Mr. Milnes denied that the reformatory system had proved a failure, the contrary being shown by the state of crime during the last two years, and he strongly urged attention to the treatment of discharged prisoners. Mr. J. Phillimore expressed his dread of returning to transportation, and protested against it being used as a secondary punishment, as it did not deter from crime, and hardened the criminal. Mr. Newdegate, having protested in 1853 against abolishing transportation, appealed to the increase of crimes accompanied by violence, and insisted upon the impossibility of establishing a system of perpetual imprisonment. Mr. Liddell inquired whether there would be any objection on the part of the Government to enter into a contract with the planters of British Guiana to supply them with convicts, many estates in Demerara, adapted to the growth of excellent cotton, perishing for want of labour. He thought the labour of convicts might be made otherwise available. In his reply, Sir George Grey gave explanations relative to matters adverted to by Sir J. Pakington, and, after a few words from Mr. Gibson, leave was given to bring in the Bill. Sir George Grey then moved for leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate the establishment of Reformatory Schools in England. It was not, he said, the design of the Bill to interfere with reformatory institutions, but to enable counties and boroughs to establish such schools out of the county rates. After some remarks by Mr. Deedes, Sir John Pakington, Sir S. Northcote, and other Members, leave was given. Another motion of much interest to law reformers was brought on by Mr. Napier on the 13th of February. The honourable and learned gentleman moved the following resolution : "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to take into consideration, as an urgent measure of administrative reform, the formation of a separate. and responsible Department for the affairs. of Public Justice." Mr. Napier described the existing evils arising from ill-drawn and redundant legislation; proposed as a remedy the appointment of a Minister of Justice; and named Lord Bacon, Lord Langdale, Lord Brougham, and Lord John Russell as authorities who had advocated and supported a similar proposition. He showed how essential law reforms had become; how opportune was the present time; how absorbed the Law Officers of the Crown were in their set duties; how there was no authority to receive suggestions from those who experienced practical difficulties in the application of the law, or to carry out those suggestions in the preparation of Bills; and he found the obvious remedy for this defect in the establishment of a separate department, like those for War, Trade, Health, and Education. The motion was seconded by Mr. Collier, who enlarged on the evils resulting to our legal system from the non-existence of a recognized officer, such as the motion contemplated. The Attorney-General said, in accepting, with a slight modification, the resolution proposed by Mr. Napier, it must be understood that the Government did not re cognize, as a consequence of adopt ing it, the establishment of a separate Minister of Justice. He did not consider at present that there was any necessity for the appointment of such an officer; he thought that all the objects might be carried out by the existing machinery; that it would be impossible to introduce into the Cabinet a Minister of Justice while the Lord Chancellor was there; and that it was perfectly within the power of that officer, if aided by a sufficient staff, effectually to superintend the administration of justice, and the contemplated reforms in certain of its branches. If the words" as an urgent measure of administrative reform " be omitted, he would not resist the motion, which would not be a mere barren resolution. t Lord John Russell said the speech of the Attorney-General consisted of two parts; one was a very powerful argument in favour of Mr. Napier's proposition, the other was eminently unsatisfactory; and he had not stated the views of the Government on the subject, but his own. Instead of a responsible Minister of Justice, he had proposed that the Lord Chancellor should have the assistance of a staff. But he (Lord John) did not think that the Lord Chancellor would have sufficient time at his disposal for the function of superintendence to be given to him. He hoped the words in the resolution proposed to be left out would be retained. Mr. Keating likewise hoped that the Attorney-General would not create a difference of opinion by insisting upon the withdrawal of those words, which made little difference in the frame of the proposition. He agreed that the legi timate head of the department of public justice was the Lord Chancellor, who was in natural connection with all the legal functionaries and tribunals. The Attorney-General said, as the omission of the words might be thought to impair the effect of the resolution, which was not intended, the Government would not object to their being retained. Some general and discursive remarks having been made by various members, Lord Palmerston observed while agreeing with the motion to give effect to the principles embodied in the resolution, that the debate showed that, with regard to any particular