Commons Sitting of 9 July 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Statute Labour Roads and Bridges (Scotland).
2° Sale of Beer, &c.; Savings Banks (Ireland).
3° Turnpike Trusts Arrangements.

CLERGY RELIEF BILL— [BILL NO. 132.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIE MR. E. P. BOUVERIE moved that this Bill be read a third time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, the measure was most objectionable. It was not likely to pass, but that House ought not to trust to the other House of Parliament to do that which it was its own duty to perform. The principle set up by the measure was that the House of Commons ought to exercise a power never assumed by the Pope of Rome in the haughtiest days of the Church—namely, to release from their vows priests who had, with the utmost solemnity and deliberation, devoted themselves to the service of the Church. A candidate for holy orders was, after a probationary trial, ordained a deacon, and it was not until after some years and a further

  91
  examination that he was ordained a priest. He was then solemnly set apart for the service of the Church by the imposition of hands. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) who was the author of the Bill sought to do away with all the vows which the priest then made. The practice of the Bill was as objectionable as its principle. A person who had been the clergyman of a parish might set himself up in the same parish to preach heresy and schism, or, if he chose to throw off the ecclesiastical character altogether, he might appear among his former flock as a layman and engage in any lay occupations. The Bill was, he thought, most mischievous in its character, and he would therefore move as an Amendment that it be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  MR. LYGONbegged to second the Amendment.
  LORD HENLEYsaid, that he hoped the House, having passed the Bill through its previous stages, would not refuse its assent to the last. The Bill only relieved those who dissented from the doctrines of the Church of England. These were a very small number of the Church, and therefore the Bill went but a very little way. He should have been glad had it gone further. There were those who, having taken orders, found themselves unfitted for clerical duties, either those of preaching or visiting the poor; it would be better for the Church, as well as for such persons, if they were permitted to lay down their orders and betake themselves to some other profession in which they could be useful. There were those who felt from the life led they were unfitted for the Church—these, too, ought to be allowed to subside into the laity. Again, there was the case of persons, as younger sons, who took holy orders as a means of living—such persons might succeed by death of an elder brother or otherwise to competence, and might very naturally desire to turn their abilities into some other useful channel than the Church; and if so, they ought to be allowed to do so. It might be said that they might become magistrates, but many thought that the duties of a magistrate were incompatible with those of a clergyman, and one Lord Lieutenant objected to appoint
  92
  clergymen as magistrates. But there were other positions of usefulness which persons of the description referred to might fill with advantage to themselves and the country. There was one clause which he thought open to objection; it was that which provided that the Bishop should pronounce sentence against them. It was very likely that persons who so desired to throw off holy orders would not much care about any sentence which the Bishop could pronounce, but he objected to this power being placed in the hands of the Bishop. He also objected to the prohibition the Bill imposed upon persons so denuded of holy orders sitting in that House, considering that they should, on being restored to the laity, be free to all the rights and privileges of laymen.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that he regretted that an opposition to the Bill should be manifested at that stage. The hon. Baronet (Sir Lawrence Palk) was not present at the second reading, and it was rather hard that he should wait until the last moment, and then the night before the third reading, attempt to steal a march upon the Bill by giving notice of a Motion for its rejection. He therefore considered he had some little right to complain of the course taken by the hon. Baronet. Unless some measure of the kind were passed, the clergy of the Church of England would remain the only people in the kingdom who were deprived of all liberty of conscience. Would any one deny that there were clergymen of the Church of England whose religious convictions had changed since their ordination, and who were no longer conscientious members of the Church? The fact that there were such clergymen was as open as the day, and upon this fact he took his stand. What was such a man to do? He had formed religious opinions irreconcilable with his subscription to the Articles, and he could no longer profess an adherence to the standard and doctrines of the Church. Was he to go on preaching that which he believed to be false? Was he to teach heresy from the pulpits of the Church? Let the House remember the recent case of Mr. Heath. He was at the University with that gentleman, and might safely declare him to be a man of remarkable learning and ability. Mr. Heath had formed certain opinions, and he taught them from the pulpit of the Established Church. He was proceeded against in the Bishop's court for heresy, his doctrines were adjudged to be heretical,

  93
  and he was deprived of his living. What was a man in such a position to do, and what means of existence were left him? The law debarred him from entering any profession whatever, and forbade him to engage in any lay occupation. In other words, the law condemned him to penury for the honest utterance of his religious opinions. What did this amount to? That no clergyman of the Church of England, if he had formed opinions inconsistent with those of the Church, could avow them unless he had independent means. That was not a sound principle, so far as the Church was concerned, and among its collateral evils was the argument which it put into the mouths of the opponents of the Church as to the honesty and sincerity of the clergy of the Establishment. If clergymen were told that they would be punished for any avowal of opinions differing from the standards and doctrines of the Church, an imputation would always rest upon the sincerity of those who adhered to the doctrines of the Church. It was most important to the interest of the Church itself that those who had ceased to be conscientious members of her body should have an opportunity of escaping from the obligations of their ordination vows. Instead of this, a clergyman who had changed his views might be cast into prison, like Mr. Shove, for disobeying the monition of the Ecclesiastical Court. If, however, he happened to become a Roman Catholic, and to assume the priesthood of that Church, he was exempt from all penalties under a special Act of Parliament. Parliament, having thus absolved clergymen who became Roman Catholic priests from all temporal penalties, was bound to extend the same liberty to those who might wish to become Protestant Nonconformist ministers. This was not a mere theoretical question, or sentimental grievance. There were numbers of persons who had retired from the ministry, and who were prevented from obtaining a livelihood in another profession. He had presented a petition from a young man of ability who had resigned a valuable living in Liverpool; and when he sought to go to the Bar, was at once met by the Benchers with a refusal, because he had himself stated to them that he was an ordained clergyman of the Church of England. He had also received a letter from a gentleman who said that he had entered the Church, had obtained a curacy and began reading subjects immediately connected with his profession; that he
  94
  formed opinions which he honestly believed inconsistent with those which the ministry required, that he had therefore ceased to perform any clerical duties, and that he wished to go to the Bar, but that he was prevented in consequence of the present state of the law. Would it be contended that that was a proper restriction to impose upon a person who was no longer able conscientiously to discharge the duties of a minister of the Church of England? Now, let the House observe what might happen and was not unlikely to happen. The law was not always enforced, but it might be enforced at any time. There was a case which must be familiar to hon. Gentlemen. A few years ago Mr. Baptist Noel seceded from the ministry of the Church of England in consequence of his religious convictions, and he had since then been performing the duties of a Dissenting clergyman. Now, Mr. Baptist Noel might be proceeded against at any time and thrown into prison, and, let the House remark, not at the instigation of the Bishop only—for he believed no Bishop would be so unwise as to attempt to stop Mr. Baptist Noel's mouth in preaching the Gospel and spreading morality and religion. Anybody, however, might bring him into the ecclesiastical court, "promote the office of the Bishop," as it was called—using the Bishop's name whether he liked it or not—and Mr. Baptist Noel might be thrown into prison unless he was willing to resign his ministry and forego officiating as a Dissenting clergyman, which he certainly would not. Were the House and the country prepared for such a course as that? Did any one believe that it would be for the benefit of the Church of England, that this should be done or, if it were done, that the law would be allowed to remain in its present state for six months longer? If any person thought so he was incapable of forming an idea of what public opinion outside the walls of Parliament was. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Devonshire (Sir Lawrence Palk) could not have read the Bill. [Sir LAWRENCE PALK said that he could assure the right hon. Gentleman he had read it.] Well, then, he was sorry for it, because in that case the hon. Baronet was quite incapable of understanding the Bill. For what did the Bill propose to do? Only this—to exempt from temporal penalties persons who had declared their inability to discharge conscientiously the duties of clergymen of the Church of England. It did not touch the question of

