Commons Sitting of 26 May 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Stamp Duties; Jurors and Juries (Ireland); Customs Duties (Sugar and Spirits).
3° Middlesex Industrial Schools; Gaming-Houses.

WAYS AND MEANS—SPIRIT AND SUGAR DUTIES.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee on Ways and Means.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, it would be remembered that upon a former occasion his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved an addition to the duty on Scotch spirits; and in rising to move the Resolution, it was necessary that he should enter into a short explanation. There had been for many years complaints from the distillers of Scotland regarding the difference of the duty as it affected the distillers of malt whisky and the distillers of whisky from grain. It was alleged that the drawback hitherto allowed on malt whisky had not been in proportion to the amount of the duty paid on the malt; and that, therefore, in reality, the malt distiller had to pay not only the ordinary spirit duty, but also an additional duty on malt; and it was understood between the different spirit manufacturers, that the disadvantage under which the malt distiller laboured, prior to the recent alteration in the malt duty, was equivalent to about 6¼d. a gallon. The old duty on spirits in Scotland was 4s. 8d. a gallon upon spirits of all descriptions. The proportion of malt in the manufacture of grain spirit was equivalent to 1½d. per gallon, and, therefore, the gross duty, including the duty, the malt duty, and the spirit duty, was 4s. 9½d. so far as regarded
1024
grain spirit. As regarded malt spirit, the. same duty of 4s. 8d. was charged, but the proportion of malt in a gallon represented a duty of 1s. 4¼d., making a total of 6s. 0¼d. The rule was that one-half of the malt duty, or 8¼d., should be returned in the way of drawback in respect of malt duty, leaving 5s. 3¼d. net duty, or 6¾d. more than was paid for the grain spirit. Now, whether that was right or wrong—right as maintained by the grain distiller, and wrong as maintained by the malt instiller—yet for a great number of years it had prevailed, until it had become almost sanctioned as the relative proportion between those two descriptions of manufacturers. The recent alterations of the malt duties, however, would materially aggravate the disadvantages under which the malt distiller laboured. The new duty on spirits was 5s. 8d. a gallon, and the new duty on the proportion of malt in grain spirits was 2d., making the duty on grain spirit 5s. 10 d.; but the new duty on malt spirit was 5s. 8d., and the new duty on the malt 2s., making 7s. 8d., instead of 6s, 0¼d. as formerly, and if the drawback were calculated on the old principle—that was, if one-half of the new malt duty, or 1s. 0½d., were returned as a drawback—it would leave 6s. 7½d. as the gross amount of the duty, or a difference of 9½d. between the two kinds of spirits, instead of 6¼d. as formerly. It therefore became the duty of the Government to listen to the representations made by the Scotch distiller, who complained of this increase of the distinction. As the increase of the malt duty was for a special and temporary purpose, it was thought fair that no one particular interest should be specially prejudiced. It was therefore arranged by the Government, in conjunction with a deputation from the distillers of Scotland, that the drawback on the malt spirit should be fixed at such a sum as to leave the distillers of malt spirit exactly in the same relative position with regard to grain and malt spirit that they held before; that was, that the duty should be adjusted so as to leave a difference of 6¼d. gallon as formerly. It was also represented by the Scotch distiller that he should have a drawback on exportation to England. At present there was a difference of 1s. 2d. a gallon, but by the recent increase of the malt duty the difference would be increased to 1s. 10 d., and it was arranged that the drawback on spirits corning from Scotland to England should be

1025
increased 8d. a gallon. A similar arrangement had been made with regard to Ireland. In carrying out these two objects, a considerable loss of revenue would be caused, amounting, according to the estimate of the Excise, to no less than 106,000 l. In order to make up that loss it was proposed to increase the duty on spirits in Scotland 4d. a gallon, in addition to the 1s. previously added. This was in strict accordance with the feeling of the Scotch distillers and of Scotch Members, and would be in perfect conformity with the principles of the adjustment now proposed. The loss, he had stated, would be 106,000 l., and the additional duty would yield 108,000 l. When the Excise Duty Bill was in Committee, some returns were referred to for the purpose of showing the difficulty of obtaining an increased revenue from home-made spirits, on the ground that the increased duty would occasion smuggling and illicit distillation. He did not think that there were any sufficient grounds for this assertion. It appeared by returns he had received, that from the 5th of April, 1852, to the 5th of April, 1853, the consumption of spirits in Ireland and Scotland had been respectively 9,820,000 gallons and 7,172,000 gallons, as compared with 10,350,000 gallons, and 6,534,000 gallons in 1853–54. The total consumption of the two countries, therefore, had been 16,992,000 gallons in 1852–53, under the low duties as against 16,934,000 gallons in 1853–54 under the increased duty. When it was considered what efforts had been made during the past year to instil into the people habits of greater sobriety, he should not think, judging from those figures, that there had been any great increase of smuggling in consequence of the augmented duty. He should have some other Resolutions to move, all consequent upon this. There would he an increase of the rum duty in Scotland to equalise the duty on spirits. He should also have to move another Resolution with regard to another subject. He had already moved Resolutions increasing the duty on sugar, and it would be necessary to move increased rates of duty on beet-root sugar manufactured in the United Kingdom. The manufactories in this country were exceedingly small, but there were some. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolutions.
COLONEL DUNNEthought it very unwise further to raise the amount of the duty upon spirits. It had been three times
1026
attempted already, and had signally failed, and he did not believe that it would add so much to the Exchequer as was anticipated.
MR. HUMEsaid, that the only question which the Government had to consider was, whether the increased duty would lead to illicit distillation. He did not think that it would; and, so far from being an improper step, he thought that the Government should raise the duty upon spirits to the highest possible point that might be safe without leading to smuggling and illicit distillation.
MR. CUMMING BRUCEconcurred with the hon. Member in his views with respect to the increase of the duty, and his general approval of the measure now proposed. It would very much tend to prevent illicit distillation, if landlords would insert a clause in their leases, the effect of which would be a forfeiture of them on the part of the tenant whenever he was discovered working an illicit still.
Resolutions agreed to. House resumed.

