§ Further Proceeding on Third Reading resumed.
§ MR. HEYWOOD
said, in rising to move the introduction of the clause of which he had given notice, he thought that it was very well adapted to the Bill they had before them, which appointed a certain number of Commissioners, who were to act for four years; and the time which it took to obtain a degree at Oxford, as he proposed by his Resolution to enable Dissenters to do, would be nearly coincident with the term of the Commissioners' powers. After the expiration of the four years, if Parliament thought proper, the question could be again dealt with if necessary. The object of the clause was to render the University a national institution, and he thought such a proceeding would have a tendency to create a kindly feeling between the different religious denominations of the country. However necessary it was for parties entering the Church to subscribe to religious tests, he could not see that it was either just or requisite to compel the laity to subscribe to them.
§ MR. EVELYN DENISON
said, he begged to second the Motion of the hon. 884 Gentleman, with whom he felt it an honour to be associated in prosecuting the object he had in view. He hoped the House would consider the position in which the question was now placed by what had already occurred. The House had granted to the Dissenters the same advantage as they enjoyed at Cambridge, namely, admission without the oath; and by this Bill they had also sanctioned private halls. The clause of the hon. Member was, therefore, only the natural and necessary corollary which would give completeness to the measure. Civil disabilities on account of religious distinctions were inconsistent with the spirit of the nineteenth century; and he rejoiced that the house had decided upon placing the stamp of that spirit upon this Bill by a majority of ninety-one on a former night. The singular moderation of his hon. Friend's proposition was its best claim to the favour of the House. If, however, it should be opposed, he hoped that it would be supported by such a majority as would not only secure its passage through that House, but would see it safely to its journey's end.
Clause (From and after the first day of Michaelmas Term, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four, it shall not be necessary for any person, upon taking the degree of Bachelor in Arts, Law, Medicine, or Music, in the University of Oxford, to make or subscribe any declaration, or take any oath, save the oath of allegiance, or an equivalent declaration of allegiance, any law or Statute to the contrary notwithstanding)—brought, up, and read the first time.
§ MR. HENLEY
said, he could not agree to the proposition of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood). The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said, that this was a very moderate proposal; but he had forgotten that the hon. Member who brought forward the clause had indicated now for the first time, that the period for taking bachelors' degrees being for four years, the Commission would come to an end at that period; and that the question could then be reconsidered. ["Hear, hear!"] It was quite plain by the cheers that there was no mistake upon this point. Therefore, when his hon. Friend (Mr. E. Denison) called this a moderate proposal, he would remind him that the candid and manly statement of the hon. Member for North Lancashire placed the question in anything but a moderate light; for it was evident that it was the ultimate intention of the 885 supporters of this clause to go the whole length of the original proposition. The University of Oxford had been lulled to sleep on this question of the admission of Dissenters by the assurances of the Government at the commencement of the discussion that no proposition of the kind would be included in this Bill. No member of the University had the least reason to suppose that any matter of this sort would be considered in relation to this Bill. The University was now taken entirely by surprise. It was true every Member of the Government spoke strongly last week in favour of this measure, but they voted against it. The whole power they brought to bear against it was about forty Members. He did not think that that showed a very great stir upon the part of the Government to oppose the measure on that occasion. They were told that, all religious disabilities having been removed, the University should be as open as any other place. But what did that involve? The University being a place of national education, must therefore cease altogether, as a University, to be a place of religious education. He should like to know how the examination upon the truths of Christianity, and the distinctive teaching of the Church, was to be continued under such circumstances. In the separate colleges they might teach what they pleased, but, so far as the University was concerned, unless she set herself against the State, and by her Statutes and regulations made the present measure of no effect; if she acted in accordance with the proposed law and framed her examination so as to enable all persons to be included within them, she would cease to be a religious institution altogether. The principle involved was by no means a trifling one, but, if he saw the way clear to the University of Oxford remaining a teacher of religion consistently with such a clause as this, he should not oppose it. As yet, however, no one had attempted to point out how that was to be effected. For his own part he believed it to be an impossibility, and, believing it to be an impossibility, though he got but a single person to follow him into the lobby, he would divide the House upon it. The question was one of the greatest consequence. The majority of persons who now sent their children to Oxford, did so because they knew they would be trained up in the principles of religion, and he did not think that, for the sake of a minority who might go there, they had any right to knock up 886 the existing system, and that they would knock it up by the clause under consideration to him was quite apparent. It had been stated in the course of the discussion on this Bill, that one-half of the population consisted of Dissenters from the Established Church. He (Mr. Henley) doubted the accuracy of that assertion. Hon. Members, no doubt, founded their statement upon the fact that half the people who attended divine service on a given day were not members of the Church of England. But the hon. Member for North Lancashire must know as well as he (Mr. Henley) that a very large portion of the population went nowhere, and it was the duty of an Established Church to look after those who did not look after themselves. An established Church was always, in a certain sense, a missionary Church among that large portion of the people who, unfortunately, paid no attention to their religious duties at all. It was a violent assumption to say, therefore, that half the community did not belong to the Established Church. His objection to the clause, then, was that it would occasion the University, as contradistinguished from the colleges and halls, to cease to be a place for religious instruction; and believing that it would produce great mischief, and destroy that which was the most useful part of the University system, he begged to move that the clause be read a second time that day six months.
