Commons Sitting of 23 June 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—2° Convict Prisons (Ireland); Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes; Poor Law Board Continuance; Union Charges Continuance.
Reported—Vice-Admiralty Court (Mauritius); Portland, &c., Chapels; New Forest.

COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH JAPAN.
MR. GREGSONsaid, the House generally might not yet be aware that the American commodore had succeeded in obtaining an opening for commercial inter-
614
course with the empire of Japan, which was a country rich in resources and in mineral wealth, and containing 30,000,000 inhabitants. As the Emperor had replied to a suggestion, disinterestedly made by the American commodore, that the same privilege which had been granted to America should be extended to other countries, by stating that each Power must apply for itself, he wished to ask the Lord President of the Council whether any instructions had been, or, if not, would be transmitted to Sir John Bowring, the Governor of Hong Kong, or whether any steps would be taken to obtain an opening for British commerce with Japan on terms similar to those understood to be arranged with the United States of America?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, Sir John Bowring had already been instructed, if he should find that a treaty with America had been signed with Japan, immediately to ask for similar terms for this country. He had likewise been instructed to proceed to Japan for that purpose; and although special circumstances had hitherto prevented his doing so, as soon as the admiral should be able to place a ship at his disposal, it was his intention to go to Japan for the purpose of obtaining a treaty similar to that which had been entered into with the United States of America.

LOSS OF THE "EUROPA"—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN SCOBELL: I wish, Sir, to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Europa sailed from England on her voyage alone, or in company with any other ship or transport; and if no such regulation is established, has the Board of Admiralty considered the propriety of arranging, when practicable, and as a precaution, that hereafter no transport with troops on board shall commence her voyage to a foreign station without a consort?
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, the loss of the Europa has certainly deeply afflicted me, and has given rise to most serious considerations, some of them of a professional character; and in consequence of the loss of that vessel, strict injunctions have been issued by the Board of Admiralty that all smoking, on the part of either soldiers or sailors, in the lower deck, which was before prohibited, shall, under the strictest regulations, be henceforth entirely put down; because the House will be aware that on the day preceding the fatal loss of the Europa, a fire

615
did take place upon the lower deck, which was clearly traced to smoking. That fire, however, appears to have been soon extinguished. I may further state that fresh instructions have been issued with respect to the stowage of cargo on board transports; and that additional precautions have been taken, in reference to such articles as oil and coals, which might be liable to spontaneous combustion, in order to guard against that danger. These are some of the professional considerations which have occurred to me. There are also moral considerations, to which I will not now advert, but which cannot fail to present themselves to the minds of hon. Members of this House, in connection with the heroic conduct of the lamented Colonel Moore, and with the conduct of both soldiers and sailors in the extremity of danger. But I must say, that until I read the notice of my hon. and gallant Friend, the consideration which he has suggested did not occur to my mind. I do not think that, whatever accidents may have occurred, the time has arrived when it should be held out to our soldiers and to our sailors, that the danger of crossing the sea in a single ship is such as to make it necessary that precautions should be taken that ships shall sail in company. Those who are least inured to hardships, and least accustomed to danger—our emigrants—proceed across the sea in single ships. The mails and the passengers by our mail packets are conveyed across the sea in single ships. Even gentlemen in pleasure yachts proceed across the sea in single ships. It was only last year that a noble Friend of mine made a voyage to Australia in a vessel of only 300 tons; and that men inured to hardships like our soldiers and our sailors should no longer proceed across the sea in single ships is, I confess, a consideration which did not occur to my mind.

THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
The Order of the Day for the further proceeding on consideration of this Bill having been read,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpresented a petition from the master and fellows of Pembroke College, against the clause which had been adopted by the House a few nights ago, on the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundel( Palmer). The effect of the petition—for, of course, he should only state its object
616
in very general terms—was earnestly to pray the House not to place the petitioners under the control of a small municipal corporation, which would be the effect of such a clause as this, but to release them from all such foreign intervention in the election of fellows and scholars as that to which they were now subject, and which interfered with the proper discharge of their high and responsible duties. He had now to move the insertion of the names of the Earl of Harrowby and Mr. Cornewall Lewis as additional Commissioners; and also that the Dean of Wells should be mentioned in the first clause by name, as well as described by his office, doubts having arisen whether, if this were omitted, his successor in the deanery would not be entitled also to succeed in his place in the Commission.
MR. MANGLESsaid, he rose to move the omission of the names of Sir John Taylor Coleridge and Sir John Wither Awdrey from the list of Commissioners. Having been for thirteen years a supporter of the noble Lord the President of the Council, it was with much pain that he felt that, in making that proposition, he was taking a course in opposition to the Government, and to the noble Lord whom he had followed, through evil report and good report, for so many years; and his reluctance was increased by the consideration that he had not himself had the advantage of being educated at either of our Universities. That reluctance had been only overcome by the conviction that these great institutions were the heritage of our children, and of our posterity, and that the general interests of education were very much identified with them, and very much dependent on the reform now undertaken being effectual. He was further embarrassed by the recollection that he had himself voted for the Commissioners now named in the Bill, in opposition to a Motion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman). If, however, he had known then what he knew now, he should not have given that vote. At that time he knew nothing, or very little, of Sir John Coleridge, except what he had gathered as to his character and opinions from his letters in the life of that great. and good man, Dr. Arnold. He knew, indeed, that he was a High Churchman, but he had no desire whatever that that section of the Church should not be adequately represented in the constitution of the Commission. He thought it important that it should be