  95
  their orders. It merely said that the temporal authority of the State should no longer be had recourse to for the purpose of enforcing obligations which they could not conscientiously discharge. Would the hon. Baronet affirm the contrary opinion? Would he say that temporal penalties ought to be inflicted? Would he say that the gentlemen who had petitioned that House for relief were to be precluded from engaging in any occupation whatever? What was the result of the present state of the law? It was that those who had means might repudiate the Church, and those who had no means must remain in the Church, leading a life of hypocrisy, and teaching doctrines which they did not believe to be true, or else they must be thrown on the world with all access to useful occupation closed against them. He submitted with confidence to the House that no one in his senses would wish to maintain the existing state of the law. It was a sense of the reality of the grievance which compelled his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir W. Heathcote) to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Well, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, it was there modified in various ways, various safeguards were introduced to insure that the declaration of dissent should be made with due deliberation, circumspection, and forethought; and now the hon. Baronet stepped in and called upon the House to reject it, because he said that the Bill was mischievous, and that it had no chance in another place. How did the hon. Baronet know that it had no chance in another place? He (Mr. Bouverie) might set his opinion against that of the hon. Baronet and say that it had a very good chance. He had the public authority of one of the most distinguished bishops of the Church upon the subject. The words to which he alluded had been quoted by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) upon the second reading, and he would quote them now for the information of the House. When he introduced a similar Bill in 1849 the prelate to whom he referred wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury as follows:—
  "I rejoice to be able to say that your Grace, as well as myself, is entirely disposed to favour and support any well-considered measure (as the Bill now before the House of Commons must be expected to be) for relieving any clergyman who, after he has been admitted to holy orders in the Church, should conceive conscientious scruples against a continuance in its communion. So far,
  96
  indeed, from wishing to chain to the service of the altar any whose conscience bids them renounce that service, the true Churchman would urge them rather quietly to withdraw than to persist in the performance of offices which they can no longer perform without peril to their own souls, and a serious offence to the souls of others."
  Those words came from no less an authority than the Bishop of Exeter; and if there was any one prelate more than another who would have strenuously opposed any violent measures for the disruption of the Church of England, it was he. Therefore he thought he was fairly entitled to assure the House that there was no such certainty as the hon. Member supposed that the Bill, if passed by that House, would be rejected in another place. He submitted to the House that the case for the Bill was unanswerable in argument; that it provided a remedy for a real grievance, a remedy which had been well considered by a Select Committee, composed of some of the most eminent Members of the House, who would not adopt any measure injurious to the Church of England, and he therefore entreated the House not to reject the Bill.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that there were two ideas underlying the opposition to the Bill. One was that a man could control, govern, and altogether bind his opinions. Well, supposing that at twenty-two years of age a man subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles—and they contained some very curious opinions—and if he found at twenty-seven, upon further inquiry, that his notions at twenty-two were incorrect, then the opponents of the Bill would say to him, "You shall not tell the world that you have lived and learned. What you believed at twenty-two you shall believe at seventy, if you live so long." The next idea underlying the opposition to the Bill was a very curious one, and it was this—that there was something in the hands of a Bishop which, when he laid them on the priest's head went through him, and gave him some peculiar quality, and rendered him a different man ever after. To state these ideas was quite sufficient to refute them. Such notions could not be entertained for a moment. He was not alluding to the Roman Catholic Church; he was merely expressing Protestant ideas in Protestant language. Well, was there anything in the hands of the Bishop which so affected a man that he was not after the age of twenty-one or twenty-two to change his opinions, and was not to be allowed to open his mouth except in defence of the Thirty-nine Articles? The right hon.

  97
  Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) was right in what he said about the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Lawrence Palk) that he could not have read the Bill, or, if he had, that he could not understand it. It merely said that the man who seceded from the Church should not be followed by the penalties of the law. Now, he wanted to know, was there in that House any person so intolerant as to wish to chain a man to his post for ever because at the age of twenty-two he had subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles? Such an attempt could only bring down unspeakable ridicule on the heads of those who made it; and as the world went on, such childish and absurd notions would not be allowed to prevail.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that when the Bill was read a second time, it was admitted that considerable hardship was suffered under the present state of the law by men who had been compelled by their conscientious convictions to declare their dissent from the doctrines of the Church of England. The real state of the case had been distinctly put by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie). Those persons were liable at present to proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court; and though many years had elapsed since any such proceedings had been taken, the law remained unchanged, and he thought that persons should not be liable to such a danger. Besides, clergymen who seceded were debarred from having recourse to other professions for the maintenance of themselves and their families. The only questions raised upon the second reading were the extent to which the relief should go, and the mode in which that relief should be administered. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had shown great good sense in abiding by the decisions of the Select Committee, although they had overruled some of his own opinions. The objection that persons guilty of gross immorality and desiring to lead vicious lives might make use of the Bill to forward their objects had been effectually removed by the restrictions which the Select Committee had imposed upon the operation of the Bill. Under all the circumstances, he thought the House would act most injudiciously, and that they would do a great injustice to those who sought relief, if they were to reject the Bill now upon the third reading. The question of the indelibility of holy orders had been carefully eliminated from the Bill. He therefore hoped that
  98
  the House would confirm the decision to which it had come upon the second reading.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that he felt it his duty to oppose the Bill. Its practical working would be that some clergymen would leave the Church for insignificant differences of opinion, whilst others, of more conscientious feeling, but holding equally diverse views, would feel compelled to remain.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 98: Majority 10.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Third Reading put off for three months.

CHURCH RATES COMMUTATION BILL.
[MR. NEWDEGATE.]
CHURCH RATES COMMUTATION BILL.

  [BILL NO. 13.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, Sir, early in the Session, the House gave me leave to introduce a Bill with a view to the Commutation of Church Rates. I truest I have proved to the House, by the course which I have adopted with respect to this Bill, that I am guilty neither of the presumption nor of the folly of supposing that I can force upon the House any opinions of my own. I have always felt that this subject is deeply and thoroughly worthy of the consideration of the House, and have always regretted that proposals for its settlement should be left in the hands of independent Members. But, Sir, I think the House will agree with me, that upon this grave question we are not prepared to accept the decision of any Government, however authoritative, without having a full opportunity of expressing our own opinions, and deliberating on any solution which may be proposed. Feeling this, and knowing that many hon. Members opposite have during the long course of the agitation of this question become deeply committed to the Church Rate Abolition Bill, I felt that it would be an utterly useless attempt on my part to ask for a second reading of this Bill until the Bill introduced by the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny), had been discussed and decided upon. I felt that I could not expect hon. Members who had voted for that Bill to consider mine, until that; Bill

  99
  had been disposed of. Afterwards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), desired that the House should consider certain Resolutions. Well, knowing the respect in which that right hon. Gentleman is held by every Member on this side of the House, and indeed by every Member of the House, I felt that it was clearly my duty to postpone the consideration of the Bill now be fore the House, until the Resolutions of my right hon. Friend had been duly considered. I think, therefore, the House must admit that I have suggested this matter for their consideration in no spirit of presumption, but from a sense of duty, and as respectfully as I could, hoping that either in the present Session or in the next the main principles and object of this Bill will meet with a careful consideration. My request is, that the House will refer this Bill to a Select Committee, because so conscious am I of my own inability—so conscious am I that my position in this House cannot give sufficient weight to the details of the scheme—that I propose that the details should be decided by, and have the authority of a Select Committee, whose opinion would have such weight with the House as might remove doubts and reconcile conflicting opinions.
  With these few preliminary remarks, let me now ask the attention of the House to the substance of this Bill. It proceeds upon no new principle. If the House will allow me to glance, in passing, for two or three minutes at the history of church rates, I think I shall be able to show them that church rates originated in a charge upon property previously to the Conquest. In Saxon times, no other considerable amount of property existed in the country beyond landed property, or tenements, such as is denominated technically the real property. The congregations then belonging to the Church by custom contributed in one whole sum that which was necessary for the maintenance of the ministry of the Church, for the maintenance of the priest, and for the sustentation of the fabric. Afterwards the right of the priest was differently acknowledged; the provision for the sustentation of the fabric and the services of the Church was separated from the tithe, and was supplied from the rates. But still the sum requisite continued to be levied upon the almost only property that then existed—real property. In the course of ages large masses of other property, the fruit of the industry
  100
  of the people, were developed. Personal property grew up in all its various phases, and for hundreds of years remained taxable for the purposes of church rate. But, Sir, with some trifling exceptions, stock-in-trade has been exempted from rating. Therefore we come back to this position—that the church rate is practically levied upon the same sort of property as that upon which it was originally imposed—namely, with scarcely an exception, or with an exception not worth consideration, it rests solely upon land, or upon real property. I know that it has been disputed whether this is not a personal tax. But let me put this to the House. If a man comes into this city and lodges in an hotel for the rest of his natural life, he never can be touched by any church rate, or other rate. Well, then, although in theory, the rate is a tax upon the individual, it is so only in respect of his occupancy of some form of real property—land, or tenement, or some description of hereditament. Therefore the church rate, practically, is a charge upon land. Now, Sir, in that fact lies the solution—at least, I believe that I see the solution—of the great difficulties in which this question is involved. Not only has personal property accumulated and has been exempted, but about one-fourth of the population of the country are not members of the Church of England; large numbers claim to be considered and treated as not members of the Church, and I am sorry to say that many feel it a degradation to pay even a penny towards the sustentation of the Established Church. The Legislature of this country, in dealing with this question, has no right to ignore the existence of that wide-spread feeling.
  Sir, my proposal is this—at once to declare all personal liability on account of church rates void, and to revert to the arrangement originally made for the maintenance of the fabric and the services of the Church, by declaring that that portion of the gross produce of real property, which never was included in the rent paid to the landlord, shall continue to be reserved for the purpose of maintaining the fabric and the services of the Church free for the worship of all, and also free in this respect, that the Church is willing to acknowledge the difference from her creed and discipline of those who conscientiously object to her organization. I think, when this House considers that it is twenty-eight years since the first serious proposal was made