§ MR. NEWDEGATE
, in seconding the Amendment, said, the hon. Member for North Lancashire had truly stated that his object was to get rid of the religious education of the laity of the Church of England, and he proposed to do this by abolishing the requirement that they should sign the Articles of the Church or be examined upon them. The intention of the clause was not merely that the Dissenters should not be required to subscribe the Articles of the Church of England, but that the laity of the Church of England should not be required to understand, subscribe, or agree to them. The hon. Member had observed, historically and correctly, that subscription to these Articles had become a regulation of the University during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. That was one of the fruits of the Reformation, and it marked the period when the University was by this regulation brought into accordance with the church of England, as then reformed, and became truly Protestant. He begged the House, there- 887 fore, to remember that it was a Protestant test which had hitherto been required from the members of the University of Oxford that they were now called upon to abolish. The recent history of the University did not prove that it ought to be the object of sincere members of the Church, or indeed of sincere Protestants of any denomination, to remove Protestant tests or teaching front that institution. And this he thought was a good reason why the House should not permit subscription to and examination in the Thirty-nine Articles to be abolished. It had been objected, in the first place, that members of the University at matriculation should be required to sign those Articles. It was now proposed that they should no longer be examined in the substance of the Articles on taking their degrees, or be called upon to sign them at that or any subsequent period. Now, as a sincerely attached member of the University of Oxford, and having viewed with much pain the dangers to which she had been exposed by the Tractarian movement, he deprecated this object most heartily and with serious apprehension, because he saw that the House, in its anxiety to provide for the admission of Protestant Dissenters to the University, without considering both sides of the question, was about to remove the Protestant safeguards of the University, and that at the very period when it was known such safeguards were doubly requisite. He was glad the proposition had been stripped of the pretence that examination in the Articles was any longer to be required of members of the Church of England, from which their competitors in other branches of learning were to be exempt, and that the proposer of the clause clearly indicated that he expected the Commissioners would compel the University to abandon the examination of any of her members for bachelors' degrees in the doctrines of the Church of England if this clause were adopted. He was glad it had been declared that it was the intention of the clause that the lay members of the Church of England should no longer be educated or examined, so far as the University regulations had force, in the doctrines of religion—the doctrines of the Church of England. It at once, he repeated, stripped the proposition of the pretence of being consistent with the continuance of the University as a great educational institution in connection with the Church. The measure was, in fact, the commence- 888 ment—and only the commencement—of a plan which was designed to sever the connection at present subsisting between the University and the Church; for the hon. Member (Mr. Heywood) had clearly indicated that this was but an instalment of his whole object, which whole object was to place Dissenters and Roman Catholics, equally with members of the Church of England, in the government of the University, by admitting them to the degree of masters of arts, and, as far as it could be accomplished, to reduce the system of the University of Oxford to the system which prevailed in the University of London, wherein there was no religion taught, no religion acknowledged, and no distinctive connection maintained with any Church.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, one observation had dropped from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and also from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), which required a moment's notice. Now, it was the intention of his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) and the Government to support the clause of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood), and he, for his own part, should deliberately join in giving that vote, in the full conviction that, as matters now stood, and after the unmistakable expression of the will of the House, he was doing that which was best for the interest of the University of Oxford itself. The wishes and intentions of the hon. Member for North Lancashire were no doubt entitled to be heard with all respect, but he would venture to observe to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that this clause could not in any authoritative way fix the House of Commons to those views. The right hon. Gentleman said that after the House had passed this clause, it would be impossible for the education of the University to continue a religious education. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was bound to say that, if that were true, nothing would induce him to vote for the clause. But he found nothing in the clause to prevent the University from doing that which the right hon. Gentleman said it would not be able to do—namely, to administer, as she had heretofore done, a religious education to the children of the Church of England. No doubt it would be necessary for the University, in order to give full effect to the decision of Parliament—if Parliament 889 adopted the decision—to adapt her own rules and regulations to the purposes of Parliament with regard to the admission and training of persons of other religious persuasions. It would be the duty of the University to address herself cheerfully and carefully to the performance of that task, and he had no doubt that to the duty she would so address herself. But as to religious education, he ventured the confident opinion that it would continue to be given there as heretofore, and that the construction which the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had put on the clause —with respect to its effects, and the character of the education given at Oxford, and generally of the undergraduates—was a construction which was not justified by the clause itself. He might add that it was a construction which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) would be glad to find would not be justified by the results.
§ MR. SERGEANT SHEE
said, he was of founder's kin to one of the Oxford colleges, and yet he was to be excluded from any governing power in the University. So far so good, and he had no objection to that. The Universities had become great national institutions in connection with the Church of England, and he for one did not demur to being excluded from all governing power in those of Oxford and Cambridge. He differed, however, from What had fallen from an hon. Friend of his the other day, as to its being a matter of indifference to those who professed the ancient faith of the land whether they were excluded by religious tests or not. He might agree with him in thinking that there was no advantage to be obtained at either University which might not be too clearly purchased by the sacrifice of the faith they professed, but he did not concur in the opinion that there was danger of young men who went to the Universities losing their faith by contact with the members of the Established Church, or of having their religious principles in any way weakened by availing themselves of a University education. He should vote with great satisfaction for the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heywood), but, while he did not complain of the restriction in question, he must say he wished that the principle should be extended to the Irish Universities, and that, as they had excluded from the governing power of the national Universities in England persons who did not profess the religion of the Church of England, so they would also exclude from the government of 890 the Irish Universities those who did not profess the national faith of that country—taking care that the governing body should alter their rules and Statutes in such a manner that persons of a different religion might have the opportunity of obtaining an University education in their colleges. He also wished seriously to submit to hon. Gentlemen, members of the Church of England, whether it was right that an oath should be imposed at all on anybody in the University? He understood that at present, on taking a degree at Oxford, young men were required to call God to witness that—No foreign prince, prelate, or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, either ecclesiastical or spiritual, in Her Majesty's realms, dominions, or country.He would ask whether hon. Members thought that was an oath which ought to be taken either at Oxford or elsewhere. Ought not the existence of the fact that such authority was notoriously obeyed in this country to be sufficient to prevent it from being taken? From the time of the Reformation down to the reign of George III., such an oath might properly have been taken; but if he could show that by an Act of Parliament spiritual obedience to a foreign potentate had been made legal, and that successive Acts of Parliaments had recognised that legality, and the status of individuals created by such authority, he submitted that no conscientious man, aware of such facts, could or ought to take such an oath. It was fitting, when they were dealing with the oaths which certain parties should be required to take, that their attention should be called to their own Acts passed within the last fifty years, and which were wholly inconsistent with the plain meaning of the oath in question. Since the passing of the Acts of the 13 & 14 Geo. III. c. 35, and the 21 & 22 Geo. III. c. 24 (Irish), by which "Popish bishops" and all the rites and ceremonies of the Catholic religion, including, of course, the conferring of holy orders by "Popish bishops," were legalised, and of the 18 & 31 Geo. III. (English), to the same effect, priests in holy orders of the Church of Rome had been so far recognised by the laws that, though British subjects, they could not sit in that House or serve on a jury; and how could persons swear that the foreign prelate under whose authority such priests were inducted had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this realm? It could not be 891 denied that the Romish priests were inducted by bishops who derived authority from the See of Rome, and which bishops had stated to the House the manner of their appointment and the nature of the Bulls under which they were appointed. Only a few years ago a Commission, authorised by the Act of 7 & Vict., had issued relative to pastoral superintendence in Ireland, to which archbishops and bishops of the Romish Church were nominated, and Protestant archbishops and bishops of the United Kingdom had the liberality to become members of that Commission, and actually trustees of charitable donations and bequests in favour of archbishops and bishops, and their successors, appointed by Papal Bulls to pastoral superintendence in the realm. He hoped, after the statement he had now made, somebody would quiet his conscience on this point, by stating something which would justify this Protestant Legislature in imposing oaths on the youth of the country that were inconsistent with the obedience recognised by their Acts of Parliament of a certain class to foreign spiritual jurisdiction; and that the governing bodies in the University—that of All Souls, for instance, from which he was excluded because the Statutes of the founder had been violated—would have the goodness to take the matter into their consideration, and ascertain whether such an oath could consistently be taken.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 233; Noes 79: Majority 154.
