said, that in moving that the Middlesex Industrial Schools Bill be read a second time, he would content himself with stating that the second reading had the cordial concurrence of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lord Palmerston).

said, he felt it his duty to oppose the Bill, and should move, as an Amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months. He was ready to acknowledge the benevolent intentions of the promoters of the measure, and it was undoubtedly most desirable that juvenile criminals should be placed in reformatory establishments. But he must complain, however, that this Bill would enable the county magistrates, over whose appointment the ratepayers had no control, to send young criminals to certain industrial schools, which were to be erected and maintained at the expense of the county, and thereby materially increase the burden of the county rate. He believed that if the persons who exercised this power were elected by the ratepayers there would be no objection to the measure, but the county magistrates were quite irresponsible and entirely unaccountable to those with whose money the present Bill would enable them to deal. The Bill also would increase the power of the bishop of the diocese, for it would enable him to appoint a chaplain to the school, who would be removable at the will and pleasure of the bishop, but whose salary would be paid by the ratepayers. It was further provided by the Bill that, when any child or young person was placed in the reformatory schools, such child should be maintained at the expense of the parish of his or her settlement, a provision which, in his (Lord D. Stuart's) opinion, was very objectionable. He considered that some general measure should be adopted with regard to the treatment of juvenile criminals, and he believed that a Bill which gave the power of managing industrial schools to persons who were responsible to the ratepayers would not meet with any opposition. He could not, however, consent to a measure which would place such enormous powers in the hands of the unpaid magistracy.

said, he would second the Amendment, but for very different reasons to those put forward by the noble Lord. He opposed the Bill on the ground of objections of a very special character. He considered that it recognised a principle directly contrary to that assented to by the noble Lord the Secretary of the Home Department in respect to the propriety of allowing criminals, on entering the county and Government prisons, to be registered according to their particular religious belief, and to be placed under the care of chaplains of their own religious persuasion. He was therefore surprised to hear that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had assented to the principle of this measure. This Bill proceeded upon the supposition that all the criminals to be placed in those schools would be Protestants of the Church of England, and it did not provide for the appointment of any other chaplains than those who professed the religion of the Established Church. Now the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had already admitted that that was an unjust principle, and therefore the Bill was altogether inconsistent with the understanding that such an admission conveyed. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

said, that the principle of the Bill was one of the greatest importance, and was universally acknowledged. Every one who had had experience in the administration of criminal justice must feel that the evil which this measure proposed to remedy was a most pressing one. Great alterations might, no doubt, be necessary to be made in the details of the Bill, but as he believed that they were all agreed as to its principle, he hoped that the House would at once assent to the second reading, and then refer it to a Committee, with a view to the removal of those objections to the details which might be urged against them. Although he concurred with the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord D. Stuart) that there should be a general measure upon this subject introduced by the Government, he yet thought that this was a case of the strongest nature to warrant an exception to such a proceeding. The Bill would embrace in its provisions a very large area, which was full of the evils it was now proposed to remedy. He trusted that one of the earliest pieces of legislation they would have would be the introduction of a general Bill of the Government to remedy those general evils.

said, he quite agreed that the object of the Bill was good, but he thought there was some force in the objection of the noble Member for Marylebone—that those persons who were required to support the proposed schools would have no control over the magistrates by whom they would be managed, and by whom the funds would be administered. He might observe that the 44th clause of the Bill enacted that every child sent to the industrial schools should be chargeable to the parish in which he or she was last legally settled; and it appeared to him that this provision would clash with the principle of the Settlement and Removal Bill now before the House, which was intended to abolish settlements altogether.

said, the objection taken by the hon. Member related to a matter of very inferior detail, and the opposition to the measure was based on a total ignorance not only of the Bill, but of the difference between principle and detail abstractedly. If the hon. Gentleman would consider the importance of dealing with juvenile offenders who had fallen into crime, he would rise above the discussion of petty details. To deal with children between the years of eight and fourteen in the same way as adult criminals were treated, by imprisonment and coercion, was altogether a solecism. It was a system which was not only not calculated to meet its object, but to ruin the whole country. This was almost the only country in the civilised world in which the necessity of dealing in a different manner with youthful and adult criminals had not been recognised. That principle had been fully recognised in Scotland, where reformatory institutions had been established by voluntary and private contributions, and where, in the city of Glasgow, a local rate was imposed for that purpose, under the authority of an Act of the Imperial Parliament. The noble Member for Marylebone had opposed this Bill on the ground that it would charge the maintenance of the children admitted into industrial schools upon the parishes of their settlement, while there was a Bill before the House which proposed to abolish settlements altogether. He (Mr. Adderley) did not think, however, that it was by any means clear that that Bill would pass during the present Session. He could not see how the great principle of local self-government would be affected by this Bill. He believed the noble Lord meant to say the principle of representation. But the representative principle and that of local government were not the same. He believed that the principle of local self-government would not be at all touched by the Bill; but if the noble Lord could show him that that would be the case, he would go along with the noble Lord in remedying that defect in Committee. He fully concurred in the objection that a general measure ought to be introduced on the subject, and could not acquit the Government of not having fulfilled their promise to introduce such a measure. One- third of the juvenile criminals in the kingdom were to be found in Middlesex; and therefore this measure would be applicable to one-third of England. That, certainly, was a very important step in the right direction, and he should support the Bill by every means in his power, not, however, releasing the Government from their promise. During the recess many very large meetings had been held to consider this question, and one of the most important deputations that ever waited upon the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department went away in the greatest possible state of exhilaration at the promise of the noble Lord to take up the matter and pass a Bill during the present Session. So strong was that impression that the parties broke up their organisation, trusting entirely to the promise of the noble Lord. They had been much disappointed at the non-appearance of any such measure, particularly as they were themselves prepared with one. When Parliament was willing to pass such a measure, the Government could only be released from such a promise by their being unable to fulfil it. He trusted, at all events, that the present measure would be pressed forward, even if a larger one could not be obtained.

said, he was also in favour of the principle of such a Bill, and of the Government introducing a general measure on the subject. The House was now discussing a question of the deepest importance without the presence of a single Minister. He called upon the Government to fulfil the pledge which they gave, but there was no one Minister in attendance to answer him. He concurred in the objection of the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart), that this measure had too much the character of a private and local Bill, when it ought to be a public one. It ought not to have the character of a private Bill. He saw with delight the proceedings that took place at Birmingham upon this subject, and he only wished he could have been there himself to support them. No one objected to the principle of this Bill; but the evil being universal, the remedy should be general. He considered that the objections taken to the measure by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment were valid ones. All the parishes in the county of Middlesex, with the exception of five, were prepared to carry out its principle, but what they objected to was, the means by which it was proposed to carry it out. He was almost disposed to recommend the adjournment of the debate until some Members of the Government were present. He would, however, advise his noble Friend to allow the Bill to go into Committee, when the Government would perhaps see that it was their duty to take up this question themselves.

said, he hoped the noble Lord would not withdraw his Amendment. In his opinion there were too many Bills introduced into that House as private Bills which were really of a public character, and that it would be advisable to appoint a Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the practice. In this description the present Bill seemed to be included; and he did not see how Members of the Catholic religion could assent to the measure, because of the principle which was involved in the 42nd clause. Should they allow the Bill to go into Committee they would in effect sanction the negation of the principle laid down by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), that Catholic children should be entered as Catholics.

said, he was not opposed to the principle of the Bill, but, as he thought it was not becoming the dignity or the wisdom of that House to establish such a principle in a private Bill when none of the Ministers were present to discuss it, he should support the Amendment. In giving an industrial training to juvenile criminals there would be great danger that you might expose the poor man with a large family, belonging to the class next to that which supplied the criminals, to great temptation, since, by sending them into the streets to commit some small offence, he could get them provided for for life. This was a danger which ought to he very carefully guarded against.

