Commons Sitting of 19 June 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Poor Law Board Continuance; Youthful Offenders; Union Charges Continuance.
2° Married Women; Warwick Assizes; Vice-Admiralty Court (Mauritius); Parochial Schoolmasters (Scotland).

MINISTERIAL CHANGES—EXPLANATION.
MR. STRUTT: Sir, it is with very great reluctance that I rise to solicit the indulgence and attention of the House for a short time in reference to a matter to a certain degree personal to myself. I have waited for some time, expecting that some hon. Member, by alluding to the late
336
changes in the Ministry, would have afforded me the opportunity of giving an explanation which I was desirous to make with reference to the circumstances under which I resigned the office which I lately held; but no such allusion having been made, and having heard that certain representations have been circulated with respect to these circumstances which are not only erroneous, but which are also, in my opinion, injurious to my character, I feel that it is due, not only to this House, of which I am a Member, and to the large body of constituents which I represent, but also, I hope I may add, to my own character—that that explanation should be no longer delayed, and that I should take the very first opportunity of making a short statement to the House; and, if the House will give me leave and grant me their indulgence, for this purpose I will confine myself as concisely as possible to a brief and simple relation of the facts connected with it. Perhaps, however, I should first give a short explanation with respect to the circumstances in which I was placed when I held the office which I have lately resigned. At the time of the formation of the present Government the noble Lord, who now holds the office of Lord President, (Lord John Russell) did me the honour, acting on behalf of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, to request my acceptance, of the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That offer was totally unexpected on my part. I knew at that time but little, either of the nature or the extent of the duties of the office which was offered to me. I knew this much—that it was an office of a certain station in the Government—that it was an office which had been held on various occasions by Members of the Cabinet and by persons possessing very much greater pretensions to office than any to which I could lay claim; and I also knew that, although the duties of the office could not be supposed to be very laborious, it had usually been held in connection with other duties, and often by Members of the Cabinet to whom I were assigned other labours besides those which fell to them from the office itself. Under these circumstances, in accepting it I stated to the noble Lord that in doing so I should consider my whole time and any services which I could render to be at the disposal of the Government. After I had held the office for a certain time, I found that, although some of the duties were by no means unimportant, and al-

337
though they afforded me an opportunity, of I which I endeavoured to avail myself, of effecting some improvements in the administration of the affairs of the Duchy, those duties were not more laborious than I had reason to expect, and that they were not accompanied by the discharge of any Parliamentary duties connected with the Government in this House. Under such I circumstances it appeared to me that the office was not one calculated to be satisfactory to any man who was anxious, in taking office, that his whole time and energies should be devoted to the duties of the office intrusted to him. I made no secret of this opinion of mine. I took opportunities of expressing it in official communications which I made with respect to the duties of the office. Under these circumstances, I could not look forward with apprehension to any event which might have the effect of relieving me from the situation in which I found myself placed. Nevertheless, in stating that, I am bound to add that, having stated when I accepted office, that I considered my whole time at the disposal of the Government, it certainly was not my intention to shrink from any duties which had been, or which might be assigned to me, so long as my services were required. Having said thus much with regard to the circumstances under which I held office, I will now proceed to advert to the circumstances which led to my resignation of it. On my return to town, at the conclusion of the Whitsuntide holidays, I received a letter from the Lord President of the Council, to which I lost not a moment in replying. That letter was written by him on behalf of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and the result of the communication which was made in that letter, and at a subsequent interview which I had with the noble Lord at his own residence, was this—that the Government found themselves placed in a position of considerable difficulty with respect to certain arrangements which they considered to be most important for the public service, and that the disposal of the office which I then held would enable them to relieve themselves from these difficulties. I further ascertained, on inquiry, that all the necessary arrangements had already been made. I ascertained, also, that the acquiescence of all those parties who were concerned in those arrangements had been already obtained, and that, in fact, the final conclusion of them was only waiting for the expression of my concurrence. Under these
338
circumstances, I trust I need not say that I did not hesitate for one single moment as to the answer which I should give. It certainly did appear to me, when such a communication was made to me on the part of the responsible head of the Government, that it was impossible for me, with a due regard to the interests of the public service, and, I may say still more emphatically, with a due regard to my own personal feelings, to take any other course than that of instantly placing the office which I held unreservedly and unconditionally at the disposal of the Government. This is a simple statement of the facts which led to my resignation of the office which I held. But before sitting down I should wish, with the permission of the House, to advert to certain reports which have been circulated on this subject, some of which are calculated to be injurious to my character, and to which I am anxious, therefore, to give a distinct contradiction. I understand that it has been said in some quarters, that my sudden and unexpected resignation of my office could only be accounted for on the supposition that I held it under some understanding, and that in resigning it I was, in fact, only fulfilling some previous engagement. Another report, which has been very general, was, that I had been previously consulted with regard to the proposed arrangements, that I had had the opportunity of giving an independent judgment upon them, and that, in consequence of my strong approval of them, I had tendered my resignation, and had by so doing made myself a party to those arrangements. Another report, which has also been very generally circulated, was, that I was supposed to have attached some condition to my resignation—some condition for my own benefit. Now, Sir, to all these reports I give a most unqualified contradiction, in the face of the House and of the country. They have not the slightest foundation in fact. With respect to the first point, I will only say that I held the office I vacated on precisely the same terms as any other Member of the Government, and I would not have consented to hold it on any other. With respect to the second point, I must say that, whatever view I may have entertained or expressed with regard to the arrangements in question, I knew no more of them than any other Member of this house until they were completed, with the single exception of my own resignation; and of that, not until the time had arrived when I felt that

339
it was impossible to refuse it. I can, therefore, in no respect whatever be considered a party to the arrangements in question. With respect to the last point—namely, that I have myself attached some condition to my resignation—I trust it is scarcely necessary for me to give a contradiction to that statement. I have already said, and I now repeat, that on the first moment this suggestion was made I at once unreservedly and unconditionally, without one instant's hesitation, and without the opportunity of consulting one single Friend, placed my office at the disposal of the Government. In doing so, under the circumstances I Lave mentioned, I certainly cannot claim the merit of any great personal sacrifice, so far as regards the mere possession of office. I performed that which appeared to me a simple clear act of duty, and the only apprehension which I have since had has been lest my conduct and my motives should have been misunderstood. There is only one other point to which I wish to allude. Throughout the explanation which I have just addressed to the House I have been most anxious not to say one single word or utter one single observation with reference to the conduct of any other person in these transactions. I have felt that in the peculiar position in which I found myself placed I should be acting in a manner most consistently with good taste, and certainly most agreeable to my own feelings, if I confined any observations which I had to make to a simple statement of facts, and to a simple vindication of my own character, without making the slightest observation or remark on the conduct of any other person. It is with some pain and some embarrassment that I have made this explanation, but I most cordially thank the House for the attention and kindness with which they have listened to me.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee, Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he had promised on a former occasion to state the names of the Commissioners, in addition to those included in the Bill, together with the names of the secretaries. The additional Commissioners were to be, the Earl of Harrowby and Mr. George Cornewall Lewis. The secretaries would be, the assistant secretary employed in the late Commission, Mr. Goldwin Smith, and the Rev. Mr. Wayte.
340
On the Motion of Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE, clause ordered to be inserted after Clause 30—
"And whereas the College of St. Mary of Winchester near Winchester shall for the purposes of this Act be subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to Colleges, and shall have the same or the like powers as are hereby given to the Colleges of the University, and he subject to the authorities hereby conferred on the Commissioners for the Alteration and Amendment of Statutes, in like manner as is hereby provided with respect to the Colleges of the University, but without prejudice to the powers and authorities, if any, of the Commissioners under 'The Charitable Trusts Act, 1853.'"
MR. PHINNmoved the following clause—
"And whereas it is expedient to prevent credit being given to persons studying at the University of Oxford, who have not attained the age of twenty-one years, Be it Enacted, That, from and after the passing of this Act, no action or suit shall be commenced or maintained in any Court of Law or Equity for the recovery of any debt or demand contracted or incurred by any person under the age of twenty-one years, who at the time of the contracting or incurring such debt or demand shall be a student in the University, nor upon any deed, bond, or obligation given as a security for any such debt or demand so incurred by such pupil while under the age of twenty-one as afore-said."
The hon. and learned Gentleman said his original intention had been to make the clause more extensive, and to apply to all Universities and schools; but on receiving an intimation from the Chairman, that that would be beyond the scope of the Bill, he had altered the clause so as to limit its operation to debts contracted within the University of Oxford. The subject of restraining the expenditure and extravagance of young men at Oxford had engaged the attention of all persons anxious for University reform; but he was convinced that the only mode of effectually doing it was by providing against any possibility of the law assisting those persons who gave credit to students recovering their claims. At present the plea of infancy was often set up to actions of this sort, and it might defeat all claims for articles which were not necessaries; but lately juries had ruled that masonic ornaments, gold-headed hunting-whips, and such things, were necessaries, and even that champagne and wild ducks for a supper were necessaries. If this clause should pass, if a tradesman allowed a young man to have goods, he would have to trust entirely to his honour for payment. It might be said that there ought not to be any specific legislation

