformatory Schools was looked upon as such, this vote would be looked upon doubly as such. He hoped and trusted that not only the ordinary Members of the Established Church, but also the Dissenters, would cordially unite in opposing this Vote.
MR. MIALLsaid, that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) had done great injustice to the position taken up by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox). The hon. Member for Oldham put the argument thus—that if you were to throw the care of the prisoners upon the spontaneous liberality and Christian charity of Churches in general, the liberality and charity of every Church—not merely of Nonconformists, for he gave full credit for similar liberality and charity to the Roman Catholic Church—would furnish the instructions and ministrations which were needed. He (Mr. Miall) hoped that the hon. Member for Meath did not intend to imply that Nonconformists were alone wanting in this charity and liberality, and he would remind him as a reason which might account for the non-attendance of Nonconformist ministers in the cases to which he referred, that a minister other

1419
than the chaplain of the gaol only attended prisoners upon their making a special request that lie should do so.
MR. SPOONERsaid, it was only justice to allow him to offer some explanation in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Meath. He would first refer to the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) who accused him of using hard words. He (Mr. Spooner) could only say that the only hard words he used were those contained in these Articles to which the noble Lord must have signed his full, complete, and cordial assent. With regard to the hon. Member for Meath, he (Mr. Spooner) was perfectly aware that there were other Votes besides this one of 550 l. included in the present proposition. His hon. Friend (Mr. Miles) having fully answered that point, he (Mr. Spooner) would not think it necessary to add anything more. This was a new Vote—a Vote for England. Hitherto the Vote upon this subject was confined to Ireland. Much as he disapproved of that Vote for Ireland, he thought it a great deal better to get at more tangible ground, and to say, "You shall go no further, for it is not because you have been allowed to do a wrong already that you shall lie permitted to extend it." He had only simply to state that he did not agree with much that had been said even by those who were about to vote in favour of his Amendment. His simple object in opposing this Vote was to raise the Protestant voice in that House against the proposition of the noble Lord. He believed that for Parliament to give its sanction to the propagation of the Catholic religion would be a national sin. [Ironical cheers from the Irish Members.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh if they pleased, but this was his honest opinion—an opinion which he had always professed since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, and an opinion which he meant to carry out so long as he was permitted to sit in that House.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 136: Majority 22.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Barrow, W. H.

Alexander, J.

Bateson, T.

Anderson, Sir J.

Beckett, W.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Bell, J.

Bailey, Sir J.

Bennet, P.

Bailey, C.

Bentinck, G. W. P.

Baldock, E. H.

Beresford, rt. hon. W.

Bakes, rt. hon. G.

Berkeley, hon. C. F.

Barnes, T.

Bernard, Visct.

1420

Blair, Col.

Lennox, Lord A. F.

Booker, T. W.

Liddell, H. G.

Brocklehurst, J.

Lockhart, W.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Loveden, P.

Buck, L. W.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Mackie, J.

Burroughes, H. N.

MacGregor, Jas.

Butt, G. M.

MacGregor, John

Campbell, Sir A. I.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Cecil, Lord R.

Malins, R.

Challis, Mr. Ald.

Mandeville, Visct.

Chambers, M.

Miall, E.

Chambers, T.

Miles, W.

cheetham, J.

Milligan, R.

Chelsea, Visct.

Mills, T.

Child, S.

Michell, T.

Cobbold, J. C.

Montgomery, Sir G.

Collier, R. P.

Moody, C. A.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Morris, D.

Crossley, F.

Mowbray, J. R.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Mullings, J. R.

Dalrymple, Visct.

Mundy, W.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Murrough, J. P.

Davies, D. A. S.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Decries, W.

North, Col.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Ossulston, Lord

Dod, J. W.

Packe, C. W.

Duncan, G.

Paget, lord G.

Dundas, G.

Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

Dunlop, A. M

Palk, L.

Du Pre, C. G.

Pellatt, A.

Ellice, E.

Percy, hon. J. W.

Evelyn, W. J.

Portal, M.

Ewart, W.

Repton, G. W. J.

Farrer, J.

Robertson, P. F.

Fellowes, E.

Rolt, P.

Fergus, J.

Rushout, Col.

Ferguson, J.