617
so represented, but he had satisfied himself, and he believed he should be able to satisfy the House, that Sir John Coleridge was much inure than a high Churchman; and that by his antecedents—by what he had said, and what he had done, in past times—he had become disqualified from occupying a seat in this Commission with advantage to the country. No doubt Sir John Coleridge was a very accomplished gentleman—a man of high honour and unsullied character; but he had said and clone things which ought to take from him the confidence of the people of this country for the particular post for which the Government had selected him. He would proceed at once to state the grounds on which he considered Sir John Coleridge disqualified for the office, merely premising that no man could be fitted for it who did not possess the confidence of the University, and also the confidence of the country. He did not wish to say one word against Sir John Coleridge personally; but he felt bound to state that he was notoriously a partisan of the strongest description—a man firmly attached to one particular party, not only in the Church, but in the State, a party fully disposed to act together in all matters connected with the reform of our institutions. It was possible that. a partisan night be an unexceptionable member of the Commission, provided he belonged to any large party in the Church; but Sir John Coleridge belonged to a segment of a party in the Church, which, within the walls of Oxford, was small and insignificant as compared with the members in the University, and which had no real power or respect in the country, and which could not have the confidence of the country. The first document to which he would call the attention of the House was the address presented by a body of gentlemen to the Vice Chancellor of Oxford in 1843, protesting against the suspension of Dr. Posey from preaching for two years on account of the doctrines which he set forth. That protest was drawn up in so objectionable a manner that it produced a reply from the Vice Chancellor of the University, dated from St. John's College, the first sentence of which ran thus-
"Sir,—The address which you have been Commissioned to present to me, reached me by yesterday's post. I return it to you by the hands of my beadle."
And then he went on to state that—
"Whether the document was addressed to him in his individual or official capacity, it was de-
618
serving of the strongest censure, and he warned those who signed it"—ammngst them was Mr. Justice Coleridge—" to be more careful in respect of the oaths which they had taken on admission to their several degrees, for that such acts had a tendency to disturb the peace and interfere with the orderly government of the University."
Now, he would ask the House whether a person upon whom so strong a censure had been pronounced by the authorities of the University, should have been selected from the whole body of English gentlemen, English lawyers, and English scholars, to legislate for the University. About the same time, however, or a little anterior to it, the celebrated Tract No. 90 was published—the avowed work of Dr. Newman—that drew upon him the distinct censure of the governing body of the University. It was not too strong to call that tract a publication of gross sophistry; it was a most able and elaborate disquisition on the art of evasion in all its branches. The authorities spoke of it—"As an attempt to evade rather than explain the sense of the Thirty-nine Articles; as reconciling the subscription to them with the adoption of errors which they were designed to counteract; and as inconsistent with the precepts of the University." Now, he was credibly informed that the name of Sir John Coleridge was attached to the address subsequently made by certain members of the University calling upon the proctors to exercise their powers and place a veto upon the vote of censure brought forward against Dr. Newman, as the author of Tract No. 90. Well, the proctors did use their power, and they declared that such a resolution should not be passed. He believed also that Sir John Coleridge's signature was attached to the protest against the formation of the bishop. He of Jerusalem. He would frankly admit that it might be said that Sir John Coleridge had expressed no opinion on the merits of the several questions; it might be argued that he had only objected to the mode in which they were to be brought to trial, and to the manner in which it was endeavoured to settle disputed points of doctrine by the interference of an absolute authority. Such sentiments—apart from all coincidence of opinion with Dr. Pusey or Dr. Newman—might be natural to a man brought up in Westminster Hall. But he was in a position to prove that Sir John Coleridge had given his concurrence to all the opinions of Dr. Newman. So short a time since as a year and, a half ago, when public decency was outraged by the trial for a libel, written by Dr. Newman,

619
Mr. Justice Coleridge delivered the sentence of the Court upon the defendant, and he used words which he should quote to the House, and hon. Gentlemen would see that, while Mr. Justice Coleridge's object at the moment was to clear Dr. Newman from a charge of acrimony and severity, they would also see that in the most unequivocal manner he spoke of his writings with unmingled praise and commendation, giving, in fact, his adhesion to their every word. The charge was delivered on the 31st of January, 1853, and the words to which he alluded were these—
"If the defendant had published a wilful slander against the Church of England, he was no longer within her fold; but he might appeal to the defendant's invaluable writings whilst at Oxford, in which, great as was their ability, sound as was their doctrine, urgent as was their teaching towards holiness of life, nothing. was more remarkable than their tenderness and gentleness of spirit. Nay, he might go further, and say with regard to those controversial writings which he published while still a member of the University, that, though his arguments might have sometimes been severe, because just and unanswerable, they contained nothing like personal bitterness."
Now, he would beg to ask the House whether a gentleman who had delivered himself from the bench in such terms, could possess either the confidence of the University primarily, or of the country at large, and whether in selecting him for this task the Government was not going out of its way? But before he sat down he could not help returning to his opening confession, that it was with extreme reluctance that he moved in this matter, as lie was thereby placed in antagonism to the Government. Still, though an humble Member of that House, he felt that the support which he had given to the Liberal party through a long course of years justified him in stating long opinions to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) with all the frankness consistent with the respect and honour in which he (Mr. Mangles) held him. The noble Lord had connected himself with a body of Gentlemen not less distinguished for their great talents than for the smallness of the number which, upon the formation of the Coalition Government, they brought to the aid of the Liberal party in that House. Now, he was not by any means disposed to quarrel with that Coalition; on the contrary, he had long before denied that it might take place, and that with the least possible delay, for he believed that those Gentlemen who had joined what was termed the Liberal party had been purified from all their former bad principles in the great lavatory of free trade. And
620
he was satisfied that, with the single exception of what he should term religio-political opinions, there was no real difference between the right hon. Gentlemen and the great Liberal party, and therefore he thought it was an honest and honourable Coalition. However, now these Gentlemen were seated in front of a large party consisting almost entirely of Whigs and Liberals of different sections and degrees. And if there was one fact in the history of the country more certainly recorded than another, it was this—that during long centuries the Whig party has been always distinguished for being, to say the least, most assuredly not High Church. Well, then, he would say to those right hon. Gentlemen who were willing to act as their leaders, and whom that side of the House was willing to follow, he would say to them "Show some respect for the known opinions of the hundreds who sit behind you." He did not ask them to do violence to their own principles, but simply to respect theirs—simply not to attempt to extort from their liberal supporters the approval of such appointments as that of Sir John Coleridge. And were he to continue on such a theme he might allude with equal sorrow to nominations recently made to the episcopal bench. He would entreat them, for the sake of fair consideration to those whom they desired to lead, to have some respect for the political opinions of their followers. There were many on that side of the House that held Puritan blood in their veins; and they were, therefore, but little disposed to give their countenance to any extreme or ultra High Church views. His Motion, however, might be defeated—defeated, perhaps, as was the Motion of last night—and as was the Motion with respect to church rates a few nights ago. It might be defeated by the noble Lord, going into the lobby with all his ordinary opponents, and against almost all his own followers. But, he must say, such triumphs as that would be ruin to the party—ruin to the great Liberal cause throughout the country, which was the cause of the country, for the majority in that House was not at this moment a mere accidental majority, produced by the result of a general election—but it represented the feelings of the great bulk of the people of England. A few more such defeats, then, as that of last night, and it would end in the ruin of the Liberal cause, which would be brought about, not by the prowess of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but simply through a want of consideration on the part of the Govern-