341
with regard to Oxford, but unless that feeling should be very strong, he thought it would be desirable to apply the principle to Oxford in the first instance, and afterwards to introduce it into kindred institutions. He trusted that even if his clause were rejected the discussion would elicit such an expression of opinion as to induce the Government to frame a general measure for the purpose of protecting young gentlemen from the evils to which they were now subjected.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a Second
Time."
MR. HENLEYfelt disposed to argue the question rather on general than on special grounds, seeing that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not intend his clause to be directed more against Oxford than any other place similarly circumstanced. It might be inconvenient and wrong for young people at the University to obtain goods from tradesmen; but the temptations held out to young men at Oxford were by no means of a special character, but applied equally to the young men in the Army and Navy, and all attempt to deal with the question would open a very wide field. It was a mistake to attempt to deal with the matter in this piecemeal sort of way. A greater curse could not be inflicted on either the young men or their parents, than by such an enactment as the one now under consideration. Parents, if they saw fit, could now refuse payment, and the law supported him unless tradesmen could prove that the goods supplied were necessary for the condition in life of the young man, and the matter was very properly left to the decision of a jury. Supposing the clause to pass, and the debt to be made a debt of honour, tradesmen would take care to put an enhanced value on every article supplied, as a kind of insurance, and that enhanced value would act as a kind of penalty on every person obtaining credit. He believed that such a provision would prove inoperative, and that the only security for tradesmen was in the good feelings of the young men, who would not contract debts without a prospect of paying them. He believed that a great deal that was said respecting the extravagance of the students at the University was wholly untrue and unwarranted, and he knew that a very large number of per-
342
sons passed through the University without any of the failings which had been referred to. He certainly should say "no" to the introduction of the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it must be felt by all, that the question was one of very great difficulty. The temptations of the under-graduates were somewhat peculiar; but at the same time there was very great force in the objection which had been taken to exceptional legislation upon the subject. The principle of the present law, if he understood it rightly, was a sound principle—namely, that credit ought not to be given to persons under age, except for necessaries. The hon. and learned Member for Bath had so far proved his case, that it was a matter of notoriety that the working of that law with regard to the Universities had not been altogether satisfactory. Whether this was owing to the manner in which juries were composed, or to other circumstances, did not appear; but the construction given to the term "necessaries" was certainly such as to defeat, to a considerable degree, the intention, meaning, and spirit of the law. He confessed that he could not refuse to go so far as to admit that a serious evil existed; but when the matter came to be considered, the question arose whether they ought to attempt to remedy the evil in the University of Oxford alone; and, in the next place, whether a clause of the nature submitted by the hon. and learned Member for Bath would be an appropriate and adequate remedy. He did not think it would be safe for the Committee to adopt the clause before them; and, looking to the character of the clause itself, and the extremely invidious aspect which attached to all exceptional legislation, unless it were most carefully guarded, he could not recommend it for adoption. An examination of the clause would show at once that a great difficulty would be found in its operation in places out of Oxford. Owing to the facilities of communication between one town and another, matters stood in a very different state now to what they did twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. Before railway communication became established, it might be assumed that what articles an undergraduate purchased he procured in Oxford; but it would be most unsafe to assume that now. The taste for ornaments and

343
luxuries at Oxford was steadily diminishing; but even when they were obtained they might be purchased in London of a tradesman who, in the first place, might be reasonably supposed to be unaware that the purchaser was an undergraduate of Oxford, and who, even if he was cognisant of that fact, was not likely to know of the existence of an exceptional law of this nature. Although he was far from going the length of saying that Parliament ought not to attempt to apply any remedy to this peculiar evil, yet he thought it quite plain that they were not at present sufficiently ripe for the adoption of this remedy.
MR. LABOUCHEREsuggested that it might he possible, in the case of a debt incurred by a student of Oxford or Cambridge, to give jurisdiction in the matter to the Vice Chancellor's Court of the particular University concerned. These Courts possessed extensive powers, and were presided over by lawyers of eminence, and would be far better able to judge of what were proper necessaries than a jury composed of tradesmen themselves.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsupported the clause. He must condemn the temptations which were held out by tradesmen in Oxford and Cambridge to young men just entering the University. He also thought it improper that juries, generally composed of tradesmen, should be allowed to find that champagne and cigars were "necessaries of life" for young men of sixteen and seventeen.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that whatever I differences of opinion might exist upon this subject, the House seemed to be unanimous in a desire to throw obstacles in the way of extravagance on the part of young men, whether at the Universities or elsewhere, and in an opinion that this clause was not a proper one to be inserted in the Bill before the House. The truth was, that according to the law these matters were decided by a judge and jury, and it was not unfrequently objected that a jury did not afford equal protection to both sides. If that were so, the remedy ought to be sought in an improvement of the constitution of the tribunal before which such cases were to be tried. As things at present stood, a young man having no parents, and with limited resources, by husbanding his means and obtaining a little credit, was enabled to pass through the University honourably, and to obtain an education which might be the
344
means of procuring him a fortune in after life. If this clause were agreed to, such an individual would have the door of the University closed against him, inasmuch as he did not possess the means of obtaining an University education without the assistance of a small amount of credit.
COLONEL NORTHobjected to the clause, on the ground that it would be a step most fatal to the honour of the rising men of England, if they should be allowed to suppose for a moment, that because they were under age they might be dishonest.
MR. HEYWOODsupported the clause, and hoped the hon. and learned Member for Bath would divide the House upon it. He believed the agitation for the reform of the Universities would never cease nor be put down until the difficulty of the extravagance of the students at college was met.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought the Committee would agree that some power was required to protect young men from running a career of extravagance and wanton profligacy when at the University. He was, therefore, fully sensible of the importance of the object which the hon. and learned Member for Bath had in view; but he thought that there were serious objections to the clause by which he sought to obtain it. He did not apprehend any injury to the morals of the young men themselves from the introduction of a clause to that effect, and he believed it would give very great protection to the parents and friends of the students. The student at college was, in reality, resident under the roof of a quasi guardian, and every encouragement was given by the colleges at Oxford to young men to deal only with such tradesmen as adopted the practice of giving no credit at all. The great obstacle to the effectual utility of the clause seemed to be, that, though it would prevent a resident student under twenty-one years of age obtaining credit in Oxford, he might obtain it in London or elsewhere from tradesmen who were ignorant of his position. A difficulty which had occurred to his mind was this—whether this clause could not be qualified by taking away from tradesmen the power of recovering after they had received notice that any young man dealing with them was a student of the University. He should recommend his hon. and learned Friend to postpone the clause, and to confer with the Attorney General and himself, so that they might see whether a

345
clause could not be framed which should meet the difficulty better than this one did.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREthought his hon. and learned Friend would be justified in withdrawing the clause after the suggestion just made by the Solicitor General. At the same time, so strongly did he feel on this subject, that if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Phinn) went to a division, he should vote for him.
MR. PHINNsaid, that his purpose had been served by bringing this matter under the attention of the Government, and eliciting the opinion of the House upon it. He thought the Committee would agree with him that an Oxford University Bill which did not make some provision in regard to this matter would be an exceedingly defective one. His object was, not to relieve the parent of a student from any of his present liability, but to protect the young, man in order that he might not be tempted to conceal from his father the extent of his extravagance, and might not, at the end of his University career, find himself indebted to an amount which would embarrass him during Ids whole life. The father would still remain liable for the son's necessary debts, and if he did not supply him with money to meet ordinary expenses suited to his station in life, and if the son obtained clothes and books which he wore and used, a jury would enforce the claim against the father. He would, in consequence of what had passed, withdraw his Motion.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was fully aware of the extent of the evil and the necessity of finding a remedy; he only protested against exceptional legislation on this subject; but if the hon. and learned Member for Bath, instead of carrying his object by a clause in a Bill, would bring in a general measure, he would co-operate with him in repressing extravagance.
MR. CRAUFURDthought that the authorities of the Universities would be able to meet the evil complained of by making such regulations, with regard to the tradesmen who were under their control, as should discountenance the giving of credit to persons who were in statu pupillarum. At Cambridge he believed great encouragement was given to high charges and a system of long credit by the practice of sending in accounts to tutors. The result was, that the accounts which were longest unpaid, and on which, therefore, an addi-
346
tional charge was made by way of interest, were those which were sent in through the tutors.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, that at Oxford there was no such practice as for the tutors to interfere in the payment or regulation of tradesmen's accounts. He suggested that the course proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath would only be to transfer debts from the Oxford tradesmen to those in London. It was a fear of causing this which led to much of the tenderness exhibited by the University authorities to tradesmen.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that the statement of the hon. and learned Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Craufurd) would not apply to the University of Cambridge any more than to that of Oxford. At Cambridge the tradesmen were bound, at the end of each term, to send in to each tutor the accounts of the young men under his charge, to be by him examined; and to his (Mr. Goulburn's) knowledge the tutors frequently called the attention of the parents of a young man to anything which they thought to be extravagance on his part. These accounts were regularly paid by the tutors when they received the money from the parents of the students, and any delay which might occur in particular cases must arise from the neglect of the parents to remit the money to the tutor.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that he had spoken of facts which had come within his own knowledge during a six years' residence at the University of Cambridge. A tutor of Trinity College, of which he was an undergraduate, left the college without paying any of the bills, for which he had received the money.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that the hon. and learned Member had founded a general statement upon an exceptional case. Many years ago a tutor of Trinity College did misapply the funds; but he defied the hon. and learned Gentleman to prove that at the present moment such a practice prevailed in regard to any tutor of any college.
MR. PHINNsaid, that, acting on the understanding which had been come to, he would, with the permission of the House, postpone the consideration of this clause, and also of some subsequent ones providing for the regulation of the proceedings of the Vice Chancellor's Court by the rules of common law, until Thursday next. But so strongly did he feel the necessity of apply-

347
ing some remedy to this evil, that unless he had then come to some arrangement with the Solicitor General, he should be disposed to press this clause as it now stood.
MR. CRAUFURD, in reference to the remarks of Mr. Goulburn, said, that he had not drawn his inference from one case, but from his knowledge of cases of the description to which he had referred having occurred, and from the fact that men of his own standing at college, who wished to obtain goods economically, never allowed the accounts to be sent to the tutor, by which course they got the goods five per cent cheaper than they would otherwise have done.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BLACKETTmoved the following clause—
"It shall henceforward be unlawful to administer any oath on admission to any office or emolument in the said University or the colleges thereof."
The hon. Member said, that it had been suggested to him that he should make an exception in favour of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy; and while he thought such a course would be unnecessary, as he believed that these oaths were administered only on the taking of a degree, he should not object to make such an exception. He would not repeat the extracts which he read to the House on the previous evening, but would only remind it that the oaths to which he objected were such as referred either to matters of trifling importance and minute observance, such as that the heads of the fellows should be washed and shaved by the college porter, and others; and to such as referred to matters which were positively illegal, as the celebration of mass and the performance of the offices of the Church of Rome. There was another class of oaths of which he was not aware when he last brought this subject before the House. The professors swore that they would sing psalms in the High Street of Oxford, the words of the oath being "tu cantabis in publicis processionibus." The argument with which he was met by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he last brought this subject before the House, amounted to this, that it was a serious thing to declare that in future none of these oaths should be administered. In reply to this he would remind the right hen. Gentleman that this was a course which had been contemplated
348
and accepted by, he believed, every authority upon the subject. The Dean of Ely had given in his adhesion to it. Dr. Tyler had said that he was not aware of a single oath at Oxford which might not be advantageously abolished, and the Reports of the Commissions to inquire into the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin had all laid it down that it would be highly expedient, indeed that for purposes of efficiency it was absolutely imperative, to prohibit for the future the administration of any of these oaths. As fas as Cambridge was concerned, the Commission upon that University did in this only adopt the recommendation of the Syndicate of that University itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the reform of these oaths should be left to the authorities of the colleges. He (Mr. Blackett) had no doubt that he used that argument in perfect good faith, but he would remind him that the Oxford University Commission had declared in their Report that it would be nugatory to give to the authorities such a power of reform. On every ground expediency and academic discipline, therefore, he submitted that it would be well to make a clean sweep at once of these oaths, which they could do without travelling beyond the scope of the Bill, and in which they would only be following out the recommendations of the Oxford Commissioners. He should certainly take the sense of the house upon this point, and give those hon. Members who agreed with hint the opportunity of recording their votes in opposition to the continuance of what he considered idle, mischievous, and blasphemous profanity.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that this question divided itself into two parts, which ought to be kept more separate from each other than had been done by the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman had quoted, with great truth and justice, and much force, various Statutes of the different colleges of the University of Oxford, amid said it was highly improper (he had even gone the length of saying it was very profane) to bind persons to obey Statutes which it was either impossible or irrational to observe, and which, in point of fact, were not ob-

