Commons Sitting of 24 July 1866

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Galway Town, v. Michael Morris, esquire, Solicitor General for Ireland.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN — William Nicholson, esquire, for Petersfield; Abel Smith, esquire, for Hertford County.
SELECT CoMMITTEE—Report—Mortality of Troops (China) [442].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 23] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Common Law Courts (Fees and Salaries); Fortifications and Works.
Ordered—Common Law Courts (Fees and Salaries).*
First Reading—Common Law Courts (Fees and Salaries* [240].
Second Reading — Compulsory Church Rate Abolition [143] [Mr. Gladstone], adjourned debate further adjourned; Traffic Regulation (Metropolis)* [227]; Local Government Supplemental (No, 4)* [234]; Aberdeen Provisional Order Confirmation* [237]; Inclosure (No. 2)* [238].
Committee — Public Health (re-comm) [202] [R.P.]; Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland) [Lords]* [172]; Colonial Branch Mints* [220]; Fees (Public Departments)* [223].

Report — Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland) Lords
* [172]; Colonial Branch Mints* [220]; Fees (Public Departments)* [223].
Considered as amended—Inland Revenue [209]; Tramways (Ireland) Act Amendment* [149].
Third Reading—Court of Session (Scotland)* [204]; Land Drainage Supplemental (No. 2)* [198]; Overseer of the Poor (Small Parishes)* [214]; Parochial Buildings (Scotland) Act Amendment* [222].
Withdrawn—Veterinary Surgeons [121]; Railway Construction Facilities Act (1864) Amendment* [226].

PUBLIC HEALTH (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Bruce, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Sir George Grey.)
[BILL 202.] COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the more convenient course would be to postpone for the present Session the first part of the Bill, relating to sewage and water supply. The second and more material portion of the Bill, providing for the removal of nuisances, it would be well to go on with. There was a third part which having treated de omnibus rebus, went on to consider quibusdam aliis; and which might well be dispensed with altogether. The first part took powers so large for the execution of works of drainage and water supply that it would require more time and consideration than it could receive at the present period of the Session. The Bill was first ordered to he printed on the 6th of June, at a time when public attention was occupied with other matters. It was referred to a Select Committee of seventeen Members, and it went through Committee in two days. [Mr. BRUCE: Three.] Clauses had been "pitchforked" into the Bill from other Acts of Parliament, and great care and consideration

1377
would be necessary to secure the proper relation of these clauses to each other, and to provide sufficient checks and safeguards for the protection of the rights of the public and of individuals. The clauses in reference to the water supply were of great importance, and would require amendment before they would work properly. For in the case of a speculator in an agricultural parish of 10,000 acres who might erect forty or fifty cottages for labourers without making provision for the water supply, the enactments of this Bill might render the district liable to rates for the supply of water to these cottages. In the Local Government Act and Public Health Act, there were stringent provisions to guard navigation and canals from being injuriously affected by the exercise of the powers under these Acts for providing a supply of water; but in this Bill any such provision was totally omitted—at least, nothing could be found to guard them. The clauses also in regard to the "summary process" for enforcing the provision of the Bill, which some of the daily prints had pronounced to be beyond all praise, were extremely defective, and would lead, he believed, to an indefinite measure of vexatious litigation and consequent expense.
MR. BRUCEsaid, there was a strong need for an Amendment of the Nuisances Act. The object of the present Bill was to enable the local authorities in rural districts, as well as in towns, to execute sewage and other works necessary for the public health, and, in case of their neglect, to compel them to exercise the powers conferred by the Bill. The main powers to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) objected were already supplied by the Sewage Utilization Act, to which the authority now proposed to be given was but supplemental. He had intended to introduce a Bill for consolidating all the nuisances removal Acts and conferring on local boards and vestries additional powers and responsibilities, which the good of the country required, but the question was so large, and Parliament was so much occupied with other important subjects, that he thought it best to confine the measure entirely to matters demanding immediate attention. The effect of adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would be practically to postpone legislation for twelve months, and the sacrifice of hundreds and perhaps thousands of lives would be the consequence. The public mind had been a good deal excited by accounts of
1378
the state of the workhouses in London, but in almost every country parish there were scenes quite as horrible, and daily deaths from want of draining and water supply. He heard a gentleman say at a public meeting that if there was as much mortality among the calves born in this country as among the children there would be a Royal Commission and a demand for the fullest inquiry into the matter. The mortality among children in this country, in the rural districts as well as in towns, was in a great degree owing to the pernicious sanitary conditions under which they lived; these evils were to a great extent preventible by judicious legislation, and it must rest with the House to apply a remedy or assume the responsibility of declining it. For these reasons he could not consent to postpone this necessary measure.
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that notwithstanding the great confidence which he reposed in the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), he thought that the question was of such importance that immediate legislation was necessary. The general feeling of the Committee to whom the Bill was referred was, that immediate and decisive steps ought to be taken to supply a remedy. The former Act relating to this subject had proved almost inoperative in the country districts. He hoped the Bill, some modifications being inserted, would pass into law this Session, and be believed it would prove one of the most useful measures which had ever been passed by that House.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he objected to going into Committee on a Bill of this gravity at the very close of the Session. It was very desirable that a distinct statement of the effect and bearing of the various clauses of the Bill, and the circumstances which rendered it necessary, should be presented to the House, in order that a proper opinion might be formed regarding them. The first part of the Bill did not affect the metropolis, inasmuch as it was not included in it; and with respect to the rest of the country, he believed the public was not aware of what was to be accomplished by the measure. The second part of the Bill was quite unsuited to the circumstances and conditions of the metropolis, and would be quite inoperative. Its provisions would place the great body of London dwelling-houses and offices at the mercy of the police. When the police had reason to suppose that too great a number of persons were collected in the same dwell-

1379
ing-house, the police would have power to enter and turn them out. He admitted that there might be cases in which it was necessary to turn people out of their houses; but he contended that this provision should not be enacted until measures were taken to find suitable accommodation for those so turned out. With regard to the definition of nuisances, He thought it a very serious matter that the police should have the power of interfering vexatiously with the occupation or property of the poorer classes. He had not beard a single reason why the powers vested in the hands of the local authorities of London should be transferred to that of the police. He would remind the House that the metropolitan police were not appointed by local authorities as they were in the country, and they had had an illustration no later than last night of the strong repugnance entertained against the interference of the force under Sir Richard Mayne. He knew there were some who thought, so long as they had got a regiment of Guards, they might do as they pleased; but even these should be reminded that the time was rapidly approaching when those things could no longer be. This was not all. There were provisions in the Bill by which local authorities were to be brought up for judgment before police magistrates. Anybody who knew the feelings of the population of London, and the respect they entertained for local authorities, could hardly conceive a proposition more outrageous or extravagant. In fact, the whole supervision of the local authorities would be transferred by the Bill to stipendiary magistrates of police. The Bill had been proposed hastily, and its provisions were likely to prove ineffective, and he had expected that before going into Committee that the House should have had an ample statement of facts, circumstances, and reasons, to show the necessity and expediency of this Bill; but no such statement having been made, he, for one, must object to going into Committee on the measure.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that no person who had read the Reports and Returns laid before the House could deny that the present law as to the public health was in an unsatisfactory state, or that the means for enforcing it were at all adequate. He thought the effect of the Bill had been entirely misrepresented, and if the House went into Committee, it would be possible to consider and remove the objections to the various clauses. The objections of the
1380
hon. Gentleman who spoke last were, in a great degree, founded on the second section of the twenty-third clause, which gave the police power of interference with manufactories in certain circumstances. Now, the whole effect of this clause would be to transfer to factories not hitherto introduced in the Factory Act the powers granted by that measure in reference to those comprehended under it. If his views were carried out, and the police magistrates not allowed to enforce the law with respect to smoke and similar nuisances, there would be no chance of the public ever getting rid of them. In the same way, it was absolutely necessary that the police should have a power of inspecting lodging-houses, with a view to the removal of sanitary nuisances. With regard to the action of the police, he reminded the hon. Member that it was through their agency that the Smoke Act was enforced in London, while it was neglected in towns like Manchester, Leeds, and Newcastle. The police in this country were not the absolute despots the hon. Member had represented. It was their duty to report facts upon which action might be taken by the Secretary of State. He believed that, if they went into Committee upon the Bill, they might, even at this late period of the Session, so amend the law as to conduce to the general health and comfort of the public.
MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, he considered that the various Reports which had been presented to the House amply proved that there was an urgent necessity for legislation on the subject, and while he admitted that some of the clauses might be improved in Committee, he hoped they would not allow so useful a Bill to drop and leave the present terrible state of things to continue.
MR. GRAVESsaid, that this measure received the hearty approval of the town of Liverpool, where mortality, from preventible causes, had reached a great height, and he believed it would receive similar approval from other large towns and districts of the country. It was most desirable, for the sake of promoting the general health of the country, that there should be no delay in considering the provisions of the Bill.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, there could not be a doubt that grave and serious objections existed to this Bill in its present shape, and he particularly objected to the metropolis being handed over to the tender mercies of the police. This,

1381
in a place where there were medical officers of health, was, he thought, an ill-advised measure. It was most injudicious to bring the police into such disagreeable collision with the people, and so far as the Bill gave power of house-to-house visitation by the police, he should give it his opposition.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, that the previous legislation of that House had been most defective in dealing with that class of subjects, and he was in favour of going into Committee with a view to providing a remedy. He thought the Bill was so important that it would be worthy of the House to have a special Session in order to fully consider its provisions and pass it into law.
MR. ADDERLEYsubmitted that, as there was no objection to the principle of the Bill, they ought to waste no time in going into Committee, where whatever was objectionable in the clauses might be removed. So far from the subject being a new one, it had been before the House in different shapes for the last twenty years; but though there had been much legislation, it needed simplifying, and it would be absolutely necessary to deal with the existing law in a consolidating Bill next year. He denied that the power given to the police was unduly extended, and it was only of an initiatory character. There were, however, parts of the present Bill which were most urgent and might well be passed this Session.
MR. LOCKEsaid, as far as his experience of the feeling of the inhabitants of the metropolis went, it was decidedly in favour of the Bill. It was absolutely necessary that immediate legislation should take place on the subject, and that it should not be postponed until next Session.
MR. POWELLsaid, he concurred with the hon. Member for Southwark as to the feeling of the metropolis with regard to the measure, and he hoped the House would not delay going into Committee. There had been great exaggeration in the allegations made respecting the powers proposed to be given to the police, but that was a question which would most properly be raised in Committee.
MR. BAZLEYsaid, he hoped there would not be any objection to substitute the Secretary of State as the authority of appeal instead of the local magistracy.
SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsaid, he did not think hon. Members had sufficient
1382
information before them to warrant such legislation as that which was proposed by the provisions of this Bill, and some of the clauses would require to be very minutely sifted. It was a very serious question whether the remedy proposed was not worse than the disease.
MR. LEEMANsaid, the first part of the Bill which related to agricultural districts was most important and valuable, and he would recommend the House to proceed with the measure as speedily as possible. He should oppose some of its proposals, but he was satisfied that the measure, as a whole, would prove beneficial.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Sewer authority.)
MR. DILLWYNmoved an Amendment that where a local Board of Health existed it should alone possess "sewer authority."
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the Amendment was unnecessary, as the local Boards of Health already possessed the power which it proposed to confer upon them.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 (Formation of a special Drainage District.)
MR. KNIGHTmoved an addition to the clause to the effect that the drainage district should, for the purposes of the Sewage Utilization Act, 1865, come under the provisions of the Local Government Act. Unless some such Amendment was made, every village and hamlet might become a corporation for drainage purposes.
After some discussion, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he objected to the clause as it stood because it would relieve one part of a parish from paying rates for which the poorer part of the parish only would be assessed. The effect of the clause would be to cut off the portion of the parish most requiring drainage into a district. The clause now ran—
"And any officer or officers who may from time to time be appointed by the sewer authority of such special drainage district for the purpose shall have within that district all the powers of levying a rate for the purpose of defraying the expense of carrying the said Sewage Utilization Act into effect that they would have if such district were such parish as aforesaid, and such rate were a rate for the relief of the poor, and they were duly appointed overseers of such parish."

1383
He proposed, as an Amendment, after "rate," to leave out "were a rate for the relief of the poor," and insert "were a district rate, made in the same manner, and assessed on different descriptions of property in the same way, as a general district rate in 'The Local Government Act, 1858.'"
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 13, after the words "rate were a," to leave out the words "rate for the relief of the poor," and insert the words "district rate made in the same manner, and assessed on different descriptions of property in the same way, as a general district rate in 'The Local Government Act, 1858,'"—(Mr. Henley,)
—instead thereof.
MR. NEATEsaid, that the meaning of the clause was that in a parish composed partly of houses and partly of land they should concentrate the sewage rate on that part of the parish that derived advantage from it. The adoption of the Amendment would introduce an element of dissension into the parishes so circumstanced.
SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, he would suggest to the Committee that they should adhere to the words of the clause as it stood, that being consistent with former legislation on the subject.
MR. AYRTONsaid, it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to raise the question by a distinct clause that would apply to the entire case.
MR. POWELLadvised the postponement of the clause.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he must object to the postponement of the clause. This was a collection of supplemental provisions of existing Acts, and it was intended to consolidate these Acts next year. The Amendment could not be carried without altering the existing law, and that was a proceeding to adopt on consolidation.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 8: Majority 74
MR. KNIGHTsaid, he was of opinion that the clause would be one of the most oppressive ever proposed, and but for the result of the last division he would have divided the Committee against the clause.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 (Drainage of Houses.)
MR. PAULLsaid, he would propose to the Committee to introduce words for the
1384
purpose of meeting a case of nuisance caused by stench arising within a dwelling-house or tenement adjoining thereto, from any drain or pipe being out of repair, thereby causing an escape of sewage or vapour therefrom. He desired by the adoption of his Amendment to give power under the Bill to suppress such a nuisance. He thought that power should be given to the authorities to interfere in such a case.
SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, that the object of the hon. Gentleman would be effected by the clause as it stood.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, it struck him that the law as it stood was amply sufficient to meet such a case as that referred to by the Mover of the Amendment.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he would confer with the Government in order to obtain an early day for proceeding with the Bill.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress, to sit again this day.

CATTLE DISEASES ACT.—QUESTION.
MR. READsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the slaughtering powers of the Cattle Diseases Act will be continued after the 3rd of August; and if any modification of the Orders in Council restricting the movement and the trade in cattle is contemplated, in consequence of the decline of the Cattle Plague; and, if he can inform the House how the Cattle Diseases Act is being carried out in Cheshire, since by the last Return it appears that eighteen out of the twenty-one cases of "recoveries" are reported from the county of Chester?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, in reply to the first part of the Question, that no modification was at present contemplated, and with regard to the question relating to Cheshire he should have to bring in on Thursday a Bill amending the Cattle Plague Act of which he intended to give notice to-night, and he would then state the views of the Government.

CASE OF NEVILLE MASKELYNE TOOMER.—QUESTION.
MR. EYKYNsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstances under which Neville Maskelyne Toomer, notwithstanding strong medical evidence in his favour,

1385
was convicted at the Berkshire Assizes, held at Abingdon on the 11th of July last, and sentenced to fifteen years' penal servitude, and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps in regard to that sentence?
MR. WALPOLE: My attention, Sir, has been called only indirectly to the case in question. It is usual at the Home Office, and with great propriety, to wait until the convict, or some person on his behalf, applies to have his case taken into consideration. That case has not come directly under my notice upon such application at present. I expect from what I hear that it will in a day or two, and the moment it does I will give my best attention to the subject.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM.—QUESTION.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to ask, Whether, in the case of any new appointment that may be made in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, it will be distinctly understood by the gentleman appointed to the place that there is a probability that the Drawings of the Old Masters will be removed to the National Gallery?
MR. WALPOLE: Sir, I will state, according to my recollection, what took place at the last meeting of the Trustees with reference to the lamented death of Mr. Carpenter. When the vacancy occasioned by his death was communicated to the principal Trustees, in whom is vested the appointment of a successor, nothing, if I recollect rightly, was said with reference to the possible separation of the principal drawings from the rest of the collection. But I take it for granted that anybody who succeeds to that office would accept it subject to the condition that if those prints and drawings are removed something will have to be done with reference to the keeper. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for a more specific answer, he can put the Question on the paper.