|List of the AYES.|
|Acland, Sir T. D.||Butt, I.|
|Adair, H. E.||Byng, hon. G. H. C.|
|Aglionby, H. A.||Cardwell, rt. hon. E.|
|Anderson, Sir J.||Castlerosse, Visct.|
|Annesley, Earl of||Cavendish, hon. C. C.|
|Baines, rt. hon. M. T.||Cayley, E. S.|
|Ball, J.||Cheetham, J.|
|Bell, J.||Clay, Sir W.|
|Berkeley, Adm.||Cobden, R.|
|Berkeley, hon. C. F.||Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.|
|Berkeley, C. L. G.||Coffin, W.|
|Bethell, Sir R.||Conolly, T.|
|Biggs, W.||Corbally, M. E.|
|Blackett, J. F. B.||Cowper, hon. W. F.|
|Blair, Col.||Craufurd, E. H. J.|
|Bland, L. H.||Crook, J.|
|Bonham-Carter, J.||Crossley, F.|
|Bouverie, hon. E. P.||Davie, Sir H. R. F.|
|Bramston, T. W.||Davies, D. A. S.|
|Bright, J.||Dent, J. D.|
|Brocklehurst, J.||Doring, Sir E.|
|Butler, C. S.||Drumlannig, Visct.|
|Drummond, H.||Labouchere, rt. hon. H.|
|Duncan, G.||Langston, J. H.|
|Duncombe, T.||Langton, H. G.|
|Dundas, F.||Laslett, W.|
|Dunlop, A. M.||Lemon, Sir C.|
|Dunne, Col.||Lennox, Lord H. G.|
|Du Pre, C. G.||Liddell, H. G.|
|Elcho, Lord||Lindsay, W. S.|
|Ellice, rt. hon. E.||Littleton, hon. E. R.|
|Ellice, E.||Lowe, R.|
|Esmonde, J.||Lucas, F.|
|Ewart, W.||Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.|
|Fagan, W.||Mackie, J.|
|Feilden, M. J.||M'Cann, J.|
|Ferguson, Col.||M'Taggart, Sir J.|
|Ferguson, Sir R.||Mangles, R. D.|
|Fitzgerald, W. R. S.||Marjoribanks, D. C.|
|Fitzroy, hon. H.||Massey, W. N.|
|Forster, C.||Miall, E,|
|Forster, J.||Milligan, R.|
|Fortescue, C. S.||Mills, T.|
|Fox, R. M.||Milnes, R. M.|
|Fox, W. J.||Michell, W.|
|Freestun, Col.||Mitchell, T. A.|
|Gardner, R.||Moffatt, G.|
|Gaskell, J. M.||Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W.|
|Geach, C.||Monck, Visct.|
|Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.||Monsell, W.|
|Gladstone, rt. hon. W.||Montgomery, Sir G.|
|Gladstone, Capt.||Morris, D.|
|Glyn, G. C.||Mostyn, hn. T. E. M. L.|
|Goderich, Visct.||Mulgrave, Earl of|
|Goold, W.||Murrough, J. P.|
|Goulburn, rt. hon. H.||Norreys, Lord|
|Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.||O'Connell, D.|
|Greaves, E.||Oliveira, B.|
|Greene, J.||Osborne, R.|
|Greene, T.||Otway, A. J.|
|Greville, Col. F.||Paget, Lord A.|
|Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.||Paget, Lord G.|
|Grey, R. W.||Palk, L.|
|Grosvenor, Lord R.||Patten, J. W.|
|Hadfield, G.||Pechell, Sir G. B.|
|Hall, Sir B.||Peel, F.|
|Hankey, T.||Pellatt, A.|
|Hanmer, Sir J.||Pennant, hon. Col.|
|Hastie, Alex.||Perry, Sir T. E.|
|Hastie, Arch.||Peto, S. M.|
|Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.||Phillimore, J. G.|
|Headlam, T. E.||Phillimore, R. J.|
|Heathcoat, J.||Pigott, F.|
|Heathcote, Sir G. J.||Pilkington, J.|
|Heathcote, G. H.||Pinney, W.|
|Herbert, rt hon. S.||Portman, hon. W. H. B.|
|Hervey, Lord A.||Price, Sir R.|
|Heyworth, L.||Price, W. P.|
|Hindley, C.||Ricardo, J. L.|
|Hogg, Sir J. W.||Ricardo, O.|
|Horsman, E.||Rich, H.|
|Howard, hon. C. W. G.||Robartes, T. J. A.|
|Hudson, G.||Robertson, P. F.|
|Hutt, W.||Roebuck, J. A.|
|Ingham, R.||Russell, Lord J.|
|Jackson, W.||Russell, F. C. H.|
|Johnstone, J.||Russell, F. W.|
|Johnstone, Sir J.||Sawle, C. B. G.|
|Keating, H. S.||Scholefield, W.|
|Keogh, W.||Scobell, Capt.|
|Kershaw, J.||Scott, hon. F.|
|King, hon. P. J. L.||Scully, V.|
|Kinnaird, hon. A. F.||Seymour, Lord|
|Kirk, W.||Seymour, H. D.|
|Knightley, R.||Seymour, W. D.|
|Shee, W.||Vivian, J. H.|
|Shelley, Sir J. V.||Vivian, H. H.|
|Smith, J. B.||Walmsley, Sir J.|
|Smith, rt. hon. R. V.||Walter, J.|
|Smyth, J. G.||Warner, E.|
|Stanley, Lord||Whitbread, S.|
|Stanley, hon. W. O.||Wickham, H. W.|
|Stirling, W.||Wilkinson, W. A.|
|Strickland, Sir G.||Willcox, B. M.|
|Strutt, rt. hon. E.||Williams, W.|
|Stuart, Lord D.||Willoughby, Sir H.|
|Sutton, J. H. M.||Wilson, J.|
|Tancred, H. W.||Winnington, Sir T. E.|
|Thicknesse, R. A.||Wise, A.|
|Thompson, G.||Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.|
|Thornely, T.||Woodd, B. T.|
|Tollemache, J.||Wrightson, W. B.|
|Traill, G.||Wyvill, M.|
|Tynte, Col. C. J. K.||Young, rt. hon. Sir J.|
|Vane, Lord H.|
|Vane, Lord A.||TELLERS.|
|Vernon, G. E. H.||Heywood, J.|
|Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.||Denison, J. E.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Adderley, C. B.||Knox, hon. W. S.|
|Alexander, J.||Leslie, C. P.|
|Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.||Lockhart, W.|
|Baldock, E. H.||Lowther, Capt.|
|Bankes, rt. hon. G.||Macartney, G.|
|Barrow, W. H.||Malins, R.|
|Beach, Sir M. H. H.||March, Earl of|
|Bentinck, G. W. P.||Masterman, J.|
|Beresford, rt. hon. W.||Mowbray, J. R.|
|Booker, T. W.||Mullings, J. R.|
|Burrell, Sir C. M.||Napier, rt. hon. J.|
|Carnae, Sir J. R.||Neeld, John|
|Cecil, Lord R.||Neeld, Jos.|
|Child, S.||Newark, Visct.|
|Christy, S.||North, Col.|
|Clive, R.||Ossulston, Lord|
|Colvile, C. R.||Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Palmer, Rob.|
|Deedes, W.||Palmer, Round.|
|Disraeli, rt. hon. B.||Parker, R. T.|
|Duncombe, hon. A.||Portal, M.|
|Duncombe, hon. W. E.||Repton, G. W. J.|
|East, Sir J. B.||Shirley, E. P.|
|Egerton, W. T.||Smith, W. M.|
|Fellowes, E.||Smith, A.|
|Filmer, Sir E.||Spooner, R.|
|Floyer, J.||Stafford, A.|
|Forbes, W.||Taylor, Col.|
|Freshfield, J. W.||Tyler, Sir G.|
|Frewen, C. H.||Tyrell. Sir J. T.|
|Galway, Visct.||Vance, J.|
|George, J.||Vyse, Col.|
|Graham, Lord M. W.||Waddington, H. S.|
|Granby, Marq. of||Walcott, Adm.|
|Grogan, E.||Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.|
|Hamilton, G. A.||Walsh, Sir J. B.|
|Hawkins, W. W.||Wigram, L. T.|
|Heathcote, Sir W.||Williams, T. P.|
|Heneage, G. H. W.||TELLERS.|
|Irton, S.||Henley, rt. hon. J. W.|
|Jones, Capt.||Newdegate, C. N.|
§ Clause read 2o.