349
served. So far as that part of the ease went, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) certainly entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman; but the hon Member would, at the same time, admit that almost all the cases he had quoted were the cases of Statutes that were in existence under cover of that extraordinary oath invented by William of Wykeham, and which bound those who took it not only to the observance of the Statutes, but also to the resistance of any change in them, and forbade them to obey any other Statutes which varied or departed from their tenor. Now, so far as that particular oath was concerned, it would be rendered entirely and absolutely illegal by the Bill now passing through the House; and it was not too much to assume that, by the act of the Commissioners who would be appointed to work this Bill, those Statutes and all such clauses in them as the hon. Gentleman had referred to, would very shortly cease to figure on the roll of the Statutes of these colleges. But then there Were other oaths which were administered in the University on the admission,
particularly, to fellowships. Now these oaths, generally speaking, so far as they did not fall within the sweep of the prohibitory clause of this Bill, were oaths of a simple promissory character (omitting now all reference to the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, which were not included in this Motion), and therefore he could not see that hon. Member's observation, or his censure of irreverence or profanity, was at all applicable to them. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) confessed that this was not a matter on which he had not very strong opinion; but this Bill had been framed, with regard to this particular subject, in the mode that was most conformable to its general principle. It was a Bill that trusted to the operation of enabling powers; and the Government had therefore endeavoured, by the measure as it now stood, to avoid the peremptory ruling and solving of any questions, excepting those which it was absolutely and imperatively necessary for Parliament itself to solve. They proceeded upon the principle that, within certain limits at any rate, confidence might be reposed in the authorities appointed to carry out this Bill, and also to a great extent that confidence might be likewise placed in the members of the colleges themselves; and he himself. had a strong conviction that that confidence would be found to have been fully
350
justified. With regard to the oaths now in question—the promissory oaths—there was some difference of opinion in the University. By many members of the University he believed it was thought that the entrance to a fellowship or a college living was an act of great significance and importance; that the relations which persons who so entered contracted with one another were very close and intimate; and that, therefore, these occasions were occasions which it was most fit and becoming to invest with solemnity by the administration of an oath. Other gentlemen at the University of Oxford took a different view, and were of opinion with time hon. Member that it would be better to withdraw the oath, and trust, first, to the principles and the good feeling of those who were elected, and, in the second place, to the efficiency of their laws. Now what was proposed by time Bill was, that they should leave this question to be decided in the University and by the Commissioners, and he confessed that he thought it would be much better so to leave it, than to attempt to do something which would no doubt be regarded by many as an act violating the freedom of the colleges in the conduct of their own concerns, and for which he thought they could not allege any ground of necessity. He fully granted that there was a ground of necessity for interposing with regard to the oath against any change; and the Government had recognised that necessity by a clause directed against that oath; but in cases where the members of the colleges were simply bound to the observance of Statutes of their college which might be enacted by the lawful authorities from time to time, he thought that nothing should be done to restrain or tie their hands, or to prevent their giving the freest and fairest attention to this question. He certainly hoped that it might be the view of the Committee that they should leave the colleges perfectly at liberty to deal with this matter, subject to the control of the Commissioners, as they had done on many other questions of immense importance, in which it would be impossible to demonstrate that changes ought not to be made; but they were proceeding on the principle that such matters could be dealt with by others much more satisfactorily and more effectually than by Parliament.
MR. GOULBOURNconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman, in thinking that a task of this nature would be better per-

351
formed by the Commissioners than by that House. In the University of Cambridge, where the power of dealing with this question was vested in the college authorities, alterations had been made in the Statutes, and now there were no oaths administered there that could give reasonable offence.
MR. HEYWOODsupported the clause.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREwould vote for the clause, believing that these oaths were unnecessary, and that every unnecessary oath was in itself an evil.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEconfessed he thought it would be very desirable to leave this matter to the authorities to deal with, inasmuch as some persons unquestionably desired some kind of acknowledgment in the form of an oath on entrance, and the propriety of retaining the oaths would differ according to the circumstances of each college, who would carefully consider the form of every individual oath; he should, therefore, be prepared to support the view taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. EWARTthought that this was a question of public morality, and that, as such, it should be dealt with by the House.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLadvised the Committee to leave the matter to the discretion of the colleges and the Commissioners.
MR. BLACKETT, in reply, said, he did not mean to charge any gentleman who had taken those oaths with profanity, but he thought, public attention having now been called to them, they would forfeit a great opportunity of abolishing a breach of morality and a great scandal if they did not do away with those oaths, which could confer no benefit either on the University or the country.
On Question, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time," the Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 109: Majority 38.
MR. G. PHILLIMOREmoved the following clause—
"That from and after the 1st day of December next ensuing, no person shall on account of his rank be permitted to pass his examination or to take a degree sooner than any other undergraduate."
The reasons for moving this clause were so Yen" clear and simple, that he did not feel it necessary to enter into any detail or any statement whatever. His argument was this—if it was a good thing, everybody ought. to share in it; if it was a bad thing, nobody should be subject to it.
352
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
COLONEL NORTHasked if the clause was intended to interfere with the present members of the University?
MR. PHILLIMOREsaid it was not.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should endeavour to imitate the brevity of the hon. Mover of this clause. The hon. Gentleman said the only question was whether the thing was a good thing or a bad thing; but he would tell the hon. Gentleman that there was another question, namely, whether it was a right thing for the Committee to do. He thought this matter also was a matter of detail which ought to be left to the University.
MR. EWARTshould support the clause, wishing to see absurd and obsolete distinctions abolished.
MR. HEYWOODthought it desirable that the residence required from ordinary graduates at the University should be shortened, and he wished to see commoners allowed to take their degrees with as little delay as degrees could be taken by noblemen. He could not concur in the suggestion that the University should be left to deal with this subject, for he feared the University might entertain so much reverence for rank that no alteration would be made in the existing regulations. He would, therefore, feel it his duty to vote for the clause.
MR. PHILLIMOREsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not told them whether he was in favour of the propositions or not. Here was a prominent evil affecting the civil rights of English subjects, and he now sought to remedy it.
On Question, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time," the Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 67: Majority 1.
MR. BOWYERmoved the following clause—
"And whereas it is desirable to restore the study of the Civil Law and Jurisprudence in the University of Oxford, Be it Enacted, That no degree of B.C.L. shall be granted or conferred by the University of Oxford, unless the candidate for such degree shall have been duly examined for the same in the elements of Jurisprudence and Justinian's Institutes of Civil Law; and no degree of D.C.L. shall be granted or conferred by the University (except honorary degrees), unless the candidate for such degree shall have been duly examined for the same in International or Public Law, and the Pandects or Digest of Roman Civil Law; and it shall be lawful for the Heb-

353
domadal Council of the University to make from time to time such regulations for and regarding such examinations as they may think fit."
The hon. and learned Gentleman said, the object of this clause was to restore to the University of Oxford the faculty of law, which he conceived was one of the most important faculties necessary to constitute a University. At present the degrees in civil law were acquired by a mere form. The degree of D.C.L. was granted after what was called a "wall lecture." The candidate for the degree was shut up with nothing but a wall to look at, and it was supposed that he was ready to dispute with any person who came to him. Nobody, however, did come; but, if anybody did present himself with the view of disputation, he (Mr. Bowyer) believed that in most cases the learned doctor would be very much puzzled as to the manner in which he should deal with his opponent. In many cases the candidate had not gone through any book on civil law, or learnt anything of the science in which he was allowed by the University to take the highest degree. He considered that Parliament should lay down some rules to prevent one of the most important faculties of the University from falling into decay and desuetude. He found a very strong recommendation for the revival of the study of the law in the University of Oxford in page 71 of the Report of the Commissioners. At page 72 the Commissioners stated that the study of the civil law ought not to be allowed to fall into complete desuetude, and the evidence given before the Commissioners fully justified the opinion they had given. The Commissioners had also recommended the institution of the study of international lacy; and he need scarcely remind his learned Friends around him that it was absolutely impossible for any one to obtain a competent knowledge of international law, unless he had made himself to some extent perfectly master of the civil law. They knew how important it was to have persons adequately trained for the office of Queen's Advocate, whose duty it was to advise the Crown on matters regarding the relations of the country with other nations. There were now measures before Parliament haying for their object the reform of the Courts of Doctors' Commons, and one of the effects of those measures, whatever might be their merits or demerits, would be to cause the extinction of a body of persons conversant with a
354
science which was of great importance to the public service, and though he was not then going to enter into that matter, he referred to it as an additional reason why they should take measures to revive the academic study of that science. All persons engaged in the diplomatic service should be acquainted with international law, but many of them had never had an opportunity of learning even the rudiments of it. Therefore they were unable, when they came to argue questions with the Ministers of foreign States, to meet them in argument, or to understand the full force or bearing of the State papers, or of the authorities cited in those State papers. That was another reason why they should not neglect the academic study of this science, which was so necessary for the public service. He thought the University of Oxford would be rendered nil engine of very great advantage to the country compared with what it had been, if, in addition to the study belonging to scholarship and belonging to antiquity, they added also other studies, such as that of the law, which would be practically useful to persons when they came into that or the other House, or were employed in the public service. If the revival of the faculty of law in the University actually took place it would be found valuable and important for practicable purposes, and Dot only would those who were intended for the legal profession go through that course of study which the University would lay down, but a certain amount of study in the civil law would be made a portion of the regular curriculum, of University education. The hon. and learned Member quoted Archbishop Chicheley and Lynwode in support of his view as to the great expediency of these studies at the University, and contended that, in effect, the granting degrees in civil law, as practised at the University now, was in fraud of the intentions of the founders, who had left directions that those degrees should be made conditions on their benefactions; for it was manifest that these founders contemplated that the degrees should be bon° fide degrees and real tests of proficiency.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he appreciated fully all that had been said by the hon. and learned