THE REFORM MEETING IN HYDE PARK.—QUESTION.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. OSBORNE: Sir, perhaps the urgency of the case will form my apology for not having given Notice to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary of the Question I am about to put. I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether be will be kind enough to state to the
  1386
  House, with reference to the meeting proposed to have been held in Hyde Park last evening, what were the Instructions given by the Home Office to Sir Richard Mayne?
  MR. AYRTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question which has just been put I should like to address to him another, and as it may lead to some observations, it may be convenient that I should conclude with a Motion for the adjournment of the House. My hon. Friend behind me has asked a very simple Question, which I think has been answered by anticipation. But there are other questions upon which I confess I should like to have some information. Every one must regret that the people of the metropolis should have been brought in the way they have been face to face with the authorities, and still more, as the result of that, that there should have been any resort to force on the one side or the other. But one cannot help feeling that this unfortunate state of things has arisen from causes which might have been entirely prevented. Undoubtedly it came to the notice of the Government some time ago that a certain portion of the community was under the impression that they had a right to assemble together in Hyde Park for the purpose of considering political questions, and expressing their opinions thereon. With regard to the question of right, I am bound to say that circumstances have occurred in recent times which have tended very much to encourage this notion on the part of the people; and I allude more particularly to the disposition that has been evinced in somewhat recent times on the part of other sections of society to appropriate the Parks in a specific manner to their own gratification and enjoyment. I myself, as these occurrences have arisen, have expressed my strong opinion against such pretensions, because I have always felt that if any section of the community, however elevated in rank and influential in station, though extremely few in number, took it upon themselves to exercise influence over the Government to induce it to appropriate portions of the Park specifically for their gratification and enjoyment, it must necessarily give rise to an impression in the minds of the people that they in their turn would have the right whenever the occasion arose to appropriate some portion of the Parks in a manner which might be convenient to themselves. I cannot help recollecting that not long ago there was a desire on the part of a very small portion of the

  1387
  community that instead of riding on the ordinary road they should have a very soft road to ride upon, or, it may be, to fall upon, as they went through St. James' Park; and thereupon the railings of the park were pushed back, and a considerable portion of the Park was appropriated for the exclusive benefit and gratification of that particular section. ["Oh, oh!" I am obliged to hon. Gentlemen opposite for crying "Oh, oh!" because they evidently begin to appreciate the truth of my observations. When I expressed myself in general terms hon. Gentlemen did not seem to sufficiently appreciate my remark, and I was in doubt whether I should give any illustration, but I am glad I have done so, because it is quite obvious that my remarks have penetrated their minds. But that was not the only occasion on which these things have been done. I recollect not long ago those who are responsible for the local government of the metropolis, and also for its taxation, being very much pressed by a fashionable part of society who inhabit the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, to improve the means of communication between one part of the parish and another. It was suggested to those then in authority that there was an obvious means of improving that communication, because there already existed a thoroughfare between Hyde Park Corner and Park Lane, and there was, therefore, a very simple mode of proceeding by making thoroughfare available to those who desired to use it. They were told by the gentlemen in authority that that particular portion of the Park was a lounge for a very refined section of society, and that it would be quite impossible to appropriate such a space for the convenience of the public at large. It may seem a very simple thing for people who have hours to while away in carriages to appropriate to themselves a particular portion of the Park. Nevertheless, that again was a specific appropriation of a character entirely exclusive. ["No, no!"] Undoubtedly Gentlemen opposite will say it was not exclusive, because anybody who has an hour or two to while away in a carriage, can participate in the enjoyment. That appears to be very much like the old answer that anybody may go into the London Tavern and eat turtle soup if he desires it; but the qualification is limited and the appropriation exclusive. Whilst the public at large have; therefore, insuperable difficulties placed in their way in the legitimate use
  1388
  of these Parks, we cannot help remembering these things. Again, when an inconvenience was experienced in passing between the Clubs and Belgravia, it was suggested that a very easy remedy could be found by going through the gates of St. James' Palace at one side and the gates at Buckingham Palace at another, and no obstacle was encountered in arranging that matter when the fashionable part of society was concerned. It may be thought that the people of this metropolis are so ignorant or so stupid that they cannot observe what is going on. But, in point of fact, they do observe it, and when they find that the hearth of the poor man is to be taxed to the extent of £100,000 to meet the convenience of fashionable folks, it is a matter which does penetrate the mind of every thoughtful member of society. The House will appreciate what the value of that money is when I tell them that the Metropolitan Board of Works has expended only £110,000 for the purchase of the two Parks for the people, one on the south and the other on the north side of the metropolis. I have stated enough to show the exclusive character of these appropriations, and that if one section of society makes these exclusive appropriations it is natural that it should become imprinted on the minds of the other section of the community that they are at liberty to do likewise. But I can refer to even a stronger case. When the Civil Service desired to appropriate a portion of a Park for the benefit of a club, that concession was granted in spite of the remonstrances that were made. It is impossible to divest the minds of the people of the impression that they in their turn ought to have their share of these appropriations; and I mention these things because, four years ago, the matter was mooted to me and to other metropolitan Members, and on that occasion, after going into the matter calmly, we succeeded in satisfying those who raised the question that on the point of right there was no special right to make these appropriations for the exclusive benefit of particular portions of society. But these efforts are naturally frustrated when the unfortunate examples to which I have referred, and others which I might mention, are set, leading the people astray in their notions as to the proper appropriation of this public property. The result is that the people are deeply impressed with the idea that they have a right to use this

  1389
  public property for their own particular purposes and objects. Now, what was the duty of the Government? I do not allude particularly to the right hon. Gentlemen who now happen to occupy the opposite Benches, but what was the duty of any Government in these circumstances? It appears to me that when a claim of right is put forward in respect to these Parks the best way of meeting it is by issuing a well-considered and temperate proclamation, explaining clearly the exact rights the people possess; and I have no doubt if the people had been met in that way, in a spirit of proper conciliation—if the question of right had been disposed of as a question of right—we should not have had the events occur which did occur last night. But instead of this a notification was placed on the gates of the Park of a character which I think was an entire mistake, to say the least of it. I am sorry I have not a copy of the document with me, I had meant to read it more carefully, but I was unable to find any trace of it on the gates of the Park. Still, my recollection of it is that it was one of certainly an extremely disagreeable description, because it suggested that the meeting proposed to be held was one calculated to lead to a disturbance and a breach of the peace. If I am right in that, I think the claim on the part of the people was met by what I can only denounce as a false suggestion. I do not think there is any one in this House weak enough to believe that a meeting of 3,000 or 4,000 people in the Park to pass resolutions on the subject of Reform is a proceeding likely to lead to violence and a breach of the law. For my part I should be sorry to see that hon. Member, but I cannot imagine any such person exists in this House; and I cannot suppose that a person of the lively intelligence of Sir Richard Mayne could really believe what he wrote when he penned that notification. The people having perfect confidence in their own tranquillity, and in their power of carrying through a public meeting of which they had some experience, seeing this statement, at once regarded it as a false suggestion intended to cover an improper proceeding, and when once their minds became impressed with that idea they were sure to regard the acts of the Government as an appeal to might rather than right. Now, nothing can be more disastrous than that the Government of this country should so far forget its constitutional basis as ever to
  1390
  appeal to force in order to meet a claim supposed to be founded on a sense of right. We are not governed by force but by respect for the law. No army in this country ought to be used as an agent of Government. We solemnly pass every year a declaration to that effect; and I deny that it is any part of the Constitution to govern on the part of the Crown by force. This country can only be governed in accordance with the national sense of right and justice. To appeal to force, and not to have considered and examined this question—not to have met the people on the ground of right—appears to me a most deplorable error; and to have led very much to the consequences that have ensued. Therefore, I do hope that the Government will take an early opportunity of issuing a proper notification, in which they will explain the nature of this question, and will not persist in the course (which may be most disastrous) of endeavouring to keep the people in order by the police on the one hand and the soldiers on the other. If the time has not already come, it will very soon, when Government will have to learn that its authority does not and cannot depend upon military force. It is true that in times past an army composed of all the scum and ruffianism of the country was an instrument in the hands of a Minister, be he good or evil, or his purposes right or wrong, to inflict violence on the people. But our army is somewhat improved, although not so much as we desire, judging from the Bill we recently passed. Still it is somewhat improved, and the more it improves the less it will be an instrument in the hands of the Government, and the more it will become an arbiter between the Government on the one side and the people on the other. It is a very dangerous doctrine for the Government to act upon, that the army is a machine to be used against the people. I hope, therefore, instead of attempting to keep 500,000 adult people—the number comprised in the metropolis—in order by the physical power at their disposal, the Government will consider the expediency of appealing more to the moral influence of the community, for I am quite certain this is the only means by which order can be preserved in this metropolis. I think we have had abundant evidence that there is no people in the world more ready to recognize the principles of order than the people of this metropolis. In point of fact,

  1391
  if that was not the case, the metropolis would be at their disposal. I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary if he will be good enough to lay upon the table the notification issued by Sir Richard Mayne; and I wish also to inquire what steps he has taken for disabusing the minds of the people of the erroneous impression that they have a right to use the Park for their own purposes, and also what steps he has taken for preserving the peace of the metropolis?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, in replying to the Questions which have been put to me, I think I should not at all exercise a wise discretion by following the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in some of the remarks he has made to the House. At the commencement of his speech, he drew a contrast between different classes of society, and he tried to make out and represent to the House, and through the House to represent to the country, that the law was administered to those whom he calls the higher and richer classes, in a different manner from that in which it is administered to the humbler orders. Nothing of that kind, I am sure, was ever contained in any notice issued with my sanction, and nothing of that kind, I am equally sure, was ever present, or ever will be present, to the mind of any Member of the Government. I believe that all classes of society should be treated alike in the matter which is now before us, and it was because it was founded on the principle of securing to all classes of society the benefit—and the full benefit—for which the Parks are appropriated, that the notice which has been referred to was issued. The hon. Gentleman has found fault with that notice as being one which contained "a false suggestion," and he has followed that up by remarks which seemed to be responded to by partial cheers from his own side of the House as if the matter of right to which the hon. Gentlemen has referred had not been perfectly well known to the House and to the country by proceedings which have before taken place in reference to the Parks, but which the hon. Gentleman has thought it convenient to forget. In the year 1855 there was a great stir in this metropolis about a Bill brought forward by a noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor) now a Member of the House of Peers respecting Sunday trading. At that time great meet-
  1392
  ings were held in Hyde Park, great disturbances took place, and the Government of the day—not a Government composed of my Friends sitting near me, but a Government consisting of Gentlemen now sitting on the other side of the House—did, in consequence of those meetings, appoint a Commission to inquire into the proceedings, into the conduct of the police, and into the rights which were then to a certain extent claimed on the part of the public. I would recommend the hon. Gentleman to read the Report of that Commission, as he seemed to put it to the House as if this was a question entirely new, and as if the present Government were commencing a course of conduct totally unknown to the House and to the country. The Commission consisted of Mr. James Stuart Wortley, Mr. Baynes Armstrong, and Mr. Gilbert Henderson, who went into a full investigation of the subject, and in their Report I find the following paragraphs:—
  "After the proceedings in Hyde Park on Sunday, the 24th of June, it was fit and proper that measures should be taken to secure to all classes the undisturbed exercise of their right to ride or drive in the Park. The arrangements for this purpose seem to have devolved on the First Commissioner, Sir Richard Mayne, according to the distribution of duty sanctioned by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  "With the prospect of a recurrence on the 1st of July of the tumults of the 24th of June, it was right to issue some warning to the public, and to apprise the unwary that such proceedings were illegal and would be checked by the police. The police notice which was advertised, and also printed and placarded, had in view those objects, and also, as we understand it, the prevention of a public meeting in the Park, at which, as it was anticipated, the Sunday Trading Bill would be discussed, and the assembled multitude addressed by speakers, with the usual forms.
  "An attempt to hold such a meeting had been foiled by the police on the 24th of June. It seems to us that meetings of this nature might properly be interdicted and suppressed, as novel, and not sanctioned by usage or the regulations of Hyde Park. To make Hyde Park an arena for the discussion of popular and exciting topics would be inconsistent with the chief purposes for which it is thrown open to and used by the public. Whether the holding any such meeting was contemplated it is difficult to say, but it is certain that the police notice was understood by many, not as prohibiting a meeting in this limited sense, but as interdicting and prohibiting any meeting or assembly of large numbers of persons in Hyde Park on the 1st of July.
  "This construction induced many to go to the Park to assert a right which they imagined to be impugned by the notice of the Police Commissioners. The language of the notice, and especially the use of the term 'meeting' in a sense not clearly defined, seems to have given some ground for this construction. The notice, however, produced a good effect by inducing many to

  1393
  abstain from going to the Park in carriages or on horseback. Report signed by "JAMES STUART WORTLEY, "ROBERT BAYNES ARMSTRONG, "GILBERT HENDERSON."
  Such was the Report of the Royal Commissioners, who inquired into similar proceedings to those which occurred last night. The following year another question was raised—namely, whether bands of music and preaching would be allowed in Regent's Park and one or two other Parks. On that occasion the opinion was taken of the Law Officers of the Crown, which opinion I hold in my hand. These Law Officers were Sir Alexander Cockburn, the present Lord Chief Justice, Sir Richard Bethell, now Lord Westbury, and Mr. Wills, an able lawyer. As the foundation for that opinion three Questions were put, which I will take the liberty of reading:—
  "1. Is there any authority to close the gates of the enclosures, and exclude the public altogether during the day?
  "2. The gates of the enclosures being open, is there any authority to prevent the ingress of persons to the enclosures, those persons conducting themselves properly and orderly in their attempt to obtain ingress?
  "3. Supposing persons to have entered and to preach, or play upon musical instruments, or to sing, does any authority exist to turn persons so preaching, or playing or singing, out of the Parks, supposing they do not obstruct a thoroughfare or cause a disturbance? And, if so, "You are particularly requested to state what is the nature of the authority, and how it is derived."
  The following is the Opinion which was given:—
  "1. We think that there is a right in point of law to close the gates and exclude the public from the Parks.
  "2. We think that the gates being open there is a right on the part of the Crown to exclude persons attempting to gain admission; but we do not think this right should be exercised against particular individuals unless in case of previous misconduct.
  "3. If persons who have entered commence to preach or play they cannot be turned out without proper notice to them that the permission or licence of the Crown to the public to enjoy the Park is conditional only, and does not apply to persons who so conduct themselves, and the best way of giving such notice is by posting it up at the entrances of the Parks.
  "The authority to close and to exclude the public from the Parks is that which every landowner has to prevent the public from trespassing on his lands; for we are of opinion that the public have not acquired any legal right to use the Parks by reason of the continued user under the licence and by favour of the Crown.
  "(Signed), "A. E. COCKBURN, "RICHARD BETHELL. "W. H. WILLS.
  1394
  With regard to the matter of right, I conceive that it is perfectly clear that the opinion given by these Law Officers is the true opinion, on which any person filling the situation I have the honour to hold is required to act. As to the mode in which he should act, and the discretion to be exercised, I frankly and freely admit that any advice must be given subject to the responsibility which the Minister owes to Parliament. But I beg the hon. Gentleman to believe that instead of the notice to which he referred being issued on the grounds he supposes, it was issued simply and solely on the ground which I have already stated — that the Parks being appropriated by the Crown for the benefit of all classes of the public, that object ought not to be interfered with — as all my predecessors have held — by any meeting which was likely to create political excitement or to cause religious agitation, and thereby to interfere with the recreation of the people. Now, for myself, I can truly say, that I consider the holding of any meetings in the Parks for political demonstration or religious agitation so entirely opposed to the purpose for which those Parks are open to the public, that, until corrected by this House and Parliament, I must take leave to think that we are bound to exclude such meetings from the Parks. ["No, no!"] I hear some hon. Gentleman opposite say "No!" If he really holds any such opinion I beg him to bring the question distinctly before the House, and let it be discussed temperately and calmly. I have given my reasons why I think the line ought to be drawn between meetings of this description and the free admission to the Parks of all Her Majesty's subjects for the purposes of enjoyment and recreation. I believe that distinction to be sound, and as I said before, until it shall be directed otherwise by Parliament, I shall certainly feel it my duty to act upon it. But in so acting, let it not be supposed that I do so in the spirit so unjustly imputed to me by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that it is not in my character, and I am sure that it is not in my disposition, needlessly to employ any coercive authority. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that it is to public opinion—to moral influence—that every Government must submit. Most cordially do I agree in that sentiment; and by no other test do I wish to be tried than by appealing to rational, right-minded, public opinion — to that moral