said, he must confess that he was at an utter loss to understand the force of the various objections that had been urged against the measure. One hon. Member objected that, while the Bill was in reality a public Bill, it was to be discussed as a private Bill. But what did that objection amount to? Was it not proposed to send the Bill before a Select Committee; and were not private Bills which were so treated much more completely discussed than public Bills that were not sent to a Committee? Another hon. Member said there was no provision made in the Bill for supplying Roman Catholic children with religious instruction in their own faith. Now, whenever a Bill was brought in respecting education, he was sure to hear something about religion introduced. If the Roman Catholics had a right to a distinct measure for themselves, why not the Mormonites? Then came the objection, that no provision was made for enabling these juvenile criminals to attain a status, and provide for themselves in future. But that was most absurd. The fact was, that the objections were not in reality directed against the Bill; they arose from a totally distinct source. It was a constant craving for power—power on the part of Roman Catholics—power on the part of Dissenters—power on the part of the Established Church. It was not an objection to education, to the Bill, or to the form in which the Bill was introduced; but an objection to the powers which it conferred. And what were they? Powers were given to certain persons to provide education for the juvenile criminal population of Middlesex. These, an hon. Gentleman said, amounted to one-third of the whole juvenile criminal population of the country; and surely that alone was a good and sufficient reason for passing the Bill. If they could carry a measure that would include such a vast portion of the criminal population of this country, for God's sake let them do so—the sooner the better. As to there being no Minister present on the Treasury bench, as far as he (Mr. Roebuck) was concerned it was a matter of perfect indifference whether that was so or not. If they could do good by passing a Bill of this sort without their assistance, by all means let them do so. If the Bill accomplished the ends it aimed at, it would undoubtedly deserve the benediction of the community.

said, he thought the facts that had been stated in the course of the debate conclusively proved that there were the strongest possible grounds for dealing with the Bill as a private Bill. The Bill proceeded with cautious and safe steps, and, in his opinion, deserved the support of the House. One of the objections urged to it was, that parents would be induced to encourage their children in committing crime, with the view of getting them taken care of in the proposed institution. But, on looking at the provisions of the Bill, he observed that the county authorities would have power, in the first instance, to resort to the parochial authorities, and that the parochial authorities would in their turn have power to resort to the parents, and compel them to pay the expenses incurred where they were in a position to do so. Another objection struck him as being of a most extraordinary nature. It was that the Bill did not proceed with sufficient care to provide instruction for criminals of different religions. But what did that amount to? A child might by accident be a Roman Catholic; but in all human probability the great majority of juvenile criminals were of no religion at all. And because the hon. Member who raised this objection could not secure to them instruction in some particular creed, he would leave one-third of the whole juvenile criminal population of the country to be brought up as heathens. The measure was also to be opposed, he understood, on the ground of the power it placed in the hands of the existing magistracy—and every obstacle was to be interposed to its passing until the establishment of county financial boards. Why, they might as well shut up all the prisons at once as attempt to carry out that threat. It would be just as logical to say that a prison should not be enlarged, or an additional cell constructed, because there were no county financial boards in existence to superintend the expenditure. The argument had no force in it whatever. In point of fact, the proposed institutions were meant to be a kind of reformatory schools, at the same time that they were direct appendages to a prison. Instead of sending an unfortunate child for twelve or eighteen months to a prison, where, by association with older and more hardened offenders, he became increasingly depraved and confirmed in his vicious career, the Bill proposed a more humane course, and, regarding him in the light of one who was scarcely at an age to be responsible for his actions, put him in a better atmosphere, where his moral culture would be attended to, and steps taken to render him in after-life a good citizen and subject.

said, he thought that the only objection to the second reading of this Bill which had any weight was that founded on its being a private Bill when it ought to be a public one. He was disposed to allow a good deal of weight to that objection, but it would not be sufficient to deter him from voting for the second reading of it. He found by a paper which had been circulated that morning by the promoters of the Bill, that they did not ask leave to introduce this Bill until they had ascertained that there was no prospect at present of a general Bill being introduced by the Government. Until he heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley) he was not aware of the pledge given at the end of the last Session, that a general Bill should be introduced; but as such was the case, he should be glad to vote for the second reading of this Bill, although he thought that it contained provisions which rendered it undesirable that it should follow the ordinary course of private Bills. It was true, as had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), that in some cases private Bills were more carefully scrutinised by a Select Committee than were public ones by the whole House. That observation would, however, only apply to Bills which were opposed; and though this Bill might be opposed, it would be opposed by the ratepayers, who would object to the Bill altogether, on the ground of expense, but who would not examine the provisions of the Bill affecting questions of general policy, and affecting a very large portion of the population of this country. He would, therefore, suggest, either that the Bill should, after passing the Select Committee, be passed through a Committee of the whole House; or that the Select Committee should be specially constituted for the purpose of securing a full and fair consideration of the provisions of the Bill—of such provisions, especially, as those which gave power to justices, upon summary conviction or otherwise, to send children to these reformatory schools, which would be of an essentially penal character, for a period not exceeding three years, and which empowered the managers of the school to discharge a child without any reference to the Judge by whom it had been sentenced. The objections of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) might be proper to be considered by the Committee, but if the House were to entertain such objections as reasons why a Bill should not be read a second time, no Bill of any importance would ever be so read. Another objection which had been raised to this Bill was the want of a representative system. The promoters were, however, bound to make use of the existing machinery, and he did not see that the passing of this Bill, giving additional power to magistrates analogous to the powers they already exercised on behalf of the ratepayers, would in any degree prejudice the consideration of that measure which the House had received a distinct assurance from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department he in- tended to submit for their consideration very shortly after Easter.

said, he hoped the second reading of the Bill would be agreed to. The county of Middlesex had sent a deputation to the Home Office in its favour; and the towns of Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, and other large communities, had held public meetings, at which resolutions were unanimously adopted for petitioning Parliament to the same effect. But now that a measure—not indeed embracing the whole country, but still a very considerable portion of the population of the country—was brought before the House, he grieved to see it opposed upon grounds to which he could attach no weight whatever, considering the great principle which was involved in the Bill. Two points had struck him, which had not yet been noticed in the course of the discussion. He understood the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment to object to proceeding with the Bill upon economical grounds. Now, he (Mr. Liddell) would take the liberty of reminding the House that there was nothing so costly as crime, and that even in an economical point of view, if they could succeed in reforming these juvenile offenders, they would thereby save a considerable expenditure for their future maintenance and existence. The other point to which he would advert was this. The House would remember that the sentence of transportation, as a secondary punishment, had been discontinued. We could now no longer send our criminals out of the country. They must remain here in confinement in some place or other, and when the term of their imprisonment expired, we ran the risk of turning them upon the country to renew their dishonest modes of living. Unless, therefore, we took some such step as the one proposed for reforming juvenile criminals, the country would be exposed to the invasion, in the course of a few years, of a mass of crime that it could not by possibility know how to dispose of. This, he thought, was an additional reason why the House should read the Bill a second time without further delay, and send it to a Select Committee, where it might undergo such amendments as would render it, in all respects, fitted for the object it proposed to effect.

said, he should support the Bill, which he did not believe would have the effect of increasing the expenditure of the counties. The expense of maintaining these reformatory schools would, in fact, be in substitution of the cost which was now incurred in the maintenance of prisons. The probability was, therefore, that the measure would not increase the amount of the rates paid by the county of Middlesex. He would suggest to his noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart), considering the very general accordance in the principle of the measure, that he should withdraw his Amendment.