EXCISE DUTIES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out in several parts of the schedule the words "on or," the effect of which would be to cause the additional duty on whisky to be levied as in the case of the other articles of the Bill, "from and after," and not "on or after," the 8th of May. The hon. Member said, that, although the alteration was but slight, still, if not adopted, it would give rise to much irritation, as on Monday, the 8th of May, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement, large spirit contracts had been entered into by persons who were wholly unaware of the additional duty; and, as whisky was the only article in the present Bill which was made the subject of retroactive legislation, he trusted Government would accede to his Amendment.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas sorry that it would be utterly incompatible with his duty to consent to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. In the present instance, the principle upon which the House uniformly acted had been pursued, namely, to make duties chargeable on the day on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement to the House. If the proposal of the hon. Gentleman were assented to,

1027
see what would be the effect. The financial statement was made at five o'clock in the afternoon, and the increased duty would not be chargeable until midnight. As soon, therefore, as the intentions of the Government became known information of them would be instantly conveyed by electric telegraph into every part of the United Kingdom, and the spirit dealers would have some hours during which they would be able to make contracts at the old rates to the extent of many hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Government, in refusing the proposal, were therefore able to entrench themselves, not only behind a precedent, but also behind reason.
MR. V. SCULLYthought the Government could only entrench themselves behind a precedent, and that only a bad one. The same principle, however, had not been extended to sugar and molasses.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDcould not concur in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The duty was paid, not with reference to the date of the contract, but at the time at which the spirits were taken out of bond. Now, the Budget was not proposed until seven or eight in the evening, whereas all the bonded warehouses in the empire were closed at three.
Question put, "That the words 'on or' stand part of the schedule."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 40: Majority 106.
House resumed. Committee report progress.

INCOME TAX (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYtrusted that the right hon. Gentleman had not entirely given up the hope of removing some of the glaring inequalities of this tax. Upon those inequalities he would not now dwell; but he could not help mentioning one of them—the case of the Long Annuitants. The Long Annuities would expire in 1860, and it was likely that the Russian war would last until then. Now, to supposing a person had invested 88 l. on the 1st of May in Long Annuities, he would have to pay 1l. 2s. 2d. a year for income tax; whereas if he had invested the same money in three per cents, he would only have to pay 3s. 6d.; and, supposing that the war lasted till 1860, he would have to pay altogether 5l. 8s. 5d. on the Long Annuities whereas He would only have to pay
1028
16 s. 2d. on the three per cents. It was a breach of faith to tax this class of property in this unequal manner. A great quantity of algebra had been expended before the Income Tax Committee, in order to show that if the income tax were perpetual it would come to the same thing if they invested their property in either way; but as nobody could expect to live for ever, he did not think that that was very satisfactory. He did not deny that the Long Annuitant ought to be taxed, but he had a right to be taxed fairly; and, in a case where a question of justice was involved, no argument ab inconvenienti ought to be allowed for a moment to prevail.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Baronet had raised one of the most important and one of the most intricate and difficult questions that had ever attracted the attention of Parliament, at a moment when not one-tenth of the Members were in the House, and when not one-tenth of those who were actually present, were attending to the subject. It could hardly, therefore, have been introduced at a moment more unpropitious for any real progress towards the solution of a problem which he for one thought never could be solved. But whether it could be or not, his answer must be this—namely, that it was a very grave and difficult question, which, whenever considered at all, could not possibly be considered, or justly considered, with reference to one class alone. It was true that the case of the Long Annuitants differed from that of other classes, inasmuch as it admitted of a very clear and arithmetical statement; but, as regarded the substantial justice of the matter, the Long Annuitant was not differently circumstanced from other persons possessed of temporary incomes. He had never given any promise to attempt the adjustment of the tax upon temporary and permanent incomes, and he rejoiced that he had not, for that would have been a promise which he owned he should not be able to redeem. But nothing could be more irrational than to say that he ought select one class of persons having a temporary interest and give allowances to them, and leave every other class of persons having temporary incomes to the full sweep and stroke of the tax. He doubted whether the case of the Long Annuitants was, after all, the strongest that might be adduced. A great portion of these Long Annuities were created in the midst of war, when they were subject to an income

1029
tax of 10 per cent, and when there was a reasonable prospect that they would continue to be liable to deduction; and therefore, if theirs was the only case they had to deal with—if there were no professional men, no merchants, no traders, no poor widows living on annuities, and with children unprovided for—or if there were none of those countless myriads or hardships that would start up around them as soon as they fairly approached the question, it was doubtful whether they (the Long Annuitants) would be entitled to relief. So, too, if they looked at the matter merely with reference to our own times, they must remember that they had now had an income tax for twelve years, and every bargain which had been made in Long Annuities during that time had doubtless been made with the fullest expectation that they would be liable to deduction on that score. What he wished, then, to impress upon the Committee was, that it would be the grossest injustice and a gross piece of legislative favouritism to attempt to make any exception in favour of any one class of temporary incomes, especially in favour of a class like the Long Annuitants; and that it was quite impossible that Parliament could ever consent to entertain a proposal so partial, so exceptionable, and so unequal as that which had been made by the hon. Baronet.
MR. HUMEsaid, he could not sit still and hear the right hon. Gentleman treat the proposal of the hon. Baronet in the manner he had just done. The hon. Baronet had not asked for a special exception in the case of the Long Annuitants. He had denounced the tax as being full of irregularities, and he had merely quoted the Long Annuitants as one example, and had naturally asked whether there was any hope of an amelioration. The truth was, there was not a corner in the tax—not a single clause in the Bill—which did not involve an injustice; and that injustice was of a nature that admitted of an easy remedy. He must say he had never known the Report of a Committee that contained so many incontrovertible facts, and that had met with so little attention as that upon the income tax. No matter what the difficulties might be, the Government ought to grapple with them, as a gross injustice had been shown. He hoped they would take the question of these adjustments into their serious consideration next year.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, the case of the Long Annuitants involved a breach of faith,
1030
because there was a special contract that the finds should not be taxed.
COLONEL DUNNEcomplained of the uncertainty in Ireland in the mode of levying the tax, and of the hardships to which landed proprietors were subject, through the tax being charged on the poor-law valuation, where the property was let on a long lease at a low rent. The consequence was that the proprietor often paid on more than he received. It was said the parties might get the tax so paid remitted, but this could only be done after a long interval, and with a great deal of trouble. Steps ought to be taken to regulate the practice which prevailed, of either charging the tax on the tenant or the owner.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman had brought forward this matter at the time when the income tax was extended to Ireland, his representations would have been listened to. The Act was to a great extent experimental; and last autumn the Government had thought it right to appoint two Special Commissioners. The Government had heard no complaints, and though they had anticipated much difficulty in levying the tax in Ireland, it had turned out comparatively an easy financial operation. The cases referred to by the hon. Gentleman must be isolated instances. Ample provision had been made for appeal, not to the assessors, but to the special Commissioners. The first half-year's tax, obviously the most difficult, had now been collected; and so little necessity had there been for the interference of the Special Commissioners that the Government had not thought it necessary to continue their employment, and one of them had already been removed to England. Any particular cases of annoyance or inconvenience that might be represented to the Treasury would receive due attention.
MR. URQUHARTbegged to corroborate the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the facility with which the tax had been collected in Ireland.
Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses, and a new clause was added.
In answer to Mr. HENLEY,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the object of this new clause was to provide for the payment of the tax on Exchequer bills, and other property, for fractional parts of a quarter. Its effect was to make these securities only liable to the 7d, tax until the 5th of April last,