  101
  by the Government of Lord Grey for the solution of this question; that the records of Parliament contain nothing upon this subject since that period but the recognition of grievances and the wrecks of abandoned Bills, the record of the impotence of the Legislature to deal with this question—I think they will not consider me impatient or presumptuous, if I am anxious that the Legislature, if I am anxious that the country, should have some definite proposal before them for the remedy of this grievance, and for the amendment of the law. For what is the state of the law at present? It is perfectly contradictory. The original state of the law was this—that persons in respect of the property they held or occupied in each parish should contribute to the maintenance of the Church; and the law gave the churchwardens the right to levy the money, and also imposed upon them the duty of expending it in concurrence with the vestry. It imposed a duty upon the vestry. The function of the vestry was not to consider whether the Established Church should be maintained in decency within the parish for the use of all or not; but the function of the vestry was to ascertain what sum was necessary for that purpose, and to decide in what manner that sum should be applied for the accomplishment of this object. Why, Sir, one-half the irritation which has attended this question has arisen from the decision in the Braintree case, which is totally opposed to the original law on which church rates have been founded. According to the decision in the Braintree case, the majority of the parishioners can decide whether, so far as the legal provision for the sustentation of the fabric and the performance of the services of the Church is concerned, the Church of England shall exist at all within the parish. It has always appeared to me that the decision was a most lamentable one. I can understand the feelings of the Dissenters who are in the minority in a parish, and who consider it a tyranny when this great question—the existence of an Established Church—is left to the decision of their neighbours in vestry, and is decided against them, and at their expense. It is a question beyond the functions or competency of a vestry to decide, and feelings of bitter irritation have sprung up from this. The minority say, the law declares that we have a voice, and by the law we are bound to exercise that voice in accordance with our opinion, when
  102
  voting practically whether the Established Church shall have a locus standi in the parish of which we are inhabitants or not. The sincerity of these convictions compels them to continue the struggle. They would be held recreant if they did not oppose the church rate in the vestry, since the decision of that matter in the vestry has been made to comprehend a question, on which they have a peculiar opinion, a question on which the vestry is not, I submit, at all fitted or competent to decide. It is in order to remove this, which I believe to be the chief cause of the dispute and bitterness on the subject of church rate, that I ask the House to consider the principle of this Bill. Can it be said that the present state of the law is satisfactory? I think no hon. Member will deny that it exists in the condition I have described. Why, Sir, eight-and-twenty years ago the present Lord Derby, then Mr. Stanley, Chief Secretary for Ireland under Lord Grey's Government, and one of the most eloquent Members of this House, thus spoke on the then existing state of things. He was, in 1834, supporting the proposal of Lord Althorp, for the settlement of this question, and he then said—
  "He was perfectly ready to admit such maintenance of an Established Church ought to be conducted upon principles and in a manner the least irritating and offensive to other parties, both as respected the amount and the mode of collection. He was equally ready to acknowledge that church rates, as they stood, formed to the Dissenters a serious and substantial grievance. To afford them real relief from that grievance was the object which His Majesty's Government had in view, but his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) objected to the proposed measure as endangering the security of the Established Church. Now, so far was he from participating in the fears of his hon. Friend respecting the security of the Established Church, it was his full persuasion that no step could be taken better calculated to fortify its true interests than the proposed measure of his noble Friend. His hon. Friend appeared quite to mistake the temper of the times when he supposed that the people of England were not decidedly adverse to church rates in their present form. His hon. Friend had said (and he appeared to attach considerable importance to the statement) that it was only in fifty or sixty parishes that anything like successful opposition had been offered to the levying of church rates." [3 Hansard, xxii., 1035.]
  And I beg the attention of the House to what follows:—
  "But his hon. Friend had not stated in how many instances opposition had been put down for a time in order to be renewed at a future opportunity, should no proposition be brought forward by the Executive, and submitted to Parliament

  103
  for the relief of Dissenters and all parties upon whom that burden might unjustly press. His hon. Friend forgot to tell them how many hundred parishes there were waiting to follow the example of those which had successfully resisted, should the decision of the Legislature give them no hope of relief. [3 Hansard, xxii., 1035.]
  That was the opinion of Mr. Stanley in 1834, and I appeal to the experience of the House whether the foresight evinced in that declaration has not been justified by the constantly-renewed disturbance of this question ever since that period. Mr. Stanley afterwards said—
  "But though he addressed those arguments to his hon. Friend, he was by no means prepared to go the length of agreeing with the hon. Member for Boston in not only relieving the Dissenters, but in abolishing church rates totally. He was not prepared to leave the Church without the means of defraying those expenses hitherto supplied by the rates." [3 Hansard, xxii., 1036.]
  The Bill which I have submitted to the House is, to the best of my poor ability after years of consideration, intended to effect the objects indicated by Mr. Stanley in the year 1834. And is the opinion of the Earl of Derby of this day different from that of Mr. Stanley of 1834? Why, Sir, I find in the Report of the Committee on Church Rates, appointed three years since by the House of Lords, the following Resolution was proposed by Lord Derby and adopted by the Committee:—
  "That the principle of assessing the owner instead of the occupier to the church rate is well deserving the serious consideration of Parliament in any future legislation on the subject."
  Thus we have the authority of the concluding Resolution of the Committee of the House of Lords, that the object proposed by the Bill, which I have had the honour of laying before the House, "is well deserving the serious consideration" of the Legislature. Now, Sir, perhaps it may be doubted, whether the fact, which I have stated is true—namely, that church rate is practically a charge upon real property; in other words, that the church rate rests upon a portion of the gross value of real property reserved for the purposes of church rate to the use of the parishioners, and represents the right of the parishioners to that portion of the gross value of the land, which is beyond the rent and never included in it. Now, it may be said, if this were true, it must have appeared in the early debates upon this question. And so it did appear: for in the discussion of 1834 I find not only a statement of this fact, but the admission of this fact from both sides of the House; and it was the
  104
  potency and cogency of this fact which defeated the Bill proposed by Lord Grey's Government, I will quote high authorities upon both sides of the House in proof of this assertion. At that time Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey was a very eminent Member of this House; and so was the late Sir Robert Inglis, whom many of us remember, and all who do so, regret What did Sir Robert Inglis, the Member for the University of Oxford, say?—
  "It was precisely and strictly as an element of charge upon his property, as he had bought it, that a Dissenter, as well as every other man, was called upon to pay his proportion of church rates. If the amount had been raised by a poll tax, then the Dissenters might have complained of being included in its operation; but he could not understand how any person, upon the principles of honesty as between man and man, he having purchased a house or land with certain liabilities, calculated in its value, could come forward and claim to be relieved from those liabilities upon the ground of holding certain opinions upon points on which he had, perhaps, changed his mind since the period of making his purchase. He thought those remarks disposed of the question of right and justice. He contended that the church rate was a tax upon property, not upon individuals, and that the Dissenters acquired their property liable to the payment.…The church rate amounted to about three pence in the pound upon the whole landed rental of the kingdom; and he would ask any one whether Dissenters could be supposed to pay more than one-fourth of a farthing on the pound upon the rental?" [3 Hansard, xxii., 1026, 1027.]
  That was the opinion of Sir Robert Inglis. I will now ask the House to consider the opinion of a very different man—Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey—an eminent representative of the Dissenting interest. What were the objections he took to Lord Althorp's plan—that plan being to take £250,000 a year from the land tax, and to apply it, under the authority of the Ecclesiastical Commission, in addition to £50,000, taken from church property, with certain other funds, to the purposes of church rates, thenceforth to be abolished, as regarded the maintenance of the fabric, What was Mr. Harvey's objection to the plan? He said—
  "But to come more directly to the plan of the noble Lord (Lord Althorp). Stripped of all details, what is it? It is a proposition, if not directly to tax the people to the extent of £250,000 a year, at least to take away from the available resources of the country a sum of money to that amount. …. The noble Lord, in his statement of his budget, said that he had reserved a surplus of £500,000, wherewith to meet probable contingencies; but now he takes away from this sum £250,000, to be deducted from the land tax—a tax, be it remembered, which constitutes a