355
Gentleman as to the importance of the study of the civil law, and the great benefit to be derived from it, but at the same time he must say that the clause which he had proposed was out of place on the present occasion, because it presumed altogether a different idea of the functions of the House, and of the task then before it, from the true one, and seemed to rest upon the suggestion that they were engaged in constructing a system of study for the University of Oxford. The main objection he bad to the adoption of the clause was, that it would be entirely inconsistent with the general framework of the Bill, which was to put the University of Oxford into a position to do its own business for itself, but not to undertake to do its business in its stead; and until they should see how they acted, Parliament would not be in a position to judge how far it was necessary to interfere by a positive provision of this kind. The same argument as that which had been used by the hon. and learned Gentleman would apply to the study of theology and of other faculties, and they would be involved in the performance of a labour for which they were entirely unfit, but for the performance of which the University of Oxford was not unfit. He should be sorry, at the same time, to see a clause of this kind negatived, because it contained important matter, and an adverse vote, would do injustice to the clause; but he trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not prematurely press upon them a proposition of this kind. He would suggest to him to withdraw the clause, and begged he would accept his thanks for the able and friendly interest, the highly intelligent interest, he had displayed in the University by the speech he had made.
MR. HENLEYalso trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the clause as having nothing to do with the purpose of the Bill.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who brought forward the Motion, that any attempt to teach international jurisprudence without laying down as the basis for it an acquaintance with the civil law, would result in knowledge of the most inadequate description; but lately at Oxford, those who took degrees in civil law had been subjected to real or bonâ fide examination in some of the authors to whom the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman had reference. He thought it would be very unwise on the part of the hon. and learned
356
Gentleman to press this question to a division; but he very much rejoiced the discussion had taken place, because it was important that the University of Oxford should be impressed with the notion that Parliament was not indifferent to the study, and did not wish that the sums of money left for the purpose should be diverted from that object.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALwas quite sure the Committee would concur with him in high appreciation of the hon. and learned Gentleman's motives for bringing forward a subject upon which he was so distinguished an authority. The proposition which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made, could not but have its full weight with those who would have the further development of the resources of the University in their hands; and he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would, therefore, not feel it necessary to press his clause upon the Committee. The general principles involved in the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman were already embodied in the Bill, but had reference not to the subject of law only, but to all the subjects contained in the University examination. It was unnecessary, therefore, to lay down these principles with regard to the faculty of law, unless they went on to repeat them with regard to divinity, medicine, and any other branch of instruction which either was or might be hereafter included in the curriculum of University education. He thought his hon. and learned Friend might very safely leave it to the superintending authorities in the University under this Bill so to perfect the course of studies there as to give the students that full, that comprehensive education which would enable them, with credit to themselves, and benefit to the community, to fulfil their moral and social duties and perform their political obligations. He would call to his hon. and learned Friend's recollection, that there was a subject now engaging the attention of the Law Commission that would have an important bearing on the subject in which he was so interested—the question, namely, of effecting, on the part of the Inns of Court, the complete fulfilment of the great and important mission with which they had been originally charged—to provide effectually for the legal education of the country. The course recommended by the hon. and learned Gentleman might, possibly, be most in; convenient with reference to that question, and, if embodied in an Act of Parliament,

357
it could not hereafter be modified. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Motion upon the House.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he did not see the advantage of reviving the ancient system of the study of civil law in the Universities, as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed. The system was dying away, and he saw no sufficient reason why they should endeavour to revive it to any great extent. It ought, at any rate, to be put on quite a different footing. He was aware that, on the Continent, the study of the civil law was regarded as an excellent mode of improving and strengthening the intellect; but he thought there were many modern works, the study of which was likely to be as helpful to the intellect as the Pandects of Justinian.
MR. EWARTsaid, the Statutes of 1830 had in fact revived the study of the civil law at Oxford. He was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised the question of diplomacy, even in passing, in relation to this subject. He did not see where diplomatists could receive a preliminary education so well as in the Universities, and he hoped, therefore, that the attention of those learned bodies, which were the natural feeders of the diplomatic profession, would turn their attention to the study of the civil law, and especially of international law.
MR. NAPIERsaid, the great excellence of this Bill was, that it untied the hands of the University, that it was simply an enabling measure, and that it left free action to the heads of the University in the regulation of the curriculum of studies. That principle would be invaded if the House agreed to the present clause, and he trusted, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member would withdraw it. In saying this, he did not at all undervalue the importance of the study of the civil law, which he believed to he indispensable to a thorough knowledge of law. At the same time, he thought the province of the University was rather to promote the general education of the students than to impart instruction in particular studies, with the exception, indeed, of theology—a knowledge of which should, he thought, be acquired there.
MR. BOWYER, said, that, after what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor General, he would not hesitate for a moment to withdraw his Motion; but he thanked the right hon.
358
Gentleman and the other Members who had taken part in the conversation for the favourable manner in which they bad received his proposal, and he hoped that what had passed would have the effect of directing the attention of the University authorities to the subject.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, that he had given notice of a clause which he feared would be liable to the same objections which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made to the clause of the hon. and learned Member. Its object was to provide that, during the last year of the academical course, all students shall be left free to devote themselves to some special branch or branches of study, and to select their own tutor or professor. He should not, however, press the clause, but should assent to its being negatived.
Clause (During the last year of the academical course, all students shall be left free to devote themselves to some special branch or branches of study, and to select their own tutor or professor), brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be new read a second time," put, and negatived.
MR. HEYWOODthen proposed clauses, enacting that the Commissioners shall, within one year from the passing of this Act, prepare balance-sheets of the present state of the revenues of the University, and of all the colleges and halls of Oxford, and shall forward the same to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, with a view to their being presented to Her Majesty and to both Houses of Parliament; that the Commissioners shall be authorised to examine the unpublished copies of Royal Commissions and of academical Statutes belonging to the University and colleges of Oxford, and to suggest alterations in the college Statutes, more especially tending to an improvement in the system of succession to college endowments; and that the Commissioners shall revise the table of fees exacted by the University, so as to equalise all fees demanded for the same purpose, and to abolish all those which are exacted for no service, or which are unnecessary, due regard being paid to vested interests. He thought these clauses were rendered necessary by what took place when the late Commission issued. That body, one of the objects of which was to examine into the revenues of the

359
University, having required accounts of their receipts from all the colleges, some of them, amongst which he might mention Brasenose, refused to give any information with respect to money matters; although he believed they had in reality no reason to shun inquiry. Others, however, had brought forward their balance-sheets in a plain, straightforward manner. He thought it was of importance that this Motion should be agreed to, as it would be a recognition of these colleges being public institutions. On public principle he thought they ought to ask that a copy of the accounts of all the colleges should be laid before Parliament. This would be a proof that they recognised them as public institutions, and it was on that ground that he asked the House to assent to the Motion.
Clause (The Commissioners shall, within one year from the passing of this Act, prepare balance sheets of the present state of the revenues of the University, and of all the Colleges and Halls of Oxford, and shall forward the same to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, with a view to their being presented to Her Majesty and to both Houses of Parliament,) brought up, and read the first time.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that after the admirable example which the hon. Member had set with respect to the first clause, he felt the less hesitation in advising him also to withdraw those then under the consideration of the House. There was not, perhaps, one word in the clauses of which the hon. Gentleman had given notice, to which he could object on the merits. He was sure, however, that clauses of this kind would be likely to create dislike and alarm at the University, although, perhaps, these feelings might not be perfectly justified. At the same time, he would not have urged this alone as a reason for the withdrawal of these clauses. The first, however, was entirely unnecessary, as the 4th clause of the Bill gave the Commissioners who were to be appointed under it power to call upon the University and the colleges for the production of documents and accounts, and it would no doubt be their duty to exercise that power. The accounts so obtained would in due course be transmitted to the Crown, and would then, according to the usual practice, be presented to Parliament. lie must observe that what had taken place under the former Commission was no guide as to what was likely to occur under the new one. The first being merely
360
issued under the authority of the Crown, many fellows and heads of houses thought themselves precluded by their oaths from divulging any information which might result in prejudice to their colleges; their only duty, however, would clearly be to obey a Commission appointed under the authority of Parliament. The next clause was perfect surplusage, inasmuch as it only set forth in detail part of what was fully contained in the 4th clause. No doubt, the Commissioners would, quite independently of anything contained in this Bill, make suggestions to the University authorities; but to empower thorn to make suggestions conferred upon them no real authority, and he could not help thinking that it was not compatible with the dignity of Parliament to give the Commissioners power to make recommendations if they did not also give them power to carry those recommendations into effect. He thought also that it would be unwise to insert a table of fees in this, which was simply an enabling measure; for it was clear that, if the University was not competent to revise its own table of fees, it was riot competent to deal with the much more important matters committed to its discretion. He thought it was not desirable at present to interfere in detail with the regulations of the University, but to allow a reasonable time to elapse during which it might be seen what was the working of the constitution that had been given to that body.
MR. HEYWOODthought there were several matters on which the Commissioners might make excellent suggestions. The rules with reference to compulsory celibacy and compulsory ordination were, for example, very bad rules, and to these the attention of the Commissioners might well be directed. He thought, also, that Parliament should know what the suggestions of the Commissioners were. After what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not wish to press these clauses to a division.
Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put. and negatived.
On the preamble being put,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERproposed to omit the following words—
"And for ensuring. the enjoyment of fellowships and other collegiate endowments according to personal merit, and for promoting the main designs of the founders both as respects the appointment to the said endowments and the continued tenure thereof; and for charging portions of the

361
endowments or income of colleges in certain eases with duties to be performed for the benefit of members of the University at large."
It was not proposed to part with any portion of the substance of the preamble, but the fact was, that when the latter portion of the Bill was rendered merely enabling, it had been thought better that this passage, relating to the college endowments, should be prefixed to such merely enabling portion of the Bill, and it had accordingly been inserted in the 31st clause.
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday.