  1395
  influence which I trust will always exercise its weight over every person who inhabits this free country. As for force, I repudiate it altogether; force I would never call in for any purpose except to secure obedience to the law: but if the law is likely to be violated, and if the public peace is likely to be endangered, it is a very great responsibility, let me tell the hon. Gentleman, for any person occupying the position I hold, should lie not have the moral courage to take measures for the preservation of order. Having said thus much, let me now assure the House that if any words of mine uttered in the most conciliatory spirit could allay the alarm which has during the last twenty-four hours prevailed in the public mind I would speak them from this or any other place. I have no desire that any public meeting should be prevented when held in the proper place and at the proper time for the most free discussion of any subject whatsoever, and of political subjects of course among others. All I can say is that, for the reasons which I have given, I think, and shall continue to think until contradicted by authority, that the parks are not the places in which such meetings as that of last night ought to be held. In answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), I will now state the exact course which I deemed it to be my duty to take with reference to the meeting announced to be held in Hyde Park. The notice which was issued by my authority does not, I believe, contain a single word to which any peace-loving subject of the Crown could well object. It states that the Parks are open for the recreation of the public, and that therefore meetings like that which was announced ought not to be permitted to be held there. That notice was communicated the moment it was printed to the promoters, or to the gentlemen who were supposed to be the promoters, of the meeting, and I hoped that these gentlemen would, under such circumstances, have been cautious before they persevered in their object, and that they would have refrained from holding such a meeting. They, however, came to a contrary decision and I do not regard myself as responsible for anything which resulted from that decision. I have, however, seen letters which have been written by others, and which throw, I think, upon the writers a very grave responsibility indeed. As to the instructions which I gave, I may state
  1396
  that they were as follows:—A notice was issued to the effect that if the meeting did take place the police should temperately and forbearingly warn those by whom it was held against doing anything contrary to the notice. The police were also instructed, unquestionably, if anything were done contrary to the notice to stop the meeting, but not to have recourse to force until it was absolutely necessary. Instructions were further given to keep the military in their barracks, but to call them out in case of necessity — but in case of necessity only. I have seen it stated in the papers that the military force were called out before any riotous proceedings took place. That is simply not true. The military authorities were not called upon, as I firmly believe, one minute too soon. I also gave instructions, or rather recommended, that the Park gates should be closed at five o'clock, thinking and believing, as I think and believe still, that was the proper and the wisest course to pursue in order to prevent any riot. The best proof that that was a wise course is, that those by whom the meeting was convened, and who went to address the people in Hyde Park, having demanded admittance at the Marble Arch, and having so far tested their right, as they called it, to be allowed to enter the Park, went away on being refused admission, and took, I am happy to believe, no part in the proceedings which subsequently occurred. Other persons laboured under the impression that if admittance to the Park was denied them they ought to go quietly home, and they marched back instead of trying to effect an entrance by force. But when you bring a large number of men together—and those who broke into the Park are the persons to whom such notices as this are more particularly addressed—I say that when many thousands of persons are thus called together, it is not always in the power of force or of moral influence to prevent them from breaking the law. Well, that was the state of things up to yesterday evening. I ought to say, in justice to the military force which was called out, that I have heard from all quarters that they exercised the greatest forbearance, and that they had recourse to no measures which could be fairly characterized as measures of severity or coercion. I am bound also in justice to the police to say that I believe they took, from all I can hear, no measures of undue severity, and that their conduct, under trying circumstances, was

  1397
  both temperate and forbearing. They simply took such steps as they were bound to take when they found that the railings of the Park were being pulled down. I think it is but fair to add with respect to those who were assembled to attend the meeting—I do not wish to apply the remark to all, because some acted in a very different spirit—that the great mass were orderly and good tempered. It is of course extremely painful to find that the precautions which we deemed it to be our duty to take did not prevent the great disturbance which occurred yesterday evening. They put a stop to disturbance in some places, but they were not successful in preventing the pulling down of the rails and the breaking into the Park; and I doubt whether these things could have been avoided by any other measures of precaution which we could have adopted. It may be doubtful whether the locking of the gates was the best course which could have been pursued. I thought, however, upon the whole, and I still think, that it was the most prudent step to take; and I am confident the House, not judging merely by the event, will feel that, if tens of thousands of persons had been allowed to go into the Park, it would not have been possible to prevent the meeting, or, perhaps, to take any other measures which would have insured the preservation of the peace. ["Oh!"] That is my opinion. At all events, it could not have been done without great risk, great pressure, great excitement. I am therefore, upon the whole, still inclined to be of opinion that in ordering the gates of the Park to be locked we took a wise course. ["No, no!"] I see that some hon. Gentlemen differ from me in that view, but I can only say that it has been successfully done in other cases, and I must still express it to be my opinion that that was the best precautionary measure which we could adopt. Whether it was so or not, nobody can, at all events, deny that it was not by the police that the disturbance was begun. It did not begin even with the leaders of the meeting. It had its origin with persons who came to the Park with very different purposes from that of free and open discussion; and the responsibility of what has occurred rests with others, and not with me. I am sorry to have to add that some disturbances have taken place again this afternoon in the Park. The measures we have taken to prevent them are still as moderate as I believe the circumstances of
  1398
  the case will admit. And now I hope I may appeal to the right-minded people of this metropolis—I hope I may appeal to all those who really wish to have free discussion, and desire at the same time that the peace of the metropolis shall be preserved, that they will not give a grudging support to the Government to whose hands the preservation of that peace is intrusted. I have nothing further to say, except to thank the House for the kind manner in which they have listened to this explanation, from which I hope it will be perceived that there is really no ground of complaint against the Government for the manner in which they have discharged a most painful but a most imperative duty.
  MR. OLIPHANTsaid, it was impossible to have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down without being assured that he was deeply impressed with the responsibility of his position, and that he had used the power vested in him as one of the Executive officers of the Government to the best of his ability and discretion. But he hoped the House would excuse him for a few minutes while he endeavoured to show that the measures which the right hon. Gentleman had taken were not judiciously chosen. Without raising the question of the right of the people to meet in the Park—with regard to which, however, he might add that he entirely differed from the right hon. Gentleman—but, assuming even that the people had no right to the Park, he was at a loss to know how the right hon. Gentleman could justify the utter failure of all the measures which he had taken to prevent the meeting and to preserve the Park. The people had been informed that a public meeting would not be permitted, but he himself was in the Park several hours unmolested. The Park was to have been closed, but the Park was full of people. There was to have been no riot, but there was disturbance for several hours. In fact, he did not see to what single point the right hon. Gentleman could appeal to justify the steps which he had taken for preventing a breach of the peace and for preserving the Park. On the contrary, he believed if the right hon. Gentleman and Sir Richard Mayne had gone to White-chapel and asked the "roughs" the best way to get up a riot, the answer would have been, "Shut the Park gates, place the police in front of them; we will then pull down the railings, and have a riot; and, if you want to give the affair an air

  1399
  of importance, you can have in some military, provided they are not allowed to do anything." He (Mr. Oliphant) did not, in fact, see how the Home Secretary could take credit for what he had done; nor, indeed, on the contrary, could he see how the right hon. Gentleman could escape serious blame. If it was said that it was impossible to keep the people out of the Park after the railings had been pulled down, his answer would be that the Executive ought not to have attempted an impossibility and brought themselves into ridicule. As it was, the police were laughed at throughout London. The poor fellows no doubt did their best, and no one who was present could withhold his sympathy from them any more than he could from the people, both of whom were brought face to face with a sort of unlimited order to attack each other on any sort of pretext or excuse. After the palings had been pulled down and the exclusiveness of the Park had been invaded, the only prudent thing to be done was to withdraw the police. A protest had been made by the Government. The gates had been shut, and the authorities should have been content with that protest, as Mr. Beales and those with him had been with theirs. But the mob had taken the law into their own hands, and the only way to avoid a collision was to withdraw the police. ["Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen who expressed their dissent could not deny that the object of calling out the police was to keep the peace, and that the effect of retaining the police on the spot was to cause a very great riot. He did not know that such was the object desired, but certainly that was the effect of the want of discretion on the part of the authorities in leaving the police in the Park when it was impossible for them to deal with the enormous mass of people who had collected there. The result of marching the military through the Park with an intention not to use them was simply to render them ridiculous. The effect of the whole proceeding had been to impair very seriously the authority of the Executive, to bring the police into contempt, and to lessen the prestige of the military. He was of opinion, however, that this little episode might afford a useful moral, if the Government looked on it as providentially sent to them as a warning that if they shut the gates against constitutional Reform the people would pull down the constitutional palings.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he did not think this discussion should close
  1400
  without particular attention being called to the letter to which the Secretary of State had already slightly alluded, which had been written by a Member of that House. The House should have the opportunity of expressing their opinion with respect to that letter, which appeared to have been written by one of its own Members with the view of inciting the people to a breach of the law. That letter was written by the hon. Member for Birmingham after the declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the right hon. Baronet his predecessor in office on Thursday evening, to the effect that the meeting in Hyde Park had been prohibited, and when therefore the hon. Member was perfectly well aware of the forcible language he was using. It might be said he ought not to attack an absent Member, but the hon. Member was not only absent from his place in that House—he was absent from London. The language of the letter was not more remarkable than the care and caution which the writer showed for his own personal safety. It might be said of him as of another agitator—
  "With the cold caution of his patriot spleen, Which pens no treason, but which seeks a screen, And keeps this maxim ever in the view, What's basely done should be done safely too."
  He (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) must protest against that letter. He regretted very much that when he put a question to the late Secretary for the Home Department some two or three weeks ago, as to the legality of the meeting in Trafalgar Square, the right hon. Gentleman said it would be legal, unless it were held for the purpose of petitioning Parliament. That answer he thought at the time was calculated to mislead the people, and he considered that the right hon. Gentleman would have acted with more candour if before leaving office he had expressed a strong opinion against the legality of such meetings, instead of leaving it to the new Secretary of State to put a atop to them. He hoped the House would feel that he was entirely justified in calling attention as he had done to the letter of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and which he considered had been most improperly written by a Member of the Legislature.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he thought that justice to a large constituency composed principally of artizans deeply interested in the question under discussion, called on him

  1401
  to say a few words on their behalf. He did not intend to enter into the legal question raised by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, as the public right to hold meetings in the Parks was about to be tried before a Court of Law, and the House was not called upon to decide it. What he wished to call attention to was this—that the measures taken by the Government to impede the meeting last night were most injudicious and foolish. What was the history of the case? The working classes had recently been taunted in no measured terms with their indifference to Reform. It was said they took no interest in Reform, and their lukewarmness was the justification of right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench for opposing the Bill Her Majesty's late Government had introduced. These taunts had touched the working classes very keenly, and they desired to show by some great public demonstrations that they did take an interest in the question of Reform and that they did approve the Bill brought in by the late Government. He did not say whether it was prudent or imprudent to make such a demonstration, but they had a perfect right to do this. They sought for some place where an expression of public opinion could be made; and they naturally thought that Hyde Park might be used for their demonstration. They had seen Hyde Park used for Volunteer reviews and other large gatherings; and as they had to pay their share for keeping up the Park, they thought themselves entitled to its use. It might be said that these meetings might have been held elsewhere, at Primrose Hill or in the Borough, or among their own kith and kin in the East End of the town? But their own kith and kin knew their opinions already, and the working men of the East End of the town desired to let the people at the West End of the town know what their opinions were. The people might have been right, or they might have been wrong in thinking they had a right to the Park. But he ventured to say that if the Home Secretary had met them in an open and fair way nothing of the kind that took place last night would have occurred. All riot might have been avoided. Two or three of the leaders might have been arrested, or the gates might have been closed for half an hour. There were a thousand subterfuges of law which would have enabled them to discuss the question of right. The authorities might have confined the meeting to one
  1402
  portion of the Park, and the people would at once have accepted that arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the meeting would have interfered with the riders and the drivers. But this meeting was to have been held at seven o'clock in the evening, when most of the riders and drivers had departed. Then the right hon. Gentleman assumed that there was to be a riot and disturbance, and it was on this point that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had condemned the proclamation. What right had the right hon. Gentleman to assume that the working classes would be guilty of a riot and disturbance? He wished to know by what right the Government presumed to prevent such meetings. No steps had been taken to interfere with vast meetings which had been held in London on other occasions. Were there not many hon. Members present who saw the entrance of the Princess of Wales into London? Did not his hon. Colleague and himself, as Members for the borough of Southwark, enjoy special opportunities of seeing the whole of the vast multitude that assembled to welcome the arrival of Her Royal Highness? [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but he repeated that his Colleague and himself, in virtue of the position they held, had a better opportunity of knowing what then occurred than had any other Members of that House. He had also been present when Garibaldi was welcomed by the people of London. No riot took place on those occasions. The result of his experience was that if they trusted to the good feelings of the working men no riot would occur. He ventured to say that, had the Government appealed yesterday to the working men to preserve order, no disturbance would have taken place. For any riot or disturbance that did take place yesterday he would venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Colleagues were entirely and exclusively responsible. It had been said that a large part of the crowd consisted of roughs and pickpockets, but did ever any large assembly of people take place in London without such persons being present? Why they had them at the opening of Parliament. The Government gave a direct invitation to those classes to visit the scene of action when they announced their intention of pursuing a course which could only lead to commotion and disorder. The right hon. Gentleman fully admitted that the disturbance was not raised by the quiet and orderly people who got up the demonstra-

  1403
  tion, but by roughs and pickpockets who were induced to attend the meeting in consequence of the steps taken by the Government. Had the Government reserved their right to prevent such meetings by issuing a protest against the demonstration, and had they then permitted the working men to enter the Park, no riot or disturbance whatever would have resulted from the assemblage. There would have been a quiet demonstration, a few foolish speeches would have been made, and then the people would have gone home. The results of the course taken by the Government had been most unhappy. Throughout the length and breadth of the land—and no man in the House could deplore the fact more than he did himself — it would be believed that physical force had been used to prevent the working men from expressing their feelings and opinions upon the subject of Reform. ["Oh, oh!"] That belief might be well or ill founded. He did not say for one moment that it was well founded, but nothing would prevent its spreading throughout the length and breadth of the land. When working men who had met by advertisement were confronted by soldiers and by large bodies of police, people might be justified in supposing that those who had so assembled were to be ridden down, if not slaughtered by the sabre or the bullet. If no use was to be made of the military, why were they called out? He recollected that some years ago an hon. Member, who then sat among Gentlemen opposite, had said that the only way to control a London mob was to train a cannon upon them. ["Oh, oh!" and "Name, name!"] The hon. Gentleman who made use of that expression was Mr. Dundas. Such, however, was the feeling of the country at the time, that in three or four days afterwards the hon. Member came down to the House and humbly apologized for having made use of the expression. He repeated that he very much regretted the course taken with regard to last night's meeting by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as he believed that it would lead to consequences that everybody must deeply deplore.
  MAJOR JERVISsaid, he would like to know whether he was in the parish vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, or in the House of Commons, and whether the Members of the British House of Commons, who represented other than metropolitan districts, were to be dictated to, as to the course they should adopt in reference to
  1404
  certain questions, by meetings held in Trafalgar Square. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said, that an effort had been made to prevent the working men from being heard, and that they therefore wished to assemble in Hyde Park in order to let the people of the West End of the town know what they thought on the subject of Reform. Why, what was the meaning of this? Simply to endeavour to intimidate the Members of this House, most of whom lived at the West End. But hon. Members were sent to the House of Commons to act on behalf of the people of England as a whole, and therefore he must protest against meetings being held for the purpose of intimidating country Members, and forcing them to act against their better judgment. As Members of that House, they had to see that the laws were properly respected, and, instead of stimulating the people to further excitement, by using language of the character made use of by the hon. Gentleman, it was their duty to impress upon all classes the necessity of preserving the peace. He could tell the hon. Member that it was to people like him, and the speeches they made, that the feeling that had been exhibited yesterday was owing. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the proposed meeting in Hyde Park, and said that if the people had been let alone there might have been two or three foolish speeches, and then the meeting would have been over. Was that the way the hon. Gentleman spoke to the people of Southwark? Did he tell them there that these exaggerated speeches on Reform were foolish? He trusted that the House would hear no more such speeches as those of the hon. Member who had last spoken, and of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. He (Major Jervis) did not say whether locking the Park gates and placing a body of police at the Marble Arch was right or wrong. That was a question for the authorities. But he must protest against the proposition laid down by those hon. Members, that when the working men adjourned the meeting to Trafalgar Square, the police were bound to retire before the mob, and to give up the Park to pillage. The police were bound to do their duty to the last moment, in order to protect the public property, and he could only express his regret that, in manfully discharging their obligations, they had suffered so severely as they had done.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I wish to say