  105
  part of the ways and means of the country as certainly as any other item. … … Let me ask, if you were to extinguish tithe to-morrow, and substitute for it a payment of £5,000,000 annually out of the Consolidated Fund, would not this be a clear and direct dealing with the finances of the country? By either or both of these measures, you will relieve property at the expense of the people, and thus be doing that which, on former occasions, I have ventured to say we show too ready a disposition to do—namely, relieve ourselves at the expense of others. It was well said by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, that the church rate was not less a charge upon property than tithe. This is no fallacy. The church rate affects property in the same manner as any other charge. The other day I was called upon to pay £14 for my house in Great George Street, for the repair and maintenance of a neighbouring church. Now, if I were to sell my house, would not the purchaser inquire after the church rates as well as the parish rates, the sewer rates, and all other charges affecting property; and having taken them into consideration, would not the amount of them influence the price?" [3 Hansard, xxii., 1042, 1045.]
  The late Mr. Hume had said—
  "The noble Lord had told them that the reason (of the opposition to church rates) was because the Dissenters objected, on principle, to pay for the support of the Established Church. But had the noble Lord by his plan altered that state of things? No; the noble Lord had merely changed the manner in which the payment was to be made. It was merely paying the money out of one pocket instead of out of the other." [3 Hansard, xxii., 1020.]
  But that statement was totally overruled by Mr. Harvey and Sir H. Inglis; for they both said that the plan of the Government could not be admitted, because it was equivalent to taking £250,000 out of the general taxation of the country and putting it into the pockets of the owners of real property. Sir, I think I have shown the House that when I ventured boldly to assert that church rate is a charge upon real property, I did not make the statement upon light grounds.
  While looking at the debate of 1834, let the House consider the circumstances of Parliament at the time. It was two years after the passing of the Reform Bill. That has been called a revolution. Certainly the feeling of the population was such, that it brought every Member of this House to consider first principles, and to commune closely with his neighbours and constituents. There was a freedom of thought produced, and a freedom of inquiry induced by the circumstances of the time, which tested the nature of each grievance; and although the remedy at first proposed might not have been suitable, still the perception of the evil was more distinct and the indications of the
  106
  future remedy more apparent than they have been in any subsequent discussion, which has taken place since that time. For, take the facts as they stand. When a grievance exists, an agitation springs up, and nothing can prevent persons from availing themselves of the popular movement in the sense of making some little political capital for themselves; organization springs up whether for the maintenance of some established institution, or for its abolition, and parties become interested in the continuance of the agitation; and thus the consideration of the original grievance becomes clouded by the interposition of personal objects and personal considerations, and matters are introduced totally alien to the functions of those, whose duty it is by legislation to provide for the removal of every real and well-proved grievance which may press upon any portion of the people. Have we, Sir, since 1834 been without authoritative declarations on this subject? In 1843 the Poor Law Commissioners, in their Report, state distinctly that rates in their average amount are a charge upon real property; and they state that it is the non-recognition of this fact that has led to one-half the difficulties in the assessment for the rating and the disposal of the rates. The late Sir Robert Peel, whose sense of the present condition of church rates was so keen, that together with the whole tory party he voted for the introduction of the Bill proposed in 1834, by Lord Grey's Government, subsequently declared church rates to be a charge upon real property. I think, Sir, I need not cite further authorities. Nothing can be more clear than the demonstration given in the evidence of Mr. Coode, the real author of the Irish Poor Law, that rates, in their average amount, are a charge upon real property. And this House has recognised the fact, for on the assessment under the Irish Poor Law, one-half the burden is imposed directly upon the land. That being a case where no poor rate existed previously—for formerly there was not in Ireland, as there has always been in England, a portion of the gross value of the property reserved for maintenance of the poor.
  Sir, I will not trouble the House with any further documents, but will, with the permission of the House, proceed to consider the changes which it is quite obvious are necessary in the law of church rates. I desire that a substitute for church rates should be recognised and reserved

  107
  to the use of the parishioners for the maintenance of their church. I admit, that when an intended occupant proposes to take either land or a house, the deduction which he makes is based upon an average, and that therefore, if at any period a new rate is imposed, or an old rate is suddenly increased in amount, the amount of the new rate, or the increase of the old rate, defeats the calculation, and imposes a charge upon the occupant personally. Well, Sir, that is a consideration which induces economy in every vestry and in every Board of Poor Law guardians, because the occupant, if he sanctions an expenditure above the average amount of the rate, for which he has made a deduction from the rent, will have to pay the excess himself. In considering the propriety of establishing a charge directly upon real property, it is obvious that it would be most unjust to allow occupants, who would cease to pay one penny of it under any circumstances, to assess the amount. They would have no economical interest; and therefore, seeing that the amount of the gross value of real property, which I wish to preserve to the use of the parishioners for the purposes of church rates, has been calculated at an average by every occupier, I would take an average. And what overage ought I to take? I tried to take an average of the church rates of each parish during a certain period. But I found that would be a most difficult test, because in a parish where there is a new church, very likely there may not have been a church rate including any considerable amount for repairs for twenty years. I could not take that as a test; nor could I take an average except by some estimate (always uncertain) in the case of a parish where the church has been dilapidated and has recently been restored, and may have caused a large expenditure. That would tend to raise the average in a most unfair manner. What I propose, therefore, to take is the average amount of church rates upon the property liable to church rates in England and Wales, during a period of twenty years. I have made the calculation, but I am sure the House will not desire me at present to go into the figures. I will therefore merely state that the average amount of church rates is twopence in the pound; and twopence in the pound I would reserve out of the value of real property liable to church rates to the use of the parishioners for the purposes of church rate. These are some
  108
  of the considerations upon which I have based my plan. It has been admitted in the Resolutions submitted to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, that the action of the Ecclesiastical Courts is either so lax or so expensive that it stands condemned. Besides, according to the evidence of Dr. Lushington, the assessments for church rates will not bear investigation, and that learned and respectable judge recommends, in his evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords, the removal of all trials relating to church rates from the Ecclesiastical Courts. Mr. Foster, the chairman of the Liberation Society, showed the inconvenience and irritating nature of the law under the present system of assessment and trial; and Mr. Gladding, an Independent, recommends the recovery of church rates before the justices, and the abolition of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts.
  Perhaps the House will now allow me to recapitulate the principal objects of the Bill. The first principle of the Bill is to abolish all personal liability in respect of church rate. That is the largest advance, the widest concession, that has been proposed on the part of churchmen, in order to meet the objections that have been raised, with a view to the settlement of this question. The second object is to acknowledge the right of the parishioners to the portion of the gross value of real property in each parish, which, being beyond the rent paid to the landlord, has always been reserved for church rate. The third object is to exempt from the charge on real property, thus reserved to the use of parishioners elsewhere, all parishes in which no church rate has been levied for (say) seven years. The fourth object is to give to two-thirds of the inhabitants of such parishes power to claim, that this exemption shall be cancelled and cease. The fifth is to provide for the eventual commutation of the charge thus substituted for church rate, into an endowment for each parish, the proceeds of which shall be applicable to purposes of church rate; on the creation of which endowment the charge substituted for church rate shall cease. Now, Sir, if the House consents that these principles of this Bill shall be submitted to a Select Committee, they will consider these proposals in detail, and make such recommendations to the House as may appear in their judgment to be most desirable. I may be told that in this

