HC Deb 29 April 1862 vol 166 cc1075-90

Resolutions 1 to 96 agreed to.

(97.) £350,000, Convict Establishments.


said, that the Vote included an item which, though small in amount, was of very great importance in point of principle, and which had been passed the evening before in a very thin House, and which was now again brought up when very few hon. Members were prepared for such a course. The item he referred to was the sum of £550 for special services for convicts in prisons, and for the religious instruction of Roman Catholic convict prisoners. It was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary last evening that the matter was before the House in 1854. A long debate then took place on the subject in a full House—one of upwards of 300 Members—and a Vote for the very same sum of £550 was then rejected by a majority of 32. He should conclude by moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £550; but if any Member of the Government or any hon. Member felt taken by surprise at the Motion, he should be happy to consent to the postponement of the discussion. The item was introduced for the first time for England and Scotland, though it was true there was a similar one for Ireland; and the question which had been repeatedly put, but never answered, was this—on what principle could they grant payment to these Roman Catholic priests without extending it to the ministers of all other denominations? The House had a right to know on what ground a Vote which had been considered and rejected eight years ago now reappeared in the Estimate. He was most anxious that the discussion of this subject should not be prejudiced by the use of language which could give offence to any member of the Roman Catholic persuasion. With a view to the postponement of the question, he begged to move that the item of £550 be omitted from this Vote.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "£350,000," and insert "£349,450," instead thereof.


said, he was extremely gratified to find the matter taken up by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University. If the House did not take care the, proposed grant for Roman Catholic chaplains would hereafter be made the pretext for further endowments to the Roman Catholic Church. The priests of that Church, he contended, were officers of a great political system extending itself throughout Europe, and very little less throughout this country than any other. And what were the principles by which these officers were governed? He had been able to show in the few words he addressed to the House on the previous evening, that if the priest faithfully discharged his duty in his instruction to the convict, he would counteract every principle of their system of jurisprudence, and justify every crime for which convicts were punished, and lender quite ineffective the punishment inflicted. The passing of this Vote was inserting the thin end of the wedge; and he knew full well, if that were once accomplished, with what energy and perseverance it would be driven home. In justification of the view which he took, he would mention that the main ground upon which Sir Robert Peel put the Act for the permanent College of Maynooth was that Parliament shortly before had made it compulsory on grand juries in Ireland to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains to prisons upon a requisition from the judge, and had required then to make provision for the services of these chaplains from the public purse, and in fact placed them on a footing of equality with the clergy of the Church of England. He wished to express his gratification at finding the subject taken up by abler and more influential hands than his own, and he should most cordially support the Motion of the lion, and learned Member.


said, that since the hon. and learned Member had declared that the Vote would be an excuse for more extended grants to other denominations, he took that opportunity of observing that he believed there was no danger of any such result. He believed there was no class of her Majesty's nonconformist subjects who required one shilling for purposes of the sort. Happily, they were independent of the aristocratic classes of the country, who had showed their spite against them in vain. Some short time since no less than]27 Members of that House had voted for the continuance of that odious and detestable declaration which was an insult to the feelings of nonconformists. The Government knew very well, that if the grant for Maynooth were discontinued, the Irish church would not continue for many months. He only wished that the wealthy and influential body of Roman Catholic nonconformists in Ireland would join their brethren in this country in renouncing all reliance on Government aid. He protested against its being supposed that the House would ever be led into the mistake of granting further aids to religious bodies: or that the nonconformists would accept what was given only to injure and ruin them by making them pensioners of the State. He therefore told the hon. and learned Member that he need not quote the nonconformists as expectants of state bounty, and if that were his only objection, he might withdraw his opposition to the Vote. Inside the Church they could not agree, except in holding what they had got, and insulting and offending the nonconformist body. Still be should vote against the item of £550—because he thought it was one of the last acts of Christianity to tax any member of the State for the support of a religion which he did not approve.