said, that after the expression of opinion on the part of his hon. Friend (Sir W. Clay), added to that of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and the general feeling of the House upon the subject, he would not further occupy the time of the House, but at once ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill said, that the former Act passed in reference to this subject had brought about the establishment of free libraries or museums, and in some cases both, in no less than thirteen towns throughout this country. Among the first so established was that of Warrington, whose example was soon followed by Salford. Then a noble library and museum were founded in the city of Manchester, about 12,000l. being subscribed for the foundation of the institution, which was now supported by a rate levied upon the town. The number of books there amounted to about 16,000, and the issue of books in the course of nineteen months was 230,000. In Liverpool there had been established a library and museum, and also, in addition to that, two lending libraries, from which books were borrowed by all the working classes. A lending library had also been established in Manchester with very good effect. At Bolton, too, there was a library and museum, with a lending library; and he had received communications within the last few days announcing the proposed establishment of such institutions at Sheffield, Oxford, Cambridge, Stockport, and a variety of other places throughout the country. It might be asked, what had been the result of such institutions? and the answers universally were, that the result had been most satisfactory. Since the establishment of these libraries the taste for reading had greatly increased, and there was a manifest improvement as regarded the class of books read. History was now more read than it had been at the first opening of these establishments, and the best books were gradually superseding, in the estimation of the people, those which might be considered of a more objectionable character. The question was, whether the Act under which these libraries had been opened should be further extended? At present the Act was limited to towns under municipal government, and many towns in this country which had no municipal corporation requested that the Act should be extended to them. It was necessary, therefore, to give to towns governed under an improvement Act, like Cheltenham, and to places governed by a vestry—such as Marylebone—the power of adopting the provisions of the Bill. There was also a power given in the Bill for parishes to unite together for the common purpose of forming a library. Then, the former Bill did not extend to Scotland and Ireland, but, by the desire of many of the inhabitants, both of Scotland and Ireland, it was intended that the present Bill should extend to those two countries, either by the insertion of clauses having that effect, or, if it was considered necessary, by the introduction of separate Acts. By the former Act town councils were not allowed to levy a rate of more than one halfpenny in the pound for the establishment of those libraries, but, on the representation of the inhabitants of a great many places, he proposed the extension of that power to the amount of one penny. Again, in the former Bill, no power was granted to buy books or works of art; but that power was proposed to be given by the present Act. There was also a restriction in the old Bill which prevented the readoption of this measure within two years, if on its first proposal in the town it happened to be rejected. That restriction would now be abolished, and full powers given to adopt the measure at any time. It had been suggested that powers should be granted not only to purchase books, but newspapers. Now, he himself had no objection to such powers being granted, but in such a case he thought the newspapers should be apart from the library, and the library consecrated to those objects to which it was more particularly devoted. He was of opinion that much general good must result from the establishment of those libraries. In the first place, they would supply to the working classes works of a standard character. Then they might be made to illustrate the local history of the counties and places in which they were established, and to exhibit specimens of its geology and natural formation. While improving the intellectual capacities of the working classes, they would tend to advance the religious and moral welfare of those classes; and, believing this, he hoped the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill.

said, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he was sorry to see that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board was not in his place, because he wished to hear what view he took with respect to the heavy burden which would be thrown upon the poor rate. By this measure it was proposed to give power to tax the parishes to the extent of one penny in the pound; the whole amount of the rate levied for the relief of the poor being only about a shilling in the pound. This Bill made an important alteration in the present law, by shifting the option of adopting its provisions in towns governed by municipal corporations from the ratepayers to the town council. The effect of this would be to deprive the poor people who would have to pay the rates of any direct control over their imposition. This would require careful consideration, for it was a very serious thing to give the town councils a power to add one penny in the pound to the poor rate, and to take the poor rate and apply it to other purposes.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) that this was a question of considerable importance, because it was providing the better class with the means of procuring information, while one-half of the population, from not being able to read, were unable to appreciate the advantage placed within their reach. Last Session he had pressed the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to consider whether some measure of general education to prepare for the establishment of these libraries ought not to occupy the attention of the House. He (Mr. Hume) was aware of the great difficulty which attended the subject, but it was a matter of great regret and mortification to every one who saw the ignorance of the people, particularly in country districts, that they were not able to adopt any educational measure in consequence of the extreme views of different sects upon the subject. Now, religion, he thought, was designed for the improvement of the condition of mankind, instead of which it seemed to be made use of in this question only to breed discord and difference. It was remarkable to see the number of persons summoned upon a coroner's jury who were unable to sign their names, and he wished the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department would call for a return showing how many of such individuals could not write. He should, however, support the second reading of the Bill.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Bill had stated no reason for making so important an alteration in the Act passed only four years ago, as taking the option of adopting its provisions from the ratepayer, and giving it to the town council. He could see no reason for this alteration, but a very good one against it. The provisions of the present Act prevented the inhabitants of large boroughs, who might be unable to avail themselves of the advantages of the library, from being taxed for its support. That protection, however, was now to be taken from them. Again, it was now proposed to join three or four country parishes together for the purpose of supporting a library. Was it really intended to tax the poor cottager who now paid to the poor rate for this purpose? He thought that it was desirable to hear the opinion of Her Majesty's Government upon this question; but as none of its Members were then present, he would move that the debate should be adjourned.

said, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) had expressly stated that he proposed to give the option of adopting the Bill to the town councils of municipal boroughs, because this principle had been already adopted with respect to baths and washhouses; and he could see no reason why a different course should be adopted in the two cases. He was in a position to state that nothing could be more popular than these libraries in the large towns of Manchester and Salford, where they had been some time established. Nor could anything, in his opinion, be more beneficial. He believed that the establishment of libraries and the diffusion of instruction amongst the people would be the best means of police that could be established. He had rather see the people governed through their minds than by physical force, and would therefore support any measures that had a tendency to spread the blessings of education amongst them. It was said that the effect of this Bill would be to augment the poor rate, but he believed that in reality its effect would be to promote social improvement to such an extent as would in the end lead to a diminution of the poor rates.

thought that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had given the most extraordinary reason for altering the present law respecting public libraries. The hon. Gentleman had stated that there was a precedent for the alteration now proposed to be made in the Act which gave the power of levying a rate for the establishment of baths and washhouses, but that did not appear to him to be a fair precedent. Both educated and uneducated persons might use the baths and washhouses, but it was only the educated portion of the community who would be able to take advantage of the public libraries. It was only fair to let that part of the population which could not read know that they were going to be taxed to the extent of one penny in the pound for an object from which they could derive no possible advantage. It appeared to him that the introduction of this Bill tended to show that the number of libraries which it was anticipated would be established at the passing of the Act now in force had not been established; but, in his opinion, it would become the Government to state what course they deemed it advisable to adopt. The House had just passed a most important and, he believed, most beneficial private Bill without any remark being made by any Minister, and now, when there was a public Bill before the House which proposed to repeal an Act passed only four years ago, not a single Minister had expressed any opinion on the subject. If the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department did not state to the House what was the course proposed to be taken by the Government, he should certainly vote for the adjournment of the debate.

said, he must apologise for the absence of the Members of the Cabinet, by stating that they were all occupied by their official duties. The noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) had, however, told him what the views of the Cabinet were upon this question. The Act at present in force had been in operation for so short a period, that there had not been sufficient time to afford an opportunity of testing its results, and, therefore, the Government were of opinion that it would hardly be prudent for the House to consent to the present proposal, and still less so, as the present Bill was founded on a principle the direct opposite to that of the Act now in operation. The question had been so well argued, that he could only repeat that the argument appeared to him irresistible, that, while by the present law a rate could be levied by the consent of the majority of the ratepayers, good reason should be shown for taking away that power from the ratepayers and vesting it in the town council. As far as he understood the general feeling of the House and the principles of modern legislation, both were in favour of giving the ratepayers as much voice as possible in the management of their own affairs; and a large portion of ratepayers would not be contented with a rate levied by the town council without their consent. This was the view the noble Lord the Member for London took of this question, and that noble Lord had requested him, in the unavoidable absence of any Member of the Cabinet, to state that opinion to the House.

said, he thought the Government had no right to delegate even to the hon. Gentleman the expression of their opinion on the subject, but that if they intended to oppose the Bill, the noble Lord the Member for the City (Lord J. Russell) ought to have been present, in order to bring the whole weight of the Government to bear upon the decision of the question. In answer to the objections which had been made to entrusting the corporations with the power of establishing these institutions, he must remind the House that our town councils were representative bodies, elected by and responsible to their fellow-citizens; and that it might, therefore, be fairly presumed that they would not levy any rates which they believed would be obnoxious to their constituents. The Act now in operation had been most gratefully received by the largest and most populous of our towns, who were exceedingly desirous for the alterations in the law which would be introduced by the present measure. He was sorry to see that Her Majesty's Government were taking a course which would tend to discourage the noble efforts which the people of this country were making for the diffusion of education.

said, that the present measure was not confined to those places only which were under the operation of the Towns Improvement Act, but that it extended to all towns with a population exceeding 8,000 persons. The Act passed in the year 1850 enabled municipal bodies, by a vote of two-thirds of the ratepayers, to adopt the provisions of that Act, while by the Bill of the hon. Member for Dumfries it was proposed to vest the sole power in the town council. The question had been argued as if, by opposing this Bill, the people of this country would be prevented obtaining that which it was most desirable that they should obtain—he meant the fullest means of improvement; but that was not, he considered, a sound argument. So strong were his objections to the Bill that he should request the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) to withdraw his Amendment, for the purpose of moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, he was quite ready to withdraw his Motion, and leave it to some other hon. Member to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He had only moved the adjournment of the debate in order that the opinion of the Government might be given; that had since been done by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Fitzroy.)