§ MR. WIGRAM
said, he understood that those who voted for the clause intended that the persons with whom the government of the colleges and Universities 894 should rest should still be members of the Church of England. It appeared to him, however, now that the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles was abolished, that the protection remaining would be of an imperfect character. That protection consisted only in that passage of the Act of Uniformity which required a declaration of conformation to the liturgy of the Church of England. This guarantee, in practice, amounted to nothing, for Dissenters, and even Roman Catholics, might conform to the liturgy of tile Church of England, though they would not subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. In fact, there was nothing in it which might not be conscientiously conformed to by either; and, therefore, there was nothing which precluded either from holding fellowships, and thereby from participating in the government of the University, as well as sharing its patronage, and taking part in the instruction of its youth. There was nothing, likewise, to prevent Roman Catholics from becoming professors under the circumstances, and so of exercising an enlarged influence over instruction in the University. He thought that this was not what the House intended, and he would therefore move a proviso which would have the effect of giving the same protection that existed at present against any one not a member of the Church of England holding office in any college. At the same time, he was quite willing to leave the whole matter in the hands of the University, and if they thought it right to qualify the present oaths in any way, he thought they should have power to do so.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the clause, to add the words,Provided always, that no person taking such degree shall be capable of holding any office, station, or emolument involving any duties or powers of government, administration, patronage, or instruction within the University or Colleges respectively, without having previously subscribed such oath and declarations as by the present law and usage of the University would have been required to he taken and made by him at any time or times previously to or at his taking the said degree; so that this present Proviso may be altered by any Statutes duly made by the University,
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. HEYWOOD
said, he must decidedly object to this proviso. He had been censured for not giving more notice of his clause, and now here was a proviso, which was in fact an entirely new regulation, brought forward without any notice at all, 895 The degree of B.A. conferred upon a graduate no station, power, or office whatever in the University. The only emolument that he could obtain was by acting as a private tutor if he was clever, and that it was now proposed to deprive him of unless he signed an acknowledgment of the Royal Supremacy in the most extreme form in which it was received in the days of the Stuarts, and an affirmation of belief in the entire Prayer-book and the Thirty-nine Articles. He thought that was perfectly monstrous. He thought the admission to fellowships was even now too much restricted by the provision that those who held them should sign a declaration of conformity to the liturgy of the Church of England. He understood, indeed, that the practice of making such a declaration was very much disused at Oxford. He was glad of it, and hoped that they would not again revive it.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Wigram) by this proviso proposed to add to the stringency of the Act of Uniformity, seeming thereby to imply that that Act was not sufficiently restrictive, and that further tests were requisite. He should certainly oppose any such proviso.
§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he would recommend his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wigram) not to press his Motion. He (Mr. Walpole) had voted in the minority on the last division, because he was anxious that the University should regulate its own proceedings; but, if he had been asked to give his vote simply upon the clause, he would have regarded it merely as a consequence of the clauses which had been previously agreed to by the House, and as completing the education to be given to Dissenters, believing that under its operation they would not be admitted to any share in the government of the University. As it had been said that this clause was only regarded as an instalment of something to be hereafter demanded, he wished it to be distinctly understood that his reason for not opposing the clause was that he considered it as a settlement of the question. He would venture to say that, whenever the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) brought forward a proposal for giving Dissenters either a right to trusts and endowments which were intended for others, or powers with regard to the government of the University, he would meet with an opposition which would effectually prevent such a proposal from being carried into effect.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause read 3o, and added.
MR. J. G. PIIILLIMORE
moved the following clause—That no Member of the University who shall have matriculated after the 1st of December next shall be allowed, on account of his rank, to pass his examination or take his degree sooner than another Undergraduate.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, that, looking to the merits of the clause, there could be no doubt that persons should not be allowed, on account of their rank, to take degrees sooner than other undergraduates, and as the clause would not affect persons now at the University, who had gone through a part of their studies, he did not think there could be any objection to it. The clause had formerly been objected to on the part of the Government as proposing to do by Act of Parliament what the University might itself accomplish. He considered that the clause in its present form was quite reasonable in itself, and he would therefore give it his support.
§ MR. GOULBURN
said, he must admit that he was not friendly to the clause. He had no desire to curtail the period of education for persons of rank at the University. It was now open to every nobleman, who thought fit to do so, to go through the ordinary course for a degree, and there had been many instances in which noblemen who were distinguished Members of the other House had gone through the ordinary course for degrees, and had been successful in carrying off prizes at the Universities. He thought, however, that the clause would deprive the University of a power which he considered that it ought to possess; namely, that of granting degrees to persons of distinction who had deserved well of their country. That was a power which had always been exercised by the University, and he would be sorry to see it abolished by a Resolution of that House.
§ MR. HEYWOOD
said, that a very experienced member of the University of Oxford, the Rev. W. Hayward Cox, in the course of his evidence, recommended that commoners should have the privilege of taking degrees within the same time in which degrees might be taken by noble-men. Mr. Cox said—It is my impression, founded on the experience of a quarter of a century, that a great portion of the extravagance, indolence, and ignorance, which prevail among students at Oxford, is 897 traceable to the insufficient occupation absolutely imposed on candidates for degrees during the three years and a half of necessary residence. That such a protracted period is not, in point of fact, essential, is recognised by the privilege conceded to the nobility and the eldest sons of baronets, &c., of proceeding to their degrees at the commencement of the twelfth terns from their matriculation; and I have no hesitation in recommending the abolition of this privilege, by rendering it common to all candidates for ordinary degrees. I believe that at University College, and other colleges which are under an improved administration, it has even been found practicable to send successful aspirants to the highest academical honours into the schools, at the same period.
