Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

Court Judges had been increased, and as the time of some of them was not fully occupied, he did not see how the transfer suggested could be objected to.

tion to that change, provided everything else were placed upon the same footing. The police were introduced by England, but Ireland also supported 25,000 soldiers for the general purposes of the Empire.

MR. J. WILSON said, the hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in supposing that the duties of the County Court Judges were light. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that it had recently been found necessary to provide additional accommodation on account of the increase of busi-ject. He thought it was a fair matter for

ness.

MR. W. WILLIAMS said, if the hon. Gentleman referred to the Returns, he would find that even in the County Courts of the metropolis there was a good deal of time unoccupied.

MR. FITZROY said, the hon. Gentleman was not aware, perhaps, that in the country a great deal of the insolvent business was done in the County Courts.

Vote agreed to; as was also(37.) 107,4057. Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges, Scotland.

On (38) 56,950l. Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland,

[ocr errors]

COLONEL DUNNE said, that the generality of prosecutions in Ireland were carried on at the expense of individuals, and not by the Crown. But if the system of taxation was to be equalised between the two countries, he thought the same alleviation in regard to the expenses of prosecutions should be extended to Ireland as now prevailed in England. Another point to which he desired to call the attention of the Government was, that in England the schoolmasters under the poor-law were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, whereas in Ireland it was not so.

MR. M MAHON said, he trusted that some alteration would be made in the present system with regard to the appointment of Crown prosecutors. He believed that at present the failure of justice was in too many instances to be traced to the fact of effete nominees of the Attorney General having to contend with young, active, and more experienced men than themselves.

MR. BROTHERTON said, he wished to know if the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) would wish to see equality between the two countries carried out so as to include the payment of the constabulary in Ireland from local rates, as in this country, rather than be borne as at present by the Consolidated Fund?

COLONEL DUNNE would have no objec

SIR JOHN YOUNG said, he would admit that the present mode of assessing the county rates in Ireland was defective, and he recommended that the attention of Irish Gentlemen should be directed to the sub

inquiry, and it was one to which he was ready to devote his best attention. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) he was not at all disposed to substitute the English system for the present mode of carrying on Crown prosecutions. At the same time he was far from saying that the Irish system was perfect, and he believed that means might be taken, by a different organisation in the localities, for collecting the evidence in a more perfect shape previous to the trial. The subject had already engaged the attention of the Irish Judges, and in the course of another year he hoped that some satisfactory conclusion would be arrived at.

MR. F. SCULLY said, he thought the aged gentleman at present filling the office of Crown prosecutor in Ireland, should be got rid of, and by that means the system of public prosecutions could be amended.

MR. M MAHON said, it was impossible to have justice in Ireland unless the English system were adopted in respect to the prosecution of criminals. Vote agreed to.

(39.) 36,000l. Police of Dublin.

MR. W. WILLIAMS said, he very much objected to the payment of this sum out of the Consolidated Fund. There might be some reason why the general police force should be placed on the fund-they were partly a military force; but he could see none for the Metropolitan Police.

Vote agreed to; as was also

(40.) 240,000l. Certain Charges formerly paid out of the County Rates. On (41) 16,8391. General Superintendence.

MR. LUCAS said, he had a Motion in connexion with this Vote to bring before the House, which would create discussion, as it referred to the treatment of Roman Catholic prisoners. It was, he thought, too late to discuss it then, and he considered that it would be better that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

After short discussion on postponement, LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, he had no objection to take the discussion on the bringing up the Report; but he could not consent to stop the progress of the Committee now, merely because the hon. Gentleman was not ready to make his statement. Vote agreed to.

(42.) Motion made, and Question proposed

"That a sum, not exceeding 407,6677., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Government Prisons and Convict Establishments at Home, to the 31st day of March 1854." MR. LUCAS moved that the Chairman do report progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, he trusted the Committee would not agree to the proposal. There was certainly no reason for reporting progress so early as eleven o'clock.

garded this question, under the management of the Home Secretary. What provision, then, was made for the religious instruction of Roman Catholic prisoners? None either in England or Scotland-with the exception of Millbank. Now he wanted to have an opportunity of laying the whole of this case before the Committee in detail; for it was impossible, without discussion, that so gross an injustice and absurdity should continue to be perpetrated. The motive of prison discipline was reformation; but with regard to Roman Catholic prisoners, reformation was begun with a profession of hypocrisy. The case was a grave one-it would require an answer from the Government, and it would certainly lead to a lengthened discussion on the part of Gentlemen who took the same view as himself. He had, therefore, no alternative but to press his Motion. To take the division now and the discussion afterwards was an absurdity, and he had only proposed it by way of joke.