  1405
  a few words in reference to the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane). That hon. Member complains that I abstained from declaring that the meetings advertised to be held in London for the purpose of expressing the opinions of the working men upon the subject of Reform were illegal and ought to be put down. Sir, when the meeting was about to be held in Trafalgar Square I stated that, as far as I was informed, it was a legal meeting; that any meeting at which language was held calculated to provoke a breach of the peace was an illegal meeting; but that a meeting held for the purpose of discussing Parliamentary Reform was not in itself illegal. I gave directions to the police in regard to that meeting, and I beg to inform the hon. Member, in reply to his question, as to whether means had been taken to preserve the peace, that I gave directions to the Commissioner of Police that he was not to interfere with the meeting as long as it was legally and peaceably conducted, but that he was to take means to prevent any illegal assemblage of persons afterwards for the purpose of breaking windows and of expressing political animosity against individuals. In order that the instructions under which the police were to act should be made known to the persons organizing the meeting, Sir Richard Mayne, by my instructions, sent the following letter to Mr. Edmond Beales, whom I regarded as representing those engaged in getting up the proposed demonstration:—
  "Metropolitan Police Office, July 2, 1866. The Commissioner of Police of the metropolis has to acquaint the President or Chairman of the public meeting to be held this evening in Trafalgar Square that the police have instructions not to prevent or in any way interfere with the holding of the meeting in a peaceable and quiet manner; but should bodies of persons proceed together about the streets in such a manner as by their numbers, noise, demeanour, or language is calculated to cause a breach of the peace, or excite terror or alarm in the minds of Her Majesty's subjects, it will become the duty of the police to prevent, and, if necessary, put a stop to such proceedings, and apprehend persons encouraging those engaged in them, and others who continue to act with them. RICHARD MAYNE, The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis."
  The police acted in accordance with those instructions, and prevented any injury being done to property. The morning after the meeting was held the following letter was received by Sir Richard Mayne from Mr. Edmond Beales. I read it because it
  1406
  shows that courteous treatment is met in the same spirit in which it is offered—
  "4, Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, July 3. Mr. Edmond Beales presents his compliments to Sir Richard Mayne, and begs to thank him in all sincerity for his letter relative to the meeting last evening in Trafalgar Square, and the police arrangements made with regard to it. The letter was received with much good feeling, and, in fact, with much applause generally on the part of the very large multitude assembled, and they evinced every desire to adhere to the course prescribed in it—a course also strongly urged by the speakers. If there was any procession or clamour in the streets after the proceedings of the meeting were terminated, they could only have been the work of a few boys, as the great bulk of those assembled dispersed quietly to their several homes. It will be, as it has been, Mr. Beales' constant effort to prevent any constitutional exhibition of popular opinion from being perverted into anything approaching to a breach of the peace or to public disorder."
  About that time Sir Richard Mayne informed me that it was reported that it was intended to hold a meeting in Hyde Park. I told him that, in accordance with the course that had been adopted for some years past by the Government, the meeting in Hyde Park would not be permitted, and that I wished that an intimation to that effect should be made to those who were engaged in organizing the proposed meeting. I must, therefore, take upon myself a full share of responsibility for having acted on the opinion that it is inexpedient that meetings of a political character should be held in Hyde Park, and that it is utterly incompatible with the purpose for which the Parks are thrown open that large assemblages of people for making speeches or passing resolutions on political or religious matters should be permitted to take place in them. I understand that a communication to the effect that the meeting would not be permitted to be held in Hyde Park was addressed by order of the present Government to Mr. Beales, and I very much regret that that gentleman did not act upon that notice and prevent the meeting taking place. At the same time, what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) has said with regard to the conduct of the persons engaged in those proceedings is, I believe, perfectly correct. I, myself, walked up from the House yesterday evening about seven o'clock in company with another hon. Member through the Green Park, and on getting near Hyde Park Corner we saw there a large procession with flags. It was some time before we could get out of the Green Park, and by the time we got into Grosvenor Place

  1407
  the procession, accompanied by its flags, was fully half way down Grosvenor Place, those connected with it having been refused admittance at the gates of the Park, and having left after doing what they thought sufficient to enable them to test the legality of the refusal. I have had no opportunity of forming any opinion upon the manner in which the police acted in this instance; but, from a long knowledge of the manner in which they perform their duties, I have no doubt that they acted with the firmness and moderation which generally characterize them. Nor am I prepared to express any opinion on the expediency of closing the Park gates. It would be unjust, I think, to form any opinion adverse to the Government by judging merely from what has taken place, and without placing oneself in the difficult and responsible position in which the right hon. Gentleman found himself. The right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly adopted those measures which he thought would be most likely to attain the objects which he very properly had in view. At the same time, I cannot but view with feelings of the deepest regret and humiliation the scenes of lawless violence which occurred in the Park last evening, and which resulted not only in the destruction of the greater part of the iron railings round the Park, but in the partial demolition of those beautiful borders of flowers from which the public have derived so much pleasure, I was really perfectly astonished to hear the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) state that the Parks were exclusively devoted to the enjoyment of one class of the community. I am frequently in the Parks—not merely in one of them—and there can be scarcely anything more gratifying than to see the manner in which all classes alike avail themselves of the advantages conferred upon the public by Hyde Park, St. James' Park, and the Green Park. Any hon. Member who desires to convince himself that this is the case has only to walk across the Green Park on a Sunday afternoon, or to go into St. James' Park, when he will find numbers of children from the streets and alleys in Westminster lying on the grass or playing about, and thoroughly enjoying themselves. These Parks are to the people sources of recreation and great enjoyment; but these objects are incompatible with employing them for the assemblage of large meetings of a political or any other nature. I deeply regret the occurrences of last evening, but I hope
  1408
  the House will support whatever Government may be in power in the adoption of judicious measures which will tend to prevent their recurrence. Not having witnessed what took place, and consequently not being aware of all the circumstances, I shall say nothing about the calling out of the military; but the good sense of the people generally will, I trust, induce the public to unite with the Government for the preservation of order and the prevention of such scenes as have unhappily occurred on this occasion.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he would only detain the House a few minutes. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had taken an unusual course in the strictures he had passed on the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole), and his assertion that of late some exclusive appropriation had been made in the Parks for the benefit of one class, was one that he could not allow to pass without an emphatic contradiction. He could not conceive what confusion of ideas on the part of the hon. Gentleman could have led him to make such a statement. He supposed he must refer to the circumstance that a particular portion of the Park was set aside for the purposes of riding. But there was no exclusiveness in this, any more than in setting aside another portion of it for carriages. All classes were able to cross St. James' Park in cabs, and all had equal access to the ride. The hon. Gentleman had also fallen into the error of forgetting that the Parks were the property of Her Majesty. The common phrase the "People's Park" did not imply that the Park was the property of the people, but only that the people were allowed to avail themselves of its benefits for the purposes of recreation and amusement. As a proof, too, that the advantages conferred by the Parks were appreciated by the people, he must say that it afforded him great pleasure to mention the fact that the crowd who on the previous evening had torn down the railings, even in the excitement of the moment and their anxiety to baffle the police, did not forget the flowers whose beauty had afforded them so much pleasure, but carefully avoided interfering with the beds. So far from the Government having confined the benefits of the Parks to the upper classes, it was for the amusement and recreation of the lower classes that the Government had striven, and striven, too, with a care and anxiety which had been bestowed upon no other branch

  1409
  of Her Majesty's subjects. He perfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary as to the advisability of not holding large meetings in Hyde Park. Such meetings had been for some years forbidden, because, if they were once permitted, the Park would become the ordinary arena for the holding of meetings, and the discussion of various subjects, not only on every working day, but also on Sundays. There was not a temperance society that would not be wanting to expound its principles in Hyde Park, and the managers of school feasts would fix upon the Parks as appropriate spots for eating buns and drinking ginger-beer. Now this would materially interfere with the ordinary enjoyment and recreation of the public, and would prevent the attainment of the objects to the service of which the Parks were specially appropriated. For two years he had not allowed interference with religious and social discussions in the Parks, but the Garibaldi riots, and other inconveniences that arose from these discussions, proved the necessity of enforcing the regulation against all meetings whatever. At the same time, he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary hardly appreciated the peculiar circumstances of the present day, and that there are no open spaces in London now, as there were once, where large public meetings could take place. This was not a desirable state of things. He held it to be an essential element in the success of constitutional principles in this country that large masses of the people should be able to meet together when they wished to discuss questions of public importance. In the year 1848, the people were able to hold such meetings on Kennington Common, but since that date the common had been enclosed. There were no buildings, too, in London, sufficiently large for the purpose of such gatherings. Exeter Hall, for instance, would accommodate but 3,000 people; and even Mr. Spurgeon's Tabernacle would not accommodate, he believed, more than 7,000. But there was still another resource open. When he occupied the position of the First Commissioner of Works, the City of London Working Men's Garibaldi Committee desired to hold a large meeting to condemn certain steps which they believed had been taken to secure Garibaldi's withdrawal from this country. Although he did not sympathize with the feelings by which the committee were actuated, he thought it very desirable that an opportunity should
  1410
  be afforded for the expression of public opinion. He therefore informed the committee of the rule under which meetings of this description were forbidden to be held in Hyde Park, but he informed them also that Primrose Hill was at their disposal instead, and that a sufficient number of police would be directed to attend, in order to see that the proceedings were not disturbed. It had been said, on the present occasion, that Primrose Hill would not do as well as Hyde Park, because it was so much out of the way. That he believed to be a mistake, because the information which most people were likely to receive about the meeting would be gathered not from a personal visit but from a perusal of the newspapers. The public inconvenience and the stoppage of the traffic which would result from the use of Hyde Park could not be urged against the employment of Primrose Hill, and, if he might venture upon a suggestion, it would be that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should in case of any future applications for the purpose of holding such large meetings, inform the applicants that they could meet in as large numbers as they liked on Primrose Hill.
  MR. J. STUART MILL: Sir, I have no intention of taking up much of the time of the House, but this is no ordinary occasion, and it seems to me that noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen opposite are by no means aware of the extreme seriousness of it, and of the serious consequences to which it may lead if some steps be not taken, of which at present there appears no promise. I am not going to enter into the question of the right of the people to meet in Hyde Park. We know that Her Majesty's Government have the opinion of eminent lawyers to the contrary. We know that they believe they have the right to exclude the people. But lawyers are not unanimous on the subject; there are other distinguished lawyers, who, on legal and high constitutional grounds, have contended that the people have a right to meet there. But I do not desire to lay any stress on this circumstance. I maintain that if the people have not that right now, they ought to have it. I maintain further, that if, for reasons unintelligible to me, it was thought necessary for the maintenance of any supposed or nominal right that the people should ask permission to hold a meeting there, that permission ought to have been granted. And it ought ten thousand times more to have been

  1411
  granted to them under such circumstances as these, when they believed, erroneously or not, that they had the right; for surely this circumstance, when the people were already in an excited state of mind on another subject, ought to have warned right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the consequences would be such as have actually occurred, and which I believe the people deplore equally with himself. But I maintain that the public ought to have the use of the Park for this purpose, for if not, what other place is there that can suit them? In what other place can they meet where there would be less interruption to recreation? Is there likely to be less interruption to traffic, or to other pursuits or persons, in Trafalgar Square than in Hyde Park? Does a public meeting, if it were held once a month—in the evening, too—cause a thousandth part of the interruption that an ordinary review or meeting of Volunteers in the Park does? If such reasons as these are to exclude the public from meeting in the Parks, which assuredly must be held to belong to the public, for they have been ceded by the Crown to the public for a consideration—like other Crown lands—if these reasons are to prevail to exclude the people, there is no place for which equally strong reasons might not be given for their exclusion. Perhaps this is what hon. Gentlemen opposite wish. I give full credit, indeed, to the assurance which the Home Secretary has given us, that he has no desire to prevent political meetings. I believe in the perfect sincerity of what he said; but I cannot say that it has altogether reassured me. He said he had no objection to open air meetings at proper hours and in the proper places; but he did not tell us what the proper times or the proper places were in his opinion, and the newspaper scribes of the Government are already declaring that no open air meeting ought to be tolerated in the metropolis. I advise them to try that. I promise them that they will have to encounter an opposition of a very different kind, and from different persons, to any they have yet encountered. Noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may be congratulated on having done a job of work last night which will require wiser men than they are, many years to efface the consequences of. It has been the anxious wish of all those who understand their age, and are lovers of their country, that the necessary changes in the institutions of the country should be
  1412
  effected with the least possible, and if possible without any, alienation and ill blood between the hitherto governing classes and the mass of the people. Her Majesty's present advisers seem resolved, so far as it depends upon them, that this anxious desire should be frustrated. We know that there is a kind of people who can do more mischief in an hour than can be repaired in a lifetime. I am afraid that the Members of the present Government are animated by the noble ambition of inscribing their names on the illustrious list of those persons.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I take it for granted, Sir, that the speech we have just heard was one of those intended to be delivered in Hyde Park, and if I may judge from it as a sample, we can gather a very good idea of the rhetoric which will prevail at those periodical meetings we are promised. But I must say that on the part of Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House I entirely repudiate, and even with some indignation, the imputations, the feelings, the motives, the views, the policy which the hon. Gentleman has imputed to us without the slightest foundation. No opinions with regard to the occurrences under discussion, which of course all of us must deeply and equally regret, have been expressed on this side of the House which have not been equally expressed by the highest authorities on the other side. However much we may deplore what has occurred—however easy it may be after the event to be as profoundly sage as some of those who have favoured us with their opinions—I think, on the whole, that every prudent man would have taken a course precisely as that which we pursued, and which our predecessors in office have, in a generous and gentlemanlike manner, acknowledged they would themselves have taken—[Mr. GLADSTONE was understood to signify dissent]—with the exception, then, of the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor, whom I understand to express his dissent. [Mr. GLADSTONE: The observations did not come from me.] Then I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I mistook the quarter from which the dissent came. And surely, if we calmly consider what has occurred, I think there cannot be two opinions, except among those Gentlemen who intend to deliver speeches in Hyde Park, that meetings for political or religious purposes ought not to be encouraged in

  1413
  that locality. I think the reasons that have been given, both by my right hon. Friend on this side of the House and by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, are quite unanswerable. But, perhaps, I may be permitted to remind the House, in addition to what has already been said, that in all those public Parks which during the last few years have been happily established in our great towns, it is a standing rule that no public meeting should-be held in them for any political or religious discussion. Thus the common sense for which the English people are distinguished has brought them to the same conclusion that the practical men have adopted who are responsible for these matters in the metropolis. I should not have risen, Sir, if it had not been for the extraordinary and unjustifiable tone of the hon. Member for Westminster, who imputed motives to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House for which he had not the shadow of a foundation. But, as I have risen, I cannot help making a remark respecting the view — apparently wholly groundless—taken in the speech of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who introduced this discussion. The whole speech of the hon. Gentleman went upon this assumption—that there was a false suggestion in the notification that had been published by the Government—namely, that this meeting in Hyde Park, if it took place, would tend to riot and disturbance. Now, I maintain that there was no false suggestion. In that notification it was not at all assumed, nor was it believed by those who drew it up, that riot or disturbance would be occasioned by those who promoted the meeting, or by the working classes generally who attended it. Our opinion was quite the reverse; we had confidence in the conduct of the individuals who had undertaken the management of the meeting, because from their previous behaviour we saw that they were men of sense, who would act upon any fair representations, and who, I think, conducted themselves under the circumstances with propriety. I willingly make a declaration which I feel it to be my duty to make. As far as regards the working classes, from all that I have heard, from all we know of them, it never for a moment crossed the mind of the Government that it would be the real working classes, who were holding this meeting, that would be authors of riot or disturbance. What we said was that a
  1414
  meeting of this kind would tend possibly and probably to riot—and has it not? They may be going on even at this moment. I live close to the spot where these disturbances have occurred, and I do not know this night if I shall get home safely, if, indeed, by this time, I still have a home to go to. Having, then, had a good opportunity of observing the turbulent among the people who form these meetings, I am bound to say that they are not of the working classes, and that they are very different from the sensible and well-meaning subjects of Her Majesty whom they taint. But the tendency of those meetings—though very honest and honourable gentlemen may be the promoters of them, and though they may be attended by many sensible and loyal subjects of Her Majesty—is to give an occasion for all the scum of a great city to take advantage of the circumstance, and to conduct themselves in the manner which has unfortunately taken place. I repudiate, then, the views imputed to us by the hon. Member for Westminster, as to our being opposed to public meetings of the working classes on subjects in which they take an interest. On the contrary, I believe public meetings, properly held, at the proper time and in the proper place, as my right hon. Friend says, to be most desirable. I regard them, under such circumstances, as one of the great political safety-valves to which we should trust. So far from discouraging them I would allow of no impediment to public meetings of the working classes at the right time and place on political subjects, confident as I am that it is to the advantage of society that they should take place. But I am confident that unless they are held, as my right hon. Friend says, at the proper time and place, they give the opportunity for riot, tumult, and disturbance, and what has occurred proves the soundness of my view. I make these few observations that our feelings on the subject may not be mistaken, and to free ourselves from the interpretation that has, without the slightest justification, been placed upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Government by the Member for Westminster.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to which he hoped to receive an answer that would be satisfactory to the House. Some companies of the Guards had been called