621
ment for the known opinions of those who sat behind them.
MR. HORSAMANseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, by leaving out the words—"The Honourable Sir John Taylor Coleridge, one of the Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was not necessary for him to follow the hon. Gentleman at any length in the statement which he had made, further than freely to make the admission—that, considering the nature of the task which he had to perform, and which he himself described as one disagreeable to his own feelings, he felt he had accomplished his task in a manner as fair and as inoffensive as the nature of his subject permitted. Now, with respect to Sir John Coleridge, the hon. Gentleman had spoken of the insertion of his name—and so far he had not spoken quite accurately—he had spoken of the insertion of the name as if it had borne an analogy to an appointment by the Government. But it really could not be considered to bear any such analogy; for it was not an appointment by the Government, but simply a proposal subject to the approval of that House, And he believed that those who had witnessed the fate of various proposals of the Government, and the different votes on the University of Oxford Bill, would be aware that the distinction to which he now referred was not a narrow, au unreal, or an imperceptible distinction. The wish of the Government was to act in the spirit which the hon. Gentleman had described—that was, to place upon the Oxford Commission the names of gentlemen who would carry with them the confidence both of the University at large and of the country. He said of the University at large, because he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that it would have been most, unwise—considering the Parliamentary ordeal to which the names would have to be submitted—it would have been a perfectly suicidal act upon the part of the Government, if it had knowingly and willingly proposed any gentleman associated with extreme opinions—at variance with the laws and spirit of the Church of England—to act upon such a Commission as this. Now, the hon. Gentleman had referred to three circumstances in connection with the case of Sir John Coleridge. Two of these were cases in which the hon,
622
Gentleman stated Sir John Coleridge objected to censures which it was proposed to inflict upon certain persons on account of their theological opinions. Well, he was bound to say that he considered that the hon. Gentleman had himself furnished an answer to that portion of his speech, because he very fairly suggested that it did not follow that those who objected to a particular theological censure concurred in the opinions expressed by the man whom it was proposed to censure. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had found seven individuals to claim the benefit of that admission; and he had reason to claim it in more directions than one; because, while he had upon more occasions than one objected to theological censures of the description referred to, it had been likewise his fate and duty, and that upon a very recent occasion, to take objections of precisely the same description to a theological censure proposed to be pronounced in London upon a gentleman of very great eminence and very great ability, for opinions which, if they went astray at all, did so in a direction entirely the opposite to that of which the hon. Gentleman spoke—he referred to the case of the Rev. Mr. Maurice. He would say, then, that if that principle was good in one case, it ought to be extended to other cases, unless they had a full and distinct proof against Sir John Coleridge, or any other person, with respect to the opinions which they might have uttered. Now he thought the hon. Gentleman refrained cautiously from representing that the name of Sir John Coleridge did not carry confidence to the University of Oxford. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was bound to say. that he did but justice to the University in saying, that it was not pervaded by extreme opinions of any nature—the hon. Gentleman stated that manfully and candidly. He believed it was notorious to all connected with the University that a very great freedom and diversity of opinion prevailed within it; but if that diversity had a tendency to lapse into extremes in one quarter, it was also true, as stated by a right hon. Gentleman on the opposite bench, that it had likewise a tendency to pass into another extreme. But at any rate, if the existence of such views was to be deplored, he believed the fact to be, that the opinions of the great bulk of the University lay between them, and that they were not coloured by either one extreme or the other. For his part, he should be very sorry to draw a distinction between