SUPPLY—POSTAGE OF PRINTED PAPERS.
On the Order of the Day being read for going into Committee of Supply,
MR. MILNER GIBSONrose to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the subject of the postage of printed matter—he did not mean newspapers—which was at present allowed to go through the post up to a certain limited weight. He understood there was a Treasury order which permitted printed matter (not being newspapers) to go through the post for a penny, the newspaper stamp being affixed to those particular copies which were intended to be sent through the post merely for postage purposes, and not because the paper really was a newspaper. He wished, in the first place, to ask whether there was any objection to lay this order on the table; and in the next, to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the circumstance that the Board of Inland Revenue, acting under that Treasury order, required persons to make what might be called a false declaration in order to obtain the privilege thus afforded. Persons who desired that their printed matter should go through the post, franked by the newspaper stamp, were called upon by the Board to make a solemn declaration that these printed pamphlets were newspapers, when everybody knew they were not newspapers, and when the parties themselves and the Board of Inland Revenue were perfectly conscious they were not. He had an instance of this before him. There was a publication called the Quarterly Statement of the Society for Promoting the Employment of Additional Curates in Populous Places. Now it was clear that this publication could not be a newspaper; yet he found Mr. Richard
362
Clay, of Hornsey, in the county of Middle. sex, printer and proprietor of this Quarterly Statement, affirming that it was a newspaper, in order to obtain the postal privilege in question, and saying, "I do make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true." He certainly thought that if it were the intention of the Treasury to allow such publications as this to go through the post for 1d., persons wishing to avail themselves of the privilege should not be obliged to go through this most objectionable preliminary form of making a declaration amounting to something very like a falsehood. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was, he believed, a member of this Additional Curate Employment Society, and was, therefore, to some extent a participator in the system of making loose declarations, and thereby, if not defrauding the Post Office, at least of lessening the charge which this publication would have to pay for transmission by post according to the laws of the land. He (Mr. Gibson) thought that, both on moral and on financial grounds, the subject was one well worthy of consideration on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Treasury. He knew a gentleman who refused to make such a declaration, which he knew to be false, and in justice to those who entertained conscientious scruples the Government ought to put an end to the anomaly. He wished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman would have any objection to lay the Treasury order on the subject on the table of the House?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, it was scarcely correct to charge the Board of Inland Revenue with calling upon these persons to make a false declaration. It was true that the Treasury, upon the representation of the Post Office, had so far relaxed the duty in regard to postage of newspapers as to allow certain pamphlets, not exceeding a specified weight, if duly stamped as newspapers at the Board of Inland Revenue, to pass free through the Post Office. But the Board of Inland Revenue had nothing whatever to do in requiring a false declaration on the subject. The Board was bound to take the declaration of any person who came before it, and said, "I am going to publish a newspaper," and who asked, therefore, that newspaper stamps should be attached to a portion of his impression. It was not for the Board to say whether the publication was a newspaper or not; they accepted the declaration made

363
to them, and allowed the stamp to be affixed. It was quite true that a variety of publications had of late years been issued and sent through the post under the character of newspapers, and nothing was more common than for merchants in sending their circulars abroad to call them newspapers. Undoubtedly such. publications contained what those persons thought they were entitled to call news, such as accounts of the state of the markets and of the prices of goods; but when these gentlemen went to Somerset House, all that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue had to do was to see that when they granted the privilege in question the declaration required by law should be made. The proprietor or printer declared the publication to be a newspaper, and that he conscientiously believed all he had stated to be true; and it was not for the Board of Inland Revenue to doubt a man's word and to declare he had been guilty of a misstatement. He could have no objection to place the House in possession of either the original Treasury order or the subsequent correspondence which had taken place between the Treasury and the Post Office on the subject.
MR. BRIGHTthought the hon. Gentleman had not been very successful in apologising for the Board of Inland Revenue, for the Board could not but see that the publication in question was not a newspaper, as it was a quarterly publication, which, even according to the ill-defined state of the law as it at present stood, was sufficient to exclude it from that category. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was both a subscriber to this society and a member of the committee; both the Archbishops were members, and the paper was published under their auspices. He wanted to know why the Board of Inland Revenue should treat different persons in a different manner. In the case of this Society the stamp was affixed, under the pretext of its being a newspaper, to those copies of the publication that were sent to the country, while those copies that were distributed from hand to hand in town were published without a stamp. But it might be that in the very next street a person might come forward to make the same declaration with respect to his publication, when the Board would insist upon every individual copy being stamped. Therefore, though there was but one law, yet there were two applications of that law; and he was sure that
364
the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson) would be the first to admit that in all matters of taxation it was essential that that taxation should be levied with justice and equality upon all, and that the Board of Inland Revenue ought not to be allowed to constitute itself a kind of censorship upon the press, allowing a portion of one publication only to be stamped, and insisting upon the stamping of every other copy in the case of the other. The hon. Member said, that the Board of Inland Revenue had nothing to do but to receive the declaration of the proprietor or publisher, and that they took that at once as valid and true. But if a person brought a pair of boots to the Inland Revenue Office, and proposed to make the usual declaration in order that they might pass through the Post Office, he took it for granted that the officials would then open their eyes and discover that they were not a newspaper. He would take this opportunity of asking the Attorney General, whom he now saw in his place, what conclusion had been come to in the case of the Penny Commercial Journal, published by Mr. Shard, in Dublin, which had been prosecuted by the Government, and in which the proprietor of the paper had obtained a verdict in his favour. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, a short time ago, stated that in his opinion that verdict was a bad one, but that the question of a new trial had been referred to the consideration of the Attorney General. As it was desirable the decision of the hon. and learned Gentleman should be known, he begged now to ask him what opinion he had formed upon the case?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would be happy on this as on every other occasion to give an explicit answer to his hon. Friend, but the matter had not come under his notice. It was an Irish prosecution, conducted by the Attorney General for Ireland, and he was not competent, therefore, to give any opinion on the subject.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly stated that the matter had been referred to the English Attorney General.
The House then went into Committee of

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES —CRIMINAL LUNATICS.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 164,165 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Maintenance of Prisoners in County Gaols,

365
Reformatory Institutions, and Lunatic Asylums, and Expenses of Removal of Convicts, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, he had been prevented on a former occasion from bringing forward a Motion of which he had given notice—that as a salary was refused to Roman Catholic chaplains, the same measure should he meted out to the chaplains of all; other religious denominations. He therefore thought it right to bring it forward on the present occasion, though he was sorry he was obliged to do so on such a limited scale, and in relation to a class of most pitiable objects. He referred to the class of criminal lunatics, for whose religious instruction there was a Vote in this Estimate to the extent of 100 l. In proposing to reduce the Estimate by this sum he hoped the Committee would not misjudge his motives, but would remember that he wished to test a great principle. The House had already decided by a vote on a former occasion that it would not subsidise Roman Catholic priests. He was not disposed to quarrel with that decision, if the House would now declare its determination to mete out the same justice to all the other sects. But if not, then the Committee would be adopting the principle announced by his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), that there was no truth out of the pale of the Protestant creed. If that were so, they might deride the absurd claim of the infallibility of the Pope of Rome as long as they pleased, but it seemed to him that they were in fact setting up the same claim on behalf of Protestantism, with this ignoble difference, that the Protestant Pope issued his decrees from Exeter Hall instead of from the Vatican. The Protestants had an unquestioned majority in that House, and all that he asked was, that they should not exercise their power in such a way as to injure the Roman Catholics, or expect from them the services of loyal subjects while they refused to treat them on the same footing of justice and equality that all Her Majesty's subjects were entitled to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum not exceeding 164,065 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the maintenance of Prisoners in County Gaols, Reformatory Institutions, and Lunatic Asylums, and Expenses of Removal of Convicts, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained that the Vote was not made out in the same clear and explicit manner as it used to be a few years ago. There was no account
366
in this Estimate of the value of the labour of prisoners, which ought to have been stated. Then he observed that the items for criminal lunatics in England and in Ireland had been increased from 2,9631. to 7,643 l. He wished for some explanation as to these points.
MR. FITZROYexplained that the increase in the prison estimates referred to by the hon. Member for Lambeth arose out of the increased price of provisions and the increased number of lunatics accommodated and supported in the prisons. With respect to the return of the amount produced by labour in the prisons, if the hon. Member referred to the 15th page of the Estimates he would find it clearly entered that it amounted to no less a sum than 16,226 l.
MR. MACARTNEYhoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow a Committee to be appointed relative to Ireland with respect to these Votes, inasmuch as he considered that country by no means fairly treated in the Estimates, after the promises which had been held out by Sir R. Peel on the repeal of the Corn Laws. Ireland, in fact, upon the clear promise held out to them by that statesman, claimed for the present a Supplemental Vote as to these Estimates, and he could not understand why Government should resist such a measure of justice. He hoped, before he brought forward any Amendment as to these supplies, that Government would fairly and ingenuously consider the question.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTcomplained of the increase in the Vote for reformatory institutions, which had been raised from 3,000 l. in the last year to 5,000 l. in the present. He also complained that the Estimates were not drawn up in a sufficiently clear manner.
MR. FITZROYexplained that the increase in the Vote for reformatory institutions had arisen from the experiments which the Government was making with regard to these institutions. It was thought desirable that previous to any general measure being taken upon this subject, which might throw the maintenance of the institutions upon the county rates, the experiment should be tested upon a larger scale than had been hitherto done. Some juvenile institutions had been established through private beneficence, or through private and local influence, in various parts of the country, to which it had been thought desirable to send juvenile offenders for the purpose of ascertaining whether the