  1415
  out, as he (Mr. Otway) thought very unwisely; for there was nothing more likely to create a disturbance than a display of military force; and it was stated in the Daily News that the Guards, after entering the Park, were ordered to load. Now he wished to know if there was any foundation for such a report. In his opinion, if a patrol had circulated about Park Lane, the grouping of the people would have been prevented, and the iron railings would not have been destroyed. He believed that the course which had been taken by the right hon. Gentleman was of all others the most calculated to provoke a breach of the peace.
  MR. WALPOLE: I believe there is no foundation whatever for the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Although it is not competent for me again to address the House on this question, I may perhaps be allowed the opportunity of further stating that there was no demonstration of the military until the railings of the Park were pulled down. I felt it necessary to make this observation in order to correct an unintentional misstatement of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised an entirely new issue. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out the importance of public meetings, the constitutional character of public meetings, and the necessity of maintaining that constitutional right, but he went on to say that there would be sufficient justification for prohibiting a public meeting if an apprehension was entertained of a breach of the peace. Now it was incident to all public meetings that there might be a breach of the peace; so that the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman would go to the root of the right for which he contended. The question raised by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was whether there was a false suggestion in the proclamation which had been issued, and he hoped the question would be raised by the hon. Member for Westminster, or some other influential Member, as to the restrictions within which the public were entitled to enjoy the Parks. If politics and religion were to be excluded from consideration in the Parks, such exclusion ought to have been stated in the proclamation. He had been informed that the Government had adopted the course of sending policemen in plain
  1416
  clothes as spies to the meetings of the Reform League, and that this un-constitutional proceeding had given great offence to the members of that society. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to state that there was no ground for the rumour to which he referred. There was a remarkable coincidence between what had just taken place and certain proceedings near Downpatrick, where a meeting of Orangemen had been called to celebrate the 12th July, and where the same false pretence had been used to put down that meeting—namely, that a breach of the peace was apprehended.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that although Her Majesty had six times in speeches from the Throne recommended to Parliament the consideration of the question of Parliamentary Reform, there still remained out of a population of about 30,000,000, no fewer than 5,000,000 of adults who had not the power to vote for the election of Members of Parliament. It was a lamentable fact that in a population so industrious and intelligent as ours, 5,000,000 of adult males were unrepresented; and it was also a serious and lamentable fact that the enemies of Reform were in possession of the Government. The late Reform Bill proposed to add only 400,000 electors to the present number. That moderate Bill was defeated, and the people were deprived of their just expectation. It had been a source of surprise to him that the country was satisfied with so small a measure. He admired their patience; but now they were roused and excited; they saw in power a party that had resisted every measure for the improvement of the country, and they would demand that consideration and justice to which they were entitled. It had been the policy of the great Conservative party to oppose every improvement offered to the country. They might continue to resist Reform for a time, but it could only be for a time. He had confidence in the people, and he would remind the House that no determined effort had ever been made by them to advance their rights and liberties unsuccessfully. So long as he had the honour of a seat in that House he should stand up for the just rights of the people.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRISON MINISTERS' ACT.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE O'CONOR DON,in rising to call attention to the mode in which the local authorities of county and borough prisons in Great Britain have carried out the provisions of the Prison Ministers' Act (1863), said: Sir, after the very exciting subject which has just been discussed, I trust it may be in my power to attract the attention of hon. Gentlemen for a short time to another subject which is certainly not of so exciting a character, but which, I think, well deserves the consideration of this House and of Her Majesty's Government. If I had given but late notice of the Motion which I propose to make, and if I had signified my intention of going on with it only since the formation of the present Administration, I should certainly owe an apology to the Home Secretary for so doing. But both the right hon. Gentleman and the House are well aware that it was my intention to have brought the subject under the notice of the House at an earlier period of the Session, and that I was prevented from so doing in consequence of the events of the last six weeks. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not consider for a moment that I bring this subject forward in the slightest degree with a view of embarrassing the Government, or that I would presume to trespass upon the attention of the House at this late period of the Session were it not that I believed this to be a subject very well deserving the attention of this House, and one which I consider it my duty to bring at the very earliest period under the consideration of the new Government. I think, Sir, from the wording of my Motion as it stands on the paper this evening, that the object which I have in view must probably be known to most Members. As most hon. Gentlemen are aware, some years ago an Act of Parliament was passed which generally goes by the name of the Prison Ministers' Act, and which had for its object to make provision for the religious wants of criminals in different gaols throughout the country who did not belong to the Established Church. This Act was passed chiefly with a view of providing for the religious wants of that unhappily large class of criminals the Roman Catholic prisoners confined in the gaols of this country. As I am sure that most hon. Gentlemen are aware of the arguments upon which the introduction of that Act was based,
  1418
  I will not trouble the House at any length upon that point. Still, it may be necessary briefly to mention the state of things which existed before the passing of that Act and the object which the Act was intended to accomplish. Before the passing of the Prison Ministers' Act of 1863, the condition of criminals in this country who did not belong to the Established Church—I mean their condition as far as provision for their religious wants is concerned—was this:—It was open to a prisoner of any religious persuasion to seek the ministration of any clergyman whom he wished to see; but no clergyman of any religious persuasion other than that of the Established Church could see any prisoner unless a specific request to that effect was made by the prisoner. This was the state of things which existed in the county and borough gaols of Great Britain before the passing of the Act, and it was a state of things which existed a few years ago both with regard to Government prisons and those under local authority. But in a previous year the Government of Lord Palmerston had succeeded in establishing a different state of things with respect to the convict prisons—the prisons under Government control—and in those prisons a Bill was passed by this House enabling the Government to appoint Ministers of other persuasions than that of the Established Church to attend to the religious wants of the convicts in cases where it was thought that the number of the prisoners and the circumstances connected with their confinement justified such an appointment. At the first introduction of a proposal to that effect I believe that the Government were unsuccessful, although in submitting that proposal with respect to the convict prisons, Lord Palmerston stated that he saw no other principle involved in it than one of common justice. To this conclusion he came because, as he said, he did not believe that our criminals ought to be subjected to any particular disadvantage or punishment on account of any religious belief which they might happen to entertain. This is the principle which I hold was involved in the proposal then made, and which was sanctioned by the Legislature subsequently in the Act of 1863. In 1862 Mr. Pope Hennessy, who was then Member for the King's County, brought under the consideration of the House the question of the condition of the Roman Catholic prisoners in the county and borough gaols in England, and pointed out that

  1419
  there were a large number of Roman Catholics confined in the county and borough gaols, who were practically deprived of anything like religious ministration. He introduced a Bill, the main purpose of which was to place the prisoners confined in those gaols in a somewhat similar condition to that of the criminals in the convict prisons. But at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) Mr. Hennessy withdrew that Bill on receiving an assurance that the Government in the following Session would deal with the question. Accordingly, in 1863, a Bill, which subsequently passed through Parliament, and entitled the "Prison Ministers' Act," was brought in by the then Home Secretary and had since become law. This Prison Ministers' Bill consisted mainly of two sections. In the first place, it gave power to the justices who had the management and control of these prisons and to the Justices at Quarter Sessions to appoint chaplains of a denomination different from that of the Established Church, if the number of criminals or the circumstances connected with these gaols in their opinion justified the appointment. In the second place, the Act empowered the same justices to permit the visits of a minister of any persuasion differing from that of the Church of England to a prisoner of his own creed, without requiring on the part of that prisoner a special request for such visit. But although the Act of 1863 empowered the justices to adopt either of these alternatives, it did not in any way enforce that adoption. The Act of 1863 was essentially a permissive Act. Yet if we examine both the arguments used in that debate and the wording of the Act itself, we shall find that the reason why the Act was made permissive and not obligatory was because it was said that it would be very difficult to lay down by a stringent rule in an Act of Parliament that a chaplain belonging to the persuasion of every person in the gaol should be appointed to every gaol, and that, in fact, the case was one in which some discretion should be exercised. It was felt by the House that that discretion could not be placed in better hands than in those of the justices who had the management of the prisons, and it was fairly argued that the known impartiality of English gentlemen would lead them to carry out the intentions of the Legislature in passing that Act, and would secure, wherever circumstances warranted its adoption, the appointment
  1420
  of chaplains or ministers to attend to the religious wants of any prisoners of a particular denomination who were in sufficient numbers in any of the gaols of this country. This is what was done in 1863; and last Session, in the General Prisons' Act, a further clause was introduced — a clause which, to my mind, changed the permissive character of the second section of the Prison Ministers' Act of 1863 and made it compulsory. To my mind the section introduced into the Act of last Session obliged the justices to appoint a minister who should visit the prisoners of his own persuasion confined in any gaol whether those prisoners sought for his ministration or not. Hence the present state of the law is this—it is open to the justices and magistrates at Quarter Sessions to appoint regular chaplains other than those of the Established Church in any of the gaols in England; and, in the second place, it is obligatory upon them, on demand being made, to approve of a fit and proper person to visit prisoners belonging to his own persuasion. I am speaking, of course, chiefly with reference to Roman Catholic prisoners. It is incumbent on the justices to select a chaplain to attend to the religious wants of the Roman Catholic prisoners subject to the rules and discipline of the prison. Now, the point I wish to bring under the notice of the House is this—the law being in this state, what has been its practical operation? In order to ascertain how this matter stood, I moved a short time ago for a Return referring to a considerable number of the prisons of this country. But I would wish, in the first instance, to allude to a Return which was moved for last Session by Mr. Hennessy. It was a Return to show how far the Prison Ministers' Act had been at that time carried into operation. According to that Return it appears that at the time it was made there were 126 prisons in which no action whatever had been taken under the Prison Ministers' Act; there were nine in which paid Roman Catholic chaplains had been appointed, who were regular officials of the gaol; and there were seven in which visiting priests had been approved. That was the state of things according to the Return of last Session. This year I moved for a Return dealing not with the whole of the prisons in the country, but dealing with a certain limited number which

  1421
  I selected on account of what I believed to be the mixed character of the population residing in their neighbourhood, and which, from the mixed character of that population, might be naturally supposed to be tenanted by criminals of different religious persuasions. This Return refers to forty-one prisons. I may here mention that there were five or six prisons included in the Return about which I did not seek for information, but which were probably included, because they were under the same control as other prisons which I did include. The House will understand that in these forty-one prisons most of the Roman Catholics who unfortunately happen to get into confinement in this country are to be met with. Now, out of these forty-one prisons I find that there are only eight in which regular paid chaplains of the Roman Catholic persuasion have been appointed to attend to the religious wants of the prisoners. There are, consequently, thirty-three in which the provisions of the Prison Ministers' Act of 1863 have not been carried out, while in fifteen of these thirty-three no alteration whatever has taken place either in consequence of the Prison Ministers' Act of 1863 or of the Act of last Session; so that the old rule of special request by the prisoners is enforced. In ten out of these fifteen no fewer than 800 Roman Catholic prisoners are confined. With regard to the remaining prisons, there are twelve in which Roman Catholic clergymen have been approved to visit the prisons; but as far as I can make out from the statements in the Return as to the rules under which the visits of the Roman Catholic priest are permitted, there are only four instances in which anything like a satisfactory state of things exists. These, then, are the general results which appear on the face of the Return. But when you come to examine the facts of the case, I think you will find that a great deal more remains for consideration. As I have said, in many of these prisons the Acts have been apparently put into operation. The Roman Catholic clergy are permitted to visit prisoners of their own persuasion; but those visits are permitted under such restrictions, and are harassed in so many different ways, that practically the operation of the Act is quite worthless. I do not propose to go over the details of all these prisons separately, because the rules
  1422
  existing in them are, I may say, different in almost every instance. But I will take, by way of example, some three or four which I think will clearly explain in what particular point the Prison Ministers' Act of 1863 has proved in. operative. For this purpose I have not to go far, because the prisons in this county, Middlesex, in themselves furnish sufficient examples of the state of things which I wish to see amended. In the county of Middlesex there are five prisons. In three of these five the Prison Ministers' Act has been apparently put into operation, that is to say, a Roman Catholic priest has been approved of to attend and visit the Roman Catholic prisoners. These three are Coldbath Fields, Clerkenwell, and the Westminster House of Correction. I will first take the case of Coldbath Fields, in which at the date of the Return there were 314 Roman Catholic prisoners. Of course, no Roman Catholic priest has been appointed to attend to their wants, but a priest has been approved to visit them. I will remark here that the section in the Act of last Session, which to my mind obliges the justices to approve in such instances of a Roman Catholic minister to visit the prisoners, concludes with the words, "Provided there be no express objection on the part of the prisoner himself." The first complaint I have to make of the operation of the Act in the Coldbath Fields Prison is, that these concluding words in the Act of 1865 are made use of for the purpose, in some cases, of preventing the ministration of the Roman Catholic clergy; because, although the meaning of the Act of 1865 is quite clear—namely, that the objection must come from the prisoner himself, the objection is suggested to him, and the Roman Catholic minister, instead of being permitted to visit him until he objects, is at Coldbath Fields obliged to wait till the warder or other official inquires of the prisoner whether he has any objection to such visit. But that is a trifling objection compared with some of the other difficulties under which religious instruction by Roman Catholic priests is at present carried on. As I have stated, in Coldbath Fields there are 314 Roman Catholic prisoners, and, according to the rules and regulations laid down by the justices, these 314 prisoners can never be assembled for common instruction. They can only be seen in small numbers, the largest number that can be assembled at any one time being ten.