said, he thought that although the House in 1854 rejected a similar Vote, they would not now deliberately deprive the Roman Catholic prisoners in our convict gaols of all religious instruction, except that which might be casually given to them by priests residing, in some instances, at a distance of eight or ten miles from the prisons. His hon. Friend who had just sat down had addressed the House upon a question with which the Vote had no connection. The Vote for Roman Catholic chaplains did not raise the question of the voluntary principle. It was impossible to contend that the State, after it had committed a man to prison for a term of years, or for the greater portion of of his life, as a punishment for the offence which he had committed against the State, should afford him no religious instruction. The State would be altogether abandoning its duty if it left that man totally destitute of religious instruction because he was a Roman Catholic. It was the bounden duty of the State to place within the reach of its prisoners such religious instruction as they could conscientiously receive, because they could not themselves go in search of it. In the case under consideration the same principle did not apply as in the case of people not confined within the walls of a prison. he must deny that the Vote went to establish a new principle, and he must confess he was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Selwyn) offer any objections to it on that occasion, considering that he was present on the previous evening, when the question was raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), and that he had not then thought it necessary to raise his voice against it. Fourteen or fifteen per cent of the prisoners under the immediate care of the Government in England were Roman Catholics. Very many of them were Irish Roman Catholics, who had come over for employment in this country; they belonged to the poorest class of the community, and constituted a largo proportion of the criminal population of the country. Some convict prisons contained nearly 200 Roman Catholic prisoners, and he had been frequently pressed to make some provision for their religious instruction by ministers of their own religion. Before deciding whether those re- quests should be complied with, he did not think it necessary to refer to the authorities quoted by the hon. Member for Peterborough last night. He would have been exceeding the bounds of his duty if he had entered into an inquiry as to the doctrines professed by members of the Roman Catholic Church. He felt that the very large number of Roman Catholic prisoners under the immediate care of the Government ought to receive religious instruction. That instruction they could conscientiously receive from none but ministers of their own faith, and the law had expressly provided that Roman Catholic priests should be admitted to give instruction to prisoners. That, he thought, was a sufficient answer to the arguments of the hon. Member for Peterborough as to their errors of doctrine, and the mischief which would be done by this Vote. He had been astonished to hear the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge state that the Vote involved a new principle, because an Act was passed some years since requiring the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains to all prisons in Ireland, and for their payment by the State. The hon. and learned Gentleman could not carry out his views in Ireland as he proposed to do in England, because a vast majority of the population there were Roman Catholics. But in Ireland, where there were Protestant prisoners, Protestant chaplains were appointed. But in England, what had been done? Provision was made for the payment of Roman Catholic chaplains for the army. Would the hon. Gentleman dare to deprive the Roman Catholic soldiers of this country serving abroad of the ministrations of their Roman Catholic chaplains who were paid by the State? Now, a Roman Catholic soldier committing an offence, if he received a sentence of imprisonment, would undergo his sentence in a military prison, where a Roman Catholic chaplain is provided; but if he were sentenced to penal servitude, he would be sent to one of the gaols to which the Vote applied, and there no provision was made for his religious care. Something had been said about injustice to Protestant Dissenters, but he had never heard any complaints of Protestant prisoners having conscientious scruples against attending the services performed by the Protestant chaplain. If any such complaint should be made, and the number of prisoners was considerable, he would not hesitate to propose a Vote to remedy the grievance. At a time when they were seeking to induce foreign Governments to act with liberality towards their Protestant subjects, it was imprudent to withhold an act of justice from their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in this country, and he hoped the statement he had made would induce the House to grant the Vote.


explained, that he did not object to the religious tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, with which he had nothing to do; but he objected to the Roman Catholic Church because there was associated with it a system of law called canon law.


reminded the hon. Gentleman, that having spoken once, he could not speak again.