1031
and to the tax of 14 d. from that date till the day on which they expired in June.
MR. HENLEYasked if the clause would apply to mortgages?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that was an entirely different case. Mortgages did not, like Exchequer bills, necessarily expire at the end of the year, but were of a more permanent character. Exchequer bills passed from hand to hand, the practice being for the buyer to pay the interest for the current half-year to the seller, allowance being made for the tax. Without some provision of this kind, those who had purchased Exchequer bills in the last three or four weeks would be out of pocket, having only calculated the half-year's income tax at 7d.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the holders of funded property would all be taxed unduly, as well as the holders of Exchequer bills.
Clause agreed to. House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
Clause 20.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, they had now arrived at a new portion of the Bill—that which gave legislative powers to the Congregation. He had no intention of opposing this clause, but he wished to call attention to its important bearing relative to the next clause but one—the 22nd clause—and to ask some explanation. By Clause 20, any individual member of Congregation might propose amendments to any Statutes propounded by the Hebdomadal Council in writing, and, as far as he could conjecture from the Bill, without deliberation or discussion. By Clause 22 Congregation would deal with Statutes sent down by the Hebdomadal Council not in their original, but in their amended form—that was to say, the form in which they might be amended by any or all of the members of Congregation acting individually. But Clause 22, which gave powers to Congregation as a body to deal with these Statutes, gave not the power of amendment, but that of debate. He wished to ask whether he was right in his interpretation of the two clauses, that individual members might amend without discussion, and the collective body discuss without amending? It seemed to him such a provision would lead to perpetual confu-
1032
sion, and was inverting the order of things in which they ought to proceed, discussion preceding amendment instead of amendment preceding discussion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the right hon. Gentleman had been misled by the language of those two clauses, and the consequence he had drawn was therefore unreal and fictitious. There was no distinction between one member of Congregation individually and the members of Congregation collectively. Clause 20 commenced with the word "any," and Clause 22 with the word "the," which had probably led the right hon. Gentleman into error: but if he liked uniformity, there would be no objection to make Clause 22 commence "any" member, instead of "the" members. He proposed, in Clause 22, to insert the word "first" before "promulgation." By Clause 20 they would give a power of amending, but they did not say anything about discussing. That matter was left in the hands of the University itself. By the two clauses they secured a power of suggesting amendments and a power of discussion. He did not think it would be wise to secure that power of discussion beyond what was judged absolutely necessary. There did not appear to be any reason to meddle with the power of discussion beyond securing one single occasion and by Clause 22 they did secure that occasion. With regard to the power of suggesting amendments, they secured that likewise on a single occasion. If they were right in those two objects, they were right in the order in which they laid them down. It would be a very strange state of things if they provided in Clause 20 a power of discussion, preceding the power of suggesting amendments, and then not provide for the power of discussing the Statute again when submitted to the final vote. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not recommend that course, but would provide an opportunity for debate after amendments were suggested. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have fallen into some confusion from supposing it was the intention of the Bill to provide exactly the amount of privilege to be exercised by these various parties in the course of the business of legislation. That was not so. They laid down in the Bill those things which Parliament held to be absolutely necessary to have laid down, and left the parties as free in the exercise of the powers of legislation as possible.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that, owing to the use of different words in the two clauses, the Bill had been understood in the University of Oxford as he had mentioned. He certainly did not think that the mode adopted in the Bill was at all calculated to ensure the satisfactory discussion and amendment of Statutes. Instead of these three clauses, there should have been one clause, or at most two, giving power to the Congregation to deliberate upon the Statutes, to send up amendments to the Hebdomadal Council, and again deliberate when the Statute came back from the Council. He suggested that the clause should be amended by leaving out the words "Any member of," and substituting the word "the." He thought the power to send up amendments to the Hebdomadal Council should be in the Congregation as a deliberative assembly, and not in every individual member of it, which he was convinced would lead to great difficulty and confusion.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) might or might not be right in the view which he took as to the best method of dealing with this question; but he had evidently left out of sight the present state of the law of the University, and of the powers now existing, which it was the object of this clause to enlarge. At present the Hebdomadal Board might frame any measure it thought fit, and send it down to Convocation, and no member of Convocation could propose, nor could Convocation itself debate, any amendment. They could only vote "aye" or "no" upon the question, and come to that result as the end of their proceedings. Now, he understood that the object of this clause was to put Congregation in the place of Convocation, and to authorise it to say "aye" or "no" upon any measure which might come down for its consideration; but inasmuch as the mind of individual members of Congregation could not be known to the initiative Board, which in this case would be the Hebdomadal Council, it was proposed that they should have the power of making known to the Hebdomadal Council such amendments as they might think fit. Now this was not the case of one individual living at Oxford, making known to another individual living at Oxford, what his views were upon any particular measure in which the University was interested; but it was the case of members of Congregation moving—not in
1034
the Congregation, but in the Hebdomadal Council—such amendments as they thought fit, which amendments the Hebdomadal Council would consider, and, if it approved of them, would adopt them; and then the measure so amended would be sent down again to Congregation, who would say "aye" or "no" upon it. The clause appeared to have been framed for the purpose of preventing debate from running to an indefinite length, which must be the case where individual members had a power of proposing amendments in an assembly where a debate took place. This might or might not be a good object, but it was at all events an enlargement of the present powers, although it did not go to the full extent which his right hon. Friend desired.
MR. PHINNsaid, that the machinery proposed was altogether unnecessary to enable an individual member of Congregation to communicate to the Hebdomadal Council his own views and feelings with reference to a particular measure. It seemed to him that the principle affirmed by the clause came to this—that Convocation was in effect merely to register the decrees of the Hebdomadal Council. A higher question was, however, involved—namely, whether in the present day it was desirable to maintain a principle of having an assembly composed of all the best minds of the University, limited and restricted in their discussions by a Board superior to them, and proposing certain matters merely for their adoption or rejection. He objected to such an assembly being restricted and limited in any such manner. They did not attempt to impose such restraints upon town councils nor upon other public bodies to whom they intrusted powers; and he should suggest that tins and the following clauses be struck out of the Bill.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that a new governing body having been constituted, the Committee was now invited to go into a number of minute regulations as to the mode in which it was to carry on its work. The governing council was to frame Statutes, and to write them in any language they pleased. After framing a Statute, they were to give due notice of it; but the meaning of "due notice" was not stated. Then the ceremony of promulgation was to take place. After that, they were to be proposed in Congregation, when amendments might be proposed by any