Sandars, G.

Flover, J.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Forbes, W.

Scobell, Capt.

Fox, W. J.

Smijth, Sir W.

Frewen, C. H.

Smith, W. M.

Galway, Visa.

Smith, A.

George, J.

Smollett, A.

Gilpin, Col.

Stafford, A.

Goddard, A. L.

Stanhope, J. B.

Greenall, G.

Stirling, W.

Grogan, E.

Taylor, Col.

Gwyn, H.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Hadfield, G.

Tollenmehe, J.

Hardinge, hon. C. S.

Tomline, G.

Hustie, A.

Tudway, R. C.

Henley, R. hon. J. W.

Vance, J.

Hildyard, R. C.

Vane, Lord A.

Horsfall, T. B.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Hudson, G.

Walcott, Adm.

Hume, W. F.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Jones, D.

West, F. R.

Keating, H. S.

Whiteside, J.

Kendall, N.

Whitmore, H.

Kerrison, Sir E. C.

Wickham, H. W.

Kershaw, J.

Wigram, L. T.

King, J. K.

Wise, A.

Kinnaird, hon. A, F.

Woodd, B. T.

Knatchbull, W. F.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Knightley, R.

Wyndham, Gen.

Knox, Col.

Wynn, Major H. W. W.

Laing, S.

Wynne, W. W. E.

Langton, W. G.

Langton, H. G.

TELLERS.

Lascelles, hon. E.

Spooner, R.

Leo, W.

Newdegate, C. N.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, C. H. W.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Atherton, W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Forster, J.

Ball, J.

Fortescue, C. S.

Bass, M. T.

Fox, R. M.

Beamish, F. B.

French, F.

Bothell, Sir R.

Geach, C.

Biggs, W.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Bland, L. H.

Glyn, G. C.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Goodman, Sir G.

Bowyer, G.

Goold, W.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bramston, T. W.

Greene, J.

Brockman, E. D.

Gregson, S.

Brotherton, J.

Grenfell, C. W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Greville, Col. F.

Bruce, H. A.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Hankey, T.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Cavendish, hon. G.

Henchy, D. O.

Cayley, E. S.

Heneage, H. W.

Cocks, T. S.

Herbert, H. A.

Cogan, W. H. F.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Colvile, C. R.

Hervey, Lord A.

Corbally, M. E.

Heywood, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Higgins, G. G. O.

Dashwood, Sir G. H.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Denison, J. E.

Howard, Lord E.

Dent, J. D.

Hughes, W. B.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Ingham, R.

Duff, G. S.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Duff, J.

Keating, R.

Dunne, Col.

Keogh, W.

Elcho, Lord

Kirk, W.

Esmonde, J.

Lacon, Sir E.

FitzGerald, Sir J.

Layard, A. H.

Fitzgerald, J. D.

Locke, J.

1422

Lowe, R.

Ricardo, O.

Lucas, F.

Rice, E. R.

M`Mahon, P.

Sadleir, Jas.

Maguire, J. F.

Sadleir, John

Marjoribanks, D. C.

Scholefield, W.

Massey, W. N.

Scully, F.

Moffitt D, G.

Scully, V.

Molesworth, rt.hn.SirW.

Seymer, H. K.

Monck, Visct.

Seymour, W. D.

Monsell, W.

Shafto, R. D.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Shee, W.

Mure, Col.

Sheridan, R. B.

Oakes, J. H. P.

Smith, J. A.

O'Brien, Sir T.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

O'Connell, D.

Sutton, J. H. M.

O'Connell, J.

Swift, R.

O'Flaherty, A.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Osborne, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Paget, Lord A.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Palmer, Round.

Thornely, T.

Palmerston, Visct.

Thornhill, W. P.

Pechell, Sir G, B.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Peel, F.

Whitbread, S.

Perry, Sir T. E.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Philipps, J. H.

Williams, W.

Phillimore, J. G.

Wilson, J.

Phillimore, R. J.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Phinn, T.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Pilkington, J.

Young, rt. hon. Sir J.

Pinney, W.

Pollard-Urquhart, W.

TELLERS.

Portman, hon. W. H. B.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Price, W. P.

Berkeley, C. G.

Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at Two o'clock.