thought, when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary reviewed his observations, he would find that the principle which he had enunciated would go the whole length of justifying the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in this country. Because what did the right hon. Gentleman's statement amount to? It went to this—that it was not sufficient to afford every facility for the access of Roman Catholic priests to the Roman Catholic prisoners within the gaols of this country, and he (Mr. Newdegate), for one, should deeply lament if such access were not given; but the right hon. Gentleman said that it was also necessary that the state should pay the Roman Catholic chaplains regular salaries for attending those prisons. The right hon. Gentleman, in support of his argument, adduced the fact of Roman Catholic priests being appointed as chaplains to the gaols in Ireland, and Roman Catholic chaplains to the army. He (Mr. Newdegate) thought it necessary that the country should be made aware of the extent to which that principle of the right hon. Gentleman would lead the House. In 1854 this very Vote now before the Committee was proposed, and was rejected. There was a much deeper and graver principle involved in this Vote than that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. It was idle to deny the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was an ambitious political body. Further, it was idle to deny the fact that such had been the tyrannical exercise of the power of that Church where it was fully established on the Continent, that large Roman Catholic communities had risen up to free themselves from that tyranny. It was also the professed prin- ciple of her Majesty's Government, acting in accordance with the feelings of the country generally, to give the sanction of their sympathy the efforts of those communities. It was no question of toleration which they were considering, it was not a question of freedom of conscience, but it was the question whether the Government and the Legislature, in the face of all that was taking place upon the continent of Europe, could he justified in saddling this country with the payment of salaries to Roman Catholic priesthood, and in taking this important step towards the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church It was very well known that the Catholic Church had ample means of its own for the building of monasteries, convents, chapels, churches, and schools. It was notorious, from the wealth of the Roman Catholic body, not in this kingdom, large sums were being contributed to maintain and support the temporal power of the Pope in this country, which was so offensive to a great part of Europe. Surely, then, the plea of poverty could not be urged on the part of the Roman Catholic community, to justify that House in departing from the deliberate decision which it emphatically pronounced on that subject eight years ago. It was idle to ignore these facts. The Roman Catholic priesthood, much more than the laity, were straining every effort to obtain authoritative access, not only to the Government gaols, but also to every other prison and workhouse throughout the kingdom, that they might be able to intrude their presence upon all the prisoners and inmates, whether they were asked for by these unfortunate captives or not. Now, he strongly objected to granting any such power, although he should be willing to afford them every assistance for obtaining access to all prisoners who really desired their ministrations. He thought that one Established Church was quite enough for this country. [MR. HADFIELD: Hear, hear.] He was glad the hon. Member for Sheffield cheered that observation; but if he were to judge from the hon. Gentleman's speech, he was desirous of establishing another Church with the view of overturning both. Unfortunately, when the hon. Member for Sheffield rose in that House, his sincere and long-cherished opinions often carried him beyond the limits of toleration and of prudence. He (Mr. Newdegate) thought that the great dissenting bodies in this country had long since recognised the fact that the freedom which they now enjoyed in this country was much greater than any which had been offered them in the times of their forefathers, and that practically they enjoyed greater freedom here than in any other country; and he hoped that the nonconformists would have had, consequently, the wisdom as well as the candour to acknowledge that the Church of this country was not only most tolerant, but was the great bulwark of their freedom. It was very painful to him to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield express himself in terms which obviously indicated a desire on his part to see the Roman Catholic Church established beside the Church of England, with the hope of seeing both eventually overturned. The hon. Gentleman called him a bad Englishman. He (Mr. Newdegate) must confess that he considered the maintenance of the Established Church as the sanctuary of that morality which he believed to be the basis of our power. If his holding that opinion constituted him a bad Englishman, he pleaded guilty to the charge, but in no other sense. For that reason he rejoiced in the establishment of that Church; but he deprecated the obvious views of the hon. Member for Sheffield in favour of the establishment of another Church, although it appeared the hon. Gentleman had not the courage to carry out his principle by his vote. He reminded the House that they had been already told by a great authority on the subject, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), that the bishops of the Catholic Church in Ireland were now so much under the authority and influence of the Pope's Legate that they had informed Her Majesty's Government that they must resist the removal of any chaplain of their Church by the civil authority. Remembering that the distinct announcement of that fact had been made in that House, he would ask whether that was the time for enlarging the power and authority of the representatives of the Church of Rome in the United Kingdom? For the sake, therefore, of the religious freedom of Roman Catholics prisoners in England, as well as with a view to the furtherance of the liberation of the whole body of Roman Catholics in England from Papal tyranny, he thought it would be but wise and consistent on the part of the House to reject this Vote, and thus confirm the deliberate decision which the House had arrived at on this question some eight years ago.