1035
member of the Congregation in writing to the Hebdomadal Council. The object of these regulations was twofold. It was first intended to enable members to suggest views upon which, in their opinion, legislation ought to take place. The right hon. Gentleman, it appeared, intended to narrow the proposition to the first promulgation, but by so doing he would throw immense difficulties in the way of legislation, and put a check upon the University doing anything. He did not understand whether it was intended that Congregation should discuss and propose measures—to discuss matters not sent down to them by the Council. He did not understand what their jurisdiction would be, and whether they could discuss an amendment before it was sent to the Council.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERapprehended certainly not by this Bill.
MR. HENLEYsubmitted that the proposition now under consideration would bring matters to a dead lock. It was desirable to give the resident body the opportunity of making their minds fully known to the governing council, in order that they might by means of a Statute be brought into a shape most likely to meet the wishes and wants of the University, and then it would be likely to receive the assent of the Congreation. He doubted whether it would not be wiser to leave all this to the University itself. If legislation was to take place, care ought to be taken to make the measure work properly, otherwise a statutable chain might be put round the University which would disable it from doing what it had now the power to do.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Government had been most careful in framing these clauses; whether they had been successful was another matter, but as far as communicating with those gentlemen who were most closely conversant with the course of business at the University, there had been no deficiency on their part. The right hon. Gentleman, as he understood, doubted whether it was wise to legislate upon the question of the proceedings in Congregation; but thought that if we did legislate at all, we ought to go further and provide more completely for the power of expressing and embodying the opinions of different parties in amendments upon convenient occasions. He would first state the reasons for legislating at all; and, secondly,
1036
those for not having legislated more completely. The right hon. Gentleman knew what jealousies had existed in the University, and what a feeling had prevailed between class and class in consequence of the total want of a legitimately established vent for the sentiments and opinions of men who felt themselves qualified to have a voice in the government of the University. As they wished the Bill to be practically effective in allaying those jealousies, they had listened to the propositions of those who had asked Parliament to secure to those persons an opportunity of being heard. They had proceeded on the principle, not of defining everything that Congregation was to do—not of establishing a maximum of liberty of discussion that the University should give to its own members but they had said—this much liberty, at least, you shall have. This was the view with which the clauses had been framed. They secured, at least, a single opportunity for discussion and for proposing amendments. Those amendments would, he apprehended, go to the Hebdomadal Council, who would thus be made aware of the opinions prevalent in the University, and would take their own course in regard to them before they were called upon to submit the Statute to the vote. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think there ought to be the power of repeated proposals of amendment and repeated discussion. This question the Bill did not touch at all; it was proposed to leave it to the University to make such arrangements as it might think fit with regard to that matter. They wished to lay down that there should be a power of suggesting amendments, but that there should not be a power of moving amendments in Congregation; that there should not be a power of discussion in Congregation; and that adequate notice should be given before the propositions of the Hebdomadal Council were accepted or rejected. He had the utmost confidence that if this were not a good practical system the University would supply what was deficient in it. This was not a London invention; it did not originate with the Cabinet, but it was founded on the suggestions of a large number of the ablest men in the University; and, speaking from his own experience, after having had an immense mass of personal communication with various members of the University, he did not think any strong objection was entertained to the propositions contained in these clauses.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, it must have been the meaning of the person who had framed this clause that a member of the Congregation should have the power of proposing amendments to the Congregation which they might either accept or reject, because the marginal note was, "Proposal of amendments by Congregation." What was the meaning of the clause at present? Was it that any member of the University should have the power of writing a letter to the Hebdomadal Council? for, if so, he thought it was an absurdity. There were other points in these clauses that were far from clear. An amendment was to be proposed in writing to the Hebdomadal Council; but in what shape was it to be brought to the knowledge of the Council? The individual members of the Council might be present at Congregation, but they were not present as a separate estate, but as component parts of Congregation. Again, was there any provision which would oblige the Council to take an amendment into their consideration at all? They might "adopt, alter, or reject it;" but he did not see why they might not, if they pleased, pass it by altogether. It was a question of grave consideration whether this Congregation was the old body composed of different members, or a new body on whom new powers would have to be conferred.
MR. EWARTsaid, it was clear that there must be discussion in the Hebdomadal Council upon the amendments proposed by a member of Congregation, because it required the subtlety of a legal imagination to suppose that the power to "adopt, alter, or reject," did not necessarily imply the power to discuss them. He thought it would be better that the member of Congregation should suggest his amendments to the Congregation, and that Congregation collectively should lay them before the Hebdomadal Council.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that Congregation would not have the power of voting upon such suggestions. The marginal notes were not to be taken as containing the substance of the Bill, for they were very frequently prepared, not by the draughtsman, but by some person in the printing office.
MR. WALPOLEthought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not satisfied the Committee as to what the effect of these clauses would be. Although be might not be perfectly acquainted with the observances of the University of Oxford,
1038
he had endeavoured to understand the Bill now before the Committee, and although he believed himself perfectly competent to understand the plain meaning of a Statute, he had no hesitation in saying that the clause now under discussion gave, as drawn, no power whatever to any person which he might not exercise without the clause. It simply said that any member of Congregation might propose, in writing, an amendment, not to the Congregation, but to the Hebdomadal Council, which the Hebdomadal Council might adopt, alter, or reject. But any member of Congregation might do that now; and if they wanted to give him a statutable right, they must follow up the clause by other words compelling the Hebdomadal Council to give due consideration to the amendments sent in by individual members of the Congregation. The clause, as it stood, was entirely useless, and, taken in connection with the 22nd clause, it gave the power of proposing amendments without discussion, and the power of discussion without making amendments.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALthought that the right hon. Gentleman had not rightly comprehended the meaning of this portion of the Bill. When a Statute was promulgated it would be brought down and read in the House of Congregation, and, on its being so read, the occasion of discussion and argument would arise. It was not intended that members of Congregation should have the power of moving amendments in the same manner as they were moved in the House of Commons; but there was nothing in the Bill to prohibit discussion of amendments. The amendments were to he proposed in a given form—not by motion and voting thereon in Congregation, but after discussion in Congregation, by suggestion of those amendments in a written form to the Hebdomadal Council; and the very circumstance that the amendments were to be so suggested would of necessity impose on the Hebdomadal Council the obligation of considering them. Every member of Congregation might, after discussion or promulgation of the Statute, embody the result of that discussion in a suggestion. The manner of its proceeding from one body to the other was a matter of detail which would be regulated by one of their own ordinances. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in supposing that this section was superfluous inasmuch as every member might have exercised the same

