Sitting of 13 July 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Redemption of Land Tax; and Corporations.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BRODIE, from Gosport, praying for an uniform rate of Postage.—By Mr. BAINES, from Leeds, for the Abolition of Idolatrous Worship in India.

FACTORIES.—COUNTING OUT THE HOUSE.
Lord Ashleywould ask where the noble Lord, (Lord John Russel,) was yesterday, when the Government, of which he was a member, was instrumental in counting out the House? Why had the House been so counted out, within a very few minutes of the period fixed for its reassembling, and when the legitimate number of members would have been forthwith in attendance. By this means, he was again deprived of the opportunity of exposing the most abominable system which had ever disgraced and degraded a civilized nation. The noble Lord opposite and the House knew full well the mode in which this question had been treated. They knew full well how to repeat a phrase which he had used before, and from which he did not shrink; how he had been mocked and deluded. On the 22nd of June last, he had hoped to have an opportunity of making his statement; but the noble Lord had triumphed by the small majority of eight. He had then given a notice three weeks from that period, and had fixed upon a notice-day. Yesterday was the day. The House met by adjournment at 6 o'clock, and no sooner did it meet, than it was proposed that it should be counted, and was counted out. Immediately upon that motion being made, one of the Lords of the Treasury, the hon. Member for Haddington, ran out of the House, and other Members of the Government went into a different lobby. There were other hon. Members present who would bear witness to this statement. He had himself seen the hon. Member for Haddington leave the House, and with him the person who should have last thought of taking such a course. He alluded to the hon. Member for Durham, himself a very large mill-owner, and one of those whom he would have put on his defence. The House was thus counted out before those hon. Members who were listening to the debate in the Lords could have an opportunity of attending. Even as it was, the attendance of members amounted to thirty-seven. He was extremely sorry at being obliged to adopt any extraordinary course to bring on his motion. He should have liked very much to bring it on in a more legitimate way. The noble Lord opposite and the House might think the person who had the honor to introduce this subject to their notice to be himself a very despicable person. But,
188
notwithstanding the treatment he had received from the hands of the Government, the House would allow him to say, that the question was one of paramount importance and magnitude, and that if the attention of the Government were not shortly directed to it, the office of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, however burdensome it might be now, would speedily become a million times more burdensome. He did not ask the House to affirm any new principle. He was simply desirous to lay before the House what he considered an unparalleled state of things, and he wanted the House to say whether they would enforce or repeal the existing law. He held it to be inconsistent both with the character of the House, and with the safety of the empire at large, to leave a law affecting the welfare of 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 human beings in such a state, that no one of its provisions was observed, that it was deliberately and impudently violated every day, and that it was left not only for five years, but was most likely to be left for another year, without a possibility of redress, while they positively refused to hear any statement upon the part of the persons aggrieved. It might be inconsistent in him to move, that the order for going into Committee of supply be taken before any of the other orders of the day, because in doing so he should be moving the supply for the purpose of its being rejected; but he had given notice, that if the order of supply were brought forward, he would move his amendment; and if the order of supply were moved at so late a period that he would not have time to bring forward his amendment, he would then move, that the Committee of supply be adjourned to Monday. He appealed to the House for its support in this matter; and, please God, he was fully determined that this statement should be laid before the Commons of England, when he trusted to obtain a full and fitting answer, and to have something done at last on the subject of this great and crying evil.
Mr. R. Steuartsaid, that whatever blame he had incurred in this matter, he alone was responsible for it, and that he had not seen the hon. Member for Durham at all upon the occasion referred to. He begged, distinctly, to deny, that he had any previous communication with any single member of the Government upon the subject; and the Under Secretary of