  1423
  Now it must be perfectly obvious that to attempt to instruct such a large body of persons, taking such small numbers at a time, is almost impossible. In the next place, this clergyman is not a regularly appointed official of the establishment. He is not permitted to see the prisoners at any time he thinks proper, nor can his whole time be devoted to them. He is restricted to a certain number of hours in the week, during which period he has to minister to these 314 prisoners, of whom he can only assemble a certain limited number at a time. In addition to this disadvantage, these prisoners were debarred from anything like a religious service by their own clergyman. They have no service on Sundays, as the Protestants have; they have not the regular morning and evening service in which the other prisoners may join; and here, therefore, they are under a great disadvantage on account of their religion. A very different course is pursued with regard to members of the Established Church who happen to be confined in the same prison. For the wants of the Protestant prisoners in Coldbath Fields, two chaplains and one Scripture reader are provided; and these persons are not only permitted, but are bound by the duties of their office, to give up their whole time for the religious instruction of prisoners of their own persuasion. These prisoners are permitted to assemble together for morning and evening service daily, and, of course, also on Sundays. And while these Protestant prisoners are assembled for service on Sundays, the Roman Catholic prisoners, having no service of their own, are either obliged to attend the Protestant service or are forced to undergo so much more solitary confinement in their cells. Consequently, a direct punishment is inflicted on the Roman Catholic prisoners, unless they attend the service of the Established Church. At Clerkenwell the state of things is exactly similar, or nearly so, to that existing at Coldbath Fields. There is, however, this exception — that, whereas at Coldbath Fields ten prisoners may be assembled at one time for religious instruction, in Clerkenwell they must be seen singly by the Roman Catholic priest. Again, with respect to the Westminster House of Correction, or Tothill Fields Prison. In that gaol there are 201 Roman Catholics. [Mr. Alderman SALOMONS: All females?] Yes, this is a female prison, and, of course, the inmates are all women. For the instruction of these prisoners no Roman Catholic chap-
  1424
  lain is appointed; and, as in Clerkenwell, the clergyman who has been approved to visit the prisoners is only permitted to see them singly. As I understand, his visits are confined to two hours and a half each day. If we consider for a moment the utter impossibility of giving anything like useful religious instruction to prisoners who are allowed to be seen only singly, with but one priest to attend to 201 criminals, and his visits confined to two hours and a half a day, we can easily see what practical results must follow from an Act of Parliament carried out in that manner. Sir, there is one point connected with this prison to which it is necessary to refer. Of course, the great difficulty under which the Roman Catholic clergyman who has been appointed to attend on these prisoners labours is, that he is unable to assemble them for religious instruction. Various attempts have been made to get rid of this restriction. On one occasion a direct application was made for permission to assemble the prisoners at the same time, and the answer of the Visiting Justices was this—
  "In reference to the last subject of your letter—namely, the assembling together of the Roman Catholic prisoners, the Visiting Justices are advised, by Counsel consulted on the subject, that it is not in their power to permit it."
  From this letter it would appear, then, that the Visiting Justices of the Westminster House of Correction have taken legal advice as to their power of allowing the Roman Catholic prisoners to assemble for religious instruction by ministers of their own persuasion, and the opinion of Counsel was, that such an assembly of the prisoners was illegal. This is in itself a point well deserving the consideration of the House and the Government; because, if it be true that the assembling of the Roman Catholic prisoners for such a purpose was illegal in Westminster, the magistrates in other parts of England where it is permitted are acting illegally; and, on the other hand, if the practice be legal, it is most desirable that the Westminster magistrates should be informed as soon as possible that the opinion which they have obtained is an erroneous one. But, then, as to the spirit which actuates the justices of the Westminster prison on this subject. A short time ago, as soon as the Act of last Session came into force, the Roman Catholic clergyman who had been in the habit of visiting such prisoners, as specially requested his ministrations, applied for

  1425
  permission to see all the Roman Catholic prisoners who happened at that moment to be confined; and of course this permission was given to him. As soon as this permission was obtained he began to act exactly as he had acted before with regard to the prisoners of the Roman Catholic persuasion who had previously sought his ministration. He was in the habit of instructing them in Roman Catholic doctrines, and of lending them Roman Catholic books—catechisms and so on—with the full approbation of the authorities of the prison. Shortly after the passing of the Act of 1865, and after he had sought for the powers which it gave him, he was officially asked whether he had given a Roman Catholic catechism to a Roman Catholic woman. He admitted at once that he had done so, said he had always been in the habit of doing so with the full approval of the prison authorities, but that he did not know that he had been doing wrong. Immediately, however, an order was sent down that he should be dismissed. And this Roman Catholic priest was dismissed solely upon the ground that he had given a Roman Catholic catechism to a Roman Catholic prisoner—dismissed, too, at the very time when in that same prison the Protestant scripture reader and chaplains were in the habit of giving Protestant books not only to Protestant prisoners but, contrary to all rule, to the Roman Catholic prisoners; and of course the Protestant ministers did not meet with any rebuke from the justices. Now, Sir, it is perfectly evident that to place the power of applying the Act in the hands of justices who are influenced by such feelings, is to render the Act perfectly nugatory. And in the fact that these large prisons are now in much the same condition, with regard to the religious instruction of Roman Catholic prisoners, as they were three years ago, we have a sufficient justification for the statement contained in my Resolution that the Prison Ministers' Act has failed to carry out the intentions of the Legislature. I do not desire to weary the House by any lengthened detail, and therefore I will not go into the particulars of several other prisons which are similarly situated to those I have just instanced. But I will name some three or four which I think are practically in a condition as unsatisfactory as those of the county of Middlesex. They are Salford, Leeds, Swansea, Cardiff, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. In these prisons more than 400 Roman Ca-
  1426
  tholic prisoners are confined. From this part of the subject I will now turn to the next point, a much more agreeable one than that I have just mentioned. I mean the state of things which exists in those prisons where both the letter and the spirit of the law have been observed. In the convict prisons, and in the eight or ten prisons to which I alluded in the first instance, the Prison Ministers' Act has been really and truly put into operation, and in those prisons the results have been of the most satisfactory description. This I gather from official statements emanating from authorities who ought to be well cognizant of the facts. In the Report of the Directors of convict prisons last year I find this gratifying statement—
  "It is with much pleasure that we record the benefits which have arisen from the appointment by the Secretary of State of visiting Roman Catholic priests at Milbank, Parkhurst, Portsmouth, Dartmoor, and Fulham. The effect on the convicts has been marked; and the recognition by the State of their claim to the ministration of a clergyman of their own persuasion has been the source of a great improvement in their outward conduct. … We believe this measure to have been one attended with unmixed good results."
  That is the opinion of the Directors of convict prisons with respect to this Government measure. Now with respect to the county and borough gaols, I find by the report of the district inspector, Mr. Perry, the inspector of the Southern district, that in those prisons where the Act has been put into operation it has worked extremely well; that the utmost harmony prevails between the priest and the chaplain, and no complaint has been made that the provisions of the Act have not been carried out. Then the inspector of the Northern district reports in almost similar terms of those gaols to which the Act has been applied; and I have also got letters from some of the Governors and others connected with the gaols fully bearing out the facts which I have stated—namely, that wherever the Roman Catholic priest has been regularly appointed to attend to the religious wants of the members of his own persuasion, both the discipline of the prison has been improved, and the general conduct of the prisoners has been extremely satisfactory. Thus, I think that from this Return and from the statements which I have made, it will appear that in those cases in which the Act has been put in operation good results have followed, while where it has not been acted on a bad feel-

  1427
  ing has been created, a feeling that the law is not administered with impartiality, and that a distinction is maintained between the treatment of prisoners on account of their creed—a distinction which, according to Lord Palmerston, should under no circumstances exist. But, Sir, there is one point connected with this question which I, as a Roman Catholic, and especially as an Irishman, cannot pass over without notice, and that is the rather strange fact—strange at all events on the face of it — that the number of Roman Catholic prisoners in this country is so very large. Now I fully admit that that fact requires explanation, especially from one who is an Irishman, because most of these prisoners are from Ireland, but I think the fact that most of the Roman Catholic prisoners in the gaols of this country are Irish, and therefore emigrants to a certain extent, explains it. These people have been forced to leave their native homes. They are emigrants, and they are emigrants of the lowest and poorest class. The Irish emigrant of the better class goes either to the United States or to the colonies. It is only these persons who have not sufficient means to enable them to proceed either to the United States or the colonies who emigrate to this country, settle down in our large towns, and many of whom are subsequently found among the criminal classes, As I have said, these people are of the poorest class; and the crimes for which the mass of these people find their way into gaol are essentially attributable to poverty. For instance, we find a large proportion of such crimes as vagrancy, begging in the streets, selling without a license, disorderly conduct, and intoxication. These are the crimes for which a great majority of these persons are imprisoned; and when we reflect that they belong to the poorest class, and are separated from all those influences of friends, and home, and neighbours, which are brought to bear upon persons in a better class of life, we cannot wonder, I think, that a large number of these persons—an undue proportion if I may use the expression—should find their way into the ordinary prisons of the country, though many of the offences are of a trivial character, and the sentences are of very short duration. In order to justify both the nationality and the religion of these persons, I think it would be but just to look at the state of things which exists in Ireland, where they are at home. I think that a
  1428
  comparison between the crime of England and of Ireland is a sufficient answer to any argument drawn from the undue number of Irish people who are confined in the gaols of this country. According to the judicial statistics, it appears that the criminal classes are 34 per cent lower in Ireland than the criminal classes in England. In England one in every 159 of the population is a criminal: in Ireland the proportion is as one to 254 of the population. Then, again, when we speak of the criminal classes, we speak, of course, of the known criminal classes. In both countries there is a large number of criminals who are unknown. But the knowledge of the criminal classes in Ireland is much greater than it is in England. It is greater, primâ facie, from this fact:—The police in Ireland who furnish these judicial statistics are more numerous in proportion to the population than the police of England. In the next place, the Irish police are under one central management, and consequently they communicate one with the other in every part of the country, information passes from one district to another among the police with great facility, and therefore, primâ facie, we should expect the criminal class to be better known in Ireland than in England. But we are not left to speculation upon this subject, because the judicial statistics show that the apprehensions in Ireland were 62 per cent on the crimes, while in England they were only 58 per cent. What is still more important is that of those proceeded against in Ireland, only 9 per cent were unknown to the police, while of those proceeded against in England, 33 per cent were unknown to the police. While, therefore, on the one hand, you have in Ireland a greater knowledge of the criminal classes, and fewer escapes in proportion to the crimes, we have on the other hand the fact I have already stated, that the proportion of criminals in Ireland is 34 per cent lower than it is in Engand. So much for the large number of Roman Catholic prisoners who unfortunately find their way into the gaols of this country. Now, if any argument at all is to be founded upon this fact, with respect to the question which I am now bringing under consideration, it ought to be this:—We find in a country where there is fair play in the prisons, and where the Roman Catholic clergyman has free access to the criminal class, the number of that class is comparatively small. But in the country where this free access is pro-

  1429
  hibited, and facilities are not given for the ministration of the Roman Catholic priest, you find there is a much larger number of the criminal classes. What conclusion are we to draw from this? The obvious conclusion must be that you should extend to this country the principle which exists in Ireland; and thus, if it has any force at all, the fact I have stated, instead of being an argument against the Resolution which I propose, seems to be an argument in its favour. Now, what are the objections urged against putting into practice the provisions of the Prison Ministers' Act? I do not intend to go into them at any length, because they are all ascribable to the violation of the principle of religious equality. If you admit the principle of religious equality, it at once cuts at the root of all those objections which I have heard urged in this House against the permission to Roman Catholic prisoners to be visited by their priests. I have heard it said before the Prison Ministers' Act was passed, "Is it not sufficient if Roman Catholic prisoners are permitted to see their clergy when they ask to see them?" I say, in reply, that principle may be a very just one; but if so, extend it to all other prisoners, do riot apply it merely to Roman Catholics. If you go upon the principle that no prisoner is to see the minister of any persuasion unless the prisoner seeks for such a visit, if that be a good principle, let it be universally applied. But you cannot hold it with respect to the members of one religious body and deny it to others, all the while professing religious equality. The same answer will apply to every argument which I have heard used in denying what I consider to be the just claims of the Roman Catholic body with respect to prisoners belonging to their persuasion. This being the state of things which now exists, I may be asked what I propose to do in order to amend it? It seems to me that the permissive character of the Prison Ministers' Act of 1863 has led to its being inoperative, and that with a view to carry out the intentions of the Legislature in passing that Act, it is essential either that the permissive character should be taken away and the Act be made compulsory, or that the discretion of applying the provisions of the Act should be transferred from the justices to some other body. I would therefore propose either that the Prison Ministers' Act should be made compulsory in all prisons where a certain fixed number of prisoners are confined, or that power
  1430
  should be given to the Home Secretary to enforce at his discretion the provisions of the Act in case the local authorities should neglect to put it in force. I consider that the adoption of one or the other of these remedies is essential in order that this question may be satisfactorily settled, and I consider also that in asking for either of these things, we are asking for nothing beyond that religious equality of which the people of this country boast so much. A few nights ago I heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) tell us that the Roman Catholics in this country were insatiable, that they were never satisfied with anything which they received, and in fact he insinuated that they were insensible to the benefits they enjoyed under the constitution of this country. Now I cannot understand arguments such as this being used, when all we ask is, on the present occasion, that those principles of political and religious liberty, of which he is so proud, should be extended to their logical conclusion, and that there should be no distinction in the goals, the poorhouses, or the ordinary walks of life in this country, on account of the religious faith which anybody professes. So far as I am aware, that is the only principle for which we have asked, and I certainly do think that when we make such a request, it is not reasonable to tell us that our demands are of the most insatiable character, and that it is impossible ever to satisfy us. Some hon. Gentlemen seem to be afraid that beneath a proposal of this description there lurks concealed something like the endowment of a hostile priesthood or of a religious community. Now this I most distinctly deny. There is nothing at all resembling endowment mixed up in this matter. No one ever dreams of supposing that the medical profession is endowed when you pay physicians and surgeons for performing work in poorhouses and in gaols. Yet what is the difference between the payment made to him and the payment to a schoolmaster, a chaplain, or any otter person who is paid for performing distinct and positive services? You pay in both instances for services rendered, and in neither case is there any endowment of the person receiving payment or of the community to which he belongs. Therefore, I hope that no one will believe that in asking that proper provision may be made for the religious instruction of Roman Catholic prisoners, we are seeking directly or in-

  1431
  directly anything like an endowment of our Church. When we take a man from the ordinary walks of life and shut him up in a gaol, thereby depriving him of every means of taking care of himself, we are obliged to provide for all his wants, we are obliged to clothe and feed him, and if he is a Protestant, you admit that we are obliged to provide for his religious instruction. In paying for any of these things you never imagine that you are endowing the persons who supply them; and we merely ask that what is obviously the case with regard to members of the Established Church should be also the case with regard to members of our persuasion, that all should be put on the same footing. This is the whole case which we have to submit for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I do not, of course, expect that at this late period of the Session it would be possible to introduce any very extensive measure upon this subject. All I ask is the affirmation of the principle that the present law is not sufficient. All I desire is that the House of Commons should express its opinion that the working of the Prison Ministers' Act has been unsatisfactory, and that it requires to be practically amended. All I desire from the right hon. Gentleman is that, if that principle should be affirmed, he will give us the assurance that, at the earliest period next Session, he will introduce a Bill dealing with the whole question, and on the part of the Government will inform us who take an interest in the subject that the Government will no longer permit what we regard as a heavy grievance to continue.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Prison Ministers' Act has to some extent failed to carry out the intentions of the Legislature, and that its amendment is therefore a subject which should receive the early consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers."—(The O'Conor Don.)
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he regretted that the hon. Gentleman should have thought it desirable to raise an abstract discussion upon that subject. He would remind the House that the Prison Ministers' Act was a measure by which magistrates appointed by the Crown were enabled to tax the people; and that was the only instance, he believed, in this country in which taxation could be levied without representation. That was a dangerous violation of constitutional principle, and the House ought to
  1432
  be very careful not to extend it any further. No real case of hardship had been made out by the hon. Member for Roscommon in regard to those counties in which the Prison Ministers' Act had not been brought into operation. Never was there an Act more at variance with religious liberty than that; and the object of its introduction was not to enable Roman Catholic prisoners to obtain the spiritual services of priests of their own denomination, for that they could previously obtain if they desired it, but it was to prevent Roman Catholic criminals from availing themselves of the opportunity of receiving spiritual instruction of a different kind from that which had more or less contributed to make them what they were, and to force the ministrations of the Romish priest upon them, whether they wished for them or not. Nothing could be more intolerant, more binding and crushing, than the discipline of the Roman Catholic priests in their efforts to prevent those who were once members of their communion from escaping from their control. But there was surely no reason why the Government should aid them in coercing the people. Attention had been called by the hon. Member to the alleged comparative immunity from crime of the Irish in their own country, and reasons had been given for the gaols in this country containing so large a proportion of Irish criminals. But this state of things was not fairly attributable to the poverty of the Irish, or to the other circumstances which had been mentioned, but it was owing to the fact that much of the teaching they received as part of their religion justified, under certain circumstances, the commission of acts in violation of the law. Indeed, there was not a single offence in the whole catalogue of crime, from murder down to petty larceny, which was not justified by the teaching of the Roman Catholic priests under certain circumstances having reference to the interests of their Church, or from which the offender could not be absolved in foro conscientiœ, or by the assured authority of its ecclesiastics. He did not know what the fact might be as to the gaols in Ireland, but he had a lively recollection of a grant of £780,000 a year out of the Consolidated Fund, for police to look after these innocent people. There was no other rational explanation of the chronic disaffection and disloyalty of the Irish people than that essentially disloyal teaching inculcated as part of their religion by the Roman Catho-