§ MR. WARNER
said, he did not think the clause would in any degree interfere with the power of the University to shorten the term of residence, if the governing body thought fit to do so. The clause might, however, interfere with the right of the University to confer honorary degrees, and he would suggest that words should be inserted reserving that power to the University.
§ Clause greed to, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. EVELYN DENISON
said, he wished to move to add the following words at the end of Clause 18—"Heads of colleges and halls, being professors, shall vote only for heads of colleges or halls." The House had on a former evening decided that heads of colleges should elect the heads of colleges who were to form part of Congregation; that professors should elect the professors; and that heads of houses should not interfere in the election of the deputies from Convocation. It seemed, therefore, requisite to the logical completeness of the clause, that die House should agree to the addition he now proposed to make.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that neither he nor his Colleagues entertained less objection than formerly to a sectional, as compared to a general constituency. As, however, the House had adopted a sectional constituency, he thought they ought to be consistent, and adopt the proposal of his hon. Friend.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
said, he would now move to add to Clause 29, the additional words of which he had given notice.
898 Amendment proposed, at the end of Clause 29 to add the words— "Residents shall be taken to mean persons whose residence within the University for twenty-four weeks during the twelve months next before the first day of the current or next preceding Michaelmas Term, shall have been verified by the declaration in writing of all persons claiming to vote or act as such residents, or in such other manner as the University shall from time to time by Statute appoint."
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he objected to the provision. He thought it would be much better to leave it to the University itself to make regulations upon this point.
§ MR. EVELYN DENISON
hoped the proposal would not be adopted, as it had, by common consent, been left to the University to define the meaning of residence.
§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
said, he was under a contrary impression. He would, of course, much rather the question was left to the decision of the University, and he should withdraw his Amendment.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said the definition was necessarily left to the Vice Chancellor pro hâc vice, as the elections had to take place before the Congregation could be constituted.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. ROUNDELL PALMER
said, he wished to make an addition to the clause with reference to interests specially saved or protected by the Bill.
Amendment proposed, at the end of Clause 29 to add the words—And the words 'existing' and 'enjoyed,' when used with reference to interests specially saved or protected by this Act, shall not extend to or include any right or claim which at the time of passing this Act may be in practical disuse.Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. H. S. KEATING
said, he thought the definition suggested by his hon. and learned Friend would give rise to more doubt than it would remove. The words "in practical disuse" were very vague, and he would suggest that in their stead should be employed the words "actually enjoyed within such a period."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.899
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
moved to add to the end of Clause 34 a proviso. The object of this proviso was to mitigate what he still believed would be the injurious working of this clause, which was added to the Bill on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer). With regard to scholarships and exhibitions, the words would leave the clause as it stood, and would touch only the fellowships. The fellowships stood upon a different footing to the studentships. When the colleges were originally founded, they were not intended to be the great teaching offices of the Universities, from which the Universities were to draw their scholars, but offices of residence and study in the colleges. Now, however, the country expected from the colleges the University education; and though they had private halls, it was to the fellows of the colleges they had to look for the conduct of that education. The question was, whether the Bill, as it originally stood, did not sufficiently provide for the protection of the interest of the schools. Power was given to the colleges to propose reforms, and if they did not, then the Commissioners had the power, and an appeal was given to the Privy Council. That would have been a sufficient protection to a school like Winchester, which was supposed to have a right of succession to New College; but, under the clause introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman the decision as to whether there should be any reform or not was left not only to the governing body of New College, but also to the governing body of Winchester, who would have to decide whether New College should still be a close college for the boys of Winchester or not? But was this governing body of Winchester School, a body so practically acquainted with New College or with the wants of Winchester School, to be intrusted with this duty? It was composed of ten clergymen, one of whom only took any active part in the affairs of the school, two others permanently resided in Winchester, and the other seven were never heard of there, and these were the persons who, under the hon. and learned Gentleman's clause, might nullify the purposes of this Bill and nullify the judgment of the Commissioners. As an illustration of the working of the present system, he might refer to the case of Winchester and New College; of the close fellowships there were no less than four vacant at this 900 moment, because no persons tolerably fit had been sent up by the school to fill them. He called upon them not to deliver the governing and teaching body in the University into the hands of bodies which would be totally incompetent to perform the functions intrusted to them.
§ Amendment proposed in Clause 34, after the words "any emolument," to insert "other than a Fellowship or Studentship."
§ MR. ROUNDELL PALMER
said, he considered it very unfortunate that the proposed Amendment had not been inserted in the Votes earlier, as many hon. Gentlemen had formed the opinion that this Amendment was not intended to be persevered in. The Amendment was entirely opposed to the principle of the clause to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. The principle of his clause was, that schools were as much entitled to the emoluments and endowments connected with those schools as the colleges to the endowments and emoluments of the colleges. Now, the parties appointed to carry out the new Act were persons in no way interested in the schools—their purposes were entirely academical, and had reference only to academical objects. It could hardly be expected that persons would pay any due regard to the rights and interests of schools whose powers were so exclusively limited to academical objects. The whole rights and interests of the schools, except for the clause which the House had adopted, were to be dealt with by a side-wind, and were to be regarded as haying merged into academical interests. It was not correct to describe fellowships and studentships as teaching offices, though he admitted the heads of colleges were generally selected from those bodies. If the effect of the clause was that it would force upon colleges such a number of fellows and students as could not furnish a proper body of tutors, that would be a serious objection. But such would not be the effect of the clause, and care had been taken by several Amendments to guard against possible objections of this character. To show how groundless was alarm on account of this clause, he would refer to the cases of Pembroke College and Balliol College, and scholars from Abingdon School. He begged to say that in no case would the college be left without a sufficiently well-qualified tutorial body. With respect to the scholars from Abingdon School, the college had the power of placing the qualification to emoluments as high as they pleased. This 901 would be a sufficient safeguard for the college. If they could not get boys from Abingdon School who came up to their own standard, they then could throw open the fellowships to all the world. Some thought, in giving the powers he had permitted to the college and the Commissioners, that he had gone too far; but he had been anxious to meet all objections, and to do away with all grounds for complaint or fear. It had been said that appeal could be made to the Privy Council for the preservation of the rights of schools. But the Commissioners would be guided only by the Bill, and the Bill totally ignored schools. It was purely and exclusively a University Bill. His point was, that colleges should not have the only voice in respect of continuing or otherwise fellowships attached to schools. The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment- on Christ Church and St. John's Colleges would be more extensive than the right hon. Gentleman appeared to conceive. The effect of the Amendment would be to take the three great schools—Winchester, Merchant Taylors', and Westminster, out of the operation of the clause. This he objected to. He thought the House ought not to trust to the way in which a particular body of persons would discharge a particular duty. The House ought to legislate upon general principles when legislating on such an important subject. If the Amendment was carried, it would possibly tend to impair the value of these great schools as educational institutions. It was not right to leave these three great schools dependent on the caprice or prejudices of particular persons or colleges for endowments and emoluments winch had been enjoyed by those schools since their foundation. There was no sound principle for submitting the interests of these great schools to the judgment of colleges. Again, if the Amendment was now conceded, they could not refuse next year to legislate in the same way for Eton. The right hon. Gentleman had gone on the supposition that it would not be right to intrust the governing body of these great schools with the power of deciding whether it would be for the advantage of the schools, or otherwise, that endowments and emoluments which they enjoyed ought to be abolished. Now, in reply to this, he would refer to the character and composition of the governing bodies, and to the way in which they had throughout discharged their duties. A reference to the scholars elected to the en- 902 dowments would establish the accuracy of that assertion. He trusted that Members interested in the different schools throughout the country, and more especially the Members for Scotland, with reference to the Snell Exhibitions attached to the University of Glasgow, would not forget that the principle for which he was contending was a principle of which they had had the benefit, but of which they would not have the benefit if they followed the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had declared that he considered the principle of the clause altogether mischievous.