623
any two of the seven names included in the Commission. His knowledge of the members of the University of Oxford was not limited, particularly of those who, being collected on the spot, represented the University, both on account of their own eminence, and from their habits of communication with others. And he was bound to say he had received the most emphatic testimony—not in reference to one name on the Commission or another—but generally, that the names on the Commission did carry the confidence of the University, as the view taken of the Commission had not so much reference to precise individuals as to the concurrence of each name on it with every other name, and to their general moderation, their eminent qualities, their competence for their duties, and their power and intention to give themselves honestly and effectively to perform the task before them. Now, he Neat bound to make a confession which he bad never made before in that House, though he knew that when one got upon questions of religion strong protests were generally more likely to confirm than allay suspicion, still he frankly owned that he had rarely known an instance where important functions were conferred in matters of education, where theological teaching was so little likely to interfere as with the duties of the Commissioners. Indeed, he hardly knew anything which they would have to do with regard to which the course taken by one Commissioner or another could possibly be portended or traced out, inasmuch as that Commissioner was not connected with either one or other of the popular appellations, High or Low Church. He thought it was most important that these Commissioners should be men who entered into the views of Parliament, and be really was at a loss to know what questions would be raised in the University, where the effects of religious opinion, in all their variety, would be traced. There was, however, one reference made by the hon. Gentleman to which he must allude. The hon. Gentleman had referred to certain words which he said were used by Sir John Coleridge. Now, the hon. Gentleman did not state from what source he derived those words, and he must say—he could not help saying—that, considering the nature of this Motion, it would have been right—he was bound to say fairness demanded such a course—he must add it was absolutely necessary, for the satisfaction of Parliament—that the hon. Gentleman should have taken the pains which were
624
easily within his reach, to verify those words which he quoted. He certainly confessed they were words heard by him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) for the first time; and he had no knowledge whether they were delivered by Mr. Justice Coleridge or not. He must say he felt bound to conclude that they were not so delivered. The hon. Gentleman had himself stated there were various writings of Dr. Newman which were very laudable writings. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not know what position Dr. Newman occupied twenty years ago. At that time he was well known as being attached to those who were called the High Church party at Oxford: and he could remember very Well, that when he was an undergraduate at Oxford, Dr. Newman filled the highly unpopular office of secretary to the Church Missionary Society of Oxford—a society which he doubted very much if at that time there were three dignitaries at Oxford who would have touched it or its concerns with a pair of tongs. And this he would add, that in all the phases of his life—in all the varied passages of his career—Dr. Newman delivered himself of various and multiform writings—the only uniformity which they displayed was in the great ability and high moral character invariably distinguishing them. Now the hon. Gentleman stated that Mr. Justice Coleridge spoke of the theological writings of Dr. Newman. It was very well known, however—and he did not now speak of anonymous writings—that his writings mostly related to the controversy between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, in which he was chiefly remarkable for the great force and vehemence of the hostile epithets which he applied to the Church of Rome. He thought that the hon. Gentleman was making a leap in the dark if he founded his Motion solely upon the information which he had submitted to the House. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) granted that with the views which the hon. Gentleman entertained he might conceive that his proposition was in accordance with the fulfilment of his duty. But the hon. Gentleman should recollect that the fulfilment of his duty involved neither more nor less than the censure of Parliament upon the character of Mr. Justice Coleridge. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yes; the vote proposed by the hon. Gentleman was the formal rejection of Sir John Coleridge from a Commission for which he admits—whether this distinguished Judge be a High Churchman or a Low Churchman—whether be be even

625
a strong High Churchman or a strong Low Churchman—he is otherwise perfectly qualified. The proposition amounted to nothing else than the rejection of a gentleman—an eminent Judge of the land, who in such capacity might be even called upon to deliver judgment upon matters touching ecclesiastical concerns. It might be softened down as they pleased, but the effect of the proposition of the hon. Gentleman was nothing more nor less than a political censure. Now, it was the absolute duty of that House to know well the grounds upon which they were about to proceed. It was the duty of the hon. Member to verify the truth of the words attributed to that gentleman. It was the duty of that House to ascertain whether the language quoted was really uttered by Mr. Justice Coleridge or not. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) submitted that, as regarded the sense put upon the words referred to by the hon. Member, the House had no evidence at all to justify this interpretation. It was, however, the duty of the hon. Member, before he took a step which involved a vote of censure upon the character of Mr. Justice Coleridge, to have inquired narrowly into the facts, and into the nature of the offence charged against this distinguished and eminent gentleman.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he fully concurred in the concluding observation of the right hon. Gentleman, but he certainly did not concur in the observation of the right hon. Gentleman that the appointment of those Commissioners was the appointment of the House of Commons. He thought that that House was ill-suited to take upon itself the responsibility of those appointments, though it might be but reasonable to give it the responsibility of exercising a veto in respect to those appointments. The House should consider whether, looking at those proposed Commissioners as a body, they could safely intrust to those Commissioners, composed of a body of gentlemen selected by the Crown, the discharge of certain functions intended to be committed to them by this Bill. He, therefore, wished the House to consider, that if hon. Members raised objections to any one of the names proposed, upon grounds which they might feel, personally and individually, to be strong, they would necessarily provoke a discussion upon every other name proposed, to whom some individual Member might have an objection. This was a discussion upon which he (Mr. Walpole), for one, would be most unwilling to enter. He could only say, for himself, that the names
626
proposed by the Government would not be exactly the Commissioners which he would select; but, looking at them as a body, he thought that no great objection could be urged against them. He would venture to say that, whatever gentlemen were proposed, there would be found hon. Members in that House to say that they would prefer some one or other gentleman instead of the particular individual selected. But he thought that personal discussions of this nature were most disagreeable. It was, however, difficult to lay down a definite course by which they ought to be guided in such matters. He was of opinion, that, unless some grave and positive objections were stated to call upon the House to exercise its right of veto, they ought to acquiesce in the names proposed by the Government. Now, in respect to Sir John Coleridge, he (Mr. Walpole) thought he should be acting extremely wrong if be did not bear his humble testimony to the character of that eminent Judge. Without reference to any opinions upon theological subjects entertained by that learned individual, he begged to say that he knew the merits of Sir John Coleridge as a Judge; and he believed him to be a man of high honour and principles, and one not likely to be swayed by personal, party, or religious feelings in the exercise of the important functions intrusted to him. Looking at the character, capacity, and high honour of Sir John Coleridge, and considering the merits of the other gentlemen proposed as Commissioners—though he would not have selected those gentlemen to discharge the duties of Commissioners—he yet thought, upon the whole, that the House could not do better under the circumstances than to acquiesce in the proposition made by the Government.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he agreed in the opinion that no question could be of a more delicate or painful character than discussing the personal qualifications of a man placed in the high position of Mr. Justice Coleridge. When the House was in Committee upon this Bill, it would be recollected that he then stated his objection to the appointment of Mr. Justice Coleridge; but that objection was confined to this point—that Mr. Justice Coleridge was so overladen with judicial and professional avocations, it would not be proper that he should take upon himself the onerous duty of Commissioner. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had placed them in a false position when he told them that if they expressed an opi-