367
system therein enforced might not be an improvement on that necessarily employed in the gaols. Hence it was proposed to increase the Vote to the Philanthropic Institution, which was well known from the beneficial results of its discipline, from 3,000 l. to 4,000 l., and 1,000 l. had been voted to some other reformatory institutions, such as that at Birmingham, Gloucester, and Kingswood, which had been certified as useful anal beneficial institutions.
COLONEL GREVILLEsail, it was necessary that the principle should now be decided. He thought that if they were to refuse support to any party, they ought not to refuse those who had no property and give it to those who were already richly endowed. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) had taken it upon hint to state to the House what was truth, and what was error. He denied the right of the hon. Member to enter upon that subject at all; but if he wire inclined to argue it with him, he should say that there could not be truth in that system which neglected that fist of Christian virtues—charity. They never found the Catholics abusing the religion of others, yet the hon. Member lost no opportunity of abusing their religion. He had called it idolatry and blasphemy. He thought such language was a disgrace to the House, and a disgrace to the hon. Gentleman, who ought to remember what Burke said in 1792, that in this country the Roman Catholics were a sect, but in Ireland they were a religion. They had entered into a political Union with a Roman Catholic people, and they were bound to give them the full advantages of that Union; if their consciences would not permit them to do that, they were then bound to dissolve the Union. With respect to these prisons, we ought undoubtedly to deal with Roman Catholics in a fair and manly spirit, and by no means to tamper with the religious faith of any man, whether convict or not. Whatever decision the House might come to, he hoped they gaols not turn their gaols into proselytising institutions, and that they would refuse to allow their proceedings to he guided by the principles of intolerance and bigotry.
MR. T. CHAMBERSwould not argue the question whether there ought to be an established religion, but there was one now established, and instruction in it was provided for all classes at the cost of the State. Criminals confined in gaols could
368
only expect the same teaching as was provided for those who had committed no crime. The principle was clear, and he could not adopt the grounds for exception urged the other night by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If there was to be an exception, it should not be in favour of Roman Catholics only, but ought to be extended to all sects. The Protestant religion was established within the walls of the prison as well as without. But lie admitted that the State ought not, because a man was in custody, to take advantage of it as an opportunity for proselytism. The Established religion allowed liberty of conscience to all. When a man entered a prison his name was taken down, and his religious opinions, and any minister lie wished was allowed to attend him. An attempt was being made to set up the anomaly of a Roman Catholic Establishment alongside of the Protestant one. He thought such a question as this ought to be brought forward in a formal Resolution, and not on occasion of Votes like that now before them.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, that the payment of chaplains was not a novelty, although one of the objections urged to the Vote on the last night was, that it was an attempt to introduce into England what had only been established in Ireland. The present Vote was for lunatic asylums, and not for prisons, and the number of Roman Catholics in them was very small. The argument that the Protestant religion, being the religion of the State, was established within the prison as well as without, was a mere play upon words. The unfortunate people for whom this Vote was to provide had not the means of procuring instruction; he implored the House, even if it refused chaplains to convict prisons, not to dilly them to lunatic asylums. if hon. Gentlemen would read the Reports of the Commissioners of Lunacy, and see the effect of the visits of the chaplains, they would not incur the great responsibility of denying to these unfortunate creatures the consolations of religion. When they were verging towards sanity, their minds were aroused and their recovery hastened by the visits of the chaplains.
MR. DRUMMONDquite agreed that it must be exceedingly painful to vote against the present grant. It was most unfortunate that this item should have been selected on which to raise a discussion like this; but he was quite ready to support the

369
Government on either side—either that they should treat all Dissenters from the Church of England alike, and salary all who asked for it, or that they should reject ail alike; one thing or the other they must do. It was not fair that Government should go on coming to the House with Votes of this kind, which provoked discussions in the House, pretending here in the House to be opponents of the Roman Catholics, and carrying on negotiations with the Court of Rome to assist the Queen in governing her own subjects. So long as this continued, and until they had got that question fairly out which never had been gut out—until it was seen what it was that Lord Clarendon, when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, really had set on foot with regard to the Court of Rome—these questions would be continually arising. It was the Government blowing hot one day and cold the next—asking the House for a hot vote one day and for a cold one to-morrow—that made all the difficulty in these questions, and Government ought to choose a consistent course either one way or the other.
MR. PHINNwas quite at a loss to understand on what principle the hon, Member for North Warwickshire drew a distinction between the payment of chaplains in gaols in Ireland and in England; for there was an established religion in Ireland equally as in England, and the Queen, by her coronation oath, was bound to support the established religion of both countries. The hon. Member and those who thought with him were constantly talking of the "Protestant Empire of Great Britain." But take the case of Lower Canada, where the religion was the Roman Catholic religion. Would the hon. Member for North Warwickshire contend that Protestant criminals immured in the gaols there should be attended by Roman Catholic chaplains or by none at all? He would ask the same question with regard to the people of India. By taking this particular Vote, and passing over others which involved the same principle, the hon. Member strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. He (Mr. Phinn) did not think money should be paid for any denomination of religion; but the principle ought not to be applied in an exceptional case like this. When a man was sent to gaol he ceased to be a free agent, and ought not to be denied that spiritual consolation which he might desire. There might be more Roman Catholic prisoners
370
in want of this spiritual consolation than there were ten years ago. The noble Lord the Home Secretary was right when he said that the Legislature was bound to apply the best means of reformation, and that therefore the access of Roman Catholic convicts to chaplains of their own persuasion ought not to be denied. The argument that might apply to dissent was inapplicable in the case of the Roman Catholic religion; the sacramental ordinances of the two Churches being so antagonistic that it was impossible to ask a Roman Catholic to receive the visits of the Protestant chaplain. He should vote with great pain and difficulty for the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, having to choose between two evils; but he trusted this might be the last occasion on which a sectarian discussion on such a subject would be revived.
MR. ADDERLEYdenied that those who had supported the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire on a former evening had involved themselves in the dilemma of either paying the chaplains of all religions, or of paying the chaplains of none. The principle laid down on a former evening was a very clear one, and had been acknowledged by all, namely, that, in all our public institutions, there ought to be a chaplain of the Established Church of the nation; but that, as that Church was a tolerant Church, the wants of those who differed from it should be provided for. In Ireland there was permanently a large majority of prisoners of the Roman Catholic religion, and it was necessary that there should be permanent Roman Catholic chaplains; but the proposition defeated the other night was not founded on any such principle, because it would have affirmed that, in all the gaols of England, whether there was one Roman Catholic prisoner or not, a Roman Catholic chaplain should be provided.
LORD SEYMOURappealed to the Committee not to strike out this Vote, which was of a purely charitable nature, and was very far from raising the large religious question which had been introduced into the discussion. From his own experience, having been formerly a Commissioner of Lunacy, and having had opportunities of judging of the effect of reformatory treatment on prisoners, he could speak as to the powerful influence which the inculcation of religion had upon such persons; it frequently happened that it was from the early associations of religion that men were

371
brought back again to the reason that had deserted them. This was a question of a sum of 100 l. for providing a chaplain for criminal lunatics, and he trusted the Committee would affirm the Vote.
MR. SPOONERquite agreed with the noble Lord that the opportunity was not a very fitting one for discussing the great principle raised by the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Scholefield). He therefore would not have taken any part in the discussion had he not been called upon to state the principle he acted on the other night, when he moved the rejection of the Vote of 550 l. for the payment of Roman Catholic chaplains in England. Now, he could not agree in two statements made by his hon. Friend. He did not think it was just or right in any way whatever that a Protestant State should pay for the support of the Roman Catholic religion; and that was the principle which actuated his Motion of the other night. But when he was asked, why act on a different principle with regard to this Vote from that which had influenced him in the case of England, he would say that the Vote for Ireland was already decided by Parliament; and although he objected as strenuously to the principle of that Vote as of this, he did not think it his duty, every time it came before the House, to assert his objections or to arouse opposition. When, however, the principle was endeavoured, for the first time, to be applied to England, he then thought it his duty to take the sense of the Committee with reference to such an application; yet he had no hesitation in saying that in any shape, or under any circumstances, for a Protestant nation to support a Roman Catholic priesthood was an act totally unjustifiable. He believed such a policy to involve a great national sin. He held it to be an abandonment of the high privileges which England enjoyed as a Protestant nation, and that it was fraught with very great danger to the State. He had been accused by hon. Gentlemen of indulging in continual abuse of the Roman Catholic religion; now he meditated no such abuse—he merely stated his own opinion with regard to that religion, and he had a perfect right to do so. He knew many individuals professing the Roman Catholic faith for whom he entertained a great respect; but because he entertained that respect, he was not to be deterred from saying that they were under a very dangerous delusion. But at the same time
372
he would remind the House and the noble Lord that the words which he had used upon a late occasion, and which were deemed such very hard ones, were words found in the Articles of the Church of which the noble Lord, who rebuked him for using them, was a member, and that the Sovereign was bound by, and did attest her full consent to, those Articles containing the very words in question. Again, therefore, he would say, although he might be accused of great bigotry for so doing, that it was a great national sin to support the Papal religion. He had ever opposed it, and should ever oppose it. They could not, however, say that he was for depriving Roman Catholics of the comfort of their religion—if, indeed, theirs was a religion; for they had free permission, when members of that faith were in prison, to send to their spiritual advisers; but what he asked was, why should a Protestant nation pay for the support of Popery? The privileges demanded in this matter by Roman Catholics were withheld from the members of every other persuasion except those of the Establishment; and why, therefore, should they concede to Roman Catholics greater privileges than they gave to others? As long as they admitted the principle that it was the duty of the State to provide for the religious education of its subjects, that education must be supplied according to some specified form—according to some specified principle or doctrine, and, consequently, it was the duty of the State to pay chaplains to inculcate those doctrines which it held to be the right ones. Upon that principle he proposed, the other evening, the rejection of the Vote. He believed in that principle; he rejoiced it had been recognised, and he hoped it would long continue to be recognised. The Vote proposed on the former night was a new one—it was an attempt to introduce into England a system which cannot be justified. He had endeavoured to stay the movement, and his efforts, he was happy to say, had succeeded. With regard, however, to the Vote now under discussion, he could not say that his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield) had shown his usual good sense in endeavouring to raise so important an issue upon so very doubtful an occasion as the present. It was a Vote which he (Mr. Spooner), under all the circumstances of the case, should support, as he felt it would be wrong and cruel not to do so.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could not allow the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner), or the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), to misrepresent the Vote which he had proposed the other evening, without setting them right as to a mistake which they had made. The hon. Gentleman for North Warwickshire had objected to the Vote on the ground that it was entirely a new one. Now, it was no such thing: He himself had explained, and it was explained over and over again by others, that an allowance had been made for years to the Roman Catholic chaplains at Milbank and elsewhere; that that allowance had been made for visits at each prison; and, therefore, that the only novelty involved was, that he proposed to give a fixed payment in all cases, instead of payments dependent upon the number of visits paid at so much pet day. Therefore the hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken in affirming his proposal to be an entire novelty as regarded England. The hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), however, said that the proposal was for the appointment of a Roman Catholic chaplain to every gaol in the kingdom, whether it contained one prisoner or many. Again, he must say, his proposal was for no such thing, for he could not have done that without entirely changing the law. His proposal, then, was simply confined to three or four Government prisons, where a large number of convicts were confined, and had no reference whatever to the great bulk of the county gaols throughout the country. But with regard to the Vote of the other night, he must say there never was a Vote exciting more painful feelings in his mind than it occasioned, and he could not have believed, had his opinion been asked beforehand, that in the present century, in the present state of the country, considering the general liberality and enlightenment that prevailed upon other subjects—that a Vote such as that could have possibly been rejected. It only seemed to remind him of what passed at the period of the decay of the Eastern empire, when Constantinople was besieged by the enemies of the Christian religion, the Mahometans. At that time the foolish Greeks, instead of uniting to make a common defence, were squabbling amongst themselves—the blue faction with the green faction, and the green with the yellow—as to differences of opinion which had no reference whatever to the great
374
question of the national independence. And what had they done by their vote of the other night? Why, with the great national enemies—vice, infidelity, crime, and profligacy—not merely thundering at their gates, but actually undermining the ground upon which they stood, instead of joining unitedly to withstand their enemies, they refused the small assistance that would convert these miserable wretches, condemned for their crimes, into useful members of society. Well, but grievous—he was about to use some other expression—grievous as was the opposition to the Vote of the other evening, he must say the opposition to the proposal now before the House seemed to him to far exceed it in the peculiarity of its impolicy and unfairness. His noble Friend (Lord Seymour) had well pointed out the value of religious advice to the unfortunate men, the objects of the present Vote; while in this case the question of religious differences did not apply. The other evening it was Protestant against Catholic—it was the difference between the two creeds that divided the House. But here the Vote applied on behalf of both Protestants and Catholics, and they were presented with the other position, the voluntary principle, and the principle of faith. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bath (Mr. Phinn) had placed the question upon its proper basis. Supposing the voluntary principle were admitted—supposing it were admitted that every free man was bound to find, at his own cost and charge, such religious instruction as was in conformity with the particular tenets of the religion which he held—still, even in that case, the condition of these men was totally different, for the objects of this Vote were not free; and though they were told that it was in their power to send for a priest, yet he would ask, might not they call for those who would not come? And what right had they to call upon a Protestant or Roman Catholic clergyman to go to Dartmoor Prison from a great distance, or to visit lunatic asylums in Ireland, to afford, without remuneration, that ministration which was so necessary to the lunatic and convict? Why, when they separated these men from the means which they possessed, of enjoying freely whatever religious instruction they wished—and when they admitted that religious instruction was as necessary for them as medical advice—and when it was given upon sanitary and not upon the theological