§ MR. LOWE
said, that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) had, on a previous occasion, carried a Resolution, the effect of which was, that two-thirds of the governing body of any school might put a veto upon any regulation of the Commissioners for the abolition of preferences in the nomination to any exhibitions, scholarships, fellowships, or studentships, and now it was proposed to modify that Resolution. But, in his opinion, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have saved himself much circumlocution if he had proposed to enact that, in cases of preferences to scholarships, fellowships, studentships, or exhibitions, no alteration should be made in the present system. It would have been much shorter to do so, and the effect would have been precisely the same as that of the present proposal; and he should deal with the subject as if such had been in reality the proposition. It was the inclination, and, no doubt, it might be the duty, of the governing powers of schools to refuse, upon any consideration, to allow the emoluments to which they considered the schools to be entitled to be taken away. They were not bound to adopt cosmopolitan or national views upon the subject; but, on the contrary, as their duties were narrow, so their views would be narrow, and they would be influenced by local interest. He objected to the principle of the hon. and learned Gentleman that these fellowships and emoluments belonged to the schools alone. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to regard the school as everything, while in his mind the college was a mere appanage; he treated the school as the mother-country, the college as the colony, but such was not, he thought, a correct view of the case. The colleges of Oxford constituted the University, and it was from fellows of colleges that the governing body of the 903 University was supplied, and also the tutors. If, therefore, those fellowships were bestowed upon those schools, or awarded upon any consideration other than that of merit, no surer method could be adopted of keeping down rising talent, and the case might happen, as he had known it to happen, of a young man being compelled to listen to lectures from a person inferior to himself in knowledge. He looked upon colleges as great corporations, and surely they ought to be allowed to choose their own members. The hon. and learned Gentleman had likewise said that he would allow the Commissioners to raise the standard of merit in the case of persons coming from close schools, and, if the regulations they made were not complied with, that then these fellowships and studentships might be considered open; but he could not imagine anything worse than that it should go forth that any such arrangement was contemplated by that House. It appeared to him that the creed of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, "Let us have ignorance if we can, but if we cannot have that, then let us have merit;" but that was surely not a principle upon which the education of the country could be carried on. The case of Balliol had been referred to, but how had that college, during his own recollection, risen to the high rank in the University it now held? It was simply because the fellowships had been given to the best men in the University. With regard to Winchester, he could tell the House what Winchester was when he was acquainted with it. It was said now that boys of the ages of eight, nine, or ten years were to be admitted according to merit, and so the merit of a boy of that age would be sufficient to decide his position for life. In his time there was no question of merit at all, it was entirely a matter of interest; and relationship to persons dead for hundreds of years, or the possession of influential friends, was of infinitely more importance than merit. There were two effects generally attendant upon fellowships—a good and a bad effect. The good effect was, that they made a man work, and the bad effect, that when a person had obtained a fellowship it prevented him working. In the case of a boy who chance of a fellowship was decided at fourteen or fifteen years of age all stimulus to future exertion was withdrawn; and that was not the only evil. It might happen that, in order of merit, four or five commoners were superior to boys on the foun- 904 dation, but the boys on the foundation were appointed to fellowships, while the commoners were left to get on in the world as they best could, so that, in point of fact, the principle inculcated was, that industry and merit were very good things, but that interest was a great deal better. That was the practical lesson which he had learnt at Winchester, and was what had fallen to his share. The effect of that system was, that boys from the school, when they be- became undergraduates, had more facility for cultivating society, and they made the University very agreeable; but he found that, in many cases, the habits of economy which they acquired were not suitable to the station they were afterwards called upon to fill. Another bad effect of the system was, that a boy was thrown among a certain number of associates, both at school and college; if these associates were good ones, so much the better; but, if not, from the circumstance of the boys from one school going to the same college, he could not change his set when he arrived regard the University. With regard to the alteration proposed to be made in the admission of boys to Winchester, he could only say that he was glad for his own sake and for that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and of his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Cardwell), that no such change was made in his time; for, if it had, they would have been elected to the foundation, and then have gone to New College, and been all three ruined. He hoped that the House would bear in mind that the question really was, whether they would do those boys on the foundation of these schools the irreparable injury of making their fortunes for them before their minds were developed. It was also to be remembered that thirty-five writerships in the East India Company's service had been thrown open to public competition, and that they were of greater advantage to a young man than a fellowship of Oxford, and every means ought to be employed to preserve at Oxford as much talent as possible. That was not to be done by the principle of close fellowships, but the system which had in other cases worked so well ought to be introduced at the University, he meant the system of free and open competition.
§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
said, that the greater number of the arguments used by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had been anticipated and answered by the hon. and learned Member for Ply- 905 mouth. The hon. Member had argued on the supposition that it was desired to keep up the emoluments as they at present existed, but all that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Palmer) wished to maintain was existing rights. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth would leave it open to the colleges to form the most stringent regulations with respect to University distinctions. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) said, that the governing body of schools had not large cosmopolitan views. He hoped the hon. Gentleman did not mean that Oxford was to be actuated by cosmopolitan views at the expense of others. With respect to Winchester, it was known that the authorities of the school had a plan under consideration for giving greater competition among themselves for admission to New College, and there was nothing in the clause to prevent the authorities of New College making any stronger regulations they might think fit to ensure application and industry on the part of the youths of the college. What he contended for was, that Winchester should not be deprived of the powers of sending its scholars to New College, and that the advantages it enjoyed should not he diminished.