MR. LUCAS said, the noble Lord had MR. VERNON SMITH thought the put the case as if he (Mr. Lucas) was not proposition of the hon. Gentleman very prepared to bring on the question. He unreasonable; but if he was really deterhad not put it on that ground, but upon mined to persevere with it, he (Mr. Smith) the ground that it would lead to a longer begged to submit to the noble Lord the debate than there was time for this even-leader of the House whether, with a view ing, and because several hon. Gentlemen to the expedition of business, it would not who wished to take part in the discussion be better at once to postpone the present were now absent. In the details append- vote, and proceed with others to which ed to the Vote he found several sums, there was less objection. He begged at amounting to 4,5201., for chaplains and the same time to express a hope that the other religious instructors in these prisons. noble Lord the Secretary of State for the In the vote for Irish prisons, sums were Home Department would take an early included for Protestant chaplains, for Ro- opportunity of giving the House some exman Catholic chaplains, and for Presby-planation on the kindred subject of transterian chaplains; in other words, in Ireland the fact was recognised that there were criminals of different religions, and some sort of provision was thus made for their religious instruction and reformation. But in the Vote for Government prisons in England not a single sixpence was asked for the payment of Roman Catholic chaplains, nor was anything paid in the local or country prisons for Roman Catholic chaplains, though a large sum was proposed to be voted for the maintenance of prisoners in those gaols. County gaols were entirely under the management of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; the rules were sent to him every year, and any alterations, amendments, or additions which he made were obligatory and binding upon the local authorities. County prisons, as well as Government prisons, were therefore, as re

portation. He found that there was an enormous increase proposed under this head, and it was mentioned that 120,0001. was to be taken "to provide additional accommodation for convicts on the cessation of transportation." Now he, for one, was not aware that transportation was completely to cease. There had been as yet no discussion in that House on the subject; and, from what he had gathered out of the discussion in another place, it was left in doubt as to what position the question stood in. He thought, then, that they were entitled to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department to give them some explanation of what this "additional accommodation" consisted, and also what secondary punishment he proposed to substitute for transportation?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, he had no objection to the course proposed by his

right hon. Friend with reference to the sent Vote. With respect to the very important subject mentioned by his right hon. Friend, it was undoubtedly desirable that, on some rather early occasion, the views of the Government with respect to transportation should be stated to the House. It would, indeed, be necessary before long to bring in a Bill on this very subject; and, either on the introduction of that Bill, or on the discussion of this Vote, the views of the Government should be stated by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

418 pre- MR. BLACKETT said, he wished to take that opportunity of putting a question to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. In a discussion which took place some weeks ago, the noble Lord, in speaking of the improvement which might be introduced into the Universities, used language to this effect-namely, that he should not invite the assistance of Parliament, unless the Universities should show themselves to be unwilling to propose certain reforms themselves; and he believed the noble Lord used the expression of "within the space of either one, two, or three years.' Now, there was a very unhappy vagueness about this statement; and he put it to the noble Lord, whether, in the interest of the Universities themselves, and in order especially to give the University of Oxford a fair notion of what he intended, it would not be better to fix some definite period within which, if the Universities did not bring forward some satisfactory measures of reform, he would think it his duty to invite the assistance of Parliament.

Motion, and Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Votes were then agreed

to:

(42.) 160,4657., Maintenance of Prisoners in County Gaols.

(43.) 69,518., Expenses of Transportation.

(44.) 244,0547., Convict Establishment in the Colonies.

(45.) 260,000l., Public Education, Great Britain.

(46.) 182,0731., Public Education, Ireland.

(47.), 44,4767., Departments of Science and Art.