1039
power without it. Every member of the Congregation could not have called upon the Hebdomadal Council to consider a suggestion; but every member might now, after a discussion upon the promulgation of a Statute, embody an amendment in a written suggestion to the Hebdomadal Council. That amendment might be altered, adopted, or rejected. If an alteration of the Statute took place, it would be promulgated afresh, and that might lead to a new discussion, although it could not be attended with the moving of any amendment in the House of Congregation. The whole matter was plain; the Bill only follows the rules at present observed in the University. Any Statute sanctioned by the Hebdomadal Council will be discussed by the Congregation; after that discussion any member may suggest amendments, but it is not intended to give the general powers of a deliberative assembly to the Congregation now, for they have never belonged to Convocation. The objects they wished to accomplish were to give the Congregation the power of discussing the Statutes, and of suggesting amendments which they may also discuss; and any person reading the three sections, with a knowledge of the system now existing at Oxford, must, he thought, admit that they attained their purpose.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONconfessed that the clause, as it stood, appeared to him to be perfectly nugatory; it was giving a legislative sanction to what a man might already do without it. It would have been better to adopt the suggestion in the Report, that the amendments proposed to the Council should receive the support of a certain number of members of Congregation.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, that the Solicitor General had raised a difficulty which he had not experienced before. As he had understood the clause, he did not think that it was open to the objection which had been made by the right hon. Member for Midhurst. He had understood it to be an effective enactment, because after the promulgation of a proposed Statute it was out of the hands of the Hebdomadal Council, and, though suggestions might be sent in to them, they would have been wholly inoperative unless there were some enactment enabling the Hebdomadal Council to get hold again of what they had parted with. That had seemed to him a sufficient ground for the clause. The Solicitor General, however,
1040
stated that the meaning of the clause was, not that any single member of Congregation might make his suggestion as such, but that it must be after discussion in the assembly of Congregation—
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I beg your pardon; I said no such thing. I said that it "might be" after discussion.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE continued: He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to have been answering the objection that these suggestions might be sent by post, and to state that they could only be the result of a discussion in Congregation. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire that it would be in the power of the University, by Statute, to make all these regulations for themselves; or, at all events, they might be enabled to do so by the introduction of a few short words. By that means a great deal of embarrassment and difficulty might be got rid of.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the object of his remark had been merely to show that upon the promulgation of every Statute there would be the fullest power of discussion; and that, if a Statute were altered, it must be re-promulgated, when there might be again a fresh discussion, although that discussion would not be accompanied with the power of moving amendments in the Congregation.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that it appeared, then, that when a Statute was promulgated, the Congregation were not to consider whether they would adopt it, nor were they to consider any amendments upon it, but they were to talk it over—simply, to discuss it. Conceive that intellectual body of 300 persons discussing a subject without any definite end! They were not to say whether they would have it, nor were they to propose amendments, because that was to be done single-handed, by writing to the Hebdomadal Council; but there was to be a sort of vague talk going on, and out of that was to be eliminated some kind of an idea, in some separate mind, which might be sent to the Hebdomadal Council. But that might be done now, as far as he knew, because there was nothing in the law to prevent a person writing a courteous letter containing suggestions to any other person. He was aware that it had long been a matter of complaint that there was no recognised mode for individuals to present suggestions to the notice of the Hebdomadal Board;