system of improvement, it was impossible for the Government to give any pledge. He thought that before the House consented to copy foreign models, and create a new officer, who must be a lawyer, must abandon his profession, and resign his office with the change of Government, it was right to see whether the object might not be accomplished by attaching this department to some existing office. It would be the duty of the Government to give their earnest attention to the subject. The motion was ultimately agreed to without a division. Two other questions, one affecting the political constitution, the other relating to the religious interests of the community, were debated during the short first Session of this year. One was the motion which had now been annually renewed for several Sessions by Mr. Locke King, to make the franchise in counties in England and Wales the same as was fixed by the Reform Act for boroughs, viz. the occupation of a tenement of the annual value of 107. This pro position the honourable mover supported upon the same general grounds as in former years. His object, he said, was to carry out a great constitutional principle, recognised in the Reform Act, that taxation and representation should go more together. His plan did not propose to disfranchise a single borough, or a single individual, it adopted the only mode of dealing with the great question of the franchise, that of treating all parties with equal justice. Lord Palmerston could not consent to the introduction of this Bill. Independently of objections to the Bill itself, considering the business before the House, he thought there was little prospect of its passing. With regard to the principle of the measure, he did not concur in the argument that the right of voting should be the same in boroughs and counties. He thought that there were reasons for maintaining a distinction; that each represented different interests in the community. The logical consequence of adopting this measure would be the sweeping away of all boroughs; for why should the artificial distinction and circumscription of boroughs be kept up? In objecting to the principle of the Bill, and to the consequences to which it must lead, he did not express, he said, any opinion that there should be no extension of the franchise in counties; on the contrary, he should be ready to consider a more modified measure. He, therefore, did not set his face against an improvement of our representative system. After some remarks in favour of the Bill by Mr. Headlam and Mr. Drummond, Lord J. Russell said that he did not think the Government ought to allege that there would not be time for the discussion of the measure; and with regard to the measure itself, after the change introduced in the county constituencies by the Chandos clause of the Reform Act, whereby occupancy as well as tenure, gave a right of voting, he could not but think that this measure was a safe improvement, and that it would tend to consolidate our institutions. He was prepared, therefore, not only to vote for the introduction of the Bill, but to support its second reading. Sir James Graham stated the grounds upon which he supported this proposal on the present occasion. The argument against a change in the Reform Bill, on the plea of finality, he now thought invalid, but the extreme difficulty of carrying a large and comprehensive change rendered such a measure, in his opinion, not likely to be successful. One of the measures of Lord Aberdeen's Administration was a Bill to enlarge the franchise, which was framed with great caution by the Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen, and, having been introduced by Lord John Russell, it was withdrawn on account of the war. In that measure, among other provisions, was introduced the precise proposition of Mr. King, with countervailing provisions. His belief was, that the measure would extend the franchise, in a manner perfectly safe, to men capable of independent action; and if he was to take a fragment of reform, he was bound to consider what was, at the same time, the safest and the largest measure. Looking at the question in this light, he believed this to be a measure that might be most safely introduced, and he did not hesitate to give his vote for its Member for North Warwickshire introduction. Mr. S. Herbert said, after the deepest consideration of the subject, he saw two distinct grounds for not giving his support to the motion; first, the state of parties in the House, and, secondly, the form of the question. It was true that the proposition was contained - in the Bill prepared by Lord Aberdeen's Administration; it was, however, not only brought forward by the leader of the Government in that House, but it was supported with the whole weight of the authority of the Government, and it was coupled with other provisions which tended to neutralize its effect, and to extend the value of the measure. He thought the present Government had exercised a wise discretion in not bringing forward questions which, in the existing position of parties, it might be difficult to carry, and he did not wish to put them into greater difficulties. Under these circumstances, guarding himself against being supposed to express any opinion as to the extension of the