publications would put down the bad.

Mr. J. M.Gregor, Sir J. Pakington, and Mr. Maguire, also supported the motion, which was opposed by Lord R. Grosvenor.

Upon a division the first resolution was carried against the Government by 200 to 169, the second was negatived by 280 to 98, and the third by 275 to 80.

On the 1st of July the first resolution was again the subject of debate. The House having gone into Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a resolution that the advertisement duty should be reduced to 6d. He explained that he proposed to enlarge the space prescribed to newspapers from 1530 to 2295 inches, but confining that space to two sheets of paper, still retaining the duty on any supplement beyond that size. He offered this enlargement of space in lieu of his original proposal to abolish the duty on supplements altogether.

Mr. Milner Gibson then moved, as an amendment, that "all duties now chargeable on advertisements be repealed, in accordance with a Resolution of this House on the 14th of April last."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer justified the sixpenny duty upon the ground that it was fair in principle and moderate in proportion to the services performed. He denied that any special boon was intended to the large monopolists, and he believed the smaller papers would prospectively profit by the reduction of the duty. With regard to the penny stamp upon newspapers, he had instituted inquiries at the Post-Office, and found that the 400,000l. so received fairly paid for the actual labour created by the postal transmission of news

papers. The money, therefore, was fairly earned, although he would not say it was wise to levy it in that particular form. He admitted the impolicy of the paper-duty, owing to the peculiar manner in which it pressed upon the manufacture of paper, and which, therefore, was a fit tax for repeal, if the House so willed. With the advertisement duty the case was altogether different. This was simply a tax upon trade and labour, and he asked the Committee whether it was prepared to abolish all taxes of that nature? If not, there was no argument for the total repeal of the advertisement-duty. The motion, in fact, was simply meant as an attempt to subvert indirect taxation, and he warned hon. members that if they assented to the amendment, they would shortly find themselves called upon to go much further in the same direction, and that all the indirect taxes thus repealed must, of course, be relevied upon the valued property of the country. The surplus now left upon the estimates of the year amounted only to about 252,0007. per annum, and it would be dangerous to reduce it any further, at a time when great financial changes were being carried out. tion was, in fact, a trap for the substitution of direct in the place of indirect taxation, which he looked upon as "a delusion and a snare," and for which he had no desire to prepare the way, and against the consequences of which he warned the Committee to be on their guard, if they sanctioned the amendment by their votes.

The mo

Mr. Cobden accused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of having evaded and misrepresented the question. The right hon. gentleman had introduced various sub

jects for the purpose of mystifying the matter, and by threatening hon. members with further additions to direct taxation, in order to effect a repeal to the extent of 60,000l. a year, although he had boasted of having repealed 3,000,0001. of taxation in his budget, and had himself occasioned the pecuniary difficulty in the way of the total repeal of the advertisement-duty, for which there was a general demand, by making a change in the supplement-duty which nobody asked for. The tax was something more than a tax upon trade and labour, since it struck at the very foundation of commercial transactions, and restricted the intercommunication of wants and wishes. It operated as a bar to free competition amongst newspapers, and was advocated only by the larger and most prosperous of the public journals.

Mr. Spooner would vote against both the original resolution and the amendment, believing that the advertisement-duty as it stood was neither oppressive as a tax nor objected to by the country.

Mr. J. M Gregor supported the amendment, which upon a division was negatived by 109 against 99.

In answer to a question put by Mr. Milner Gibson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the tax would be levied upon those advertisements only which were at present liable to it. The advertising van system was about to be sup

pressed, and placards would not be allowed to be carried through the public streets. Mr. Milner Gibson then moved, that pamphlets and literary works be exempt from the operation of the tax. Mr. Bright, in opposing the resolution, said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive more than his miserable sixpence" from the letters passing through the Post-Office which the advertisements would occasion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to Mr. Milner Gibson's amendment relating to pamphlets and other literary works, provided they were not continued periodically. The original resolution was then debated at much length, and Mr. Craufurd moved that instead of "6d." a cypher (or "0") be inserted.

The

The Committee divided upon the question as put from the Chair, that "6d." stand part of the resolution, which was negatived by 68 against 63, leaving the Government in a minority of 5. Chairman then put the resolution thus amended, namely, with a cypher instead of 6d., and in that form it was carried by 70 against 61. When the House resumed, Mr. Hume wished to know whether the Committee was justified in adopting a resolution with a "nought" in place of 6d., the sum originally proposed, and the Speaker decided that there was no informality in the proceeding.

duced the impression to which he had referred, that the Roman Catholic nunneries were not, as alleged, societies of contented and happy females, but that the inmates were retained there against their inclination, though entitled to their liberty by British law. He anticipated objections to legislation upon this subject, one of which was that it was an invasion of religious liberty; but the object was not to interfere with religious, but to protect civil liberty. It appeared that there were 75 Roman Catholic nunneries in England and Wales; but there were likewise, perhaps, 100 Anglo-Catholic nunneries, which required quite as much looking after. The inmates of these establishments, he observed, were subjected to irresponsible power exercised in secret; the fair inference from this fact was, that the law should be vigilant in protecting persons so secluded; whereas, a nun was less under the protection of the law than lunatics, factory children, or parish apprentices. Moreover, these institutions located in this country were affiliated with similar institutions abroad, and a woman might be transported for life without the possibility of tracing her. These institutions were no part of the Roman Catholic Church; they existed at the option of the rulers of that Church; and he contended that it was too late, in the face of modern legislation, to press the maxim that an Englishman's house was his castle. He proposed, therefore, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should have the power of appointing one or more persons, where there were reasonable grounds to infer the exercise of coercion and restraint towards any female anywhere, to VOL. XCV.

go, in company with a justice of the peace, to the house, see the party, ascertain the facts, and, if necessary, put the ordinary law in force by writ of habeas corpus. As things now stood, a nun was practically out of the pale of the constitution, and without means of redress. Power of Government control existed in Prussia, Russia, Austria, Bavaria, and France.

Mr. C. Berkeley seconded the motion, and alluded to his own experience in the case of Miss Talbot.

Mr. Bowyer opposed the motion, and said he could readily account for the popular feeling on the subject to which Mr. Chambers had referred, when he called to mind the atrocious libels against convents, contained in pamphlets, and the inflammatory speeches in Exeter Hall. The question was, whether convents were to exist at all in this country, for, under the proposed inspection to be appointed by the Government of the daywhich might be an Orange Protestant Government-it was impossible that any convent, subject to religious rules, could exist. He explained the constitution and interior administration of convents, respecting which he said false notions prevailed, and he inferred from the facts he stated, that the existence of coercion in those establishments was utterly improbable.

Mr. Frewen, Mr. Newdegate, Sir John Tyrell, and Sir Robert Inglis supported the motion, and it was opposed by Mr. Sergeant Murphy, Mr. Lucas, Lord Edward Howard, and Mr. Fagan, who contended that nuns were not prevented seeing their friends; that conventual establishments were beneficial, as the dispensers of useful education; and that if the measure passed, the Irish female Ro[1]