(48.) 6,3401., Royal Dublin Society. On (49) 2,0061. Professors, Oxford and Cambridge,

MR. W. WILLIAMS said, that having objected to the vote for Maynooth, he felt himself called upon to object to this vote also. It was very discreditable to the two Universities that they should require this annual vote. He understood that the college revenues of one of these Universities amounted to 150,000l. a year, and those of the other to 180,000l. Now he must say, colleges possessing this vast amount of wealth ought to be ashamed to come upon the public taxes of the country for this vote. The House had a return a few years ago of the number of persons who attended the lectures of the professors, from which it appeared that the attendance was most ridiculous. He hoped, therefore, that the vote would be withdrawn.

MR. HADFIELD said, he also begged to enter his strong protest against this grant to the Universities. Those Universities excluded the majority of the people from the benefits which they yielded, and it was a piece of effrontery to tax this same majority of the people for the support of institutions from which they were excluded.

VOL. CXXVII. [THIRD SERIES.]

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, he must beg to be allowed to mention, in the first place, with reference to the Vote then under discussion, that it had been stated several times on behalf of the Universities

that they felt aggrieved that certain stamp duties should be levied upon them, especially upon taking degrees, and that they considered, on the whole, that they were more burdened by public taxation than benefited by the votes annually accorded them by the House of Commons. This statement he had certainly heard from quarters entitled to respect, and so far he might say that the whole question of this Vote combined with the burdens laid upon the Universities, was being considered by Government, and that if any arrangement could be made so as to render it unnecessary to ask for this Vote, they would be glad to adopt it; but at present, especially considering that the grant to those ancient institutions was the result of an engagement with reference to the civil list between that House and the Sovereign, he could not consent to withdraw the Vote. With respect to the question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Blackett), he did not think he had stated any specific time-either one, two, or three years-beyond which he should consider the Government were free to propose any enactment which they might think necessary for the

Р

government and management of the Universities. What he had said was, that he did not think it would be expedient to proceed at present-meaning in the course of the present Session. The hon. Gentleman had asked him to fix a definite time beyond which he would not delay inviting the assistance of Parliament; but he (Lord J. Russell) would rather not fix any particular time. Hs would, however, hold the Government free to proceed after the present Session he would consider that they were not bound to wait beyond that time.

the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge stood on a very different footing from the University of London, for which a similar vote would next be taken. Oxford and Cambridge had very large property belonging to them, and the system of education there was most expensive. It was very proper to promote the education of the people; but the most opulent classes of the country received their education at Oxford and Cambridge, and the charges were abundantly large. Knowing that those Universities were richly endowed, that they possessed many sinecure appointments, and that the higher classes alone were educated within their walls, he did think it inconsistent to ask the public to contribute the sum of 2,000l. under the name of professors.

latter not only excluded those who could
not conform to the established religion of
the country, but prevented any divulge-
ment of facts with regard to finances and
endowments, by the imposition of oaths.
They ought to look with great jealousy
on societies that would not give the slight-
est information as to what were their in-
comes, or how they were derived. They
must assume that their resources were
abundant, and, therefore, a contribution
from the State unnecessary.
He was a
great friend to education, and was glad to
see the system of instruction by professors
extended; but he thought the Universities
of Oxford and Cambridge had money
enough of their own, and should oppose
the vote.

SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS said, he must meet the statement of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) with a similar answer to similar statements. The hon. Member had periodically made the same complaint, and as the reply, in MR. APSLEY PELLATT said, he facts and figures, was the same, truth re- agreed that the University of London was quired that the same answer should always on a very different footing from the Unibe returned. The noble Lord (Lord J.versities of Oxford and Cambridge. The Russell) said, the Universities paid a large sum in stamps for degrees, &c. The Universities paid double the amount in stamps-double the amount, in fact, which was received in the shape of fees. The grant to the professors was an act of liberality on the part of the Crown, for the purpose of encouraging learning. The grant at first was paid out of the revenues of the Crown, but by an arrangement on the part of that House it had been transferred from the Crown to the civil list. It was rather too much for that House to say now, that having got the control of the public funds, they would put an end to the bargain. About twenty years ago, another hon, Member for Lambeth brought forward a proposition of this kind; and Mr. Spring Rice, the present Lord Monteagle, then one of the Lords of the Treasury, laid on the table the documentary evidence, by which what he had just stated was proved to be the fact. If Government would not exact the stamp duty on degrees, he had no doubt the Universities would not be unwilling to consider how their claim to the smaller sum could be waived. With reference to the time to be given the Universities to come forward with their plan of reform, the noble Lord specifically said to the Universities, Government will not interfere if you will consent to destroy professorial chairs, and disregard the willsmittee if he had the assurance of the noble and intentions of founders; but Government could hardly expect that the Universities would adopt such a course indicated to them. SIR DE LACY EVANS said, he thought