said, it seemed to him a curious thing that it should be made a charge against the ministers of any religion that they wished to obtain fair and legitimate admission to the poorest and most friendless of their flock who were dragging out a miserable existence in the gaols and workhouses of the country. He, on the contrary, conceived that, instead of that being a ground of accusation, it was a matter which reflected the greatest possible credit on them. Considering the way in which the question had gone off on the previous night, he had been in hopes that they would not again have witnessed such a scene as they all regretted to observe in the Legislature, when a simple question of prison discipline was blown up into something like a bubble by hon. Gentlemen, whose fears were quite disproportionate to the importance of the subject. He was glad to avail himself of that opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department for his exertions to perform an act of justice to the poor Catholic inmates of the convict prisons who were in want of spiritual consolation. No doubt he had thought it an urgent matter, requiring immediate action, for without the appointment of chaplains for prisoners the criminal population could not be expected to be reformed; and, as there was a large number of Roman Catholics prisoners, unfortunately, in the gaols of this country, it was right that the means of religious consolation should be afforded to them. They were among the poorest classes in the country, but they gave great assistance to the State, as gallant soldiers and sailors, and as workmen in various laborious occupations; and they therefore deserved some consideration when, in consequence of destitution, they were driven to commit acts which caused them to become the inmates of gaols. If the small sum of £550 was compared with the various large amounts which had been read out from the Chair, it would strike any man that it was a mere trifle. Surely no one could carp at the Vote, unless it was looked upon as a question of principle. But if a question of principle was involved, then it was obvious that hon. Gentlemen who objected to the Vote should go further; they should object to the payment of Roman Catholic chaplains in the army and in Ireland, and they should have objected some years ago to the Votes of money granted by that House for religious practices in India which were contrary to the laws of Christianity. If hon. Gentlemen would take the trouble of reading the blue-books which had been published concerning the prisons of this country, they would see what stress was laid upon the necessity for administering religious advice to the prisoners. Why, then, should the Roman Catholic prisoners be deprived of the advice and ministration of their priests? Were they to have the ministration of Protestant clergymen, foisted upon them? If they appealed to common sense upon the matter, common sense would point out that the Roman Catholic clergyman should have free and fair access to the prisoners of the Roman Catholic religion. Let the Roman Catholic prisoner know that there was some one of his own religious belief whom he might call upon to console him and to bring him the blessings of hope. At present it was often found that the prisoners were not aware that they might have the ministrations of clergymen of their own faith; but if chaplains of their own religious belief were appointed, then they would be aware that they might call for their advice and consolation, and a new chance would be given them of returning to society as honest men. It had been said by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) that the Dissenters did not want to have their clergymen paid, and the hon. Member opposite had quoted a passage from the debate in 1854 to the same effect. Well, he believed that the Dissenters, as a body, were content with the ministration of clergymen of the Church of England in the prisons; but that was not the case with Roman Catholics. He would say without fear of contradiction, that in proportion as Roman Catholic chaplains were allowed free access to Roman Catholic prisoners would the discipline of the prison be more effectual. He believed there had been instances in which the prison authorities themselves wished to bring the Roman Catholic prisoners into communion with Roman Catholic clergymen, as they found them unmanageable without such intercourse. It was absurd to suppose that Roman Catholic prisoners could be made honest men by the ministration and teachings of clergymen in whom they had no faith. If, on the contrary, the Roman Catholic chaplain was admitted to the Roman Catholic prisoner, there was a chance of reforming him, and thus of diminishing the great expense which attached to the prisons of this country. The Roman Catholics were the poorest class of the population, and yet they contributed most liberally to the support of the churches and schools of their religion. It was not fair to the Protestant chaplain himself to oblige him to force himself upon men who were not willing to receive him. Let Roman Catholic chaplains, then, be admitted to prisoners of their own faith— they asked no more, but they did ask that —and it would be found that many would be rescued from among the criminal population and be made useful members of society.


said, he could not but express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had entirely mistaken the position of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambrige. What his hon. and learned Friend had said was that he objected to the extension to this country of the principle which had been applied to Ireland; that it was a distinct reversal of the arrangement made in 1854, and that such a step ought not to be taken without as ample a discussion as had been given to the subject eight years ago. His hon. and learned Friend, then, moved his Amendment with the view of having the question fully and fairly discussed. He would therefore press upon the Government the propriety of acceding to the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend.