189
State had expressed to him immediately afterwards his deep regret that the House should have been counted out.
Lord J. Russellcould state nothing about what occurred in the House yesterday, not having been present at the time. He returned to the House a few moments afterwards, with the view of attending the motion of the noble Lord. Nothing would induce him to say, that the noble Lord, in bringing forward his motion, was actuated by any desire to embarrass the Government, or interfere with the other proceedings of the House. On the contrary, he knew the deep interest which the noble Lord took in the factory question, and that in the prosecution of it, he had acted in the most honourable manner. He did think, however, that the noble Lord, in his great anxiety about the question, was apt to overlook the real facts of the case. He had stated to the House, that, one way or another, he was prevented by the Government from making a statement of facts connected with the factory question. Now, the noble Lord must admit, that if he were wrong in postponing the question, he himself was also wrong in not bringing it fully forward when he moved it before the Order of the Day upon Irish Tithes. On the day when the bill stood among the orders of the day, the noble Lord proposed to take it before the Irish Tithe Bill. Surely he had then an opportunity of stating to the House any facts which he thought proper, and no one would have prevented him from doing so. He might also have convinced the House, that his bill ought to have precedence of the Irish Tithe Bill. The House, however, upon the reasons which he adduced, decided against him by a majority of eight, and he now complained of the conduct of that majority. With respect to the interest which the Government, it was said, took in the matter, he must say, that the noble Lord was entirely wrong in supposing, that there was any particular wish or intention on the part of the Government to evade or put off the factory question. If he had understood from the noble Lord before he proposed putting the bill off, that the noble Lord had any particular wish so to do, he (Lord J. Russell) would have considered whether it might not be taken before some other Order of the Day. Neither then, however, nor in the question which the noble Lord put, did he appear to manifest any great anxiety upon the
190
subject. Knowing, then, as he did, the opposition which was growing up against the bill, and the great anxiety there was upon the part of the House to have a bill proposed when there should be time for deliberation, he thought it best the bill should be postponed. The noble Lord had it in his power when the question of supply was moved, to make any statement he pleased on the factory question. He, (Lord J. Russell) had heard from Members upon both sides of the House, considerable apprehensions as to the consequences of raising any excitement at the present moment about the question. The noble Lord took a different view of the matter. All that he wished to say was, that when the noble Lord proposed to bring on his bill before the Irish Tithe Bill, he had an opportunity of making his statement, if he pleased. The noble Lord could not expect that the law would not be violated, but it was satisfactory to know, that by the last reports of the inspectors, the law appeared to be more generally observed.
Mr. Wallacecould confirm the statement that his hon. Friend, the Member for Falkirk, consulted no one when he moved that the House be counted out.
Mr. Laboucherecould also add his testimony, that there was not the slightest concert upon the part of the Government to put off the noble Lord's motion. He did not think the noble Lord would require him to produce any witnesses, but if he were to appeal to any one, it would perhaps, be to the Speaker, whom he met shortly after the House was over, when his right hon. Friend expressed his regret, in which he concurred, at there being no House, as it would so much retard the progress of public business. The occurrence, in his belief, was only to be attributed to the natural, and perhaps, not inexcusable indisposition of hon. Members to sit for eight or nine hours in the evening after having sat, for four in the day.
Lord Ashleyconsidered himself bound strictly to show to the House, reasons why one order should be taken before another. He had endeavoured to do so as well as he was able, but at the same time he had too much regard for the time and feelings of the House to obtrude upon them, and weary them with a variety of minute statements out of place and at an improper time. If he had, upon that occasion, gone into the whole subject fully, the

191
noble Lord would have been the first to call him to order. The noble Lord had stated, that he did not appear to manifest any anxiety upon the subject of the Factory Bill. Now, he would appeal to the House, whether he had not asked the noble Lord questions upon the subject usque ad nauseam? He would also appeal to the Under-Secretary of State, whether he did not apply to him not to deceive him upon the subject, but really and fairly to give him an opportunity of discussing the question. The noble Lord was proceeding to animadvert upon the conduct of Government, when he was interrupted by cries of "Order."
The Speakersaid, the noble Lord's remark was not necessary for the purpose of explanation.
The matter dropped.