said, he objected to this course. If the House rejected the Bill, it would appear to the country that they objected to its principle. Now, in fact, what was objected to was merely the giving of an increased power to town councils, which was a detail that might be amended in Committee. He hoped, therefore, that they would agree to an adjournment, in order to give the Government an opportunity of making up their minds on the subject.

said, he would now move, as an Amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months.

said, he must call upon the Government to explain why they wished to postpone the second reading of the Bill for six months. Was it that they might bring in a better measure, or had they any other measure? He thought it would be most improper to reject such a measure without telling the country why; for this would in fact be telling the people that they were not capable of judging for themselves whether it was desirable to establish those institutions.

said, he had no doubt that the Government would bring in a Bill on this subject, but he feared it would not be for some time. He must beg the House to recollect that this Bill would confer a real practical benefit upon the people; and that while a large number of petitions had been presented in its support, not one against had been laid on the table of the House. He would, therefore, put it to the Government whether they would prevent the Bill from going into Committee, where, if it was thought desirable, the clause with respect to the levying of the rates might be struck out, while those other portions of the Bill which related to the extension of libraries might be preserved.

said, that as a friend of education in every practical shape, he would support the second reading of this Bill. He, for one, was sorry that they were obliged to depend upon such small means—such infinitesimal instalments—for the education of the people, instead of upon some larger and comprehensive measure brought forward by the Government for the whole country. While, however, he supported the second reading, he must say that he thought it ought to be left to ratepayers to levy the rate, rather than the town council.

said, that he was quite prepared to give a hearty support to any measure of this kind which he thought was likely to be attended with practical benefit; and he would at this stage have overlooked minor defects which might have been amended in Committee. But the fourth clause, which gave to town councils the power of imposing rates for the support of public libraries, without any appeal to the ratepayers, appeared to him to be so objectionable, that he must oppose the second reading, seeing that this clause did, in effect, embody the principle of the Bill. He took that course with great reluctance, because he believed that the object and intention of the measure were thoroughly good; and, if its supporters would omit the objectionable provisions to which he referred, and would confine themselves to the introduction of a large extension and amendment of the Act of 1850, he should be glad to give them his cordial support.

said, that the objection which the Government entertained to this Bill was, that it took out of the hands of the ratepayers, and gave to the town council alone, the option of laying a rate on a municipal borough, for an object which could hardly be considered as one of those necessaries for the provision of which the corporation should be entrusted with the power of levying local taxation. Only four years ago an Act was passed enabling two-thirds of the ratepayers to tax their fellow citizens for the support of public libraries. That Act had not yet been fully and fairly tried, and it was, therefore, he considered, not desirable to pass another until it was seen whether an adequate provision of libraries could not be made under its provisions. It was to the fourth clause, which contained the provision to which he referred, and not to the whole Bill, that the Government objected; because they thought that, until the existing Act had been fairly tried, it was not desirable that the option of levying a rate should be taken from the ratepayers and transferred to the town council.

said, he could not see Why there should be so much delicacy about entrusting town councils with a power to tax the ratepayers for the support of libraries, when they bad been invested with such extensive powers of taxation for other purposes. He believed that the establishment of a public library would be discussed by a town council in a very different manner from that in which they entertained questions relating to any other expenditure. It would engage the attention of the most educated class in each borough, and would therefore receive a much more deliberate and calm consideration than was bestowed upon other matters. That being the case, he really thought that when town councils were entrusted with power to expend scores of thousands of pounds for waterworks and gasworks, for lighting, paving, &c., the power to levy the small rate which was contemplated by this Act might safely be entrusted to them. He was surprised that the Government should oppose the second reading of this Bill upon the grounds which they had alleged, especially as, hitherto, they had not been very scrupulous in allowing Bills to go to a second reading. He more particularly alluded to the Truck Bill, and the Bill respecting the Hosiery Trade and the Payment of Wages Bill. Here, however, was a measure against which there was really no opposition in the country, yet the Government resisted it. The objection of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) was not against the principle, and it might be obviated in Committee.

said, he should support the Bill. Several petitions had been presented from Scotland to have the benefits of the former Libraries Act extended to Scotland, and it was part of the object of the present Bill to make that extension. It was desirable, therefore, that the Government should not in any way check the desire that was arising in the country for the advantages of education, and of all education he thought that self-education was the best possible kind of education.

said, that in reference to what had fallen from the last speaker, during last Session he brought in a Bill to extend the former Libraries Bill to Scotland and Ireland; and, though he was in favour of the extension of the system of public libraries, he conceived that the experiment would not be fairly tried under the proposed Bill.

said, that the Bill referred to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fortescue) for extending the operation of the Act of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) to Scotland had been found unworkable. The present Bill, he believed, would confer great educational advantages on Scotland as well as upon this country, and he believed if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate were present, he would support it.

said, there was a strong feeling throughout the kingdom on the subject of education. In the district with which he was more immediately connected there was a strong desire to acquire knowledge, and several libraries had been established for the use of the working classes. He hoped Government would allow the Bill to go to a second reading; and, if necessary, objections of detail could be overcome in Committee. If we extended education, we should empty our gaols, and do much to promote religious feeling.

said, he regarded the fourth clause of the proposed measure as a main feature in the principle of the Bill; for it was obvious that, if that clause were expunged, the Bill must be altogether reframed. Undoubtedly his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) had a right to have any measure brought forward by him of this nature treated with respect, considering the exertions he had made for the intellectual advancement of the people. He believed the Bill his hon. Friend succeeded in passing through Parliament four years ago was forming the foundation of a very valuable source of improvement in our municipal towns; but if it were intended to carry the principle of that Act still further, looking at it as a means of extending information (and these institutions must be regarded in that light only, and not strictly as educational establishments), he believed they could not take a worse course than by attempting to force it upon those who might be reluctant to accept it. If they left it to the town councils to establish those libraries, in many of the towns the ratepayers would look upon it as a tax imposed upon them for the pupose of providing a library and meeting room for the members of the town council. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not consent to the second reading of the Bill. If it were considered necessary to amend the Act brought in by his hon. Friend four years ago, or the subsequent measure to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Fortescue) had alluded, let his hon. Friend withdraw the present measure, and introduce another confined to that purpose and to the same principle.

was much surprised at there being any opposition to the Bill, and much more at the quarter from whence it proceeded. Although the Bill was not strictly an education Bill, it had an educational tendency, and thus, by circulating information, its effect would be to discourage and prevent crime. In the borough which he had the honour to represent, a large and excellent free library had been established under the existing law; it was attended by great numbers of the working classes; and he could see no objection to extend the powers already possessed for so meritorious a purpose. As to the complaint that the Bill gave municipal councils and representative vestries power to tax the people, that he contended was not a valid objection, because those bodies were elected by the people; and if they taxed the ratepayers improperly, the ratepayers would remove them. He did not think the objection raised to the fourth clause was tenable, and he hoped, therefore, that the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time.

said, he must deny that the fourth clause contained the principle of the Bill—it was only part of the details. The same question was so held in the year 1850, and he could see no reason for viewing it differently now. He did not at all understand the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert). Was there no representative capacity in town councils? Could they not properly guard the interests of the ratepayers? He thought in justice, and in accordance with the rules of the House, that the Bill should proceed; but if the alteration was forced upon him, he must submit to it, though, at the same time, he was bound to express his astonishment at the fatal facility with which Government consented to compromises—the drift of which he could not understand.

