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 a year, although he had boasted of having repealed 3,000,000l. 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 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 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. The 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]

man Catholics would throw themselves on the protection of France. Lord John Russell regretted that the question had been brought before the House. Two years ago, the House objected to a Bill on the same subject; and there ought to be very strong grounds indeed for again introducing it. Was there any class of persons to whom the ordinary laws afforded insufficient protection? if so, then, not only for them, but for all classes should greater securities be provided. Let the House see the special case made out. There were certain ladies living in communities, many of whom entered them in a spirit of sincere and deep devotion; there were others who presided over large institutions for the purpose of educating young girls; and others who visited the sick. Now, he was not asked whether he approved of these institutions; but he was asked to put special restrictions on them, and specially examine their houses, and find out who were discontented. But the only law that could prevent that state of things, would be a law forbidding the existence of convents altogether; because, if you went to release a discontented nun, you would probably find that it was not locks and manacles that detained her, but her sense of the obligation of her sacred promise. Lord John threw discredit upon the anonymous stories told respecting forcible detention; and was disposed to think that had the evil existed, the Roman Catholic gentlemen would come forward and demand a remedy.

Mr. Drummond and Mr. Whiteside spoke in favour of some measure of the kind, but thought this Bill would not effect the object aimed at.

He

Mr. Phinn moved as an amendment, that it be referred to a select Committee, "to consider whether any and what regulations are necessary for the better protection of the inmates of establishments of a conventual nature, and for the prevention of the exercise of undue influence in procuring the alienation of their property." Apart from the religious difficulty, the Bill was unconstitutional in its nature. It began with a false recital, and terminated with a provision destructive of the first principle of English law, that every man's house was his castle. challenged any one to point to a case where a habeas corpus had been applied for and had failed. He traced the prevailing feeling to the proceeding of those Protestants who are playing at Roman Catholics-like the "Sisters of Mercy," at Plymouth; and again repeated his challenge respecting the writ of habeas corpus, which writ the preamble declares there are difficulties in obtaining and applying. Were the Roman Catholic gentlemen so much under the control of their priests as to allow their sisters, nieces, and cousins, to be im