PRISONS (ENGLAND).
The House went into Committee on the Prisons (England) Bill.
On Clause 10,
Mr. Langdalemoved, by way of amendment, a proviso to the effect, that in cases where the number of prisoners in a gaol not belonging to the Established Church, amounted to fifty, an assistant-chaplain should be appointed.
Mr. F. Maulethought the proposition not unreasonable.
Sir C. Knightleyremarked, that if the hon. Gentleman's principles were acted upon in its full extent, there might be as many clergymen in a gaol as there were prisoners.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that religious instruction should be provided for prisoners differing in sentiment from the Established Church, where the number might be considered to require it.
Mr. W. E. Gladstonecould not immediately concur in the principle laid down in the motion. It was one of great importance, not recognised in any legislative enactment, and, he believed, unheard-of in England, though it had been acted upon in Ireland. It was too important to be established in this way, for it must be extended to all workhouses as well as to prisons. Sufficient facilities, he believed, were already given to clergymen of the various denominations to obtain access to the prisoners who coincided with them, for the purpose of religious instruction.
Mr. F. Mauledeclared his intention to support the clause proposed by Mr. Lang-
192
dale. He put it to hon. Members opposite, whether they would be content to see fifty unfortunate wretches confined in one of our prisons, refusing to attend the ministration of the chaplains of the Established Church, and yet consent to deprive them of the religious advice and consolation which they would derive from the presence of a minister of their own religion? In fixing a limit, you must stop somewhere, and fifty seemed as good a limit as any at which they could stop, seeing that they had already assented to a clause that wherever there were fifty persons incarcerated, professing the faith of the Established Church, there was a necessity to call in the services of a chaplain.
Mr. G. Palmeropposed the proposition, because, if they gave up one point after another, it would tend to annihilate the interests of the Established Church.
Mr. O'Connellconsidered the argument of the hon. Member who had spoken last, as one of the most preposterous ones which he had ever heard in the whole course of his life from a well-educated Gentleman. The hon. Member for Newark had told them, that the principle embodied in this clause was a new principle—[Mr. Gladstone: In England.] Oh! it was an old principle in Ireland, and as he had been accused—oh, how often!—of crying, as they say, falsely, "Justice for Ireland," he would just try for once how the hon. Gentlemen opposite would relish his raising the cry—oh, how truly!—of "Justice for England." The question, however, was not whether this be a new principle, but whether it be a good principle, and he considered it to be a good principle to instruct every man in the principles of morality according to his own notions of the Christian religion. He considered this clause to be essentially necessary, because, in many gaols where Roman Catholics had been confined, and had demanded the aid of a Roman Catholic chaplain, their demands had been peremptorily refused. Now, such an exercise was a great abuse of power; and if this clause were passed, they would get rid of it altogether.
Mr. Humesaid, that prisons now were conducted on the principle of reformation. If, therefore, reformation was their object, they could not shut up fifty persons dissenting from the principles of the Established Church without affording them some religious advice and instruction. In voting

193
for this clause, he must confess one change of opinion which he had undergone. Formerly he was opposed, now he was friendly, to the voluntary principle. He would tell the House why he had become this convert. It was, because he had seen, of late years, with the deepest regret, the vexatious, and oppressive, and persecuting conduct of the clergy of the Church of England towards those who differed from them in religious opinion. He repeated the phrase, which seemed so obnoxious to hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was now a voluntary on principle, and what was more, from experience of the opposite principle. There was a species of property in this country, which was generally called Church property. For his own part, he called it public property; and he thought, that it ought to be distributed equally and fairly for the religious instruction of men of all classes, sects, and denominations. He was quite aware, that he could not carry out that principle at present. But the time would yet come—and the hon. Gentlemen opposite knew it—the time would yet come——[Great cheering from both sides of the House.]
Mr. Bernal(the Chairman) interrupted the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who was entering into subjects not at all connected with the question under debate.
Mr. Humewas sent there by his constituents to speak the honest sentiments of his heart, and speak them he would, at every hazard. Personally, he was obliged to the hon. Chairman for his caution, but he was sent there to speak the truth by his constituents, and speak it he would, however obnoxious it might be to the clergy or their supporters. In reply to what had been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would repeat, that the principle which he had laid down, was the only true voluntary principle. The House had cheered, as if they considered his proposition to be clearly monstrous and impracticable; but he had lived for some time in the world, and he had seen other things, deemed equally strange and unlikely to happen, come nevertheless to pass; and he was convinced, old as he was, that he should live to see a great alteration indeed take place in the holding of what was called Church property. If the hon. Gentlemen opposite, acting as they called it in support of the Church, persisted in their old course of oppression and monopoly, he was certain that they would drive public
194
opinion to many acts which it had never yet contemplated. He had heard, from the other side, a great deal about "toleration, toleration." For his own part, "toleration" was a word that he spurned—it was unworthy a free people; what he asked for, and he would be content with nothing less, was equal rights for all classes, sects, and denominations of her Majesty's subjects.
Lord Stanleyadmitted, that this was a question on which it could not be said that there was no difficulty in coming to a decision. If there were in that House, as he supposed there were, many hon. Gentlemen who might have hesitated as to the vote which they ought to give on this motion, he was quite sure, that if they had attached any importance to the observations of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, those observations would have had a tendency to divert them from the support of the proposition which that hon. Member had advocated. He looked, however, to this question, not with reference to the observations of the hon. Member—they scarcely deserved notice—but with reference to its substantial justice and policy. If he thought, that in giving the proposition of support he was doing anything which could place the sects which differed from the Church of England on an equality with her, or if he thought that in supporting that proposition he was placing any, even the smallest, stigma on the Church of England, as a national establishment, no consideration in the world would induce him to support it. But the situation of these unfortunate prisoners was a peculiar situation. They were paced in a position in which they were separated from the spiritual control of those to whom they were accustomed to look up for support and consolation, and to which they would have resorted for advice had they been free. In supporting the proposition of the hon. Member opposite, the committee was not called upon to establish any new principle; for hon. Gentlemen admitted, that in Ireland, and he heard no objection to that principle, it was not only expedient, but also just and necessary, that there should be a Roman Catholic chaplain in every gaol. Were hon. Gentlemen, then, adopting a mischievous innovation when they proposed to introduce it into England in all gaols, where, on an average of a certain number of years, there were such a number of Roman Ca-