moved the second reading of this Bill, which he said he had introduced with the view of the question being fully and carefully considered in Committee. The poor-law assessment was the most uncertain of all the assessments in the country, and he desired to remedy the want of uniformity by bringing all other rates and taxes under the same mode of assessment. He was anxious, when the Bill was in Committee, to consider the practicability of rendering it imperative that all assessments should be made after the mode of the Parochial Assessment Act. At present the assessments through the country were made in utter disregard of that Act. It was true that other modes might be adopted. Poor rates, for instance, might be assessed upon the basis of the property tax. He could point to instances in the City and the suburbs where two houses, precisely alike in every respect, were rated, one at 35l. a year, and the other at 95l. And if the House would look at the assessments of various parishes to the poor rates, and compare them with that to the property tax, they would soon find such differences as would convince them that some legislation was assuredly necessary. It might be objected that, if this Bill became law, it would abolish the assessments under various local Acts. He admitted at once that that was his object, because nothing could be more objectionable, for such assessments were made precisely to suit the will and feelings of individuals. In the course of the inquiries he had made on this subject, he had been startled at the number and amount of unequal assessments, and therefore he was very anxious that the House should take the subject into its calm consideration. He was aware that the measure was in some respects imperfect, but it might be amended in Committee. For these reasons he hoped the House would affirm the principle by assenting to the second reading.

seconded the Motion. Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

said, he could not avoid stating, that he was unable to understand the object of the measure of the hon. Member. The hon. Member wished a uniform basis of taxation, but did not state what that basis was to be. The Bill of the hon. Member would be impracticable, and it was impossible to say how it would work. It had been drawn by some one not very conversant with the bearings of the subject. It might be very good to get all property assessed on one uniform basis; but this never could be done. As the Bill would not work, he hoped the hon. Member would not give the House the trouble of requiring it to be amended.

said, he fully concurred in the views of the hon. Gentleman who had brought in this Bill. No doubt, in theory, it was desirable to have a uniform basis of taxation for the whole property of the country; but when they considered the different modes in which taxation was raised, he feared the difficulties of establishing a uniform valuation would be found almost insurmountable. With regard to the poor rates, no doubt considerable progress had been made in Ireland in establishing a uniform rate of valuation; but he doubted whether a measure of this sort would be well received in this country. Every parish in this country had notions of its own; and the scale of value varied in different parishes to a very great degree. Then suppose the income tax was adopted as a basis, in the first place they had the assurance of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not to be considered as a permanent tax; consequently, when the happy day arrived when his right hon. Friend or some other person occupying his place should inform that House there was no longer any necessity for that tax—for the prospect was not entirely to be abandoned—it was quite clear that it would be next to impossible to establish a scale uniform and just in its operation. The machinery for the purpose did not exist. A uniform scale might perhaps be constructed, but it would require a great deal of consideration, and be encountered by great difficulties; and he certainly thought the Bill of his hon. Friend was not well adapted to solve the problem which he desired to elucidate. Under these circumstances, he trusted the Bill would not be pressed to a division.

said, there was no difficulty in doing the same thing in other countries, and why then should there be any difficulty in doing the same in England? In America the principle was carried out with great case and satisfaction, and he could not see where the difficulty was as far as this country was concerned. He wanted all these indirect sources of taxation removed and a general tax on property substituted. It was wrong to allow parties or parishes to assess themselves. He thought the hon. Member (Mr. Pete) was doing a great public good by bringing forward this measure. In Belgium the system worked advantageously, and did away with that constant change of taxation which, according to our system, proved so unsatisfactory and annoying. He advocated one system of assessment, and that system to be based on the poor rate. This would do away with inequality, and much of the abuses and objections which at present existed.

said, the system of valuation in England was very different to that of Ireland. By the English system great injustice was inflicted on Ireland, because Ireland was obliged to pay income tax on the full amount of the Government assessment, while in England, in some cases, not more than an income tax on an assessment of half the value of the property was paid. He thought the Bill ought to be rejected, because it was premature, and not calculated to effect its purpose. When a uniform valuation was established for England, as it was established for Ireland and Scotland, be should support the measure, but objecting as he did to the Bill in its present shape, he should move that it be read a second time that day six months.

said, he would second the Amendment, He thought before the present Bill was brought in, there ought to have been one uniform rate of assessment determined upon, and as this had not been done, it was fatal to the success of the measure. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

said, with the permission of the House, he would withdraw the Bill. He candidly admitted that the Bill was an imperfect Bill, and the reason was, that he felt a difficulty in deciding upon the basis, whether it should be the poor rate or the income tax. Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn:—Bill withdrawn.

, in moving that this Bill be read a second time, said that the object of the Bill was to extend the right of appeal given by the 14th section of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, to all cases in which jurisdiction was given by the 17th section of the said Act, in consequence of the agreement of parties. It was supposed that the actions brought under that clause would have been the subject of appeal, but it appeared that the right of appeal did not extend to cases where the cause of action exceeded 50l., and where the case was tried by consent of the parties in the County Court. The present Bill was intended to cure that defect.

said, that doubts having arisen as to whether the right of appeal extended to cases of contract above 50l., in which the parties agreed to come within the jurisdiction of the County Court, it was very desirable that the question should be settled, and he thought there could be no objection to the second reading of the Bill.

said, he wished to take advantage of the present discussion to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Commission appointed to inquire into the state and working of the County Courts, and more especially in reference to the table of fees and of costs to be established in those courts. The judges of the County Courts were in a most unpleasant predicament, on account of the costs in their courts being so large. There had been great delay in the adjustments of the scale of fees, and the business of the courts was coming to a deadlock for want of a settlement of the question. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to give some information as to when the Commissioners would present their Report.

said, in reference to the Bill now before the House, that when parties consented to refer their cause to the County Court, be looked upon it as if they had referred it to an arbitrator; and it did not seem reasonable that they should afterwards, in every case, have a right of appeal.

said, the 17th clause of the Act did not constitute the County Court Judge an arbitrator, but gave him jurisdiction in cases above 50l. with the consent of the parties.

said, he wished to recall the attention of the noble Lord (Visct. Palmerston) to the question just put to him by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Phinn) respecting the fees paid by suitors in the County Courts. The amount of the fees was enormous. By a return which he obtained last year it "appeared that the expenses in these courts amounted to 26½ per cent upon the whole amount of the money recovered by the parties. He had been informed that many of the suits which were within the jurisdiction of the County Courts were going back to Westminster Hall, where the parties could obtain a decision at less expense than in those courts. That was a subject which lie was sure the noble Lord would confess was one which called for immediate attention.

said, the Commissioners had not yet made their Report. As soon as it was made he should be ready to lay it before Parliament. With regard to the present Motion, he had no objection to the Bill being read a second time.

said, that from the system pursued in the County Courts the judges were only able to attend to simple contract matters. They were obliged to move about from place to place, so that they could only devote one day to one place. When, therefore, cases of a complicated nature—such as a warranty of a horse, or the right of distraining for rent, in which questions of law might be raised—came before them, before the inquiry was closed they were obliged to postpone it to the next court day. This naturally caused great additional expenses. Besides, it was doubtful whether the judges were really competent to deal with such questions. It should be remembered that they were acting singly, without being watched either by the public or by the profession, while great power was thrown into their hands. He had occasion to bring a case before the noble Lord the Home Secretary where it was felt that justice had not been done by a County Court judge, and he was informed that that was by no means a solitary instance. He therefore hoped, if the House extended the jurisdiction of the County Courts, that they would at the same time provide a power of appeal against the decisions of the judges of those courts.

said, that the view which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) had taken of this Bill, relative to extending the right of appeal to cases exceeding 50l., was that which he (Mr. Fitzroy) first took of it. It struck him that persons going into the court voluntarily, under the power given to them by the 17th section of the County Court Act, were in a perfectly different position from that of persons who were dragged into the court against their will. Having assented to refer their case to the County Court judge, it seemed contrary to common sense that on the decision of the judge going against them they should be at liberty to say, "We will now go to another court." This was the view he took on the first consideration of the Bill; but having made careful inquiries of those who were the best authorities on the question, he had been told that the 17th clause of the existing County Court Extension Act remained inoperative, because parties interested in cases which came under that clause were not much inclined to leave questions of law to the final decision of the County Court judge. The effect of the proposed appeal would be, whilst still leaving questions of fact to be finally decided in the County Courts, to enable questions of law to be carried to the superior courts; and therefore he would not further oppose the progress of this Bill. His (Mr. Fitzroy's) great object, two or three years ago, in proposing the extension of the County Court system, was not to alter the character of the jurisdiction of those courts, but he had thought that if they were competent to try actions of simple debt to the amount of 15l., they were able to try similar cases to the extent of 50l.; and he would even have gone the length of 100l., if the House would have consented to it. By recent legislation, however, Parliament had thrown an immense accession of extraordinary business into the County Courts. The Charitable Trusts Act, the Customs Consolidation Act, and other Acts, had tended greatly to impede the ordinary operations of these courts in adjudicating upon cases of small debt between creditor and debtor—the class of business which the County Courts were originally established to transact; and if the present system of accumulating other functions upon these courts were continued, it would soon become necessary to set up other local courts of an inferior character, for the purpose of discharging the duties from which the County Courts had been diverted by a higher, but not more important, class of business.