franchise, upon the grounds he had stated he felt it his duty to oppose the motion. After some remarks by Mr. Roebuck the House divided, when there appeared For the motion 179 192 gave vigour to his attack on this often-assailed establishment. Mr. Spooner's motion was in these terms-"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of considering the Acts for the endowment of the College of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal of any endowment out of the consolidated fund, due regard being had to vested rights or interests." He considered, he said, that it was his imperative duty, as it was that of every Protestant and of every Member of that House who had taken an oath of allegiance to the Queen, to object to a continuance of any payment to the College of Maynooth. After complaining of the unfair tactics which had been employed on former occasions to defeat his purpose, he recapitulated his reasons for opposing the grant, his chief objection being that it was a national sin. The Commissioners of Inquiry, he contended, had been misled, and their conclusions were unsupported by evidence. He adverted, as upon preceding occasions, to doctrines alleged to be inculcated by the Roman Church, noticing the struggle between the Gallican and the Ultramontane parties, and asked the House whether it was prepared to sanction a teaching which, he insisted, among other objectionable matters, postponed duties to the The motion was thus rejected by Sovereign to obligations imposed a narrow majority of 13. The second motion above referred to was the annually-repeated attempt of Mr. Spooner to repeal the Act conferring an endowment on Maynooth College. On a subject so often discussed, it is not likely that any novel facts or arguments should be adduced, but the unconquerable zeal of the hon. by the Church. The motion was seconded by Mr Kendall. Mr. Roebuck, declining to discuss questions of theology, charged Mr. Spooner with error in his historical account of the establishment of Maynooth. He (Mr. Roebuck) maintained that the grant was founded in justice, policy, and the highest principles of morality. The College was created for English purposes. The English ParThe English Parliament had sustained it for such purposes. As a matter of policy, it was the bounden duty of Parliament to meet the feelings of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, whose loyalty was unimpeachable, and not to insult them. Mr. Bowyer,, while he protested against theological discussion in that House, replied to some of Mr. Spooner's allegations as to the doctrines of the Roman Church, and denied the charge of Ultramontanism brought against the College of Maynooth. Mr. T. Chambers animadverted with some severity upon certain parts of the speech of Mr. Roebuck, who, he said, had not accurately stated the origin and history of the Maynooth grant. He contended that this was a plain question of morals and policy, well understood by the people of England, who would insist upon the repeal of the endowment. Mr. Serjeant O'Brien said the Roman Catholics of Ireland viewed this motion as a violation of a right guaranteed to them by a solemn act of the Legislature, continued for 60 years, and therefore as an act of unwarrantable injustice, rendered more galling by unfounded charges against their faith. It could not be shown that the exercise of the privileges conceded to the Roman Catholic laity had been injurious to England; their loyalty was therefore a sufficient vindication of the character of their priesthood. He trusted that the House would not, by sanctioning the motion, reverse a policy adopted by successive Administrations, and adopt a measure that, although exasperating in its result, would prove powerless but for evil, by creating in the minds of the people of Ireland a deep sense of wrong. Mr. G. Moore warned the advocates of the motion of its effects, if carried to its conclusion, upon another establishment in Ireland. This paltry grant was, he observed, only a small boon given to the Irish Roman Catholics in return for the property taken from their Church, and it was given for British purposes. Mr. Drummond said the question divided itself into two very distinct aspects. In the political aspect it was a bargain which could not be honestly broken; and was Mr. Spooner aware that he was asking the House to begin a new course of policy towards the Irish people? Upon the theological aspect of the question Mr. Drummond, apparently to the surprise of the House, pronounced an eulogium upon the Church of Rome, de claring that he would do anything rather than it should fall to the ground. Mr. Serjeant Shee asked the House to consider, before this endowment was withdrawn, whether justice had been done to the Roman Catholics of Ireland by their being, equally with the Protestants, allowed to provide for the education of their priesthood; and he showed that before 1795 such establishments were illegal, and that since then restrictions were imposed upon Roman Catholic institutions which did not apply to those of other subjects of the Crown. Mr. Newdegate briefly supported the motion. Lord Palmerston expressed regret and pain at the renewal of these discussions of matters which ought to remain between man and his own conscience. He submitted |