  109
  case legislation will be impossible until next year. I admit that it would be impossible. But what I respectfully ask the House to do is this, to prove that it is ready to deal practically with the grievance, and yet so to deal with it as not to despoil the parishioners, throughout England and Wales, of their right to a property which they have always possessed. That, Sir, is what I ask the House to do. I will not enter into the question of the machinery of the Bill, I know that it is imperfect. Some clauses have been suggested to me which are essential: these may be considered in the Committee, But I do ask this House to prove, by considering this practical scheme, by testing whether it deserves the recommendation and the authority of a Select Committee, that the House will not allow another year to pass without a practical attempt to deal with this long-experienced grievance. In recognising the fact that the church rate is a charge upon property, there are two objects which must not be lost sight of. The first is to preserve the functions of the vestries for the disposal of the means reserved to the parishioners for the purposes of church rate, but without investing them with an uncontrolled and irresponsible power of taxing the landlords. The second is, not to place the landlords in possession of the churches, while preventing their pocketing that portion of the value of real property which never belonged to them. To allow a single landlord, where there may be but one in a parish, to take possession of the parish church, when he may be non-resident or not a member of the Church of England, would be absurd; to allow him to manage it according to his own fancy, if resident, would be unsafe. What can be safely done is, having secured to the parishioners their ancient right in the value of property, to fix the amount in accordance, as nearly as may be, with the average amount it has represented, and then to leave to the vestries their original, legitimate, and appropriate functions—namely, the disposal of the fund thus re-established for the purposes of church rate for the benefit of the parishioners generally.
  I feel, Sir, that I have trespassed too long on the attention of the House. My scheme is based on this understanding—that speaking of the great majority of this House, I believe few Members wish to disturb the Established Church. I believe they are but few who wish to break down
  110
  the great Christian organization which has been handed down to us, I may say, from apostolic times; I believe that hon. Members generally respect the Church of England as the purest branch of the Church Catholic. It is in accordance with the long-established organization of the Catholic Church, that the provision for the services and for the maintenance of the fabric in which the congregations worship should not be left to chance—should not be left to the various and varying circumstances, inclinations, or conveniences of a small local population, as these may chance from time to time, but that a national provision should be preserved, not for the rich, but for the benefit of the poor. The Legislature of this country, as of all civilized States, has recognised the great fact, of which the whole history of mankind proves the existence, that religion is a necessity of man. There scarcely is an instance of a people so barbarous, so idiotic, as not to have recognised this craving for religion. That craving is the primary evidence of the immortality of the soul. It is a recognition of a future state, which is inherent in man's nature; it is not of earth, earthy, but proves the composite nature of man as an immortal being. Sir, the Legislature of this country will never, I trust, be tempted to ignore the fact, that religion is a necessity of man; and if it is so, shall we in this wealthy country consider it prudent or politic, to leave the poorer classes, the great producers of its wealth, witnesses of our luxury, but so far as this great necessity is concerned, themselves unprovided, destitute of spiritual provision? Look to the history of this country, and you will find that the Church, whether in its primitive form before the Norman Conquest, whether in its Papal form during the Mediaeval period, whether in its present form since the Reformation, has ever been the prime element for securing the freedom and happiness of the community. Sir, it is with the view to reestablishing some secure provision for the maintenance of the fabrics and services of the Church, and at the same time to removing the present liability, which has for so many years been considered a grievance, that I ask the House and the Government to allow this Bill to be read a second time, hoping that the House will have the goodness to appoint a Select Committee to decide upon the machinery and the details by which these objects may be eventually carried into effect by law, after a due con-

  111
  sideration of all the circumstances of the case.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, that he conceived that there were errors in the measure of such a fatal character that it became the duty of the House to reject the Motion for the second reading. He doubted very much whether half the inhabitants of the country were not exempted from the payment of church rates, and must say that in his opinion it was not a sound mode of legislation to continue, as was proposed, the tax on one portion of property and one class of persons to the exclusion of others. The machinery, he might add, which was provided to carry the Bill into effect, appeared to him to be highly objectionable, and for those reasons he should move that it be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. HEYGATEbegged to express a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) would, in the interest of the cause which he advocated, withdraw his Bill with the view of moving for a Select Committee early next Session to consider the principle which it involved.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Bill made an important change in the law with regard to church rates. The Bill recognised parishes in which there had been no church rate for seven years, and provided that those parishes should be exempt from the rate. He thought, that if anything were done short of abolishing church rates altogether, it was essential to recognise by law the exemption from church rates of parishes where practically there had been no church rate for a long period Then the Bill went on to provide that in other parishes, in place of church rates there should be a perpetual fixed charge of 2d. in the pound. He was not going to discuss these proposed changes, but he mentioned them to show the importance of them. He trusted that the hon. Member would consent to let the Bill stand over until next Session. It was quite impos-
  112
  sible during the short time remaining of the present Session that a Select Committee could take these matters into consideration.
  MR. NEWDEGATEbegged to thank the House for the attention with which they had listened to his statement, and hoped that they would allow him to reprint his Bill, with such Amendments as would render it more in accordance with the suggestions of hon. Members for whose opinions he entertained the highest respect. He should, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Bill for the present, with a view of having it presented in an amended form in the next Session of Parliament.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PRISONERS BILL.

  [BILL NO. 140.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading Read.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill, and observed that the Act 4 Geo. IV., which regulated the treatment of Roman Catholic prisoners, drew a distinction between them and those prisoners who happened to belong to the Church of England. That distinction pressed very severely on the former, and that the House might see that the grievance which he sought to obviate by means of the Bill was not one of a merely theoretical character, he would take the liberty of quoting from Returns which had been laid on the table, and which gave the denominations to which those confined in the various gaols throughout England and Wales belonged. Turning to page four of the Return he found that in Brixton prison the number of convicts belonging to the Church of England was 350; to the Church of Rome, 234; while the Dissenters were 11, the Wesleyans 11; there being five prisoners with no religion, four Baptists, and three members of the Church of Scotland. Taking the next six county prisons in succession, he found that in the first, the Lancaster county gaol, there were 52 prisoners who were members of the Church of England, 30 Roman Catholics, 4 Wesleyan Methodists, and one or two belonging to other Dissenting bodies; while in the borough gaol of Kirkdale there were 304 Protestants, 141 Roman Catholics, and 8 Dissenters. Next came the

  113
  house of correction, Preston, in which there were 210 Protestants, and 77 Roman Catholics; the numbers in the New Bailey prison, Salford, being 244 Protestants, and 147 Roman Catholics; in the borough gaol, Liverpool, 361 Protestants, and 485 Roman Catholics; and in the city gaol, Manchester, 293 Protestants, and 207 Roman Catholics, besides a few who were members in each instance of Dissenting bodies. It appeared, moreover, from the same Return, that in the house of correction, Westminster, the number of prisoners of the Church of England persuasion was 341, while the Roman Catholics numbered 183. Having mentioned these facts, he had, he thought, said sufficient to show that the grievance for which he desired to provide a remedy was one of a practical character. The Return from which he had already quoted, however, enabled him to tell the House the number of prisoners of each denomination who had been visited by a minister of their own Church, and he found that in the borough gaol of Liverpool only 36 out of 485 Roman Catholics had been so visited during the previous three months; while in the city gaol, Manchester, which contained 207 Roman Catholic prisoners, the number who had received in the same time the visits of a Roman Catholic clergyman amounted only to three. It appeared also, that although in the Carlow county gaol there were no prisoners belonging to the Established Church, and no Presbyterians, yet there was attached to the gaol a Protestant chaplain, who received £30 per annum; while in connection with the Galway town gaol a similar state of things prevailed. The sum total, he might add, of the prisoners in England and Wales who were members of the Roman Catholic Church amounted, he found, to 14 per cent. Now it was true that the law provided that every prisoner might, on making a special request to that effect, receive the visits of a clergyman of his own persuasion; but it did not allow a Roman Catholic priest, who might attend a gaol at the special request of one of the inmates, to assemble together two or more of the prisoners for the purpose of giving them religious instruction, so that in the case of 136 Roman Catholics who had received the visits of a priest in Liverpool, spiritual aid was obliged to be administered to each separately. Now, the Bill which he had the honour to submit to the House, and which sought to make it lawful that a number of prisoners
  114
  might be assembled together under these circumstances, he believed, met so far with the unanimous approval of the visiting justices, as well as of the prison authorities, as was demonstrated by correspondence on the subject which he held in his hand. The portion of his Bill, therefore, which bore upon that point, had the sanction of those to whose views hon. Members would be disposed to attach considerable weight. He found that in some gaols—for example, in the Stafford county gaol—the severity of the law was mitigated, and that a Roman Catholic priest was allowed to visit the 94 members of that persuasion who were prisoners there when he felt disposed. Now, what he sought to effect was that that privilege which was granted by the visiting justices in some instances in violation of the law, should obtain legislative sanction, and that they should thus be enabled to do without difficulty that which they were anxious to accomplish. He might add that he was prepared to strike out the first clause, which related to the keeping of a register, if it was objected to. The second clause, in which provision was made that the visiting justices should appoint a Roman Catholic chaplain in case there were a certain number of prisoners in the gaol, he proposed should operate so far only as to secure such an appointment being made in those instances in which it was really called for; as for example, when the number of such persons amounted to twelve or twenty. Neither was it his intention to insist that the clergyman appointed by the visiting justices should necessarily be one nominated by the bishop of the district in which the appointment was made. The Bill did not contain a clause providing that a salary should be given to the Roman Catholic chaplain, while, at the same time, he thought it would be but right that those who performed the duties of that office should receive some remuneration for their services, and that view he should be prepared to support in Committee. So far as the principle of the Bill was concerned, he had, he might add, the support of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who, when Home Secretary in 1853, had said—
  "The Catholic prisoner ought to be equally sure of receiving religious instruction from a clergyman of his own creed, and equally sure that the testimony with regard to his conduct in prison, so far as his conduct depended on his religious instruction, should be given by an instructor of his own religion, and not