moved, that this Bill be read a second time.

said, as he had taken a part in the discussions on measures of this description and akin to it, he wished, at the earliest opportunity, to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what he considered the principle and what the details of his Bill. He approved of some of the objects, but not of the machinery of the Bill, and unless he could clearly ascertain that in voting for the second reading of the Bill he should not commit himself to the machinery by which it was proposed to carry out the object of it, he should be reluctantly obliged to vote against it. Last year considerable discussion was had on the subject of nunneries, and it appeared to be agreed that the object all ought to look to was to protect the inmates of convents and nunneries, first, with regard to their personal liberty, and, secondly, with regard to the disposal of their property. He confessed his opinion in respect to the first part of the subject was very much modified by what transpired in the course of the debates; and he certainly thought, with regard to an undue control being exercised over persons in convents, an exaggerated case had been presented to the House; but, as respected the necessity of some measure for the protection of the property of those persons, he did not think that the case was exaggerated at all. Instances were introduced in the courts of law of undue control having been exercised in regard to the disposal of the property of professed nuns. However pure and proper their spiritual instructions might have been in the main, yet it did appear that those institutions afforded great opportunities to evil-disposed persons for obtaining undue advantage over persons inmates of those institutions with regard to their property. He thought, therefore, it would be very desirable, and would be the means of obviating some very acrimonious and rancorous discussions in that House, if a fair measure could be enacted with regard to the property of those persons. It appeared to him, as exceptional legislation was always offensive, that they might treat these persons very much in the same way as married women were dealt with who were supposed to be under the control and influence of their husbands. The safeguards that he would suggest were, that no alienation of property should be allowed to be made by a woman who had taken a religious vow without those precautions being taken that were placed around a married woman. No deed or disposition of any property should be executed within the walls of the convent; and the person should leave the convent and appear before some high functionary, such as a Judge, and be examined as to whether the disposal of her property was by her own free will. He had been told, in private, that if such a measure were proposed in a manner not calculated to wound the feelings or offend the opinions of the persons who would be so examined, very little opposition would be offered to it. When he formerly made this proposal to the House, he believed he had the concurrence of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside). He (Mr. Phinn) still adhered to the suggestion, with this addition to it, that every disposition made by these persons should be revocable during their lives. Looking at the Bill before the House, it struck him that it went a great deal too far. The effect of it was this—it put the onus on parties who had property to prove a negative. Now, he did not think it was necessary to have any such provision in the Bill. It was a reversal not only of the ordinary course of justice, but of all the rules of natural justice and equity. It might be said, that it was very difficult to detect these things; but the very fact of a person being in a convent, and the notoriety that she was liable to those religious impressions and influences, were part of the elements upon which a Judge founded his ultimate decision. This plan of attaining the salutary object which he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had in view, he considered, was preferable to the machinery of the present Bill. The preamble of the measure was very obnoxious to the feelings of Roman Catholics. Again, its enactments provided that any act, deed, or contract executed, or entered into, or performed by a nun, should be deemed and taken to have been done under the coercion of her vows, and at the dictation of those who claimed authority over her as her spiritual directors, and against her own free will and judgment, unless proved to the contrary in a court of law. This, he thought, was a most objectionable proposition, and would amount, in fact, to saying that no woman should transfer anything to a convent. If that was the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman, let it be openly avowed. Was this first clause the essence of the Bill? Was it the principle of the Bill? Or, did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean, if the House should agree to the second reading of the Bill, to take it only as an expression of a desire on their part that some provision should be made with reference to these persons? He could wish that they could all agree upon some measure which would allay the irritation existing out of doors upon this subject. Could that be accomplished, it would go far to prevent the necessity of the hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers) proceeding with the appointment of his Committee, and would put a stop to a discussion which he confessed had been carried on in such a spirit as almost to make him come to a determination that he would never more take part in any discussion in that House.

said, he objected entirely to the hon. and learned Gentleman pro- ceeding with his Bill at present, because on its first reading a distinct understanding was entered into with the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department and with the hon. and learned Attorney General that the Bill would not be carried further than the first reading until the Committee on Conventual Establishments had reported. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had rested his proposition almost exclusively upon the celebrated case of the Blackrock Convent, and as the Misses M'Carthy were near relatives of his, he (Mr. Fagan) had paid considerable attention to the circumstances of that case, and would be able to show that the hon. and learned Gentleman was wholly in error in asserting that the deeds executed by these ladies had been executed by them at the dictation and importunity of their spiritual superiors, and in contravention of their own feelings and wishes. He hoped the House would forgive him if he felt it necessary to read some documents bearing on this case, which had been so often referred to, and which had been made the means of creating unjust impressions with regard to these communities. He had received a letter from Miss Catherine M'Carthy, his cousin, who was one of the ladies interested in the case he had referred to. It stated—

"As I have heard through a friend that our unfortunate lawsuit has again been brought forward to assist the prejudices of others, I beg of you to make use of this communication as a denial that at any time I have led others to suppose that the deed of assignment made by me, or my sister, was executed under the coercion of superiors, or through any intimidation whatsoever, but solely from the dictates of my conscience. It never was impugned by me. You may remember a conversation which I had with you after the decree of the Lord Chancellor, which partook of the same sentiments as above; by reference to my sworn evidence in the cross bill, you will find a clear statement of the case. I had written to John (my brother) at his marriage, assuring him that it was my wish that he would pay the money to the community, whom I consider entitled by law to it under the deed of trust, which, I again repeat, I was not influenced by my superiors, or any one else, in signing; the same I can assert on the behalf of Maria. As I have heard that you are on the Committee, I hope that by showing this note to the Gentlemen you may remove the slander from their minds, and obtain justice to be done to our convent, which has been so much maligned. I have been deeply pained by the manner we have been spoken of, and I am aware of your sympathy, for which may God reward you. The superiors do not know anything of my writing this note, therefore you may rely on its being my own sentiments."

The affidavits alluded to in the letter were not heard at the trial before the Lord Chancellor, the other side having objected to their reception on technical grounds, which they were legally entitled to do. Thus, the evidence which had been quoted by the hon. and learned Member in introducing this Bill had never been enabled to be contradicted. Then, again, there was the affidavit of Miss Catherine M'Carthy, in which she swore that she executed the deed of the 13th of March, 1844, of her own free will, and that the defendants never intimated to her that she would violate the vows if she refused to execute it. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the deed had been executed by the ladies under their vow of obedience to their superiors; but that was a total error. The vow of obedience had nothing to do with their property; it was under the vow of poverty that they gave their property to the community. In the affidavit of Miss Maria M'Carthy, which was to the same effect as that of her sister, she stated that the assertion of the bill filed by the plaintiff, that the deponent was not allowed to assign her share of the assets of her deceased father to her brother was untrue; that it was her own desire to assign it to the glory of God, and that she had executed the deed of the 29th of March, 1843, expressly for the benefit of the convent, free from all attempts at undue influence. He (Mr. Fagan) therefore believed that, if the whole of these documents had been admitted in evidence before the Lord Chancellor, the judgment upon the merits of the case would have been entirely different.