said, he would have made some remarks upon the question last night, but the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had so thoroughly destroyed the expectation of any calm discussion that be himself abstained from making any observations. There was in this country the most complete religious equality; the noble Lord himself admitted that he had nothing on that score to complain of—he admitted that there was complete toleration, but he wanted payment for the clergymen of his own persuasion.


said, the hon. Gentleman had no right to put into his mouth words which he had not used. He had a great deal to complain of in the position of Roman Catholics in this country.


said, he only had in repeat that there was complete toleration. If he heard of any case in which prisoners wished to have assistance from a Roman Catholic priest, he should be the first to urge upon the Government the propriety of complying with such a request; but it was a different thing to endow Roman Catholic Chaplains, and entitle them, with the autho- rity of the Government and Parliament to visit the penal establishments as they pleased. He therefore regretted to hear what had fallen from the Home Secretary on the subject, And if the Vote were to pass, where was the principle to end? The noble Lord spoke of the grants to India as being equally objectionable on principle with the Votes to Roman Catholic chaplains of prisons. Well, so said he (Mr. Kinnaird); and he had always opposed those grants for purposes connected with the native religions of India. He quite agreed with the noble Lord that gratitude was due from him to his right hon. Friend; but he should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.


said, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Kinnaird) was very much mistaken if he imagined that the Catholic Members of the House knew so little about the subject now under discussion, as to admit, for one moment, that anything like religious toleration was exhibited in the treatment of Catholic prisoners in Great Britain. On the contrary, this was the very point at issue, and the House should not be carried away with the idea that the payment of a paltry and inadequate sum of £550 in any degree exhausted the real question. That question was: — Are Catholics to be treated on a different principle from Protestants, or are Catholic clergymen to have precisely the same opportunities of access to the inmates of prisons as Protestant clergymen now possess? This Vote hardly touches that great question, for, in the first place, let it be remembered that the Estimate of £550 is only for eleven prisons, whereas there are over one hundred and fifty prisons in Great Britain, where Catholics are confined, and to which this Estimate of course will not apply. But this is not all. The Home Secretary said not a word as to the regulations under which religious worship and instruction are to be afforded. Perfect freedom and facility in the ministrations of the priest and an adequate remuneration for such ministrations constitute the demand of the Catholics; and of this demand how much is now conceded? Nothing whatever of the really important branch of that demand, and about five or six per cent of the minor branch. Why this £550 for all the Catholic prisoners of Great Britain is not equal to the sum for the Protestant prisoners in a single prison of Great Britain. In the nearest prison to this House—in Millbank—there is a Protestant chaplain receiving a salary of £365 a year, with an assistant chaplain getting a salary of £245 a year, a chaplain's clerk getting an annual salary of £120, and a Scripture reader receiving £130 a year; making altogether, for the Protestant chaplain and his staff, an annual Vote of £860. Again, two Protestant chaplains in Parkhurst receive over £600 a year between them; in Pentonville the salary of the Protestant chaplain is £350, and he is assisted by two Scripture readers at salaries of £160 and £125 each. At Portland the Protestant chaplain gets £400, his assistant chaplain £300, and the Scripture reader completes the respectable sum of £860 for that single prison; and so it runs on through the whole Estimate for Great Britain. But, turning over a few pages, he found the Irish Estimate, in which is to be seen sums proposed for every prison, in that Catholic country, for Protestant chaplains, as well as Catholic and Presbyterian chaplains. In Catholic Ireland, Protestant and Presbyterian clergymen have ready access to the prisons, and are well paid; surely equal justice might be expected for the minority in Great Britain. Nor should it be forgotten that Ireland set something more than the example of toleration to England; Ireland also set the example of the most successful convict and prison discipline. Every one admits that the Irish system is more successful than the prison system in England and Scotland; and it is easy to see why this should be the case. In England and Scotland the most salutary agent of convict reformation — the priest—is excluded; in Ireland the prisoners have the constant consolation and support of religion. He had received this very morning a letter, dated Philipstown, 25th April, 1862, which illustrated the effect of the Irish system. The letter was from the Rev. William Little, the Protestant rector of Philipstown, and one of the chaplains of the convict prisons which had just been abolished in the King's County. This gentleman, in establishing a special Case for superannuation, says in his letter— "I would never have thought of employing a curate, the Protestant population here being small, only for my connection with the prison." What an example this furnishes to England. But, indeed, the example is to be found even in England itself. In the military prisons, thanks to the spirit of justice which moved the late Government in 1858, the Catholic inmates receive the daily visits and constant ministrations of priests, whose salaries as military chaplains are voted in the annual Estimates. This was not a question merely of civil and religious liberty; financial reformers were specially interested in it, for, beyond all doubt, the free admission of the priests would tend to reduce the heavy Estimates now voted for the support of prisoners. A remarkable case occurred in a prison in Islington not very long ago, where a most refractory criminal exhausted all the means of punishment the governor possessed, and still remained violent, and dangerous to be approached. The dark cell, bread and water, fetters, and every other prison agency, failed. The prisoner was more like a wild beast than a human being, and he was a constant source of alarm and annoyance to the prison officials. At length some one hit upon the happy expedient of sending for a Catholic priest. Canon Oakeley, the priest of the parish, came. In a few days the discipline of the prison was restored, and the unfortunate object of the governor's anxiety is now among the class of reformed criminals. In making these observations he had avoided discussing the theological questions raised by the Members for Peterborough and North Warwickshire. He had only addressed himself to the question as a Member of the House of Commons, and not merely because he was a Member of that ancient faith professed by those whose Catholic piety and munificence established and endowed the venerable University represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the rejection of this paltry grant.