  115
  be dependent upon the opinion of one who was hostile to his creed." [3 Hansard, cxxix., 1569.]
  Again, on the 29th of April in the present year the noble Lord said—
  "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." [3 Hansard, clxvi., 1089.]
  He felt confident, that if hon. Members would look into the subject, they would agree with the noble Lord in the principle he had laid down. That principle had already been carried into effect in the prisons in Ireland, and in the military and convict prisons in this country. The House had recently given a Vote for Roman Catholic Chaplains, which was going further than he proposed to go on the present occasion, and he believed the Home Secretary was now engaged in framing regulations for convict prisons which would answer all the purposes of his Bill. He appealed to the House on behalf of a poor and criminal class, to whose criminality the law added suffering beyond the demands of justice. He hoped his appeal would not be made in vain.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hennessy) had not accounted for the singular fact that only a small number of those prisoners who were registered as Roman Catholics desired the ministration of their priests. It would appeal that no sooner did Roman Catholics get the walls of a prison placed between them and their priests than they seemed to be actuated by a wish to avail themselves of the services of Protestant chaplains and Scripture readers. The Returns cited by the hon. and learned Member showed that only a very few Roman Catholic prisoners desired to be visited by their priests, and he therefore asked the House not to force an unfortunate class of persons to receive what he
  116
  supposed he must call religious instruction against their will. Such a species of legislation would be contrary to the principles of civil and religious liberty. He believed that this Bill was not a Bill on behalf of Roman Catholic prisoners, but a Bill on behalf of Roman Catholic priests; and as such it dealt, not with a religious, but with an ecclesiastical question. The priests desired to keep Roman Catholic prisoners under their subjection, but he trusted the House would do nothing to aid them in the accomplishment of that object. All attempts to conciliate, under the name of toleration, not the Roman Catholic people, but the Roman Catholic priests, had entirely failed, and had led only to increased demands. He had in his possession a statement by a military officer that such had been the encouragement given to priests in the army that in case of any question involving Roman Catholic feeling, not he and his brother officers, but the priests, would have the control of our soldiers. When the system of conciliation began, the Irish constabulary cost £440,000 a year; it now cost something like £780,000. He defied any hon. Gentleman to show that further attempts should be made, by grants or otherwise, to conciliate that great intellectual organization which, under the pretence of religion, endeavoured to govern the policy of this country. The second clause of the present Bill proposed to allow the Roman Catholic bishops to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains. According to the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, Roman Catholic bishops were not recognised in this country, and hence the proposal of the hon. and learned Member could not be entertained for a moment. The Roman Catholic Church was represented by two sets of men, holding two sets of principles. One class, to whom he did not object, went forth as religious teachers; the other consisted of members of that great intellectual organization to which he had just referred, and were retained in the service of the Church solely on account of their ability to combine and operate for political purposes. If the Bill were carried as it stood, the Roman Catholic bishops might appoint as chaplains persons belonging to this order—men who had no religion. The preamble of the Bill was a direct and deliberate insult to the constitution of this country. It set forth the strange doctrine that the religious and moral instruction given in prisons should be based upon and be in conformity with

  117
  the religious convictions of the prisoners. The religious convictions of prisoners might be of the most varied description. There were persons who deemed it part of their religion to commit murder, and he wished to know whether, if Thugs were to be found in our prisons, we were to be obliged to instruct them according to their religious convictions. The Mormons were in favour of a plurality of wives. Were we to aid in the propagation of that doctrine, if not actually to allow Mormon prisoners the society of their wives? He contended, in short, that the preamble of the Bill, while ignoring that simple standard of Christianity, the Bible, proclaimed to the country that religious truth was a matter of no consequence at all.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that he entirely disagreed with almost every word that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The question before the House, which was one of undoubted difficulty, had been brought forward in so able and temperate a manner, and with so many and such strong arguments, that he was anxious to state at once why he was unable to assent to the Bill. He admitted that a grievance had not only been stated, but clearly shown to exist, and he thought a remedy ought to be provided; but he had told the hon. and learned Member privately that the provisions of his Bill were very objectionable, and that on that account it would be impossible for him to vote for the second reading. At the same time, considering that there were in this country eight prisons in which there were above 100 Roman Catholic prisoners, while in many others the number ranged above 50, he thought it was clear that something should be done. He submitted that a remedy should be found by the Government, who ought to consider the whole question, and bring forward upon their own responsibility a measure which, while steering clear of the many difficulties that surrounded the subject, would do substantial justice to the Roman Catholic portion of the community. The clause in the present Bill which gave the nomination of Roman Catholic chaplains to the Roman Catholic bishops was peculiarly objectionable. He did not say that it actually amounted to a violation of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, but it
  118
  "sailed far too near the wind to be pleasant." Our own chaplains were appointed by the visiting justices, and the Bishops of the Established Church had no more to do with them than he had; indeed, not so much, because he happened to be a visiting justice. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had used a most extraordinary argument—namely, that no case had been made out by the author of the Bill, because the great bulk of Roman Catholic prisoners did not want to see a priest. Certainly, a thief was not the most likely man to desire to be reformed, and the hon. Member might as well have said that criminals did not wish to be imprisoned for their misdeeds. But our object was to reform as well as to punish; and if the prisoners in our gaols were allowed to refuse the visits of clergymen, and to shut themselves up with their own evil thoughts, the odds were that, instead of reforming them, we should return them to society more hardened then before. It had occurred to him that the best way of dealing with the matter, so as to steer clear of all the difficulties which beset it in an ecclesiastical point of view, would be to give the visiting justices power under an Act of Parliament, in cases were necessity existed, to provide and pay for the religious instruction of all prisoners not belonging to the Established Church, whether Roman Catholics or Protestant Dissenters. He advised the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his Bill, and to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
  SIR GEORGE GREYbegged to express his entire concurrence in the general opinions stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley). Those opinions were not now put before the House for the first time. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had substantially repeated to-day the statement which he himself addressed to the House on a recent occasion, when he induced the House to grant a sum of money to be placed at the disposal of the Government to enable them to provide for the attendance of Roman Catholic priests in convict prisons. He based that proposal on the large number of Roman Catholic prisoners confined in convict prisons, on the absence of any provision for their religious instruction, and on the practical result in the cases of Dartmoor and Portland—namely, that the attendance of the priests, who lived at a distance, was most irregular. He was happy to say that arrangements were now in progress by which that grievance would