627
nion adverse to the qualifications of any of those gentlemen to act as Commissioners, they would be taking upon themselves the responsibility of passing a judicial verdict upon them. Now, the House was not responsible for those discussions. The Government alone was responsible, who had brought those names before it. Whether Mr. Justice Coleridge was a High or a Low Churchman, was nothing to him (Mr. Horsman). It should, however, be recollected that during the last fifteen years there had been a religious movement going on in the University of Oxford which had attracted much attention. There were two members of that University who had made themselves particularly prominent tit the outset of that movement. Those members were Dr. Newman, who had since become a Roman Catholic, and Dr. Pusey, who was still Regius Professor of Theology in the University. Both of these gentlemen had received the censure of the University for their writings, and in both of those cases Mr. Justice Coleridge had unnecessarily come forward to censure the University for having censured those writings. When they had men of high character and eminence in the country, the Government should not have selected for the office of Commissioner a man who was in the position of having been censured by the University. He felt much regret at being obliged to object to the appointment of such an eminent man as Mr. Justice Coleridge, but he could not but feel that that distinguished Judge had, by his own act, created his disqualification for the office of Commissioner.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I think, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) has taken a right view of this question, and that the responsibility of appointing. this Commission rests mainly with the Government. But if the House should find that the persons whom we propose to form this Commission should be persons destitute of learning, devoid of probity, and unworthy of the confidence of the House, it would be the part of the House to interfere with the appointment of that Commission. But I beg to submit, without discussing the merits of the men who are named in the Bill as Commissioners, that a desire is displayed on the part of the Government to have a Commission composed of men who are fit to be intrusted with such high duties. With respect to Lord Harrowby, no objection is taken; but if all the High Churchmen in the House had arisen and had ob-
628
jected to him, and if, in consequence, Lord Harrowby had been excluded, that would not have been a very just mode of proceeding. Mr. Cornewall Lewis is another Commissioner whom he thought no one would accuse of High Church opinions. It has been our duty to endeavour to have upon this Commission men who are qualified for their task; and with regard to Mr. Justice Coleridge, no one has disputed his probity or his high character, and no one will say that any learned Judge possessing his learning and taste for literature is not peculiarly fit for an office of this kind. I am told, however, that Mr. Justice Coleridge ought to be excluded on account of some censure which has been pronounced upon him by the University of Oxford. Now, for myself, I confess that I am not disposed to look with very great respect to those censures which have been pronounced by the University of Oxford. Both with regard to one side and the other—with regard to those who have held too liberal opinions, and with regard to others like Dr. Pusey, concerning whom I might be supposed to express the same opinion, that their doctrines are not sound—I think the University of Oxford has generally been rather hasty in her condemnation, and cannot be supposed to pay much respect to her censure, for I advised Her Majesty to place upon the bench of bishops one who had incurred the censure of that body. The question for the House, however, is not whether they agree in the opinions of Mr. Justice Coleridge. I may sympathise very little with those opinions, and they may be very distasteful to me; but that is not the question. It is, whether these seven gentlemen are a body qualified to perform the duties intrusted to them. The first responsibility is with the Government; but if they are men wanting in learning and integrity, the House will do quite right to refuse its sanction to their appointment.
MR. DRUMMOND: It is somewhat worthy of remark, Sir, that the opposition to the appointment of this distinguished Judge conies from a body of Gentlemen who generally assume the sole right and title to the toleration of all religious opinions. But still, what is more extraordinary, my hon. Friend who brought forward this Motion calls upon the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) by all Ids hereditary reminiscences—to do what? Why, to do an act of bigotry and intolerance, as if to the Whigs there was not more peculiarly due than to other political parties, the assump-