§ MR. GRANVILLE VERNON
said, he had not intended to speak on the present question, but he felt bound to state that his views had changed since he entered the House. He had entertained a strong feeling as to the schools being quite as important as the rights of the University itself. He had voted in favour of the Resolution of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. R. Palmer), but the debate that evening had convinced hint that he would not be justified in perpetuating abuses which were proved to exist. The character of those endowments had entirely changed. They had been intended to advance men in life, but now persons went to the University so much younger, that they had already started in life before they got the benefit of them. He thought that the claims of Christ Church had not been fully attended to in the Bill; it was left in a very anomalous state as regarded its connection with the schools, but he felt bound to give a vote contrary to his former one.
§ MR. HENLEY
said, that the hon. Member for Kidderminster had assumed that the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth was equivalent to one which should propose to retain, without any modification, the preferences and 906 privileges of schools in their entirety, as they at present existed. But it was quite as open for those on that side to assume—in spite of the modifications and checks proposed—that the object of the Bill was to sweep away all the endowments of the University, or to remodel them according to their own wish. He thought that the argument of the hon. Member for Kidderminster was more in favour of the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) than of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member said, that they must look to the colleges for the governing body of the University, but the hon. Gentleman had not alluded to the new halls, and did not say whether they were to have anything to do with the governing body. With regard to Balliol, it had been stated that an actual bargain existed, and there was much force in what the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth said with respect to that college. With regard to Jesus College, he would observe that the authorities hoped to confine it to all the schools in Wales, and therefore those Gentlemen who were so fond of competition would not let in a Scotchman or Englishman, but they stuck to Welshmen altogether. Then as to Pembroke College, it was originally founded for the school at Abingdon, and it would not be quite honest to throw overboard the trust created, and leave the school out of consideration. After all, the clause must rest upon the ground, that where there were two parties concerned, they could not leave the regulation of the whole affairs in the hands of one, and not give the body equally interested a part of the control. The preamble of the Bill had been altered without notice. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had struck out the most important words—words which had reference to the intentions of founders; and, in its present shape, the Privy Council would not take much notice of the founder's intentions. Altering the preamble without notice ought not to have been done. He should vote against the Amendment.
§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
said, that from the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, he should be inclined to say that it was directed against the Blundell School, at Tiverton, of which he was a trustee, and its connection with Balliol College. The scholarships belonging to that foundation were always filled up, and they finally issued in two fellow- 907 ships at Balliol, which fellowships were precisely aimed at by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. This certainly affected the interests of Balliol as a place of education. There were ten or twelve open fellowships in that college; and the two remaining ones were filled up by the men sent front Tiverton. And, on this subject, he could assure the House that the trustees always endeavoured to have the competitors at the examination classed according to their merits before they passed for selection. The provisions of the trust required that the trustees should have regard to merit, and to the condition of those whose parents were least able to afford the expenses of education. This was done; and the boys were divided into three classes, so that the trustees were enabled to fulfil their duties according to the intentions of the trust. If the right hon. Gentleman would leave the school alone, he did not deny that some improvement might be made in the arrangements with Balliol College; but he protested against the funds of the school being applied to the endowment of open fellowships. He objected, also, to the sacrifice of one of the fellowships. He believed the adoption of the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be detrimental to the interests of the school which he had referred to, and to the opportunities which a local school afforded for stimulating young men to exertion.
§ MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE
said, it appeared to him that the state of the question was this—the House having decided distinctly, and by a not inconsiderable majority, in spite of the opposition of the Government, in favour of the clause moved by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, they were now undoubtedly taken by surprise by a Motion which would substantially destroy the effect of their previous decision, with one very unimportant exception. That exception was the Snell exhibitions; but he hoped that hon. Members from the North would not, in consequence of that exception, be induced to depart from a principle which they had upon a former occasion supported. It might be a successful artifice, and be an ingenious device worthy of a great statesman, to take such means of securing a majority; but he would sooner be in the smallest minority that ever divided that House, than attempt to obtain the end by such means. He had listened with considerable surprise to the very flippant tone 908 in which the hon. Member for Kidderminster had treated the question; but he observed with regret that from the beginning to the end he did not make a single allusion to the principle of justice which was involved in the question. All that his speech amounted to was, that it was convenient to take the money of these schools. Every consideration of justice and feeling, every consideration to which a court of justice would listen, was entirely put aside by the hon. Member. He begged to remind the hon. Member that no nation and no community gained by a direct disregard of the principles of justice, and if they set an example of this sort it might not possibly stop with these confiscations which were now proposed for their convenience. The time might come when such a precedent, employed in worse days, and with a more mischievous spirit, might be productive of the most fatal consequences. There was not a single argument, however, which had been used by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Palmer) in which he had not been anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman in 1850, when he opposed the Commission. At that time he particularly dwelt upon the fact that examination was often a fallacious test; yet now he put forward a successful examination as a reason for sweeping away these school foundations and every obligation connected with them. He said, too, at that time, that greater injury could hardly he inflicted upon the poor than by the noble Lord's measure; yet here he was himself inflicting that injury. He (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) trusted that in spite of artifice and sophistry these institutions would be maintained intact and inviolate. He trusted that the House of Commons would not consent to maim and mutilate those noble institutions which Cromwell himself had spared. He trusted that institutions which had survived the civil wars would survive tricks and artifice in the House of Commons. He trusted they would survive the machinations of which they had to-night had an example. He would entreat the right hon. Gentleman, in words that he well knew were familiar to him, to return to his former opinions and preserve the connection between these ancient foundations and the University—Lift not thy spear against the Muses' bower;The Great Emathian conqueror bade spareThe house of Pindarus, when temple and towerWent to the ground; and the repeated airOf sad Electra's poet had the powerTo save the Athenian Walls from ruin bare.
§ MR. HEYWOOD
said, it was his intention to support the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition.