  1433
  lic priests. The hon. Member for Roscommon spoke much of religious equality. He (Mr. Whalley) thought it was high time to ascertain precisely the meaning of those words as regarding the members of the Roman Catholic faith. He might be called a Jesuit or some other name—he was always happy to receive suggestions for the improvement of his demeanour in that House; but it had never once occurred to him to offer any opposition to the Roman Catholics in the free exercise of their faith. In opposing the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Roscommon, he (Mr. Whalley) felt himself justified by the statute book and the experience of centuries. The late Sir Robert Peel said that, under the pretence of religion, there was associated with the Roman Catholic faith a definite system of political policy which was antagonistic to every principle on which the happiness and the civil and religious liberties of the people were based. And Lord Palmerston gave expression to a similar opinion. We contributed not less than £1,000,000 a year to promote, propagate, and sustain the Roman Catholic religion, and yet whenever he or any other Member attempted to show the political character of that religion, what they had to say was looked upon as a violation of the amenities of debate. If he had the Returns he wished for before him he would be able to show that wherever the Roman Catholic priests were admitted they manifested such airs, such an assumption of authority, such a dictatorial manner, as if they possessed the most absolute authority over the souls of the people. It was their practice whenever they had an opportunity to force their doctrines upon those who were unwilling to receive them, and their teaching generally had the effect of breaking up the general discipline of the institution into which they were admitted. He trusted that the House would reject the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he did not think his hon. Friend could be justly charged with bringing his Motion forward merely as an abstract question. The subject was an important one, and the change recently made in the law as to Roman Catholic prisoners in Great Britain was one he considered to be founded on justice. The principle contended for by the hon. Gentleman was one which was already recognized in Ireland, and he could see no good reason why it should not be equally recognized in every other part of Her
  1434
  Majesty's dominions. It was only fair and reasonable that the Roman Catholics who were in the prisons of this country should have the benefit of receiving religious instruction from the ministers of their own faith. The question was one which, so far as he could see, did not involve the truth or error of the doctrines of any particular Church, while the principle for which the hon. Gentleman contended was one which had been fully recognized in our legislation, inasmuch as there was a provision made not only for the Roman Catholic priests who visited the prisons in Ireland, but also for the Protestant chaplains of those gaols, although in some cases there were scarcely any members of their religion to be found in them. That principle had been for some time acted upon in convict establishments under the control of Government, but it required an Act of Parliament to authorize similar arrangements in county and borough prisons. The principle upon which Parliament had proceeded had been to place the administration of the law with regard to these prisons in the hands of the local authorities. In many prisons the provisions of the law as to Roman Catholics had been put in force, both in the spirit and in the letter, in a manner which, he believed, had given entire satisfaction to the Roman Catholics, and left no ground for complaint. The report of the inspectors of prisons, gentlemen of large experience in prison discipline and management, was that the results had been entirely satisfactory. There might have been some Roman Catholic priests who had not acted with judgment and discretion, but that might be the case also with regard to Protestant chaplains, and the law provided a remedy in giving power to the local authorities not only to appoint, but to remove, where necessary, the persons they appointed. No doubt there were other cases in which the magistrates had not availed themselves of the powers of the Act of Parliament, and he very much regretted that that should have been the case. He should be sorry, however, to see the Motion before the House pressed to a division; as he could not but hope that the beneficial results of the Act in those prisons in which it had been applied would exercise its due effect on the minds of magistrates in other places, and lead them to put the provisions of the Act in force to a much greater extent than was the case at present. There might be some points contained in the Act which required amendment. The Committee

  1435
  on the Prisons Act of last year, of which he was a Member, showed every disposition to take the most liberal view of the claims of the Roman Catholics, and to place them on a footing of equality with Protestants so far as religious instruction and worship were concerned. They recommended an important alteration in the law, which was sanctioned by Parliament, obliging magistrates to allow the attendance of ministers of their own Church to the spiritual wants of the prisoners, without any special request from the prisoners, and if there were cases in which the authorities had refused to act in accordance with this provision, it must be because their attention had not been sufficiently directed to it. He regretted that the Act was not in more extensive operation, but he trusted that the discussion which had now taken place and the opinions expressed in the course of the debate might have a beneficial effect, and he should advise his hon. Friend not to press his Motion if he received, as he hoped, an assurance from the Government that it would use its influence to promote a more genial action on the part of local authorities in accordance with the provisions of the law.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, that the declaration contained in the Motion was that the intention of the Prison Ministers' Act had not been carried out; and the question was, what was that intention? The intention was to afford to all prisoners equal facilities for spiritual instruction and religious worship. The Act was said to be permissive; but how? Was it that the magistrates were to exercise unlimited discretion? He believed not, but that the meaning of the permission was, that they were to introduce the Act wherever they found its operation necessary; that certainly was the sense in which all the speakers on the subject of this Bill, including the present Home Secretary, understood the permission. The meaning was that the Act should be put in force wherever the number of prisoners rendered it necessary. The present Home Secretary said he would have preferred the Act to be so far compulsory that whenever it was necessary it should be put into operation on the authority of the Executive. In certain prisons, such as Durham, Preston, Manchester, and other places, it had been put in force with most satisfactory results, but he could mention several instances in which the number of
  1436
  Roman Catholic prisoners was so considerable as obviously to suggest the propriety of appointing a minister of that persuasion to instruct them; but no such appointment had been made. There were not fewer than thirteen cases of this description in which there had been an entire failure in carrying out the intention of the Legislature. But even where there had been an apparent compliance with that intention in the appointment of such ministers, he complained that they were not permitted to see the prisoners long enough to give them adequate religious instruction. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a case that was reported to have occurred in a gaol in Carmarthenshire, a prisoner having complained that the Catholic prisoners were put on the treadmill while the Protestant prisoners were attending morning prayer. This statement was admitted by the Governor of the gaol, but his answer to it was that the Catholics received a fair compensation in being taken off the treadwheel during the visits of the Catholic priest. The prisoner who had made the complaint added to the Governor's statement that, while morning prayer occurred regularly six days a week, the Catholic priest only visited the gaol occasionally. He did not believe there was more than one man in the House who would justify such a state of things—subjecting Catholic prisoners to the treadmill because they declined to attend Protestant prayers. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would endeavour to the utmost to carry out the intentions of the Legislature.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that if hon. Gentlemen looked abroad they would see the effects of the Papal system on the social condition of many States. The power of the Papacy was exercised through the priesthood. He was convinced that this Motion, which was put forward as a question of charity, was only part of a system of organized agitation on behalf of Romanism. If the alteration now urged on the Government were made, he was confident that no permanent satisfaction would be given to the Catholic clergy. Since the passing of the Prison Ministers' Act the demands of the Catholics on the Middlesex magistrates had been gradually increasing. It had been avowed by Dr. Manning that the Romanists were aiming at a complete Establishment of Romanism, but an Establishment without endowment, because this would be an Establishment

  1437
  separate from, and therefore beyond the control of the State, but still having the full force of law. It was complained by the Romanists that the Roman Catholic prisoners did not desire the attendance of their priests; and, in the name of religious liberty, forsooth, this Ultramontane agitation sought to make it compulsory on the magistrates to authorize the visitation of the priests at all times. Allusion had been made to the Middlesex magistrates. Complaints were made that the Roman Catholic priests were allowed by Middlesex magistrates to attend a prisoner only when there was no objection on the part of the prisoner himself. That might be an old-fashioned rule; but it was the rule of religious liberty. It was matter of complaint that the priest was not admitted to see the prisoners at all times and at all hours, to permit this would render effectual prison discipline impossible. It was the intention of the Act that the magistrates should exercise their discretion as to the time and the manner in which prisoners should be visited; and it was now proposed that the magistrates should be deprived of this discretion in this matter, and that the whole discretion should be transferred to the priests. In other words, it was proposed to transfer the discretion from the magistrates to priests appointed by Dr. Manning. He trusted that the Home Secretary would recollect that it had formerly been the opinion of the House that the law with regard to this subject had been sufficiently relaxed for the purpose of affording religious liberty to the Roman Catholics, but it had not been the intention of Parliament, nor was it a purpose of the Prison Ministers' Act, to favour the object of those who desired the practical and uncontrolled establishment of Roman Catholic religion in this country.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that when the Prisons Discipline Act passed he had expressed an opinion that it was a matter which, if undertaken at all, had better be left to the executive Government, who might be empowered to lay down regulations, leaving the mode of carrying them out to the discretion of the magistrates. As he then anticipated, the regulations contained in the Act had been enforced or neglected in the different prisons, according to the feelings of the various local magistrates. In the great majority of cases the provisions of the Act had been adopted, but in many the intentions of the Legisla-
  1438
  ture had been defeated. The question, therefore, now was as to the best manner in which it could be insured that every prisoner could be enabled to attend religious worship under the guidance and superintendence of a minister of his own religion. The existing Act of Parliament, which had been proposed by the Government and accepted by the Roman Catholics as a possible solution of this very difficult question, had only been in existence for three years, and therefore it would be rather premature to ask the House to undertake any legislation materially different from the principles of the Act. At the same time, the Roman Catholics were justified in asking that the provisions of the existing Act should be more universally put into force. The hon. Member who had brought forward the Motion said there were two modes of doing this—one was, that the Legislature should lay down fixed regulations in connection with the subject; but this was clearly impossible, because there were so many varieties of prisons, and because it was the policy of the Act to leave the settlement of all these matters to the local magistracy, who from their position and local knowledge might be regarded as the best fitted to judge upon these matters. The other mode was by empowering the Secretary of State to put the regulations into effect. There would be considerable objection to this proposal; but, at the same time, when the attention of the Secretary of State was drawn to any case which would reasonably call upon him to make a representation about it to the magistrates concerned, it was only reasonable that his aid should be invoked. In the meantime, he thought it would scarcely be advisable to go to a division upon the Motion, because, although the operation of the Act had not always been satisfactory, he did not think that the intention of the Legislature had been frustrated. As far as he was personally concerned he should be glad if any case of hardship connected with Roman Catholic prisoners were brought under his notice to draw the attention of the magistrates to the matter.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, he thought the question was one of considerable importance, because he believed that the Roman Catholics in many instances had not received that fairness and justice to which they were entitled. He would not say that the rights of the prisoners were withheld from them, but no care was taken to inform them what their rights

  1439
  were. This, however, had been done in the case of the Roman Catholic prisoners at Liverpool, and the result was that more than double the ordinary number of applications had been made by the prisoners to be visited by the priest. The position of the Roman Catholic prisoners had often been brought before the House, and when the claims of these men were advocated they were met with a variety of objections. It was said, for instance, that the Roman Catholic prisoners had no desire to see the priests, and such a statement was very likely to be true concerning a man at the commencement of his imprisonment. It was barely possible in the same way that a Protestant prisoner was not at first very eager for the society of his minister, but the visits of the priests had upon the Roman Catholic prisoners the same effect as the visits of the Protestant ministers had upon the prisoners attached to their faith. Under the influence of the priest the Roman Catholic prisoner became amenable to improvement and to discipline, while the taxpayer's burdens had a chance of being lightened, because the men were enabled to avail themselves of a chance of reformation which would not otherwise be open to them.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, that whilst feeling grateful for the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, he regretted that he had not taken a bolder course, and spoken in a stronger manner. He entertained the hope, however, that the more the right hon. Gentleman looked at the question the more desirous he would be of carrying the law into effect, and that he would, if necessary, obtain additional powers in order to control those incorrigible bigots the Middlesex magistrates. All that was required was that the same state of things should exist in this country as existed in Ireland. In the county and city gaols of Cork there were, of course, a larger number of Catholics than of Protestants, but a Protestant chaplain was engaged for the Protestant prisoners. The amount of reformation effected amongst the prisoners was very large, and the result was that there was no country in the world in which at the present moment there was less crime than in Ireland. If the religious system was allowed to have its influence in this country the effect would be the same, and the number of Catholic prisoners in the gaols would be reduced. The poverty of the Irish poor led them into temptation,
  1440
  and there were thus large numbers of Roman Catholics in prison, though, perhaps, not generally for crimes of any particular enormity. He had used the words "incorrigible bigots," and was prepared to justify the use of those words. There were 800 prisoners in the gaols in Middlesex. In two of the prisons the law had not been put in force, and in the other three it was inoperative; and it was surely the most short-sighted policy, as well as the most wanton and flagrant injustice, to debar the unfortunate prisoners of the means of moral improvement. Wherever the improved system was carried out it had proved beneficial, not only to the prisoner, but to the discipline of the gaol. The same influence could not be exercised by a Protestant clergyman over Catholic prisoners, because they did not believe in him, or in his faith.
  THE O'CONOR DONreplied, and said, that he did not intend to press his Motion to a division, after the discussion which had taken place. At the same time, he expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not spoken more decidedly on the question. The distinction which the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to lay down was, in his mind, a distinction without a difference. The right hon. Gentleman said that the object of the Legislature in passing the Act was that the Roman Catholic prisoners in gaols should receive a certain benefit, and yet that the Legislature meant to leave the granting of that benefit to the discretion of the justices.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that what he meant to convey was—the Legislature no doubt intended to leave it to the justices to put the Act in operation, and that the object of the Act was to give relief to the Roman Catholics.
  THE O'CONOR DONstill maintained that this was a distinction without a difference; because, if the magistrates did not exercise the power which Parliament intended them to exercise, the object for which the Act was passed was not carried out, and the intentions of the Legislature were defeated. He hoped that during the recess the right hon. Gentleman would give the subject his best consideration. He felt satisfied that the more the right hon. Gentleman considered the subject, the more likely would he be to come to the conclusion that it was a subject on which the Government were called on to take some action; and that if the magistrates

  1441
  did not put the Act into operation, some other means should be resorted to for securing that object. The right hon. Gentleman would, he hoped, be prepared with some proposal on this subject next Session. Meanwhile, he begged leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he rose to move for the Returns of which he had given notice. These Returns were of a remarkable character, and it was only just to the individuals who had been engaged in the preparation of them that some notice should be taken of the labour they had undertaken. This country by the possession of these Returns would be placed in a situation in which no other civilized country had ever been in, for they would give an account of the net income and expenditure with a continuous balance-sheet without an interval from the year 1688 to the present time. The first gentleman who had been engaged in the preparation of the Return was Mr. Dwight, of the Treasury, who had a very extensive acquaintance with the records of the department. An idea of his labours might be gathered from the fact, that it was only at a recent period that the financial operations had been reduced to a unit system—that the old system was constituted of a vast number of separate accounts; each tax having been a separate tax with separate charges—and that it was only since the time of Mr. Pitt that they had been formed into one consolidated system. Unhappily Mr. Dwight died, and another gentleman of the Treasury, Mr. Chisholm, had to carry on the preparation of the Return. A third gentleman, whose name he had also to mention, was Mr. Anderson, whose devoted attention and indefatigable industry had given him a high place in the Civil Service of the country. The result of the investigations of these gentlemen would form a bulky document, perhaps of two folio volumes; but as several hundred pages were already in type, he trusted the Return would be in the hands of Members at the commencement of the next Session of Parliament. It would form an important record of the general financial history of the country, and he
  1442
  thought it would be interesting to the House to know that so important an undertaking was to be completed, and also by whom the labour had been performed.
  Motion agreed to.
  Accounts ordered,"of the Net Public Income and Expenditure of Great Britain, in each financial year from 1688 (the period of the Revolution) to the 5th day of January 1801 (the period of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland), and of the other Receipts into and Issues from the Exchequer, distinguishing the amounts raised by creation of Debt, and the amounts applied to the reduction of Debt; showing also the Balances in the Exchequer at the beginning and end of each year:"
  "Similar Accounts of the Net Public Income and Expenditure of Ireland (1688 to 1800 inclusive):"
  "Accounts of the Gross Public Income of Great Britain, deducting Drawbacks, Repayments, &c., and Bounties of the nature of Drawbacks, and of the Gross Public Expenditure, including payments out of the Gross Income in its progress to the Exchequer for national objects and for the collection of the Revenue, for each financial year from the 5th day of January 1801 (the period of the Union) to the 5th day of January 1817 (the period of the Consolidation of the Revenues of Great Britain and Ireland):"
  "Similar Accounts of the Gross Public Income and Expenditure of Ireland (1801 to 1816 inclusive):"
  "And, similar Accounts of the Gross Public Income and Expenditure of the United Kingdom, for each financial year from the 5th day of January 1801 up to the present time:—To which Accounts shall be appended Abstract and Subsidiary Accounts, and Notes explanatory of the Financial transactions included in the said Accounts."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

  VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL.
  (Mr. Holland, Mr. Newdegate.)
  [BILL 121.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was not his intention to press the measure during the present Session, but he was anxious to remove some misapprehensions which had arisen with respect to it since the second reading. The veterinary profession had of late years grown into importance, and was rapidly advancing under its present organization; but it was necessary to draw a distinction between the old Royal Veterinary College at Camden Town, of which the right hon. Gentleman, the Speaker, and himself had been Governors for the last twenty years, and which might be regarded as the Alma Mater of the rest, and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, to which the Government of Sir

  1443
  Robert Peel in 1844 granted the power of issuing diplomas, and against which the opposition of some of the Members from Scotland was directed. The part which the late Professor Dick had taken with respect to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the College at Edinburgh was a matter of history; the Professor had received a memorial signed by seventy-one practitioners, all of them formerly his pupils, urging upon him that by attempting to invalidate the charter of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which was granted in 1844, and obtained mainly at his instance, he was inflicting a serious injury on the profession, and reestablishing a system of rivalry and jealousy between the schools which had been found by experience to be most injurious to the profession. Now that Professor Dick was dead a misunderstanding had arisen, and Members for Scotland were under the impression that the hon. Member for Evesham and himself in introducing this Bill had some design to do an injury to the Scotch profession. He assured those hon. Gentlemen that there was not the slightest intention of taking any unfair advantage of the Scotch schools. It only needed the Sign Manual of Her Majesty to change the name of the school in Edinburgh, and when that school had changed its name it would stand on precisely the same footing as the Royal Veterinary College at Camden Town. It was provided by the charter granted to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons that if new schools should grow up and obtain the Sign Manual they should stand in the same position as the previously existing Colleges, and that there should be au uniformity of diploma as regarded the quantum of attainments required from all candidates for diploma in whatever colleges or schools, or by whatever means they might have attained the requisite proficiency. He hoped the Government would give an assurance that the Alma Mater of the profession, as represented by the Governing Body, should have a fair hearing before any alteration took place; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Education Department would give an assurance that during the recess nothing should be done with respect to the existing charter for granting diplomas to prejudice the case as it now stood.
  MR. CORRYsaid, there was so much discrepancy in the representations he had
  1444
  received with regard to this Bill from both sides of the House that it was not easy for a person not conversant with the subject to arrive at a conclusion. He was glad the hon. Member did not intend to press the measure this Session. He would give the hon. Gentleman his assurance that nothing should be done during the recess to prejudice the case, and that no charter should be granted to the Scotch college to grant diplomas.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought this was one of the most extraordinary Bills ever brought before the House, and he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had been rash enough to give a pledge that nothing should be done during the recess to grant a charter for the establishment of a college for Scotland and not for Edinburgh alone, though £40,000 had been bequeathed by a public spirited man for that purpose. He could only characterize the Bill as one to "repeal the Union," inasmuch as it would fine and stigmatize as an impostor every man who practised as a veterinary surgeon in Scotland or Ireland, no matter what his qualifications, if he did not hold the diploma of the London College.
  Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

  COMPULSORY CHURCH RATE ABOLI TION BILL— [BILL 143.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Sir George Grey, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Attorney General.)
  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [18th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time," and which Amendment was,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no scheme for the total, or partial, or absolute, or qualified abolition of Church Rates will be satisfactory to this House which does not contain some legal and certain provision for supplying any deficiency which may ensue from such scheme, in the funds applicable to the maintenance of the fabric of the Church,"—(Mr. Neate,)
  —instead thereof
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he approached this question with a sincere desire to treat it with the utmost liberality, and with a

  1445
  most cordial regard for the interest and feelings of the Dissenter; but it was impossible not to see that the House could never arrive at a just decision upon the subject unless it had the case truthfully before it. If he was rightly informed, the parishes in which church rates were no longer levied were small in numbers, but great in wealth and importance; while there was a large number of parishes, though they were of diminished population, in which church rates were levied, the inhabitants being satisfied that those rates should be continued. In places where the Dissenters were in the majority there could be no interest in respect to such Bills as this, because the question had been disposed of by the vote of the majority. Did the agitation proceed then from places in which church rates were levied? He thought not, because in these places the majority, at least, were satisfied that the rates should continue. It was true that in many of those parishes there might be a small number of Dissenters; but he believed it was not so much from them as for them the demand came that church rates should be abolished. If it were the case that the Dissenters were unwilling to accept the proposition contained in the Bill of the Solicitor General, it ought to be for some well-defined reason; but they had heard no reason at all given. In the absence, therefore, of any alleged reason, he must endeavour to find one. Some years ago there was a proposition to exempt Dissenters from the payment of church rates on their signing a declaration that they were members of a religious communion other than that of the Established Church. The hon. Baronet who was then Member for Tavistock, and leader of the movement against church rates (Sir John Trelawny), objected to that proposition, on the ground that many of those who desired exemption were members of no religious communion. The following year, with the concurrence of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, and in order to meet that objection, he brought in a Bill which would have given an exemption to any person who signed a declaration that he did not conform to the Church of England. Again, that was objected to, on the ground that it would be "ticketing" the Dissenters, and they did not choose to be ticketed. In the Bill of the Solicitor General even that difficulty was avoided, because all it required of any one who objected to pay church rates was an
  1446
  intimation to the churchwardens that he desired to be exempted. Nothing could be more simple and inoffensive than such a mode of claiming exemption, but they were told by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) that even that would not be satisfactory to the Dissenters. It was true that the most carefully prepared method of exemption that could be devised was open to formidable objections. One objection naturally was that to make any exemption from payment of a rate was a violation of principle, and another objection was that any process of exemption tempted those who were niggard to save their money and to throw a greater burden upon those who were liberal. That was a formidable objection no doubt, and another equally true was that in many instances churches would be left entirely unprotected. He knew instances in which the whole property belonged to the Dissenters, and of course if the property of Dissenters was exempt from church rates no church rate would be levied in those parishes, and it would fall upon the clergy and poor parishioners to raise the means necessary to maintain the fabric, assisted probably by some fund which Churchmen would probably inaugurate. In any system of adjustment, therefore, Churchmen must make considerable sacrifices; still, such was his desire for a settlement of the question that he would be willing to face all the difficulties in order to offer those who considered themselves aggrieved an acceptable proposition. Now, what were the reasons why Dissenters would not accept the terms which Churchmen were prepared to offer? The hon. Member for Birmingham had told them distinctly, "that this was a struggle for supremacy between Churchmen and Dissenters." It might be said that the hon. Member was an extreme man; well, then, what were the words of Mr. Miall, the champion of the Nonconformists? Mr. Miall said, "the entire separation of Church and State was the real object of the Dissenters." But, if that was not enough, he would quote the sentiments of the real author of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire told the House that in this matter he had consulted the hon. Member for Stoke on the one side and Mr. Morley on the other. Now, Mr. Morley he took to be an eminent exponent of Nonconformist sentiments; upon matters of trade and business his opinions

  1447
  were remarkably intelligent and sound, and he, for one, regretted his absence from the House. Addressing a meeting of the Liberation Society last year Mr. Morley said he would have the Committee act in the spirit of the remarks made by the Rev. T. Binney, twenty-seven years ago, on laying the foundation stone of the Weigh - House - Yard Chapel, when he said—
  "It is to me, I confess, a matter of deep serious religious conviction that the Established Church is a great national evil, that it is an obstacle, to the progress of truth and godliness in the land, that it destroys more souls than it saves, and that therefore its end is most devoutly to be wished for by every lover of God and man."
  He had heard a great deal about Romish intolerance, but he had never heard a sentiment more intolerant or atrocious than that which he had just quoted. He did not believe that these were the sentiments generally entertained by the Dissenters of this country. The Wesleyans, for instance, did not wish to see the Church of England degraded or destroyed. No doubt many who belonged to that portion of the Nonconformist body would be glad to be relieved from church rates, but they had no wish to be relieved by a process that would be destructive to the Church of England. Now, what was the difference between the Bill of the Solicitor General, and that before the House? The former carried to its full extent the principle of religious liberty; the Bill which answered the requirements of the Nonconformists would establish religious equality. While the one was in harmony with the legislation of the country, the other was absolutely incompatible with the Constitution. Religious equality we could not have while the statute book and the Constitution remained as they were. What was called the supremacy of the Church he would rather call, with the late Sir Robert Peel, its predominance. If it was intended to destroy the connection of Church and State, let them get rid of shams, false pretences, and false issues, and let a Motion be made at once for the repeal of the "Act for the Limitation of the Crown." In virtue of that Act the Sovereign of this country must be a member of the Church of England. That Act requires that as an essential antecedent to his coronation the Sovereign receive the Holy Sacrament according to the Ritual of the Church of England. And that religious act of the Sovereign is at once the religious profes-
  1448
  sion of the nation, and the sign of the pre-eminence of the Established Church. If that pre-eminence is disputed, let the malcontents attempt to repeal the Act on which it rests. In the matter of mere pecuniary rights there must be some few points upon which there could be no equality. The Sovereign must be of the Church of England, and her Civil List was provided out of the taxation of the country. The very chaplain of that House was paid out of the Consolidated Fund. These were points upon which the Church enjoyed a predominance, and, unless they were prepared to destroy every one of the links which connected Church and State, it would be useless to destroy that which depended on the maintenance of Church rates. He contended that the proposition embodied in the Bill of the Solicitor General contained all that the Dissenters had a right to ask, and all that Churchmen were entitled to remit. For so much he was prepared to go, but not for a Bill which sought to sever one of the ties that united Church and State together, and tended most seriously to endanger both the civil rights and religious liberty of the people of this country. He could not, therefore, vote for the Bill, and if as he believed there was an understanding that the second reading was to pass without a division, he should be compelled to absent himself when the question was put from the Chair.
  MR. HENLEYbegged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a division. The question was one of great importance, and an understanding had been arrived at that this was to be the last stage considered during the present Session. For his own part, he certainly should persist in asking the House to read the Bill a second time, and the matter could be disposed of more conveniently at the present sitting than on some future occasion, when, perhaps, it would stand in the way of Government business.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, he was entirely unable to appreciate the motives leading his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire to press on this Bill, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) would persevere with his Motion. Had the measure for the total abolition of church rates failed to pass the second reading there might be, with some persons, an object in persisting with this Motion.

  1449
  The Bill was said to have been introduced as a compromise, but, instead of exhibiting anything like a spirit of concession, as far as the interests of the Church were concerned, it was more objectionable than the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. Not one of those who had consistently advocated the continuance of the national rates, he believed, had been consulted with regard to the Bill, and it was, in point of fact, regarded by them as more objectionable than the total abolition of church rates. Much vexed and troublesome questions were sometimes got rid of by suggestions unexpected and altogether novel. But the proposal to abolish the compulsory power of enforcing church rates had not even the merit of freshness, for it was neither more nor less than the proposal made over and over again by the hon. Member for Birmingham, who certainly never thought of advancing it as a compromise, but only as a further mode of obtaining the end which he had in view. The Bill was one in any case that ought not to receive a second reading without very full discussion; and to press it forward a stage knowing that it must ultimately be abandoned could only be with the desire of gaining a questionable advantage.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he also should support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire would not place him in the painful position of having to leave the House rather than remain as appearing to assent to the second reading of the Bill. This Bill would not only abolish church rates, but it would break up the present parochial system. He appealed to the hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House whether they were prepared to destroy the principle of self-government in this respect.
  Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Henley.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 108: Majority 44.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HENLEYbegged to move that the House do now adjourn.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was not competent for the right hon. Gentleman himself to make that Motion after the last Motion which he had made.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, in that case he would make the Motion for the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Colonel North.)
  MR. GLADSTONEmust say that it was with very great regret that he found that method of opposition resorted to. Often and often when sitting on that (the Treasury) Bench had he and his Friends discouraged Motions of a similar character coming from behind them, and urged that when it was for the convenience of the House that a debate should proceed it should not be sought to arrest it at such an hour, or even at a much later one (a quarter to one), and he thought it was the duty of the Government to follow that example on the present occasion. It should be remembered that this Bill had been accepted by Gentlemen who but for their acceptance of it would have long ago carried to the third reading a measure of their own, but who had refrained from doing so in the expectation that nothing would be done to prevent the House from giving its judgment upon the present Bill, and he therefore appealed to the Government, if they did not think the debate could now be conveniently continued, to assist him in fixing the resumption of it for Thursday at twelve o'clock.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he had been in the House since twelve o'clock at noon, and he could not undertake at that time of the night to discuss this Bill, as he felt it necessary to do at considerable length. He had been present on every occasion when the Bill had been before the House; it had always been brought forward at a late hour, when there was no chance of getting a fair discussion. He had just heard for the first time that there was any understanding between the right hon. Gentleman and those who had charge of the other Bill on that subject; and he believed that there were numerous Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side who knew nothing about it. The last remark of the right hon. Gentleman proved the entire complicity there was between the supporters of the present Bill and the advocates of total abolition, and he hoped the country would take notice of the fact as showing the real nature of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. For his own part, he disliked ten thousand times more than doing away with church rates the machinery which the

  1451
  right hon. Gentleman had most ingeniously contrived to sow discontent, disunion, and heartburning throughout the parishes of the country. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would persevere in his Motion for the adjournment.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, he was at a loss to know the reason for pressing the Motion for the second reading of this Bill, when it was evident that neither of the Bills on the subject of church rates could pass this Session. Only those who desired total abolition would gain by this measure, which, in fact, he regarded as the worse proposal of the two.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the Bill, on the back of which his name appeared, would not be forced, and he trusted that the right hon. Member for South Lancashire would rest satisfied with what progress he had already attained, and would not press his measure further during the present Session.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he regretted the tone which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had adopted on that occasion, and must say, after the prolonged sittings they had had that day, he thought the proposal to adjourn that debate at a quarter to one o'clock was a very reasonable one. The second reading of the Bill had been moved at four or five o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon. The discussion had been resumed at five minutes past twelve o'clock last night, and yet the right hon. Gentleman contended that it was the duty of the Government to terminate the discussion. [Mr. GLADSTONE: To let it go on.] At a quarter past one! The right hon. Gentleman should recollect that the Government even now had not moved the adjournment of the House. It was proposed by an independent Member, and he appealed to both sides of the House whether, after the speech of the right hon. Member (Mr. Henley), the Government could refuse to accept the proposal for the adjournment. The question was too important to be treated in this way, nor could it in this manner be discussed satisfactorily either to the House or to the country. With respect to the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, he would remind the House that the second reading had been already agreed to, and that the Committee was fixed for that morning. He could not, therefore, see that any inconvenience would result, the Bill of the hon. Member being taken at the morning sitting, from
  1452
  the debate being now adjourned. Apart from this, he had himself had no opportunity of expressing his opinion on the Bill; other Members of the Government were in the same position, and he must say it was one that had failed to satisfy the members of the Church of England, who had decidedly declared against it.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he wished to remind the noble Lord that no answer had been given to the Question of his right hon. Friend as to whether the Government would be prepared to afford facilities for the resumption of the debate on some future day. He must also call his attention to the fact that the Leader of the House had spoken on the second reading of the Bill, and had given a pledge to the effect that the Government would not vote against it.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that if, as he believed was the case, the Government were pledged through their Leader not to vote against the second reading of this Bill, that pledge would of course be redeemed. He understood, however, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while making that promise, announced that he was not prepared to assent to the principle of the measure. For his own part, he could not assent to it, and he had only to add that he was afraid it would not be possible for the Government to set apart a day for resuming the discussion.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he should support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, as the Bill was not like that for the total abolition of church rates which had already been frequently discussed. It was an entirely new and a very important measure, and it was not fair to ask hon. Members to proceed with it at that hour of the night, especially when it was taken into account that the House was to meet at twelve o'clock to-morrow, and that there was to be a morning sitting on the day after, as well as on Friday and Tuesday next. This being the case, he could only recommend the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill to take the best opportunity he could find of proceeding with it. As at present advised, he entertained to the Bill the most serious objection, and he could not see what the right hon. Gentleman hoped to gain by pressing on the second reading when he proposed not to go beyond that stage this Session.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that Wednesday, the 1st of August, was an open day,

  1453
  and his right hon. Friend would assent to the adjournment of the debate till that day.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Debate further adjourned till Wednesday next.

  COMMON LAW COURTS (FEES AND SALARIES) BILL.
  Bill "to make further provision respecting the Fees payable in the Superior Courts of Law at Westminster, and in the Offices belonging thereto, and respecting the Salaries of certain Officers of those Courts," presented, and read the first time. [Bill 240.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.