629
tion of those Liberal opinions which the noble Lord the leader of that party is now called upon to violate. But then, says the hon. Gentleman, you owe us something—you would not let us rob the Church of her rates—you grudge us exceedingly the tithes—we have not had a bit of plunder. Now do grant us this.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREin moving, pursuant to notice, the omission of the 33rd clause, said that the Constitution of this country rested, as the noble Lord the Member for the City of London would not deny, in a great measure on prescription, and yet in the present measure they were going to depart altogether from it, as far as it applied to the University of Oxford. The University was to have the power of changing the destination of property after fifty years; would anybody acquainted with the characteristics of the people of this country suppose that, if this principle were suffered to prevail, anybody would leave property to Oxford, with a knowledge that, if the University chose, it might be changed from its destination? Nobody was more disposed to admit than himself that what was originally beneficial might eventually become pernicious, still, he must say, that the power of changing the destination of property ought to rest in that House, and not in the University. With respect to the right of prescription, it was the principle which guided the old Roman law, and, when he read this clause he felt it was a proof how much ignorance existed in that House on the old Roman law, for no man who was acquainted with that admirable system of civil jurisprudence would venture to propose such a clause as this. He objected strongly to a principle such as that embodied in the clause being admitted and incorporated into the jurisprudence of this country, tending, as it would, to restrict the bounty of individuals intended for particular purposes.
MR. BOWYER seconded the Motion.
Question proposed, "That Clause 33 stand part of the Bill."
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that so far from the principle in the clause being a new one, only last Session a similar clause giving power to the Commissioners to vary certain trusts, was introduced into the Charitable Trusts Bill. In fact, the main object of the present measure could hardly be carried into effect unless it created some power of this kind. Where, from circumstances, the trusts had become
630
narrowed in their operation, and did not tend to the advancement of learning, it was certainly desirable that the interests of learning should be regarded as superior to the mere letter of the will of the donor.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERmoved to add at the end of Clause N the following words—
"And when any right of preference shall belong to any school contingently only upon the failers of fit objects from some other school or schools entitled to and in the enjoyment of a prior right of preference, then and in such case the power of dissent hereby given shall only belong to the governing body or governing bodies of the school or schools entitled to and in the enjoyment of the first right of preference."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCITEQUERsaid, he would take that opportunity of stating the course which the Government intended to pursue with reference to this clause. After the strong objections which were urged by his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) and himself on the part of the Government on a former night, it was only natural that they should endeavour to induce the House to rescind the clause altogether, or to alter it. He gladly admitted that, so far as respected many of the working objections which were then stated against it, they would be materially narrowed by the amendments now introduced by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roundell Palmer), but the substance of the clause still remained intact. In deference to a considerable majority of the House, who bad given their sanction to the principle of the clause, he should not ask that it be struck out of the Bill; but he should endeavour to induce the House to adopt two Motions. One of these he did not apprehend would draw any opposition even from the Mover of the clause himself. The effect of it would be that in all cases where, whether by a college or the governing body, the veto had been exercised, and no new scheme substituted or accepted, the scheme which had been rejected should, instead of waiting for the general Report of the Commissioners, be forthwith submitted in a Report to one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, in order to its being laid before the two Houses of Parliament, with a view to draw the attention of the Legislature to the case. A clause to this effect it was his intention to propose on the third reading of the Bill; but he also intended to propose as an Amendment on the clause of his hon, and learned

631
Friend the insertion, after the words "any emoluments," of the words "other than a fellow or studentship." The object of that Amendment was to leave to the schools, very much upon the principle on which the Bill was framed in its former shape, that which could be understood or construed to be an endowment for the purposes of education, but subject to review by the Colleges and the Commissioners, and at a subsequent period on appeal by the Privy Council, whatever scheme affected preferences when they came to apply to the teaching offices or governing offices of the University. A notice to this effect he now begged to place upon the books of the House.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he believed that the adoption of the Amendment, of which his right hon. Friend had given notice, would be inconsistent with the principles of his clause; he begged, therefore, to state that, as at present advised, he should be prepared to offer it his decided opposition.
The words proposed to be added at the end of Clause N were then agreed to.
In reply to Mr. WALPOLE,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Government did not contemplate any further amendments than those of which notice had been given; and that they intended taking the third reading of the Bill the first thing on Monday next.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he intended to make a proposal which would go far to reverse the decision arrived at by a very large majority of the House would prove a surprise to a great number of Members who, since that decision, had gone into the country. Monday would also be a particularly inconvenient day, and he earnestly hoped that, considering the importance of the question involved in the third reading, the Lord President of the Council would consent to postpone the measure to a late period of the week.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLregretted that he could not comply with the request of the right hon. Baronet, as it was the desire of the House of Lords to have the Bill before them as early as possible. With regard to the principle of the measure, that had already been fully discussed, and he did not anticipate any long debate so far as that was concerned. And as to the clause of the hon. and learned Member
632
(Mr. Roundell Palmer), he thought the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whilst in some degree it modified that clause, would not go to alter it materially.
Bill to be read 3° on Monday next.

TOWNS IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 23 (Qualification of Electors at Elections of Commissioners).
MR. GEORGEmoved the insertion of the words "as occupier of such lands, tenements, or hereditaments at a net annual value of 8l. or upwards." His object in proposing this Amendment was to render the Bill consistent with itself. As, for the purpose of summoning meetings and deciding whether the provisions of the Act should be put in force or not, an 8l. rating was sanctioned by the previous clauses of the Bill, lie merely asked that, fur the much more important functions of electing the Commissioners, upon whom very extensive powers of taxation and government would be conferred, the persons choosing such Commissioners should be of equal rank in society and be rated at an equal value.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, on the ground that it would have the effect of greatly limiting the number of persons who ought to ex-exercise an influence and control in carrying out the Bill. With a 4l. rating, he believed many occupiers would be induced to pay their poor rates for the purpose of having a voice in the management of their own local concerns, and they would have a good, a respectable, and a solvent constituency.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 85: Majority 59.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 24.
Clause 25.
LORD NAASsaid, he begged to move the omission of this clause. The Bill proposed to consolidate various Acts, containing about 390 clauses in all. He deprecated the practice of incorporating extracts from old Acts of Parliament in new Acts merely referring to them; and he thought the Committee would do wisely to adopt his Motion, as it would help to get rid of the practice. The Commissioners for the Consolidation of the Law had condemned