said, he did not at all agree that the House was yesterday taken by surprise, however small the numbers that were present, because the Estimates in the hands of Members gave due notice of the intention of Government on the subject. It was to be regretted that such a Vote was not brought before a House in which the opinions of the country should be represented; but that was owing to no fault of the Government. The Vote passed on the previous night; and that day the House was called on to give an opinion on the report of the Vote. Attention had been called to it by one who had every claim to the respect of the House. Still the hon. and learned Gentleman was in his place last night and allowed the Vote to pass. The Vote was, undoubtedly, one of great importance. He did not wish to avoid expressing his opinion on the Vote, but to confine himself to the mode in which it was brought before the House. For his own part, however, he did not think any principle was involved in the Vote. It was rather a matter of discretion; but a controversy having taken place, he thought a decision on it ought not to be taken that night; for whatever it might be, it would not, after what had passed, be satisfactory. He thought, therefore, it was worth the consideration of the Government whether, after what had taken place, it would not be expedient to postpone the Vote. It was unusual to challenge a Vote on the report, though he did not deny the right to make the challenge, and a most valuable right it was; still the privilege was one to which hon. Members should not have recourse, except under circumstances which should carry with them a satisfactory conclusion. No decision, however, would be satisfactory in so thin a House, and he therefore wished the Government would reconsider the point, and give them an opportunity after fair notice of coming to a decision on a subject of very great interest and importance.


said, he could see no sufficient reason for postponing the Vote. It would have been better if the hon. and learned Member who made the Motion had yesterday announced that, although he did not then challenge the Vote by a division, he intended to take the sense of the House upon it on the report. That course had not been pursued, but still the House was probably full enough to take a decision upon the subject; and if any hon. Gentlemen were anxious that a more deliberate discussion should take place on the principle involved, they might give notice of a Resolution that in future years no such grant should be proposed. The only principle which he could see involved in the Vote was the principle of justice; for he had always felt that it was most unjust that persons who were by the law placed in seclusion should be deprived of the spiritual attendance of ministers of their own faith. When a person was at large, he might go to his own church; they were not then bound to supply his spiritual wants; but when they confined him within four walls, they were bound not only in justice, but as a matter of public expediency, to give to the Roman Catholic the benefit of religious instruction and the same chance of reformation which they gave to the Protestant.

Question put, "That '350,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided:—Aves 38; Noes 16: Majority 22.

Resolution agreed to.

Subsequent Resolutions agreed to. House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.