said that he had two objections to offer to the second reading of this Bill. In the first place, undoubtedly there was an understanding that the Bill might be brought in and read a first time, but that its further progress should be suspended till the House had decided on the question of the appointment of the Select Committee on Conventual Establishments. It was felt that the House might decide one way or the other—either for or against the Committee—but the distinct understanding was that the Bill should be postponed till some step was taken with regard to the selection of the Committee. On that ground, therefore, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to press the second reading at this time. But, he must own, that the Bill itself appeared to him objectionable. Everybody must admit that its preamble was a preamble that ought not to stand; it was full of assertions which might be well or ill founded, but they were not necessary for the enactment that was to follow, and they were calculated to give offence to Roman Catholics, which that House ought to be desirous of avoiding. The preamble, therefore, he thought on that account ought to be struck out. Well, then, he considered that the enactment was objectionable too. it was either too much or too little, and did not provide the means of accomplishing the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman apparently had in view. He (Lord Palmerston) could quite understand a proposition that nuns should be considered (as was the case in some Catholic countries) as civilly dead, and therefore incapable of leaving property to anybody after taking their vows. That was an intelligible ground—some thought it right, and others thought it wrong; but it would accomplish its purpose, and be simple in its execution. Now, this Bill went to provide that an assignment on the part of a nun should be invalid unless it was proved that it was made with her own free will and consent. The very arguments of those who supported this Bill showed that this enactment would be a nullity, because the assumption made was that there was a moral power and influence exerted over the will and the voluntary efforts of mind of those nuns, which they were unable to resist, and that they were compelled by a moral coercion to transfer the property they had to the convents. But, as he (Lord Palmerston) had said when this Bill was first brought in, if the nun, acting under this moral coercion, desired to transfer her property, it would be impossible for anybody to prove afterwards that the deed was not executed of her own will. The very assumption that a nun believed her welfare in a future state to depend on her executing such a deed—the very assumption that that belief was impressed on her mind as the consequence of taking the vow of poverty—showed that, in ninety nine cases out of a hundred, the provision in this Bill would be a mere nullity. He therefore objected to the second reading of this Bill, because it was contrary to the understanding that it should not be proceeded with; next, because the preamble ought not to stand; and, lastly, because the enactment would not accomplish the object its author had in view.

said, he could not refrain from expressing his surprise at the course taken by the Government on this occasion. He had certainly understood the noble Lord to say, when the Bill was introduced, that, having taken the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, he was favourable to the principle of it. But the noble Lord took this objection to the Bill—and his speech was on record—that the Bill did not go far enough, and that it did not render absolutely void any will executed within the walls of a convent. [Lord PALMERSTON: Hear!] Just so. He understood the noble Lord then, and he thought he understood him now. If the Government intended to oppose the Bill, let the opposition be of an open and manly character, and let the House come to a decision on the question at once. The noble Lord must have spoken under misapprehension when he referred to some understanding which he supposed to have existed, to the effect that this Bill was not to be proceeded with until the House had appointed the Conventual Establishments Committee. To such an understanding he had been no party; and it was a mere mockery for the noble Lord to make the progress of the present Bill dependent on a Committee which, according to present appearances, would never be appointed. He found that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) had given notice of his intention to oppose the nomination of that Committee, and it was an intention which very likely would be fulfilled. In fact, the hon. and learned Member had announced his determination to oppose the nomination of every Member for that Committee. It was a perfect mockery, therefore, to say the least of it, for the noble Lord to hand him over to the appointment of a Committee which, in all human probability, never would be appointed. He was perfectly ready to refer the Bill to any Committee of impartial and unprejudiced men. With all his respect for the noble Lord, he must say that he had utterly failed in his argument against the Bill. Neither had the noble Lord correctly stated the principle of the law. First, the noble Lord said that the preamble of the Bill ought to be disposed of. That certainly was disposing of it very readily. Had the noble Lord proved the preamble to be untrue, or ill-founded? He was not bound by the words of the preamble; and if in Committee it could be shown that it was not sustained by facts, he would consent to its being rejected. But was it the real objection of the noble Lord that the language of the preamble was objectionable? Had the noble Lord not resorted, for the purpose of defeating the Bill, to arguments which had been used against every Bill on the same subject? The noble Lord said that the Bill was all wrong in principle. In deference to certain Roman Catholic Members he wished to explain why he had attempted to frame the Bill in the mode in which it stood. When the subject of conventual establishments was first introduced, a good deal of excitement existed, and several members of his own profession, and also several lay members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, had said, if he could frame a Bill which would keep clear of visitation and intrusion into convents, and of everything offensive to them, but which, at the same time, dealt with property, that he should be considered as at perfect liberty to introduce such a measure to the House with the assurance of their support. Upon these occasions, he must frankly admit, his attention was directed to the analogy of married women. The noble Lord objected to the machinery of the Bill, but had not condescended to offer any argument in support of his objection. It was all wrong, the noble Lord said; but still he did not venture to assign reasons for his opinion. What was meant by such a course it was impossible for him to divine. There was no provision in the Bill calculated to give offence to Roman Catholics; all it did was to guard against the exercise of undue influence in the disposition of property. If a nun should bequeath any property—say 10,000l.—to a convent, the Bill gave the relatives of that lady—themselves Roman Catholics, remember—power to determine whether undue influence had been exercised upon the lady in regard to the testamentary act. Was there anything unjust in that? Let the people of England be appealed to, to declare whether there was anything harsh, oppressive, or insulting in saying that the Roman Catholic lay members of every nun's family should be the persons to decide whether their relative's will should stand or not? What chance would there be of ever getting any Bill on the subject if this moderate proposition should be rejected? Unless he greatly mistook the feeling of the people of England and Scotland, and of the whole empire, he thought Roman Catholic Members would act wisely in allowing this Bill to pass. It was framed with the fair and honest intention of preventing the alienation of property from Roman Catholic fa- milies to conventual establishments, of which several instances had been brought under the notice of our courts of law. In addition to the cases which he referred to on a former occasion, he might notice another which he was then aware of. Mrs. Blake, a lady of high character, had published a pamphlet respecting the case of her sister, who was in a convent. In an interview with her sister, Mrs. Blake said, "Surely, you will not dispute your brother's will?" The reply was, "I cannot help it; if I do not I cannot stay in this house, and would scarcely be received in any other." Under such circumstances, could it be said that these ladies exercised their free will? Could this be called a free disposition of property? The Bill was founded on the principle of law, that a deed executed under undue influence must be set aside, because the law of England abhorred undue influence. In all the legitimate relations of life—by which he meant relations acknowledged by the law—such as parent and child, husband and wife, master and servant, trustee and cestuique trust, attorney and client, in the event of the weaker party executing a deed in favour of the stronger they required satisfactory proof that the transaction was fair and honest. You protect the child against the parent, the wife against the husband; will you not protect a helpless woman against the influence which can be brought to bear upon her in a nunnery? In the M'Carthy case, where the poor lady hesitated to sign the deed and was as a dead woman, so that it was necessary to place the pen in her hand, the bishop, standing near, uttered the words, "Madam, remember your vow!" Under such circumstances, was it not evident that the lady was prevented from exercising her free will? If the noble Lord should succeed in throwing out the Bill upon the second reading, that was an event which he had the satisfaction of knowing he could not control. But, be that as it might, he must say he much preferred submitting the Bill to the decision of that House, and to the still more important decision of the country, than to consent to the mockery of sending it up for the consideration of a Committee which might never be appointed.