MR. W. WILLIAMS said, the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) had stated that this grant was the consequence of a bargain on the part of the Crown; but he would like to know who authorised the Crown to make such a bargain. Some of the Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge pos sessed estates yielding 10,000l., 15,000l., 20,000l., and even 30,000l. a year, and he thought it was most unjustifiable that the representatives of the people should be asked to provide lecturers for such institutions at salaries of something like 1007. a year each. He would not divide the Com

Lord that the Government would take these matters into consideration.

MR. DRUMMOND said, he thought the argument of the hon. Baronet the Member

for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H.) Motion made, and Question put-
Inglis) had been either entirely evaded or
overlooked. The argument was this:
That this sum was the property of the
Universities; that it was granted by the
Crown; that Parliament chose to take
upon themselves the payment of sums for
which the Crown was pledged; and now,
having done that, they wanted to break
the bargain, and come and talk there of
honour and integrity.

"That a sum, not exceeding 7007., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of the Theological Professors at Belfast, and Retired Allow

ances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution, to the 31st day of March, 1854."

Vote agreed to; as were also the following four Votes:

(50.) 3.9551., University of London. (51.) 8,0267., Universities, &c. in Scotland.

(52.) 3001., Royal Irish Academy. (53.) 3007., Royal Hibernian Academy. On (54), 2,7501. Theological Professors at Belfast,

Motion made, and Question proposed"That a sum, not exceeding 2,7501., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of the Theological Professors at Belfast, and Retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution, to the 31st day of March, 1854."

MR. MIALL said, he understood this Vote would be given for the purpose of religious teaching in Belfast. A majority of the Committee had objected to a vote of a similar character with regard to Maynooth College, in Ireland. The principle laid down was, not that they objected to the Roman Catholic religion as such, but to public money being given for religious teaching of any kind. In consistency, therefore, they were bound to refuse this Vote.

SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS said, the hon. Member could only answer for himself and the views which dictated his vote, but he for one had never scrupled to declare he objected to paying any money for teaching that which he conscientiously disapproved. In conscience he disapproved of the teaching in Maynooth, and on that ground he objected to the vote with regard to Maynooth; but that was not the ground on which he conceived himself justified in objecting to any other vote on the table of the House.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT said, the great objection of the Nonconformists was to any allowance of the State for the teaching of religion, and, therefore, he should join in voting against this sum.

The CHAIRMAN asked if the hon. Member for Rochdale proposed to divide ? MR. MIALL said, he should certainly divide the Committee upon the whole of his class of votes.

The Committee divided :--Ayes 21;
Noes 130: Majority 109.

Original Question put, and agreed to.
The following Votes were then agreed

to:

(55.) 1,6817., Queen's University, Ireland.

(56.) 22,7001., British Museum (Buildings).

(57.) 1,500l., British Museum (Purchases).

(58.) 4.2631., National Gallery.

(59.) 2,2007., Scientific Works and Experiments.

The House resumed; Committee report progress.

HACKNEY CARRIAGES (METROPOLIS)
BILL.

Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Speaker do now
Chair."

SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS said, he regretted that he should have to detain the House a few minutes on this question. The subject was one so new and important that he hoped hon. Members were in a better condition to judge of it than he was when the Bill was first introduced. By this Bill they were about to deal with property of one class, that in hackney carriages, of more than 1,700,000l.; and of another class, in cabs, of little less than 800,000l. When, in addition to that fact, he informed the House that the livelihood of many thousands of their fellow subjects in the metropolis was involved in this Bill, he was sure that any mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence would be merged by the House in the higher question of personal interests involved in the Bill. His own belief was, that a Bill of this sort was never passed unless it had undergone a previous investigation by a Committee of that House. He might allude to the subject of the Hackney Carriages Bill in 1835, and also to the Building Regulation Act, and to the Smoke Regulation Act, none of which were proceeded with in that House till they had been examined by a Select Committee. Had his hon. Friend (Mr. Fitz Roy), he would ask, satisfied the House by any statement which he had made in connexion with the measure under their

« НазадПродовжити »