1041
but he did not see what was gained by the clause. He doubted very much, from the clause, whether discussion was to take place upon the promulgation of a Statute, and he thought that the explanation of the Solicitor General had done anything but make the matter clear.
MR. RICEsaid, that he put the same construction on the clause as the hon. Baronet the Member for the University. He considered that the clause was to afford an opportunity to the members of Congregation to put the Hebdomadal Council in possession of their views, and he thought it was probable that a number of members of Congregation would so submit their views; but there appeared to him to be a considerable defect in the clause as to the way in which this was to be carried out. He was satisfied with the suggestion made by an hon. Member, that the details on this point had better be left to the University itself; but, at the same time, he agreed with those who thought that the clause was perfectly useless, unless there were some power to compel the Hebdomadal Council to consider the propositions that might be submitted to it; and to obviate this difficulty he would suggest, that after the word "Council," the words "should entertain," or "shall consider" should be inserted.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that three versions had been given of this clause. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) thought the matter ought to be left to the University itself:—but this the Bill did not do, and two versions had been given of what the Bill did do. He himself had put the same construction on it as the hon. Baronet the Member for the University had done. The Solicitor General had, also, given them his version of the clause; but he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, judging from experience, he thought it possible or probable that the members of Congregation would pass their time in discussing amendments on which they had no power to decide? But there was not a word in the clause to bear out that construction. The only interpretation that could be put upon it was, that after the promulgation of any Statute, any member of the Congregation should be at liberty individually to send in any amendment he chooses for the consideration of the Hebdomadal Council. As much misapprehension prevailed in the Committee as to this clause, he would
1042
suggest that the best course would be either to withdraw it, or make it more intelligible.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREdesired to draw the attention of the Committee to the different sense in which the word "promulgated" was used in the 19th and 22nd clauses. He considered that the 20th clause was useless, and that it ought clearly to be stated that any amendment proposed to the Hebdomadal Council should be approved by a certain number of the members of Congregation.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that he was afraid that he had suffered a great disadvantage in not having been present during the whole of the discussion. It seemed to him that the difficulty as regarded this clause was not so great as had been stated. In the first place, he differed from the hon. Member who thought that the word "promulgated" was used in the 19th and 20th clauses in different senses. It was not, as in both cases it expressed the first of two stages through which the Statutes would have to pass. It appeared to him that the intention of the 20th clause was unobjectionable, as by it a legal right was given to any member of Congregation, after having received notice of the tenor of a Statute, to submit to the Hebdomadal Council any view or amendment which he might consider might be advantageously adopted, and, in order to do so, the concurrence of any other member of the Congregation was not necessary. It would then be in the power of the Hebdomadal Council to take the matter into their consideration, and decide whether they would recall the Statute, or accept or reject the amendment so sent to them before submitting it for final acceptance or rejection; but the course of proceeding laid down in the 19th section, if not qualified by the present, would oblige the Council to submit every proposition for absolute decision at the end of seven days from promulgation; but this clause enabled them to withdraw it or to submit it again, as amended. The intention of the clause was unobjectionable; it could do no harm, and might effect some good; he therefore thought the Committee would be justified in passing it in its present form.
LORD ROBERT CECILasked the Solicitor General if he would point out in the 19th clause the precise words which he had said would oblige the Hebdomadal Council to take into consideration and dis-

1043
cuss the amendments which might be submitted to them by the members of Congregation?
THE SOLICITOR GENERALreplied, that he did not say that there were any words throwing on the Hebdomadal Council any legal obligation either to adopt, alter, or reject any amendment submitted to their consideration; but he said that it would naturally follow from the proposal of an amendment that the Hebdomadal Council would discuss, adopt, alter, or reject it; he did not say that the words of the clause were so expressed as to throw on the Council an imperative obligation; neither did he think that there was a necessity for such imperative words, as he apprehended that the authorities of the University might fairly be intrusted to consider amendments, and would not arbitrarily or indelicately thrust them on one side. He did not say, also, that there must be a discussion on every amendment; but he had said that there might be, as whenever a Statute was promulgated the members of Congregation had a right, by the 22nd clause, to speak thereon, though whether they would avail themselves of this power, he could not say.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdesired to draw the attention of the Committee more to the question at large. They had now been half of a night in discussing clauses which, though important, were of secondary consequence, and he regretted to say that they had made no progress. Some hon. Members had been discussing the latter part of the clause before they had come to the first, while other hon. Members had gone back to other clauses; he would therefore submit to the Committee that it was difficult to make progress unless they confined themselves to, and dealt with, point after point.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that they were called upon to make some minute regulations with respect to the governing body of the University, and it was but natural that they should ask for such explanations of these regulations as would enable them to know what they were about to enact. Various constructions had during the evening been put upon this clause (20), proving that much misapprehension existed as to what was meant by it. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bill gave the Congregation power to discuss any matters not submitted to them by the governing body; and he answered he be-
1044
lieved not; but the Solicitor General said they would have power to discuss amendments; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to clear up the point. It would be better, he thought, to leave out this clause altogether.
MR. MOWBRAYproposed that in the 24th line, after the word "Council," words to the following effect should be inserted—"Shall afterwards take into consideration," and which it may adopt, &c.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,did not see the necessity for such words, but would, nevertheless, consent to their adoption.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONdid not see on what principle the resident members of the University were to be allowed to propose written amendments, and the same privilege not be extended to non-resident members. The tendency of the Bill would be to elevate the resident members at the expense and injury of the non-resident. He suggested that some words should be inserted to meet the case he had stated.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was one thing to give the privilege proposed by the clause to a select body in the University, and another thing to extend it to a miscellaneous body of 4,000 gentlemen not residing and who knew hardly anything of what was going on at Oxford. He could not, therefore, agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.
Clause agreed to, with Amendment; as was also Clause 21.
Clause 22 (The Members of Congregation shall, upon the occasion of the promulgation of any Statute, have the right to speak thereon in the English tongue, but without the power of moving any Amendment, and subject to such regulations as the University may make by Statute for the due order of debate).
MR. HENLEYdrew attention to the circumstance that the debate was to be in English on the occasion of the promulgation, while nothing was said as to language when the Statutes were proposed for acceptance.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was desirable, on the one hand, to have an expression of opinion in the Congregation on the proposals of the Hebdomadal Council; but, on the other hand, it was objectionable that anything should be done unnecessarily to multiply discussions. No party in the University