said, he had listened upon several occasions to the speeches of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just resumed his seat upon subjects similar to that which they were then employed in discussing, and he must say that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not, by the observations which had just fallen from him, thrown any new light upon the question under their notice. In making those observations, the hon. and learned Member had, to a considerable extent, misrepresented the arguments to which the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had given expression. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the noble Lord had designated the assertions which were in the preamble of his Bill as untrue. Such, however, had not been the case. The noble Lord had merely stated that those allegations, whether true or not, were simply unnecessary for the promotion of the objects which the framer of the Bill professed to have in view, and were of a nature which was well calculated to give offence to the feelings of Roman Catholics both within that House and throughout the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also been guilty of another misrepresentation. He had stated that the noble Lord had, upon a former occasion, complained of the Bill as being one which did not go far enough, while the course which the noble Lord had in the present instance pursued had been highly inconsistent with that statement. Such, however, had not been the sentiments with reference to the Bill which the noble Lord had, upon the occasion to which the hon. and learned Gentlemen referred, given expression. The noble Lord had then merely observed, that the Bill did not propose to go far enough upon the principles—the hon. and learned Gentleman's own principles and his views in framing that measure being taken into consideration. Now what was it that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed by his Bill to effect? He would ask the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) whether the first clause in that Bill did not go so far as to make void a deed devising the property of a nun to any member of her family—her father, her sister, or her brother, or even a convent—unless she should prove to the satisfaction of a court of law that such deed had not been executed under the pressure of undue influence? If that were so, it would prove that the Bill had not been framed with all the accuracy in the world. The Bill made no provision against the exercise of undue influence by a medical man. There was a trial now going on, not far from the metropolis, which showed that a medical man could exercise important influence over a patient. In ad- dition to the other arguments which he thought it right to put forward against the second reading of the Bill, was that which was founded upon the concurrence of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the proposition that the measure should not be pressed forward a single stage until the Committee to be nominated for the purpose of inquiring into the internal arrangements of conventual establishments had been appointed. Now, that Committee had not yet been nominated; but to-morrow the selection of Members to serve upon that Committee was to take place. Under these circumstances, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware of some insuperable obstacle to the nomination of the Committee in question, when he observed that he was fairly entitled to assume that it would never be appointed. If the hon. and learned Gentleman knew that there was some insuperable obstacle to the appointment of the Committee, which he said could never be appointed, why had he and those who acted with him wasted the time of the House with vexatious debates upon that question? The hon. and learned Gentleman must not be disappointed if he was occasionally opposed in a manner less bland and courteous than that which the right hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University (Mr. Napier) had at his command; but if he made assertions which could not be borne out, he must be met by reminiscences, which, though they might be unpleasing to him—[Mr. WHITESIDE: Not in the least]—would convince the House that he had not correctly stated the facts of the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that if he could frame a Bill which would not be offensive to the feelings of the Roman Catholic Gentlemen, some of them had promised to assist him in passing it into a law, but he must certainly acquit him of all appreciation of what was offensive to the feelings of his fellow countrymen, if, after he had read the preamble of this Bill, he could hope to leave an impression upon the mind of the House that he had complied with that requisition, and had introduced a Bill free from offence to the Roman Catholic part of the population.

said, as he had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member who last addressed the House, he would trouble them with a few observations with regard to the principle of the Bill, without occupying its time with acrimonious personalities. The hon. and learned Gentle- man had asked whether the effect of the first clause of the Bill would not be to nullify a gift from a nun to a brother or any other near relation; but a gift from a nun to her brother would be contrary to her vow of poverty, and that was the very thing of which he complained. It was clearly established in the Macarthy case that a nun had not the power of making a gift to a younger brother in consequence of the constraint of her vow. He was decidedly of opinion that those vows of poverty and obedience were contrary to the spirit of the constitution and to the English law. Before the Reformation the persons who took them were by the common law held to be civilly dead—mere ciphers in society—but the principle of our law now was, that every one was a unit in society, and yet it was said that a relation between two persons which had the effect of producing the civil death of one of them ought not to be treated in the same manner as a relation like that which existed between attorney and client. The preamble of the Bill was complained of as offensive, and, of course, everything must be offensive in a degree which conflicted with the religious sentiments of any party; but if the manner was not offensive—if the language employed was becoming and proper—it would be evident that insult was not intended. The point was whether or not the preamble was true? The other night the Government had introduced a Bill in order to prevent undue influence being exercised over voters at elections, but was it not the duty of the law to enable parties to dispose of their property as well as to give their votes freely? Did any one in that House believe that when a nun had taken the vows of obedience and poverty, which could not be dispensed with even by a Roman Catholic bishop without the sanction of the authorities at Rome, she was able to act of her own free will? The proposition was a monstrous one, inconsistent with reason and justice. He thought the preamble was necessary, because when the relation of a nun in all its incidents was referred to, we must go to the records of Courts of Justice to find what cases had arisen, in order to lay a foundation upon which to proceed. He believed that every portion of the preamble was strictly true, and he was of opinion that, according to all just analogy and right reason, this Bill did not go far enough, but that, as far as it went, it remedied a great evil.

said, that the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman proved the truth of the statement of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston)—that the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) did not by this Bill carry out his own proposition. In his opinion the Bill did not go far enough, and he did not believe that the question would ever be set at rest until the Legislature had made up its mind to recognise de jure that which already existed de facto—namely, the existence of conventual institutions in this country—and had then revived the wise law which treated those who went into them as civilly dead. His objection to the Bill, however, went still further. It dealt with a particular class of cases in which undue influence could be exercised; but it left untouched an important class which ought also to be made the subject of legislation, for the influence which medical men exercised over their patients upon death-beds called more loudly for the interference of the House than any case which had ever been proved against a Roman Catholic priest. In proof of this he would state a case in which he had been engaged as counsel. A lady who had a large property at her private disposal being afflicted with a dreadful kind of disease, her husband sent for a medical gentleman, who attended her for six months, at the end of which she died, and soon afterwards her husband learnt, for the first time, that she had left the whole of her property to that medical gentleman. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, before whom the case was argued, expressed their regret that, as two witnesses had sworn to the lady's sanity, they could not set aside the will, although they spoke in no moderate terms of the manner in which it had been acquired. He should wish legislation on this important subject to be undertaken in the spirit of the French code, which rendered it impossible for any woman to leave to a medical man or to a priest any property, except under certain restrictions; and the same restrictions ought to apply to the Presbyterian as well as to the Roman Catholic priest. This Bill most invidiously pointed to undue influences of a class which, he believed, were very rarely exercised, while it left untouched those of another class which be knew, from his own experience, were constantly exercised. Another objection that he felt to this Bill was, that if the Committee which had been referred to was to sit, its chief, if not its only duty, would be to inquire into the whole state of the law on this subject, and, looking to the immense importance of the measure, both as it affected a direct recognition of the existence of nunneries in this country, and as it affected our testamentary jurisprudence, it ought, if it were passed at all, to be based upon larger and broader principles, and not to be assented to until the opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been distinctly expressed upon it, and it had been considered by the House with proper deliberation.

said, that the sentiments of the noble Lord the Home Secretary seemed to have undergone a considerable alteration with reference to the principle of the Bill which they were then employed in discussing. The noble Lord had upon a former occasion expressed himself as being favourable to that Bill, and yet he had stated, in the course of the observations which he had made but a short time previously, that to its principle he was altogether opposed. He (Mr. Malins) had always been of opinion that the noble Lord was one for whose support they might look with confidence in their endeavours to keep the power of clergymen of all religious denominations within due bounds. But it might be that the noble Lord, and the difficulties with which the course of the Government was at present surrounded, was unwilling to lose the support of those Members of the Roman Catholic Church who sat upon the other side of the House, by taking any step which would be at all calculated to give them offence. That was, perhaps, the consideration which weighed with the noble Lord in taking the course which he had that evening taken with reference to the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen; and if so, it was obvious that upon the co-operation or support of the noble Lord in resisting clerical aggression, they could no longer place much reliance. One of the noble Lord's objections to the Bill was that it did not, in his opinion, go far enough. But was the noble Lord, he would ask, prepared to lend his aid in passing into law a measure of a more extensive character? If he would but give them an assurance to that effect he thought that the objection of the noble Lord to the measure before them was one which could very easily be removed. Now, what in reality was the principle of the Bill which the noble Lord had not hesitated to condemn? It was a principle founded upon the laws of the country, which stated that in those cases in which the disposition of property was proved to have taken place under the pressure of undue influence the instrument by which such disposition was made should not be looked upon as valid. The hon. and learned Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore) seemed to misapprehend the principle of the present Bill. He had cited a case where a physician obtained a legacy from a patient. He did not know how these cases were settled in Doctors' Commons, but there was a case where a gentleman had agreed to give a surgeon 25,000l. as a remuneration for his services. This sum was a trifle to the gentleman's large fortune, but it was decided by Vice-Chancellor Sir Lancelot Shadwell, and the judgment was afterwards confirmed by Lord Cottenham, that it must be set aside as obtained under undue influence. In fact, the principle laid down by Lord Eldon was adhered to, that where a gift was made to a party who stood in a confidential relation to the giver, then the burden lay upon the receiver to prove that the gift was the free and deliberate act of the party, or else it was set aside. This was the principle that was sought to be adopted in this Bill.

said, he must inform the hon. Member that, according to a standing order of the House, which had been framed during the present Session, no debate upon a question under their consideration could be proceeded with beyond a quarter to six, but should stand adjourned to another day.