  119
  be removed in convict prisons. It had been truly said that this subject was attended with great difficulty, and, with an anxious desire to remove what he admitted to be a practical grievance, he regretted to say that the provisions of the present Bill were such as would render him unable to vote for the second reading. There was a distinction, which had not been adverted to, between the convict prisons and the county and borough prisons. There was a power to appoint chaplains to convict prisons, but their duties were not strictly defined by law. In the borough and county prisons the duties of the chaplain were very accurately defined; one of those duties being that the chaplain should visit every prisoner, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic; and if the prisoners were under separate punishment, the chaplain was obliged to visit them daily. Every Roman Catholic prisoner might, at his own special request, see a priest; and if one was within reach, no doubt a priest would be found willing to attend, and the law gave to that priest a right to attend that prisoner. But it was impossible to look at the return on the table without seeing, that although such was the provision of the law, it had very little practical operation. In Liverpool gaol, for instance, there were above 500 Roman Catholic prisoners, but only between thirty and forty had requested to see a priest. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) said they should exclude priests from access to Roman Catholic prisoners, because they would inculcate error, and that only truth should be inculcated. But the law did not go to that length. It expressly authorized the attendance of Roman Catholic priests where a prisoner desired it. That doctrine was not held with regard to the army, and the cases, to a certain extent, were analogous. Both in the army and in military prisons ample provision was made for the religious instruction of Roman Catholics. The principle, he thought, should be adopted in regard to gaols generally. In a matter of so much difficulty he was unwilling to pledge himself to a Bill on the subject. He felt, however, that it was one which deserved the consideration of the Government. He had given a good deal of consideration to it, and he trusted he might be able to submit some measure founded on the principle stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley)—namely, giving power to justices to secure the attendance
  120
  of ministers of other persuasions than the Established Church—not confining the relief to the Roman Catholics—and, according to the circumstances of each case, to do what was now done in convict prisons; not compelling the attendance of persons of any denomination on the minister of that denomination but giving them the fullest opportunity of doing so. With regard to the provisions of this Bill, he must say that they were open to very serious objection. The hon. and learned Gentleman was ready to make extensive alterations, but he was still unprepared to assent to the second reading. In the case of convict prisons, chaplains were appointed by the Secretary of State, and in county and borough prisons by justices. Not only had they the power of appointment, but of removal, in the case of chaplains as of all other prison officers. It was essential to the proper exercise of their responsibility that the law should not take away from them that authority. Under this Bill, however, the Roman Catholic bishop was to have the power of appointment. It was true a clergyman of the Established Church could not officiate legally within any diocese without the licence of his Bishop; but the Bishop was not able to nominate, nor could he remove except by withdrawing his licence. He had no power to interfere with the discretion of the justices in the removal of a chaplain. The third clause, however, of this Bill gave the Roman Catholic Bishop absolute power to remove the priest. There were other objections to the Bill, but he did not wish to go into them now. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked them to agree to the preamble of the Bill; but they must look to the provisions of a Bill, and therefore, while believing that a grievance existed, he could not, looking at the objections he had stated, give his assent to the second reading. He recommended the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the Bill.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that he cordially accepted the intimation given him by the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) that the question would be considered by the Government, with the view, probably, to the introduction of an efficacious measure on the subject. He should therefore, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Bill.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had to present a petition from the visiting magistrates of the gaol of Birmingham, to the

  121
  effect that there was a large number of Roman Catholic prisoners in that gaol, and that the present law afforded them ample opportunity for the exercise of their religion and the reception of religious instruction from their own pastors. They prayed that the House would not assent to the Bill, as they believed that its effect would inevitably be to restrict the religious freedom of the prisoners themselves. He was deeply concerned at what he had just heard. It appeared to him evident that both his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department were determined to ignore the most important circumstances connected with the Roman Catholic community throughout the world—circumstances which were exemplified in the recent movements of the priesthood of that Church. For all political purposes the Church of Rome had incorporated itself with the Jesuit organization, which was essentially political. At the recent meeting of the Roman Catholic Bishops at Rome the more moderate opinions which were once held to be consistent with the original organization of the Catholic Church were cast aside, and Ultramontane principles were triumphant. The head of the Ultramontane party in this kingdom was Cardinal Wiseman, who was their leader and amanuensis, and that Prelate maintained his position as the exponent of the Papal aggression act, which it was the intention of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act to forbid. ["Question!"] This was the question; for the subject was touched upon in the Bill before the House. There was an attempt to recognize the official power of the Roman Catholic Bishops, which was condemned by the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. He begged to call the attention of the House to this, that the intention to organize the Roman Catholic community in this country for political purposes was the avowed object of Cardinal Wiseman; and also to this fact, that according to the Roman Catholic canon law, as expressed in the petition of the priests of the northern district, the powers conferred upon Cardinal Wiseman by the rescript of 1850 enabled him to convene synods of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, in which, as Cardinal, he was supreme, and thereby to annul the independence which had previously been enjoyed by the Roman Catholic priests and laity in this country. If the Bill were passed, the nomination of the
  122
  chaplains would not rest with the Roman Catholic Bishops, as independent ecclesiastical authorities, but would be practically exercised by the dictation of Cardinal Wiseman, who had intruded himself into these realms as a temporal officer of the Roman Pontiff. In a lecture delivered in 1850, in order to explain the character of the Mission with which he was invested by the rescript of 1850, Cardinal Wiseman said, "There is at present a religious conflict going on in this country. The Catholics here are not and never have been"—which he (Mr. Newdegate) begged to deny—"merely a collection of persons holding certain opinions in common, but a systematized, organized, religious community, representing here the Catholic Church" He would not trouble the House with further extracts. But unpleasant as the recognition of that fact might be to those who would support the political objects of this organization, he begged to refer them to the debate of June 12, 1854, for further proof of this—that Cardinal Wiseman distinctly explained that he was sent here to organize the Roman Catholics as a community separate from the remainder of Her Majesty's subjects. He begged to call the attention of the House to the fact that by a document recently issued in Ireland by Legate Cullen, it was patent to every person possessed of ordinary capacity that this organization was to affect Roman Catholics in matters of a temporal as well as of an ecclesiastical and spiritual character. If, therefore, that House had any regard for the peace of the country, they would not ignore the fact that they had to deal with a foreign political organization established here, and ought not to allow their benevolent feelings to lead them to the erroneous belief that by giving Roman Catholic priests, subject to this political organization, official access to the gaols of this country, they would be securing either the religious freedom or the effectual moral reformation of the prisoners, but that they would be affording means for the exercise of a temporal power notoriously adverse to the whole constitution of the country and the freedom which it generates. He was sorry to trespass on the attention of the House; but when he heard it said that that organization was calculated to produce the reformation of our prisoners, he was forced to advert to the fact that the proportion of criminals in Ireland, where that organization had most power, was

  123
  enormously greater than it was in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions. If reference were made to the Return submitted by the Home Secretary, it would be found that the Roman Catholic criminals in our gaols constituted a number larger out of all proportion to the actual number of the Roman Catholic community than did the prisoners of any other denomination. He trusted that the hon. Member (Mr. Hennessy) would not withdraw his Motion; for he hoped that the House would emphatically reject the Bill, and that its proposals, which were specific and deliberate, would meet with a specific and determined rejection.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that he must decline to withdraw his Amendment.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put off for three months.

SALE OF BEER, &C. BILL— [BILL NO. 159.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he rose for the purpose of moving the second reading of this Bill. The object of it was to put the sale of beer that was consumed on the premises of the seller on the same footing as spirits when sold and consumed on the premises, by depriving the publican of the right to recover a debt under 20 s. for beer consumed on the premises. The House had consented to an alteration of the old Tippling Act under which no debt could be recovered for spirits sold on the premises. That Act was altered in the present Session of Parliament by the House of Commons, and the Bill making the alteration was now before the House of Lords. If that Bill became law, debts due for spirits supplied to the buyer at his own house could be recovered in the courts of law. He did not propose to go quite so far as that with regard to beer. His Bill was limited to the recovery of debts for beer or cider actually consumed on the premises of the beerseller. It was notorious that great mischief and misery was occasioned in consequence of poor men running up a score in the public houses. He took a glass of beer himself, and he had no objection that the poor man should have his glass of beer likewise. The al-
  124
  teration he proposed would not have the effect of depriving him of his glass of beer. The only enactment he wanted was that the seller should not be able to make use of the machinery of the law to recover debts due for beer under certain circumstances. His object was to take away from the seller of beer the temptation to persuade the poor man to continue to take it and to run up a score with him after the poor man had lost the use of his discretion as to what was good for him to take. The County Court Judges considered that the present working of the law produced great evil, and that nothing was more likely to check drunkenness and to promote morals than the small provision which he now proposed to the House. He had also received letters from the County Court bailiffs detailing the hardships which were produced by the present state of the law. It frequently happened that a poor man, when half intoxicated, ran up a score for beer with a particular seller, whereby the latter obtained complete control over him—threatening him with legal proceedings if he went to any other beerseller, or did any thing that was displeasing to him.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. This was one of those measures suggested by sour-minded people, under the belief that they were going to make men good by Act of Parliament. His notion was, if they would mind their own business, and allow other people to mind theirs, they would do much better. The Bill was in reality a rich man's Bill. How would it affect many of the working men among his constituents? Receiving their wages fortnightly or every three weeks, they were accustomed to have their dinner at the nearest public-house, where they had a pint of beer to it, which, if this Bill passed, they would not have. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) said he liked a glass of beer himself, and that was the sort of charity which he manifested. What he liked himself was all very well; but he was a rich man—he did not want the law to take care of his liberty; but he would step forward, and, in the name of law, take care of the poor man. The Bill would only prevent the honest, industrious working

