ENGLISH AND IRISH UNIVERSITIES. (Hansard, 30 May 1850)

§ MR. GLADSTONE
said, that when he gave notice of his intention to move the postponement of the adjourned debate, he did so in the belief, which he shared with 489 other hon. Members, that there was not the least probability that the subject could come on with any profitable discussion that night, or before eleven or twelve o'clock. If he thought things would be as they were at present, there was no reason why the debate should not be resumed, and he would be the last person to ask the House to show indulgence to persons negligent in their duties; but under the circumstances, and considering the opinions entertained with regard to the course of business, it was not an unreasonable request to make that the House would not go on with the debate that night. With the exception of himself and the representative of the University of Dublin, every Member representing the Universities was absent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, and other Members interested in the subject, were also absent. The question involved constitutional doctrines of considerable importance; and those Gentlemen were anxious to open those topics, and lay their views before the House. Another question had been raised to his great surprise, namely, that this discussion should drop altogether. He hardly knew if it were necessary for him to go into arguments on the question: he hardly knew if any Gentleman conversant with the history of the Universities, or the relations between them and the State in former times, would think that the question of an inquiry into their condition was one so trivial that it did not deserve discussion in that House. The noble Lord admitted, when he entered into the question, that the debate related not to the issuing of a Commission, but to the state of the Universities; and he also admitted it was a question that deserved discussion. He (Mr. Gladstone) was quite sure the noble Lord was right, and that for the object he had in view the whole matter should be opened up; for to enter into the question hastily, or at once get into the midst of it, was not the most satisfactory way to dispose of it. The constitution had given the Universities the high privilege of being represented, and their representatives should be allowed to express their views on such a Motion. He hardly anticipated any opposition from the noble Lord, as there was a claim which in justice could not be resisted for a full discussion on the matter; and he (Mr. Gladstone) would not occupy the time of the House by reasoning on such a matter, were it not for the manifestation of an intention on the part of a noble Friend of his to prevent 490 the further progress of such discussion. They had not had a night's debate on the question whether the Commission should issue. The debate commenced from the speech of the noble Lord, and he must likewise point out that they were informed that a course would be pursued by the Government different from that actually taken. They were told deliberately in so many words, at the commencement of the evening, and while the hon. Member for North Lancashire was making his speech, that it was the intention of the Government to meet the Motion with "the previous question." Therefore the tone of the debate was different from what it would be if they had any announcement like that of the noble Lord. It was to the Universities, at least, a very serious and formidable announcement; and their intention was this—directly to raise the question whether the proceeding intended by the noble Lord was not strictly an unconstitutional proceeding. They did not mean to debate the question on the ground whether it was expedient, or whether there was cause to warrant the interference of the State. The interference of the State was one thing—the mode in which the noble Lord proposed to conduct that interference was another; and they would argue to show that it was an unconstitutional mode of proceeding which the noble Lord meant to take. If he thought there was reason for a measure so serious as an inquiry into the state of the Universities, the only course he could with propriety take was to propose the appointment of a commission by Act of Parliament. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not then intend to go into the discussion, but wished to show the noble Lord that the matter was of a grave and serious character, and leave the noble Lord to consider whether he could give an opportunity for the further discussion of the question. There was no intention on their part to evade it; they knew the position of the Universities would be weakened and their character degraded by such a proceeding; the sooner the discussion came on the better, and they entreated the noble Lord (though it might be his own opinion that there was no occasion for discussion, and that he should make his Motion to adjourn the debate for three months), by his obliging intervention, to give them an opportunity of stating their views on the subject. It was not right that the Members for the Universities, with the exception of the right hon. Member 491 for Cambridge, should not be heard on this question; and he therefore moved that the debate should be adjourned to Monday next.

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
had no objection to the adjournment of the debate to Monday next, for he admitted that in the absence of the other Members for the Universities it was not right to proceed with it at that moment; but at the same time he did not at all see that he was bound to postpone Government business for the purpose of the resumption of that debate. After the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion was informed of the intentions of the Government, he did not wish to persevere in it, and was ready to withdraw it. That being the case, he was not bound to find an occasion for the discussion of the question; but the right hon. Gentleman could discuss the question on some other Motion. He thought the course should be to appoint this debate for some day when the proceedings of independent Members would have precedence of the orders of the day, and not ask the Government to give up one of their nights for the purpose. If that course were taken, he should have no objection to the postponement of the debate.

§ MR. GLADSTONE
Will you postpone the Commission?

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
Oh, no: I don't promise to postpone the Commission; but I am not making extraordinary speed with it. I agree on those terms to the adjournment of debate to Monday next.

§ MR. HUME
hoped the noble Lord would not postpone the issuing of the Commission. He believed the proceeding was perfectly constitutional. He hoped the Government would persevere, and that the public would have the benefit to be derived from that inquiry.