633
the practice: Mr. Coade, one of them, had done so at some length. [The noble Lord read the passage for the Committee.] It was a practice productive of many evil consequences. On that ground, therefore, he moved the rejection of the clause. He moved it also, however, on the ground that it was an infringement of the privileges of that House, and that it gave power to the framers of Bills which was never contemplated. He objected to the clause likewise because it gave power to the Commissioners which in many cases they were incompetent to exercise.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he hoped the Committee would not agree with the Motion of the noble Lord. He concurred in the views of the Consolidation Commissioners; but the extract read by the noble Lord from their Report was inapplicable to the Bill before the House. He denied that the power conferred by the Bill was an infringement of the privileges of the House. The Bill was intended to supply the place of a private Act in places which were too poor to obtain a separate Act; and it was founded on the clauses of the Consolidation Act. Some arrangement should be made by which the clauses referred to would be made easy of access in a schedule.
MR. BOWYEEsaid, he agreed in all, the doctrines of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) in respect to the mode of legislation by reference; but he thought there was a great deal of weight in the objections of the right hon. Gentleman the Irish Secretary. He was of opinion that the Bill was not one of the nature contemplated by Mr. Coade; and he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Motion, as the Bill was greatly wanted in Ireland.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought the objection of the noble Lord was a perfectly reasonable one; but he was also of opinion that the plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland was satisfactory in reference to it. None of the Irish Members were opposed to the measure, and though he (Colonel Dunne) had voted against the Government in the last division on the Bill, he had done so under a misapprehension.
Motion negatived; Clause agreed to.
Clause 26.
LORD NAASsaid, he wished to move to insert after the word "say" the following Amendment—
"Every person who shall have been for twelve months preceding the 1st January in the years in
634
which such election is held the immediate lessor of lands, tenements, and hereditaments within such town or within such boundaries of the same respectively as aforesaid, of the value of 50 l. or upwards, according to the last poor law valuation, and who shall reside within five miles of the boundary of such town."
Amendment agreed to; Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 27 to 29.
Clause 30.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment. The clause as it stood required the Lord Chancellor to approve of the person selected to fill the office of chairman of the town council. The purport of the Amendment was that the person elected should be considered duly elected unless disapproved of by the Lord Chancellor.
Lord NAASopposed the Amendment, as he considered that the effect of it would be to throw an invidious duty on the Lord Chancellor.
MR. KEOGHsaid, as head of the magistrates of Ireland, the Lord Chancellor had constantly to fulfil a similar duty, and therefore he was surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen call the duty that was proposed to be assigned to the Lord Chancellor an invidious duty.
MR. GEORGEsaid, it would be more satisfactory to know that the names to be intrusted with this onerous office should be openly sent up to the Lord Chancellor, who ought to be required to give his sanction openly and directly to such appointments.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to inquire why the Lord Chancellor should have the power of interfering with a person elected under this Act? When party feeling ran high, the Lord Chancellor might be advised to reject the person whom the electors had chosen.
SIR ROBERT FERGUSONsaid, it was proposed in this clause that the Chairman of the Commission should be a magistrate within the town for the purposes of the Act. It would be much better to make him a county magistrate.
LORD NAASsaid, he thought the suggestion a most objectionable one, for it was equivalent to saying that the Commissioners might elect a county magistrate.
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also Clauses 31 to 45 inclusive.
Clause 46.
LORD NAASsaid, he objected to that portion of the clause by which a power was to be conferred upon the Commissioners to compel every person who let

635
lodgings to make each day to the chief of the constabulary of the district a report of the number and description of persons who occupied house lodgings during the preceding night or day.
MR. KEOGHsaid, the power the clause proposed to confer upon the Commissioners had already existed with respect to Scotland as provided in the Bill which lied passed in the Session of the year 1851. The clause under the consideration of the Committee had in fact been copied from the 108th clause of that The power of compelling a report to be made would be vested in the Commissioners, who would of course exercise a sound discretion with reference to its exercise.
Clause agreed to; as were all the clauses up to Clause 55 inclusive. Clause 56 struck out; Clauses up to 68 agreed to. Clause 69 struck out; Clauses 70 to 72 agreed to.
Clause 73.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought the provisions of the clause were too stringent to be made applicable to the country towns of Ireland. It would be right also if the offences mentioned in the schedule were better defined.
MR. KEOGHsaid, he must call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the power of imprisonment for fourteen days vested in magistrates was entirely a discretionary power. It was obvious, therefore, that such cases as a gentleman leaving a horse at a door while he entered the house, or a person selling a horse by auction in the street, were not the obstructions meant in the Bill.
MR. NAPIERobjected to such a wholesale discretion being vested in magistrates.
MR. V. SCULLYsaid, that there were crimes dealt with by the clause for which imprisonment for fourteen days was an inadequate punishment.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he thought the penalties under the Bill were altogether disproportionate to the offences. Thus, the same penalty, a fine of 10 s., was imposed upon the man whose rabid clog accidentally got loose and on the man who set on his dog to worry a person. Besides, fourteen days' imprisonment was too severe a punishment as a commutation for a fine of 10 s. He should certainly, if the clause were not amended in this respect, move an Amendment at a future stage.
MR. KEOGHsaid, he would alter the clause, so as to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.
636
Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining clauses.
House resumed; Bill reported as amended.