  125
  man from getting his pint of beer to his dinner because he might not have money every day in his pocket to pay for it.
  Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that it was an extraordinary thing that Session after Session the House should be interfering with the business of publicans. The Bill was not directed against the richer classes, but against the poorer classes of the people; there being thousands of working men who in the metropolis alone take their dinners in the public-houses near their places of employment. If such a Bill were to pass, the working man would frequently have to go without his beer, and without the means of cooking his dinner.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that he would support the Bill, considering that it would be of benefit to the poor man, and would not injuriously affect him.
  MR. HALIBURTONsaid, he thought the Bill was based on a very great fallacy—namely, that spirituous liquors and beer were in the same category, whereas they were totally different things. The poor man might drink almost a barrel of honest beer without being intoxicated. It was the noxious drugs put into his liquor by the publican, and not the beer itself, which produced intoxication. The working man required his glass of beer with his dinner to support his strength, and it would be most unjust to deprive him of the power of getting it on credit until he could pay for it with his wages.
  MR. BARROWsaid, that he believed that the honest hard-working man would not be affected in any shape by this Bill; but it would protect those who had not sufficient strength of mind to resist the temptation put in their way by the publican, who wished to make them run up an ale score and then to sue them in the County Court if they did not pay it. Many men were thus induced to drink on after they had lost all control over themselves, and were imprisoned because they could not pay for it, their families being mean while left to starve. An increasing number of men were brought before him as a magistrate who had indulged in intoxication in beerhouses, where no spirits were sold; and he was therefore anxious to take away the facilities enjoyed by the keeper of
  126
  those places for seducing such persons into extravagance and intemperance.
  MR. CONINGHAMbegged to differ from the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who thought the Bill a rich man's Bill, and not a poor man's. If the opposition to such a measure could be analysed, it would be found to proceed mostly from the publican interest. He had been much struck by a remark which appeared in The Times the other day in regard to the debts of honour incurred at a recent horse-race, and which could not be recovered by any legal process. The statement there made was that hardly 1 per cent of those debts remained unpaid after what was called the settling day. The Bill would not prevent the honest working man getting credit for his pint of beer, while it would discourage intemperance.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that he would cordially support the second reading of the Bill, at the risk of being classed in the category of "sour-minded" persons. Probably the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) thought all the opponents of the measure were, like himself, gifted with suavity of disposition and genial-mindedness. He believed that any one who had the character of an honest working man would be certain to get credit till the end of the week for the beer he consumed at his daily meal; and, on the other hand, in applying a stringent check to the large class to whom the publican could not give trust, the Bill would have a wholesome effect rather than otherwise.
  MR. BAINESsaid, that he had been a total abstainer for many years, and he wished to give his personal experience on this subject. He had attended many temperance meetings, and nothing could be more pleasing than the delightful statements which one heard, and the virtue which was displayed, at them. The accounts given by some of these persons of their former degradation were enough to harrow the feelings and freeze the blood. The Bill of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was calculated to prevent some of this mischief. It would promote virtue and morals, afford the means of educating multitudes of poor children, and save many a poor wife from being broken-hearted by the depravity of her husband.
  MR. COLLINSwas neither a teetotaller, like the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), nor an advocate of the Permissive

  127
  Bill; but he thought that the principle of the Tippling Act, if extended to beerhouses, would prevent a vast amount of immorality in Yorkshire and other counties.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that he would not oppose the second reading of this measure, although the motion made by the hon. Member for Bradford had certainly taken him by surprise, for he had understood yesterday that the hon. Gentlemen did not intend to proceed any further with the Bill this Session. If, however, they went into Committee, there were a few alterations which it would be necessary to introduce. The first clause went much beyond the Tippling Act, and the preamble would require some amendment. The sum of 20s. was rather a high amount to fix as the limit under which no debt should be recoverable unless it was bonâ fide contracted at one time, because it should be remembered that the price of beer and spirits was very different.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that he would vote for the Bill with the greatest pleasure if he thought it would have the slightest effect in repressing intemperance; but, instead of doing that, he believed the measure would only enable people to thieve as well as to get drunk. As to a man drinking 20 s. worth of beer at one time, he supposed that not even the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), with all his experience, had ever met with a case of that kind. The Bill would encourage dishonest persons to go about from house to house drinking as much as they could get credit for, and never paying a single farthing. Public returns showed that drunkenness was on the decrease, and therefore the less they interfered with the trade the better.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, that he thought there was a great difference between the case of beer and that of spirits, and he was afraid this measure would prevent the labouring man who worked at a distance from his home from getting credit for the beer he took with his dinner.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that as a rule, the working man did not drink beer with his meals. By far the larger quantity was consumed by him at the end of the week, the fortnight, or even the month, when he spent two or three days in continuous drinking, Undoubtedly no man ever achieved the feat of consuming 20 s. worth of beer at one sitting; but they knew that after a certain number of pints the
  128
  man's heart warmed, when he treated all his neighbours, and was encouraged to do so by the publican. To his certain knowledge many and many an ale score of more than 20 s. had been thus run up at a single sitting.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, that he was surprised at such a Bill as that before the House proceeding from one who professed to be a Free-trader. The measure would hold out a premium to the dishonest and designing publican to induce his customers to drink, and thus incur a liability on which they could be sued.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, that to such an extent had the oppressive actions of the beersellers been carried, often ending in the imprisonment of their poor customers for debt, that almost every County Court Judge was in favour of a measure like the present to restrain them.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 90; Majority 3.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL NO. 69.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. HADFIELDbegged to move the introduction of a clause to follow Clause 7. The effect of the Amendment was to repeal so much of 1 & 2 Vict., c. 110, s. 21, and 18 Vict., c. 15, ss. 1, 2, & 3, as regarded registration and re-registration of judgments, &c.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to move a clause to the effect that from and after the passing of the Act, no sequestration founded upon or for giving effect to any judgment for debt entered up against any beneficed clergyman should issue against the profits of his benefice or any portion thereof, provided that nothing contained in the Act should affect the provisions of the 24 & 25 Vict., c. 134, in relation to sequestrations issued against the benefices of clergymen becoming bankrupts, nor the provisions of any other Act authorizing the issuing of sequestrations of the profits of benefices of clergymen for any special purpose.
  Clause (Limitation of Sequestrations) brought up, and read 1°
  MR. MALINSsaid, that he could not assent to the clause. As by the new Bankruptcy Act the person of an indebted clergyman was protected, so by the proposed clause would his property be unassailable. It could not be intended that clergymen should be permitted to contract debts with impunity. He had been informed by a tradesman in large business that the extension of the bankruptcy law to non-traders had proved a serious affair to him, as it frequently happened now, on applying for payment, he was met by an announcement that the creditors had been called together, and therefore he must be content with a certain percentage of the debt. Many clergymen without livings, who had incurred debts, had taken that course.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the clause proposed to carry the existing law a step further, and to prevent a benefice from being taken in execution; but there was this dilemma—either it would or it would not be an obstacle to the recovery of debts owing by clergymen. If it would be, was the House prepared to encourage the non-payment of debts by clergymen with valuable benefices? If it would not be an obstacle, then how were creditors to obtain payment, except by driving a man into bankruptcy?
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that he thought the clause would be useful in checking the contraction of debts and the granting of credit.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that he would support the clause, as likely to be beneficial to the community. A clergyman was a public servant, receiving certain payment for his services, and the half-pay of an officer might as well be seized as the income of a benefice.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that he could not vote for the clause, which appeared to belong to the Clergy Relief Bill rather than to the measure before the House. If the revenue of a benefice was public property, how could the principle of the Bankrupt Act be reconciled with that doctrine? In the case of half-pay, the court consulted the office from which the pay was received as to how much should be set apart for the payment of the debts; but in the case of a benefice the court sequestrated the income. He did not believe the clause would operate beneficially
  130
  towards clergymen in compelling them to have recourse to the Bankruptcy Court.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that he also thought the clause would be injurious to clergymen, as it would prevent them from raising loans by way of annuities.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the said clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he rose to move the omission of the first clause, which would unsettle the established practice with respect to notice.
  Further Consideration postponed till Wednesday 23rd July.
  House adjourned at six minutes before Six o'clock.