375
principles—it was absurd to tell him such persons might send for a priest or clergyman, and to contend whether or no the voluntary principle should obtain. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not endeavour to fight out the theological principle over the bodies of these unfortunate lunatics and convicts; for it would be as inconsistent to do so as to have disputations as to the theories of surgery carried on over the body of the unfortunate man for whose relief and benefit the operation was to be performed. It was cruel in hon. Members to make these unhappy persons the victims of their differences. If they so desired, let them fight them on some great principle, but he entreated the House, for Heaven's sake, and for the sake of commiseration and mercy, to give to these unhappy lunatics that which he would have had them grant to convicts—the religious consolation rendered so necessary by their moral and physical wants.
MR. LUCAS said: Sir, I am sorry to interrupt those Gentlemen who call for a division, but having, in common with many Members on both sides, felt a considerable interest in this question, I hope I may be allowed to say a few words. Sir, I have nothing to say in reply to the appeal of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) as to the impropriety of contesting a principle upon such a vote, for I have the strongest aversion to fighting a principle upon a question of this kind, which concerns the suffering and the afflicted among our fellow-creatures. But those who, like the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, borrow from the noble Lord tins argument, should recollect that the same argument applies to the Vote which was negatived the other night. The Catholic criminals who were to be provided with religious instruction by the Vote of 550 l. are in the same position practically as regards this question, as those criminal lunatics for whom the noble Lord expresses so much compassion. Sir, I have no principle to oppose to this Vote, for, as to the voluntary principle, I think it is impossible to carry it out in the case of persons shut up in prison and excluded from the world for sanitary or judicial purposes. And I wish those who are for carrying it to that extent would take a lesson from America, where the aversion to an Established Church is as strong, and carried quite as far, as even they themselves ought to require. But in the United States they
376
find that the voluntary principle cannot be carried to the extent to which its advocates here would press it. They have in the United States a Vote of Congress for chaplains in the Army; they have another Vote for chaplains to the Congress itself; and they have Votes in the several States for the State gaols, which answer to such Votes as the present. They do not understand there, nor ought it to be understood here, that the voluntary principle extends to those who are in confinement, and who cannot be called voluntary agents. Sir, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), and the hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Mr. Chambers), told us that the noble Lord (Viscount. Palmerston) pressed for something exceptional in favour of the Catholics. That is a complete misunderstanding. If any case were made out to the noble Lord requiring a grant in favour of Protestant Dissenters, there could be no objection to give it to them as well as to the Catholics, and the proof that it is not an exceptional privilege which is claimed for Catholics is to be found in the fact that there is the same arrangement made for Presbyterian chaplains in those gaols in Ireland which are supported out of the rates. In the county gaols of Ireland you have the arrangement carried out to an extravagant and absurd extent, whether there are Presbyterian prisoners or not. In the course of last summer I was visiting Mullingar Gaol, and looking over the visiting books I saw there for every Sunday an entry that the Rev. Mr.—,Presbyterian minister, visited the gaol for the purpose of religious worship; and when I asked the governor, a Protestant of the most determined kind, how many Presbyterian prisoners there were in the gaol, he said, "not one," and added, that there had not been one for some years. Yet there is a sum of 30 l.. a year allowed to the Presbyterian chaplain, 30 l. a year for the Established Church chaplain, although the prisoners belonging to the Established Church are, of course, very few—I believe not more than five or six—and then there is most graciously granted to the Catholic chaplain the same amount of 30 l. a year, although his duties must necessarily be infinitely more onerous. Such is the state of things in Ireland. ["No!"] It may be true, as the hon. Member intimates, that it is not universally the case; but I think it is generally so—and that not with reference to any case of special need—such as some hon. Members

377
appear to require, not with reference to any considerable number of prisoners, of any particular religious creed, but as a general rule—there is not only a salary for the Church of England chaplain, but for the Presbyterian chaplain and the Roman Catholic chaplain; and even though there be no Presbyterian prisoners at all, the salary is not the less paid and received. Sir, I was glad to find that the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) felt it necessary to offer some explanation of his vote the other night. I was glad he had the manliness to do so, for I am persuaded he is only one out of many who are heartily ashamed of the shabby decision which the House came to the other night—a decision, I am sure, adverse to the feelings, and I believe to the opinions, of a very great number of those who were among the majority on that occasion, and which, I am certain, will not tend to raise the character of the House in the judgment of all rational and enlightened men. But, Sir, I wish to bring the question before the noble Lord the Home Secretary in another way, and in a different point of view. The noble Lord will recollect that, from the beginning, in the conversations I have had with him on this subject, I said I did not wish to look on it so much as a question of money as of prison discipline; and that though, by reason of the forms of the House, I might be obliged to raise it on a Vote (it is hardly possible to raise it in any other way), yet that what I wanted was not so much justice in regard to money grants, as justice in regard to an entire change in the arrangement of our gaols. I mean such an alteration in the arrangements of our prisons as that justice could be done to the Catholic prisoners. At this moment justice is not done to them in that respect. The subject is now before the House in a somewhat peculiar position. The majority have decided that there shall be no payment for religious instruction to Catholic prisoners. But they have not decided that there shall not be justice done to Catholic prisoners in regard to the right of receiving religious instruction. On the contrary, the majority on that Vote consisted in a great degree of those who, while adverse to money grants for these purposes, are anxious that justice in every other respect should be done to Catholic prisoners. Now, Sir, I want to bring under the notice of the House and of the noble Lord thus publicly (for I will not make any claim on
378
behalf of Catholics which I am not prepared to maintain thus openly as just and reasonable)—I want to impress this upon the House and on the noble Lord—that he is not precluded, at the present moment, from making a just provision for religious instruction to Catholic prisoners, and that the vote the House came to the other night does not at all prevent him from doing so. The noble Lord stated in his speech on a former occasion the principles upon which the arrangements in this respect ought to be made. But, Sir, those principles are not enforced, those arrangements are not carried out at this moment, even in the prisons under the control of the Government. They were not enforced last year. They are still less enforced now. As I understand, the arrangements of some of our prisons are more bigoted and more unjust now than they were when the attention of the noble Lord was first called to the subject. [Mr. FITZROY asked if the hon. Member would name any one?] Take Pentonville for instance. The Protestant chaplain of that prison is an anti-Catholic pamphleteer, who writes pamphlets on "Prison Discipline," in which he denounces the Pope as "Antichrist," and who shows, by his published writings, that he is a most unfit person to be chaplain in a prison in which people of opposite religious belief are confined. I refer the noble Lord to this gentleman's writings. I did not wish to mention any one, but as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fitzroy) the Under Secretary of the Home Department asked me to name any prison, I was compelled to do so. But, in fact, I might name all your prisons. The arrangements which exist in all of them fail to secure justice in this respect to the Catholic prisoners. The hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers) said that we had a most perfect toleration, and that no further toleration could be asked than to allow the Catholic prisoners to send for their priests, and to allow the priests to come when so sent for. But the hon. and learned Member is under a complete mistake if he imagines that this is a measure of perfect "toleration." Sir, the present system of prison discipline for the Catholic prisoners is one of torture, under which they are often compelled to profess themselves Protestants, and to conform to the Protestant worship under positive pains and penalties. The system of discipline is one of strict separation, and at Pentonville, where the