195
tholics confined as required the undivided attention of a clergyman of their own persuasion? In the very bill then before the House they had already declared that fifty prisoners were enough for a chaplain of the Established Church to attend to; and that if there were more than that number the chaplain should be entitled to an increased salary. How, then, could they reconcile themselves to refrain from giving spiritual instruction according to their mode of belief to fifty Dissenters whom they might find in their gaols? First of all, could they compel the Roman Catholics to attend to the instruction of a clergyman in whose doctrine they did not believe; and secondly, if they did not try the compulsory course, could they ask them to deprive themselves, or would it be right to deprive them, of all religious instruction whatever? Upon the fullest consideration which he had been able to give to this proposition, he was inclined to vote in favour of it. He could not voluntarily lose the opportunity of reclaiming so large a portion of our vicious population, so long as he saw there was the slightest chance of reclaiming them. He, however, thought this clause should be permissive, not compulsory, and he would suggest to the hon. Member who had proposed it whether it would not be better to insert in the enactive parts of it these words "if they shall so think fit."
Mr. Langdalewas anxious to do everything in his power to meet the wishes of the noble Lord.
Mr. Estcourt. This was the introduction of a new principle into the law of England, which, if once admitted, might be attended with the very greatest inconvenience to the interests of the Established Church.
Mr. Sheilconceived, that the opinion of the hon. Gentlemen opposite was, that this proposition ought to be granted, provided that the power of appointing these chaplains were accompanied with proper checks. A proposition exactly the same with the present was carried for Ireland when Lord Liverpool was at the head of the Government, when Sir R. Peel was at the head of the Home Department, and when Mr. Goulburn was Secretary to the Lord-lieutenant for Ireland. When the Catholic was out of prison he could go to the priest, but when he was in prison the priest must go to him, else he would be deprived of all opportunity of acting in conformity with
196
his religious belief. The House should at least consent to the free admission of the priest, even to an individual prisoner. The present regulations were tantamount to his exclusion.
Sir R. Peelthought it was rather unfortunate that it had not been more distinctly understood that this subject would have been brought under their consideration that day. After the conflicting opinions, too, which they had heard delivered, he thought it would be better if the hon. Gentleman, without making any concessions to the principle, would consent to withdraw the clause upon the understanding that he would bring it forward upon the third reading of the bill. The noble Lord the Secretary of State, who had access to every information on the subject, had been present during a very short period of the discussion, not expecting, perhaps, that so important a subject would have been brought under consideration. Without, therefore, expressing any decided opinion at present, he thought it would be better to reserve it for more serious and deliberate consideration. Even supposing that he entirely coincided in the principle of the hon. Gentleman's clause, he wished to show him that, as it stood at present, it would not answer his purpose. He would first ask him if he meant, that it should be imperative upon the magistrates to appoint chaplains? The words were "that it shall be lawful," &c. Now, according to the construction of some, those words meant that it should be imperative on the magistrates, while others contended that they conferred a discretionary power. It was very important that the hon. Gentleman should determine that point. The hon. Gentleman also made the appointment of chaplains determinable by the circumstance of there having been on the three previous years an average of fifty prisoners. Now, if during one year there happened to be sixty prisoners in the gaol, not Members of the establishment, but professing one faith, he might be disposed to contend for the necessity of providing them with a chaplain. But according to the clause of the hon. Member, if that year happened to be one of the three preceding years, and that upon those three years there was not an average of fifty, there would have been no power to provide a chaplain for the single year during which there were sixty prisoners. It did not depend, therefore, on the number of