1045
asked for two separate occasions of debate upon any Statute, and he therefore thought it was better not to bind down the University in the matter.
MR. HENLEYthought it would be better to omit the clause altogether; but, seeing it was there, he thought it odd that they should fix upon the language to be used at one stage and not at another. He would leave it to the University to discuss in any language they chose, whether Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; but he thought the debate should take place on the amended proposal, rather than on the crude one.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, his right hon. Friend seemed to suppose that there would be no power of debate after a proposition was amended; but that was a mistake, for the power of debate would arise when the proposition was amended, just as at the time of its promulgation.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, there was a wish in Oxford to have this right of debating in the English language, but he did not think the right should be given by Act of Parliament in such a way as that it could not be displaced by the University. He suggested, therefore, that after the words "English language" words should be inserted to the effect, "if the said University shall by Statute authorise the same."
THE CHANCELLOR of THE EXCHEQUERthought the suggestion of his hon. Friend too narrow a one to deal with the whole of the subject, and that the point would be better considered if the question were raised generally, whether they should adopt some machinery by which the University might make alterations, or whether matters should be left immovable under the Act of Parliament.
MR. WALPOLEwould move that this clause be omitted altogether. He thought all that could be gained by the clause might be gained without it. Everything that was asked by his right hon. Friend was vested in the Congregation, which by the 18th clause had the power of regulating the mode in which the proceedings could be carried on, including, of course, the power of deliberation. That being the case, what was gained by the clause? Absolutely nothing; but this inconvenience might arise, that a statutory power might be given to Congregation of insisting on the right of discussion in the English language. His great objection to the clause was, that he did not wish to see the Congregation turned into a debating society,
1046
which he believed would be the case if they gave them the power, and subjected them to the restriction included in this clause. In support of his views he would cite the authority of Mr. Jowett, who gave it as his opinion, not particularly in reference to this clause, but to such innovation generally, that if changes of this nature were permitted, the University would become one vast debating society, in which, as occasion offered, every political, ecclesiastical, and religious question would be discussed to the exclusion of all questions of collegiate government. He begged, therefore, to move, as an Amendment, that the 22nd clause be omitted.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that Mr. Jowett could scarcely be cited as an authority with reference to this clause, inasmuch as his words applied solely to a large and general measure of reform in these respects, and not to a particular one like that which was contemplated by this clause. He thought matters of that kind, which were matters of detail, were much better when left to be regulated by a liberal reference to the state of opinion and feeling in the University itself, than to any point of abstract principle. The state of the University convinced him that the clause would be extremely useful. They were giving, it was said, to the resident body of the University, great powers. In a University it was in the nature of things that considerable differences of opinion on various subjects must of necessity prevail. That being so, gentlemen who entertained views different from the rest of the University must feel some jealousy if they were placed under the control of what he might call a legislative majority; and it was for the purpose of securing freedom of mind to those who might be in the minority that he thought this clause might be in a great degree recommended.
MR. WIGRAMthought it would be more convenient to leave it to the University to decide as to their power and manner of debating. He considered that the system of debating, as proposed by this clause, would tend in a great measure to disturb the quiet habits of study which ought to prevail in the University. As to the question of amendment, he thought the clause unnecessary, as the 19th clause disposed of that. He should therefore support the Amendment.
MR. GOULBURNwished to know whe-

1047
ther it was the practice at Oxford for undergraduates to be present at the debates in Congregation?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that undergraduates were never present at such debates, although they were sometimes at the proceedings of Convocation.
MR. MOWBRAYconsidered they had no more right to interfere with the particular language the University might like to debate in than they had to interfere with their academical dress. As to the use of the Latin language, it was very well known that this rule was relaxed whenever it might be thought proper, and parties might make use of English instead whenever they pleased. This being so, he did not see the good of imposing the restriction contained in this clause. If it were to be ordained that the members of Convocation were to speak in English, he could understand it, because many of them consisted of men who had long left the University, and might have forgotten their Latin; but to impose such a restriction on the Congregation was an undue and useless interference with its discretion.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that it appeared to him, by allowing the clause to stand as it was, they would enable any important discussion to take place whenever it might be thought necessary; but by leaving it out of the Bill such discussion might at any time be prevented.
MR. HENLEYconsidered that the University ought to be allowed to speak in any language it pleased, and ought not to be restricted any more to the English than to the Irish, Scotch, or any other language. He should support the Amendment.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONagreed with the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire that the University ought to have full power as to its form and manner of debating, and considered the words of this clause inconsistent with the meaning of the 18th. He should vote against the clause, as not only one of interference, but useless.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 70: Majority 64.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 23.
Clause 24 (The Convocation of the University of Oxford shall not, by the provisions of this Act, be deprived of any of the powers by it now lawfully possessed).
MR. HEYWOODmoved to add at the end of the clause, "and shall have the
1048
right of conducting their proceedings in the English tongue."
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREprotested against this proposition as being calculated to turn Convocation into a mere debating society.
MR. WALPOLEthought it somewhat difficult to understand the very contrary votes which the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock had given to-night. First of all, he had opposed the proposition that the Congregation—that which was held out to be the learned and intellectual part of the university—should debate in Latin, and now he would not allow Convocation—the unlearned part of the University, as some one had called it, many of whose members had most likely forgotten much of their Latin—to carry on their proceedings in English. For his part, he thought regulations of this nature would be much better left to be settled by the University.
VISCOUNT BERNARDhoped the Government would endeavour to provide a mode by which, upon some fair and moderate payment, persons might for life continue members of the University. At present, many who had earned distinction at the University were obliged to take their names off the books, owing to the expense of the fees.
MR. NEWDEGATEtrusted that the Government would also take into consideration the necessity of giving due notice and information to the members of Convocation as to the Statutes on which they were to be called on to decide. The Commissioners had suggested that a registry of the addresses of all members of the Convocation should be formed, and some means adopted by which copies of the Statutes and documents on which they had to decide should be transmitted to them. Arrangements ought also to be made for securing to Convocation—as was secured to Congregation—an adequate interval between promulgation and voting, so that the members might have time to make themselves fully acquainted with the subject at issue.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that the terms and conditions under which Statutes were to be made known to Convocation were matters which the University, when it was supplied with a regularly constituted and organised government, would settle for itself perfectly well, and therefore he thought it useless to meddle with the subject in this Bill. He came now to the immediate