379
system is carried very far indeed, it is almost one of solitary confinement. Well, on Sunday, when the time for divine service comes round, the Catholic prisoner has this temptation, that he can acquire a relaxation from the severity of that system of confinement if he chooses to abandon the profession of his religion and chooses to go to the Protestant service, to enjoy diversity of scene and that conversation among the prisoners which, in spite of the regulations, they do enjoy when they go into chapel. Thus, under the rigour of solitary confinement, and for the sake of spending in a less irksome manner the time allotted for divine service, Catholic prisoners, who have no real wish to change their religion, and every desire to remain Catholics, are actually compelled by pains and penalties, to go into the Protestant chapel and attend the Protestant service, in order to escape the horror of solitary imprisonment. Now, Sir, every prisoner upon coming in is, or ought to be, truly registered according to his religion, and the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), with that frankness and sense of justice which Le has always shown on this subject, admitted that what I proposed was right and reasonable, that those who were registered as Catholics should have a right to the attendance of a Catholic priest, and that the Catholic priest should be admitted to them in the same way as the Protestant clergymen are admitted to Protestant prisoners. That is the basis of the arrangement I ask for. There is another question, that of the schoolmasters in the Government prisons; the schoolmaster is the agent and subordinate of the Protestant chaplain; he reports to the clergyman, is under his orders, and assists him in giving religious instruction. The consequence is, that as the schoolmaster is of rather a lower rank in society—if the chaplain is a bigot and seeks to proselytise in the prison—the schoolmaster is a bigot of a worse description, and does the business of proselytism in a baser way. I have in my possession a book given by the schoolmaster at Pentonville to one of the prisoners, a History of England, published by the Religious Tract Society, full of the grossest abuse of the Catholic faith, and the most abominable falsehoods—nay, I may add, considering that it was given to a prisoner out of funds supplied partly by Catholics, a book full of the foulest blasphemies. This book was forced on a Catholic prisoner by the Protestant school-
380
master, acting under the instructions of the Protestant chaplain! I ask the noble Lord to redress these grievances. I ask that there may be a Catholic chaplain, paid or unpaid—payment is, in my opinion, a subordinate matter—that there may be a Catholic chaplain in each of these prisons, having a right to go there at all such times as the Protestant chaplains can go to visit the Protestant prisoners, and to visit the Catholic prisoners to give them religious instruction and consolation, and provide the means of religious worship. At the same time, the question of payment is one which must be raised, and which cannot be raised in any form that is pleasing to the House. But while it cannot be raised in a form less agreeable than with respect to these miserable wretches, the criminal lunatics, still it must be raised in all possible forms and ways. And for my part I almost wish the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) may succeed in a few more of his Motions, in order that the question may become hotter, and press more imperatively for decision, and compel the house to settle it in one way or another, and to do justice to all classes, either by paying for all or for none. For myself, I care very little in which way the question may be settled; but of this I am determined, that, distasteful as the subject may be, it shall not be allowed to drop until absolute and complete justice is done to all classes of the community, either on the one principle or the other.
MR. KIRKsaid, the hon. Member had fallen into a great mistake as to the number of Presbyterian chaplains receiving stipends for their services in Irish gaols. If he had consulted a return which he had himself moved for and obtained, he would find that there were forty-two gaols in Ireland, and that out of the forty-two, twenty-five were returned as making no payment whatever for Presbyterian chaplains. With regard to the question before the House, he considered the speech of the noble Lord the Home Secretary conclusive.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that, even according to the return alluded to, fifteen Presbyterian chaplains received salaries for their services in gaols. Now, He objected to all such payments; and he assured the Government that, sooner or later, this question would have to be grappled with and settled. For nearly two hours the House had been discussing a question

381
whether a sum of 100 l. should be granted—a sum which might have been raised in less time by voluntary contributions. It was only in this way that the question should be settled, and he recommended the Government to turn their attention to it. The people would certainly never consent that taxes, wrung from them all, should be applied to maintain principles in which they did not believe; and he was glad to hear from the hon. Member for Meath that he intended to agitate the subject, believing, as he did, that religion would maintain itself if grants were withheld, which were injurious and prejudicial to all classes.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, the House would, perhaps, allow him to say a few words on this subject, concerned as he was with a department which it materially affected. He had listened to the debate of the other night with great regret, and he believed it had terminated in a way contrary to all rational and Christian principle, and in a way mischievous to the interests of the State; but with regard to the present proposition, he was bound to say, in favour of the hon. Gentleman who had brought it before the House, that it was a clear and logical sequence of the Vote of the other night. If the reduction of the Vote of the other night were just, he did not see why, upon such grounds, the present Vote should be sustained; but in this case the House should specially consider the circumstances under which the Vote was asked, and the consequences which might proceed from it. The hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House supported the voluntary principle, and considered that the money asked for could be raised by that principle. No doubt, a sum equal to the amount by which it was proposed to reduce the Vote might have been raised in less time than the discussion had occupied. No doubt the voluntary principle had done much, and would do much. He saw what had been done through it by Dissenters, and he knew that most of the influence now possessed by the Church of England had been gained through its adoption of the voluntary principle; but in the present case he asked the House just to consider for one moment upon whom it was to act. One class was that of convicts in prisons, and the other, analogous in respect to their isolation from the rest of the community, was the Army. Under the voluntary principle, everybody who was a customer fur religious instruction paid for it;
382
and the voluntaries did not object to receive money from a person for instruction, not for himself, but for his children. [Mr. HADFIELD said, the question was as to the poor.] Money was not received from the poor, but from the rich in favour of the poor. This was a just principle where all men were free agents, and could send for their minister whenever they required him. But men in prison were debarred from such power. To them the State stood in loco parentis, and was bound to give them the best religious instruction suitable to their tone and frame of mind. So with the Army. The clergy of the Church of England were admitted to the prison and the regiment; but upon what principle could the same instruction be refused to those who were not members of the Church of England? Upon what principle could they refuse? The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner) would refuse upon a very intelligible principle; but he apprehended that the House was not prepared, although it had agreed with his vote, to adopt his reasons. The hon. Member said, with perfect consistency, in the case of Roman Catholic prisoners and Roman Catholic chaplains to gaols, that their religion was a fable—an idolatrous deceit—[Mr. SPOONER: Hear, hear!]—and that he would not have it conveyed to these men. The hon. Member said, "Hear, hear!" and therefore quite adopted this phraseology. Well, but the question here was, not between this sect and that sect, but between Christianity and heathenism. The hon. Member said that this was an idolatrous religion—that these people were idolators—and that their faith was "damnable;" but then he said, also, that idolators they should remain—that they should not have access to any vestige of Christian truth, unless they would take it in his shape—that being a shape in which they were bound in honour not to receive it. The voluntary principle was an admirable principle, so long as it dealt with free men—not so when they came to deal with men who were not free agents. If they confined men within stone walls, where they ceased to be free agents, they must take care that religious instruction reached them at the public expense; for, depriving them of their freedom, they assumed this responsibility. But if the principle which was contended for by the hon. Gentleman opposite was a sound principle with respect to prisons, why was it not equally sound with respect to army chaplains? Why did not

383
the hon. Gentleman move to rescind or to reduce the Vote for army chaplains? Now, in his (Mr. Sidney Herbert's) opinion, the case with respect to the Army—for which he stood there responsible—was not nearly so good a case, according to the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Spooner's) idea, as the case with respect to the prisons. Our soldiers were, to a great extent, free men. They were obliged to attend to certain duties, and to submit to a certain discipline; but during a considerable portion of the day they were at liberty to go where they liked, to see whom they liked, and to pay for whom they liked; yet they thought it just and right that an Army recruited from different creeds should have the advantage of the attendance of ministers of different denominations, in order to meet its religious wants. How was it, then, he asked if they intended to be consistent—that they did not move to rescind this Vote for army chaplains of different religious denominations, to exclude the Roman Catholic, and exclude the Presbyterian if they pleased, from those ministrations to which they maintained the members of the Church of England were alone entitled? They do not do it, because they dare not do it. Then why should they do it in the case of these prisoners? Why should they give scope to their sectarianism at the expense of these helpless creatures, to whom they were bound by all the holiest tics which Christianity could impose upon them, and refuse to give them all instruction in those first great truths of religion which all of them held in common, because it happened in the case of the Roman Catholic that, in their opinion—and he would frankly say, in his own opinion also—those truths were obscured by the admixture of erroneous doctrine? He could not go that length. He would not add to the injustice which had been done already in the case of these prison Votes, by depriving others likewise of that religious instruction to which they were entitled at their hands. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not sanction this Amendment—not because he agreed with what had taken place before, for he thought the vote which had been come to on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner) the other night was not defensible upon any great principle which could be laid down with respect to prisoners placed under their charge—but he hoped the House would refuse to give its assent to this Amendment, because having voted an injustice to
384
one portion of the community was no reason for extending that injustice, and for depriving the majority—for it was not the minority, as had been the case the other night—of that religious instruction which was necessary to the salvation of all men, and which it was especially their duty to give to those who stood towards them in the peculiar relation of—those whom they had shut up—as they I said—for the purpose of reformation, and had deprived of all those rights and advantages which freedom and society could give.
MR. NAPIERsupported the Vote, but wished it to be understood that in doing so he was not affirming any question of principle. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, "Why not move to rescind the Vote in reference to the Army?" he might retort the question, "Why not alter the regulation in reference to the Navy?" which had been repeatedly pressed on the attention of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty by the hon. Member for Meath. He should have voted with the majority the other night if he had been present, for he considered the principle involved was an important one; at the same time he admitted that it was a difficult question, and the very difference between the two services proved it.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDrepeated the expression of his deep regret that he should have been obliged to raise the question, and to take the vote, upon this particular item. Nothing should have induced him to do it, if he had been aware, as lie was now told, that there were many other occasions upon which he might have raised the issue upon which he was desirous of taking the opinion of the House.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that he had not been aware that there was any Vote in the Army Estimates especially for Roman Catholic chaplains. If he remembered rightly, the Vote was for "chaplains" generally, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman had granted no money for Roman Catholic chaplains, unless he had done it lately. However, if he had overlooked it, he was sorry for it; and he would take care not to overlook it on the next occasion.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTstated, that the Vote for army chaplains (18,000 l. a year) was divided in the proportion of two-thirds to Protestant chaplains and one-third to Roman Catholic; and

385
this had been the case ever since the hon. Gentleman had been in Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman meant that he objected to the Vote when tile items were separate, but not when they were mixed up together, he hoped his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) would take a hint from the Army Estimates next year, and, by wrapping up these items the one in the other, secure the hon. Gentleman's vote.
Mr. SPOONER and Mr. J. O'CONNELLmade some observations which were rendered undistinguishable by cries for division.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 246: Majority 223.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The following Votes were then agreed to—
(2.) 92,765 l., Transportation.
(3.) 342,702 l., Convict Establishment.
(4.) 4,049 l., Bermudas.
(5.) 7,547 l., North American Provinces.
(6.) 9,433 l., Indian Department Canada.
House resumed.
House adjourned at One o'clock.