197
prisoners requiring religious aid at the time, but upon the fact that in the three preceding years there was an average of fifty. If the principle were good, some temporary provision should certainly be made, and that the hon. Gentleman's clause would not do. He felt strongly that he was now called upon to decide a great question, while he likewise felt that the clause of the hon. Gentleman would do nothing, except as far as principle was concerned, and under the pretence of doing an act of humanity they would be doing nothing but deciding on the principle. He was convinced there were not ten prisons in England to which the principle of the average of three years preceding would apply. By adopting, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's proposition they would be doing no practical good. He certainly thought it would be a violation of the principle of toleration to compel any portion of the prisoners in the gaol to attend any religious ministrations in which they did not believe. He thought, further, that they were bound to afford a perfectly free and unrestrained access, subject to the discipline of the gaol, to the minister belonging to the persuasion of each prisoner. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hawes) said, that that was done in some cases, and not in others. He (Sir R. Peel) would read a clause from the law introduced by himself:—"And be it further enacted, that if any prisoner shall be of a religious persuasion different from the established church, the minister of such persuasion, at the special request of such prisoner, shall be allowed to visit him, at proper and reasonable times, and upon such restrictions prescribed by the visiting justices, as shall guard against the introduction of improper persons." He begged to call the attention of the hon. and learned Member for the city of Dublin, however, to the fact, that under that act there had been great collision between the spiritual authorities in Ireland and grand juries. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there should be a Roman Catholic clergyman appointed. Who was to have that appointment? Was it the magistrates who were to have it, or was there to be any veto on the subject? If they did not make regulations on that subject, they would have the interference of the bishops. A magistrate might appoint a chaplain, and the Roman catholic bishop might interdict the appointment by
198
saying, "He is not the chaplain I wish for, and I cannot sanction his appointment." If they did not combine with the principle very strict regulations, there would be no end to religious differences. He did not wish to pronounce any decided opinion against the proposition: he merely wished, that it should be postponed, he did not think they were undermining the principles of the establishment if, in the case of gaols, they made provisions which they could not, in other cases, consent to; but he felt strongly, that in introducing this principle for the first time in England, it was absolutely necessary to give the fullest and most mature consideration to the circumstances under which it was to be introduced, and to combine with it such checks as would undoubtedly prevent abuse, and remove all possibility of religious discord arising in the gaols. Under these circumstances, if the hon. Gentleman asked him for his assent to the proposition, he could not give it; if, on the other hand, the hon. Gentleman consented to withdraw it for the present—a proposal which he did not make for the purpose of delay, or from any insuperable objections to the principle—he was ready to give his consent to a proposition involving the principle advocated by the hon. Gentleman, combined with such regulations as should make it perfectly safe.
Mr. Thornelyread an extract from a report which he said he had received from one of the inspectors of prisons, to the following effect:—of the religious professions of 419 persons confined in the borough gaol of Liverpool in August, 1837, there were 216 Protestants, 174 Roman Catholics, 17 Presbyterians, and the rest of other persuasions. He understood, that in Manchester the Roman Catholics bore at least as great a proportion to the whole population as in Liverpool. He could not, therefore, for a moment hesitate to say, that whenever the hon. Member for Knaresborough brought forward, in any shape, a proposition for giving to those 174 Roman Catholics in the gaol of Liverpool, and to the Catholics similarly placed throughout the country, the advantage of religious consolation from their own ministers, he should have great pleasure in voting with him.
Lord J. Russellagreed with the right hon. Baronet, that they should not agree to a clause of that nature without its having been brought in a distinct shape

199
before the House He was of opinion that where there were 50 or a considerable number of Roman Catholics, or persons of the same persuasion, confined in a gaol, they should have religious instruction from a minister of their own communion; but if there were a certain number of prisoners of different persuasions, each wishing to have a favoured minister of their own particular sect, and that such wishes were to be complied with, it would defeat the object of appointing a chaplain for general religious superintendence, which did not belong peculiarly to any denomination of Christians, but to the general religious instruction introduced into the gaol. He would gladly support the principle, if properly guarded, but he hoped the authority and general instruction of chaplains would not be weakened by the introduction of persons who, without any real distinction of religious faith, might catch the earand influence the wishes of the prisoners.
Mr. Langdalewould consent to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet for withdrawing his proviso for the present.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed, the Committee to sit again on Monday.

Preamble
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from St. Peter's and another parish in the town of Derby, for the Abolition of Pluralities.