§ MR. DUNLOP
said, he should repeat the vote which he had given the other night in favour of the clause, as proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer)—although, if anything could have induced him to alter that vote it would have been the kind of appeal made by the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore), who seemed to imagine that the Scotch Members required to be shamed out of taking a course which he (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) had held up to reprobation. They needed no such inducement; and although he entirely acquitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any attempt to lure the Scotch Members into giving their votes in support of the present proposition, he felt that the principle involved now was the same as had been moved when the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had first brought this subject under the consideration of the House; and although Scotland was now safe, he still considered it his duty to take the course which he had.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 139: Majority 10.
|List of the AYES.|
|Aglionby, H. A.||Drumlanrig, Visct.|
|Atherton, W.||Elcho, Lord|
|Baines, rt. hon. M. T.||Fagan, W.|
|Ball, J.||Feilden, M. J.|
|Bell, J.||Ferguson, Sir R.|
|Berkeley, Adm.||Fitzroy, hon. H.|
|Bethell, Sir R.||Forster, J.|
|Blackett, J. F. B.||Fortescue, C. S.|
|Bland, L. H.||Fox, R. M.|
|Bouverie, hon. E. P.||Fox, W. J.|
|Brady, J.||Gardner, R.|
|Brotherton, J.||Geach, C.|
|Bruce, Lord E.||Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.|
|Buckley, Gen.||Gladstone, rt. hon. W.|
|Cardwell, rt. hon. E.||Glyn, G. C.|
|Cheetham, J.||Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.|
|Clay, Sir W.||Greene, J.|
|Clinton, Lord R.||Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.|
|Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.||Grosvenor, Earl|
|Cogan, W. H. F.||Hadfield, G.|
|Coote, Sir C. H.||Hankey, T.|
|Cowper, hon. W. F.||Headlam, T. E.|
|Craufurd, E. H. J.||Heneage, G. F.|
|Crook, J.||Herbert, rt. hon. S.|
|Crossley, F.||Hervey, Lord A.|
|Dashwood, Sir G. H.||Heywood, J.|
|Denison, J. E.||Heyworth, L.|
|Dent, J. D.||Hindley, C.|
|Hutt, W.||Portman, hon. W. H. B.|
|Ingham, R.||Price, W. P.|
|Jackson, W.||Richardson, J. J.|
|Keating, R.||Rumbold, C. E.|
|Keogh, W.||Russell, Lord J.|
|Kershaw, J.||Russell, F. C. H.|
|King, hon. P. J. L.||Russell, F. W.|
|Kirk, W.||Sadleir, Jas.|
|Langston, J. H.||Sawle, C. B. G.|
|Langton, H. G.||Scobell, Capt.|
|Lee, W.||Scully, F.|
|Littleton, hon. E. R.||Scully, V.|
|Locke, J.||Seymour, W. D.|
|Lowe, R.||Shafto, R. D.|
|M'Cann, J.||Smith, J. B.|
|MacGregor, John||Strickland, Sir G.|
|M'Taggart, Sir J.||Strutt, rt. hon. E.|
|Miall, E.||Tancred, H. W.|
|Milligan, R.||Thicknesse, R. A.|
|Milner, W. M. E.||Thornely, T.|
|Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W.||Vernon, G. E. H.|
|Monck, Visct.||Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.|
|Monsell, W.||Vivian, H. H.|
|Mulgrave, Earl of||Walmsley, Sir J.|
|Norreys, Lord||Watkins, Col. L.|
|Norreys, Sir D. J.||Whitbread, S.|
|North, F.||Wickham, H. W.|
|O'Connell, J.||Wilkinson, W. A.|
|Osborne, R.||Willcox, B. M.|
|Palmerston, Visct.||Williams, W.|
|Pechell, Sir G. B.||Wilson, J.|
|Peel, F.||Wilmington, Sir T. E.|
|Pellatt, A.||Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.|
|Perry, Sir T. E.||Wyvill, M.|
|Peto, S. M.||Young, rt. hon. Sir J.|
|Pinney, W.||Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.|
|Pollard-Urquhart, W.||Berkeley, C. L. G.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Acland, Sir T. D.||Duncombe, hon. W. E.|
|Alexander, J.||Dundas, G.|
|Anderson, Sir J.||Dunlop, A. M.|
|Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.||Dunne, Col.|
|Ball, E.||East, Sir J. B.|
|Barrow, W. H.||Egerton, E. C.|
|Bateson, T.||Ewart, W.|
|Beach, Sir M. H. H.||Fellowes, E.|
|Bentinck, G. W. P.||Fergus, J.|
|Beresford, rt. hon. W.||Filmer, Sir E.|
|Booker, T. W.||Floyer, J.|
|Bramston, T. W.||Follett, B. S.|
|Brocklehurst, J.||Forbes, W.|
|Brockman, E. D.||Freshfield, J. W.|
|Burghley, Lord||Frewen, C. H.|
|Burrell, Sir C. M.||Galway, Visct.|
|Burroughes, H. N.||George, J.|
|Cayley, E. S.||Gilpin, Col.|
|Child, S.||Goderich, Visct.|
|Clinton, Lord C. P.||Goulburn, rt. hon. H.|
|Clive, R.||Greaves, E.|
|Cobden, rt.||Greene, T.|
|Cocks, T. S.||Grogan, E.|
|Codrington, Sir W.||Hamilton, G. A.|
|Carry, rt. hon. H. L.||Hanbury, hon. C. S. B.|
|Davie, Sir H. R. F.||Hastie, Alex.|
|Davies, D. A. S.||Hawkins, W. W.|
|Davison, R.||Hayes, Sir E.|
|Denison, E.||Heathcoat, J.|
|Disraeli, rt. hon. B.||Henley, rt. hon. J. W.|
|Dod, J. W.||Higgins, G. G. O.|
|Duncan, G.||Hildyard, R. C.|
|Duncombe, hon. A.||Horsfall, T. B.|
|Hotham, Lord||Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.|
|Hume, W. F.||Palmer, Rob.|
|Irton, S.||Pennant, hon. Col.|
|Johnstone, J.||Percy, hon. J. W.|
|Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.||Phillimore, J. G.|
|Jones, Capt.||Phillimore, R. J.|
|Keating, H. S.||Pritchard, J.|
|Ker, D. S.||Robertson, P. F.|
|King, J. K.||Sandars, G.|
|Knightley, R.||Scholefield, W.|
|Laslett, W.||Scott, hon. F.|
|Lennox, Lord A. F.||Shirley, E. P.|
|Lennox, Lord H. G.||Smith, W. M.|
|Liddell, H. G.||Somerset, Capt.|
|Lockhart, W.||Spooner, R.|
|Lucas, F.||Stanley, Lord|
|Macartney, G.||Stuart, Lord D.|
|Mackie, J.||Taylor, Col.|
|Maguire, J. F.||Thesiger, Sir F.|
|Malins, B.||Thompson, G.|
|March, Earl of||Tomline, G.|
|Masterman, J.||Tyler, Sir G.|
|Michell, W.||Tyrell, Sir J. T.|
|Montgomery, Sir G.||Vance, J.|
|Moody, C. A.||Vansittart, G. H.|
|Mowbray, J. R.||Vivian, J. E.|
|Mullings, J. R.||Waddington, H. S.|
|Mundy, W.||Walcott, Adm.|
|Muntz, G. F.||Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.|
|Murrough J. P.||West, F. R.|
|Naas, Lord||Wigram, L. T.|
|Napier, rt. hon. J.||Willoughby, Sir H.|
|Neeld, John||Wise, A.|
|Neeld, Jos.||Woodd, B. T.|
|Newark, Visct.||Wrightson, W. B.|
|Newdegate, C. N.||TELLERS.|
|North, Col.||Palmer, Round.|
|Otway, A. J.||Heathcote, Sir W.|
§ Bill passed.