CONVICT PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he must express a Lope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would furnish the House with sonic explanation as to the objects of this measure, before they were called on to assent to the second reading.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, the necessity for the Bill arose from there being no law to empower directors of prisons or governors of convicts to regulate prisoners or to inflict punishment upon convicts for misbehaviour outside of the prison. The Bill proposed to remedy that defect. The necessity for the measure had arisen from the circumstance of the system of transportation having been put an end to in certain cases by the Bill of last Session. He found at the close of last year collected in the gaols of Ireland something, like 4,000 convicts, who by last year's Bill would at the end of four years be restored to society. This measure proposed to establish a system of organisation and instruction for those persons during those four years. In Spike Island there was only accommodation for about 1,000 prisoners, who had been generally sent there because it was the most convenient place previous to their transportation, and because they could be employed in the fortifications about the place. There were, however, last year, 2,200 prisoners confined there, and there was no proper system of discipline kept up. The health of the convicts consequently suffered, and there was not labour sufficient there to occupy so many. In another convict prison at Mountjoy, there was only accommodation for 500. The Irish Government had determined to reduce the number of convicts at Spike Island to 1,400. The prison at Philipstown could only accommodate 300. By certain arrangements it was proposed to increase the accommodation to 400. In order to meet the evils referred to, the Bill proposed to build a prison for female convicts to accommodate 400, and the remaining accommodation required would be provided in the shape of a juvenile prison, or good movable iron houses placed in the neighbourhood of public works where the prisoners could be employed. A Commission had been appoint-

637
ed to see how the accommodation required could best be afforded, and how the discipline of those prisons could be improved. The Commission were only waiting for the Bill to pass to carry their plans into operation. The present measure was almost taken verbatim from the English Prisons Act.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman would see the necessity of improving the state of the prisons in Ireland by a better mode than that of appointing an expensive staff of officers to take charge of the prisoners. There were already in Ireland a staff of officers to take charge of these prisoners, and another staff for lunatics. Now, the present Bill proposed a third staff, which he thought quite unnecessary. He did not object to a system of corporal punishment under proper regulations; for when they had such a system established for soldiers, he did not see any reason why convicts should be without it. He should like to know whether the Government intended to keep Spike Island as a permanent convict depot, or whether it was only intended to keep prisoners there until the public works about the place were completed.
MR. F. SCULLYwished to know how the new arrangement would operate with regard to the inspectors of prisons in Ireland. He thought the convict establishments in Ireland ought to be placed on a better footing. With regard to the ticket-of-lease system, he thought it was a wholesome and a sound system, but there was an abuse of it which he hoped would be taken into account if it were extended to Ireland. He meant the sending these men after their terms of imprisonment had expired back to the place where their offences had been committed, where they would naturally be again thrown into communication with their old associates.
Bill read 2°.

VICE ADMIRALTY COURT (MAURITIUS) BILL
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
In reply to Mr. ADDERLEY,
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, the Court of Vice Admiralty in the Mauritius Lad for the last twenty years been presided over by a gentleman who was Judge of the Supreme Court, and it had recently been discovered that at certain periods he had acted without due authority. During the twenty years frequent changes had
638
taken place in the government of the island, and some of the Governors had omitted to grant Commissions to the Judge of the Vice Admiralty Court; the object of the Bill, therefore, was to provide that any decisions which had been given by the Judge of the Court during the time he had acted, without regular commissions from the Governors, should be valid in the same manner as if such commissions had been issued.
Bill then passed through Committee. House resumed; Bill reported without Amendment.

PRISONERS OF WAR—SUPPLY.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, he was anxious that the House should go into Committee of Supply, for the purpose of taking a Vote of 20,000 l. for the expenses of prisoners of war. At the present moment he had no means afforded him by the House to meet this expenditure; and there was now an opportunity of purchasing a prison in Sussex at a moderate price, which was particularly well adapted for the reception of prisoners of war. At the close of last war the cost of prisoners was no less than 1,000,000 l. annually, and at that time we had three great prisons in existence, all of which had since the war been either pulled down or transferred to other purposes, so that at this moment there was no public building applicable to this particular use. He only asked for the sum of 20,000 l., of which 5,000 l. was intended to be applied to the purchase of the gaol at Lewes; and as the public service would be greatly expedited by this arrangement, he did not anticipate there would be any objection to go into Committee for the purpose of taking the Vote.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he would suggest that some of Her Majesty's vessels now in ordinary should be applied to the reception of prisoners of war. Expense would be saved in that way.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, some ships had been fitted up for the purpose at Sheerness, He hoped before the end of the year to have prisoners enough to fill both.
House in Committee.
Resolved—
"That a sum, net exceeding 20,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to provide for the Expenses on account of Prisoners of War, which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1855"
House resumed,
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
SIR JAMES EASTmoved the addition of a clause to the effect that any person who shall, in any part of the United Kingdom, use any dog for the purpose of drawing or helping to draw any cart, carriage, truck, or barrow, shall forfeit and pay al penalty not exceeding 40 s. for the first offence, and not exceeding 5l. for the second and every subsequent offence.
Clause (And whereas, by an Act passed in the second and third years of Her present Majesty, it was enacted, under a penalty, that dogs should not be used for the purposes of draught within the Metropolitan Police district, and it is desirable that such enactment should be extended to all parts of the United Kingdom, Be it Enacted, That any person who shall, in any part of the United Kingdom, use any dog for the purpose of drawing or helping to draw any cart, carriage, truck, or barrow, shall forfeit and pay a penalty not exceeding forty shillings for the first offence, and not exceeding five pounds for the second and every subsequent offence, such penalties to be recovered in like manner as is provided for the recovery of penalties under the Act of the twelfth and thirteenth years of Her said Majesty: Provided always, That if the conviction shall take place before two justices, it shall be lawful for such justices, if they shall think fit, instead of imposing a pecuniary penalty, forthwith to commit any such offender to the House of Correction, there to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any time not exceeding three calendar months), brought up, and read the first time.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he objected to the clause.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time,"
The Committee divided:-Ayes 47; Noes 13: Majority 34.
MR. FREWENsaid, the clause had been four times rejected in another place; accidents of a grave nature had occurred in consequence; and he hoped, therefore, that if it was rejected again, those who rejected it would be the sufferers.
Clause added to the Bill.
The House resumed; Bill reported, as amended.
Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty
640
Members not being present, the House was adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.