1049
question before the House, namely, the proposal by the hon. Member for North Lancashire to give to Convocation the right of conducting its proceedings in the English tongue. He trusted that Parliament would not be disposed to incorporate that provision in the Bill. It might be said that, having given such a power to members of Congregation, it was inconsistent in him to withhold a similar power from members of Convocation. He could not, however, see any inconsistency in the matter. The clause giving the members of Congregation the power of speaking the English tongue was to protect a minority in the University against the possible stifling of all discussion by a majority; but was it desirable to give to the 4,000 gentlemen who composed Convocation a facility for any one, two, or five, or six to create a long debate upon every Statute introduced for discussion? He should say, decidedly not. Looking at the grave matters and the warmth of feeling which entered into the University contests, and to the power which now existed of allowing discussions, if it was thought advisable, to be carried on in the English tongue, it was not desirable to see the University made a scene of periodical hustings display. If the House wished to make Convocation a great debating society, that object would be attained by the adoption of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to a question of considerable difficulty which had come to light in the course of the discussion. He alluded to the interval of time which took place between the promulgation of the Statutes in Congregation and their consideration by the various bodies. He had felt it his duty to complain of the extent to which the power of Convocation was diminished, and he had supposed that, in the event of Congregation rejecting a Statute, Convocation would be deprived of powers which it now possessed. He, however, wished for some explanation upon this point from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman did not propose to touch the interval of three days which must elapse between the promulgation of a Statute and its consideration by Convocation; and yet, by the 19th clause of the Bill, Statutes promulgated in Congregation were not to be considered till an interval of seven days had elapsed. The result would be, that consideration by Convocation would pre-
1050
cede that by Congregation, which would be entirely inconsistent with the words of the 19th clause, requiring that every Statute should be proposed there for acceptance or rejection after an interval of seven days. That clause clearly contemplated that the reference to Congregation should be the first reference; and he wished to know if the rejection of a Statute by Convocation, after an interval of three days, was to be final, or whether it was still to go before Congregation?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman drew a discrepancy from a comparison of two things, one of which was in the Bill and the other not. The three days after which it appeared that Statutes were to be decided in Convocation was no provision of the present Bill, but it was a provision of a Statute of the University. The answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman was, that the Bill gave ample and abundant powers to the University to regulate the notices which would be required. The obvious intention of the Bill was, that Statues should go to Convocation before Congregation.
MR. HENLEYobserved, that when the Bill became law the Statutes of the University could not be altered, except in the mode prescribed by the Bill, and no other interval could be fixed for the consideration of Statutes promulgated in Congregation than seven days.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, the Motion of the hon. Member for North Lancashire was such a common-sense proposition that he felt bound to support it. He, attached but little importance to the argument, that if the discussion in the English tongue were allowed Convocation would degenerate into a debating society.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREwould oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for North Lancashire, but, at the same time, he must confess that he was astonished how the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had voted for the clause empowering Congregation to speak in the English tongue, could consistently deny the same privilege to Convocation.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 140: Majority 41.
On the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
MR. PHINNobserved, that the 28th clause defined the meaning of the expres-

1051
sion "University or College emoluments," and the 32nd clause provided that no candidate should, after the passing of the Act, be elected to any University or collegiate emolument within the University of Oxford except after having been duly examined. Now, in 1756, Mr. Viner left very valuable benefactions to the University, with the view of promoting the study of the law, and it was supposed that measures would be taken for facilitating legal studies in the University. The first Vinerian Professor was Mr. Justice Blackstone, who raised the professorship to a position which it had never subsequently attained. No examination was at present required for institution to a fellowship or scholarship in the Vinerian foundation. Those emoluments were disposed of by the votes of the majority of Convocation, no peculiar qualification being required on the part of the candidates, and he believed the Vinerian scholars and fellows had rarely been as distinguished in the profession as the Stowell and Eldon scholars and fellows, who were submitted to the test of examination. The Vinerian Professorship had in consequence lapsed into a mere ignoble sinecure, and fulfilled none of the purposes for which the founder designed it. He would put it to the Committee whether these fellowships and scholarships should be bestowed upon persons who, on examination, gave promise of becoming ornaments of the legal profession, or whether they should be bestowed upon persons selected by the votes of country curates and other members of Convocation, who were utterly ignorant of the qualifications of the candidates they supported. He proposed to add at the end of this clause the words, "except the right of election to the fellowships and scholarships endowed by the will of Charles Viner, Esq., which, from and after the passing of this Act, shall be vested in the professors of the University." If the House agreed to his Amendment he intended to propose that in future the scholars and fellows should be elected by the Vinerian Professor, the Professor of Civil Law, and the Professor of Modern History, who were the persons best qualified to decide upon the merits of the candidates.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the subject which the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought before the Committee was a very important one, but this was not the time for entering into it, for there were many parts of the Bill which
1052
they had yet to discuss in relation to which it might more appropriately be considered. He was quite ready to give the subject his best consideration, and to do whatever he could to place the appointment to these scholarships and fellowships on a more satisfactory footing. He must, however, observe that the Vinerian Professorship had not, as the hon. and learned Gentleman bad stated, been degraded into a mere ignoble sinecure, for it was at present held by a gentleman of great ability, merit, and assiduity in the discharge of his duties. Nor was it true that the Vinerian fellowships had never produced men of eminence in the profession, for he had known many of the fellows who were honours to the profession, and had attained the highest consideration in it. He must express his deep obligation to the endowment, for he had had the good fortune to be a Vinerian scholar. He should be happy to confer with the hon. and learned Gentleman upon the subject of the Amendment he wished to introduce, but hoped that he would now consent to postpone it.
MR. PHINNexplained that he had intended to say that the number of the Vinerian fellows and scholars who had been distinguished men was not so great as might have been expected, considering the nature of the endowment. He would withdraw his Amendment for the present.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 25, providing that every oath binding the juror not to disclose any matter or thing relating to his college, although required so to do by lawful authority; to resist or not concur in any change in the Statutes of the University or College; and to do, or forbear from doing, anything the doing or not doing of which would tend to any such concealment, resistance, or non-concurrence, should be an illegal oath.
On the Motion of Mr. WALPOLE, the words, "and no such oath shall hereafter be administered or taken" were inserted at the end of the clause.
MR. BLACKETTmoved as an Amendment to omit the clause, not because he objected to it, but because he wished to extend the principle to all oaths in the University, and he was informed that by the rules of the House he could only do so by cancelling this clause entirely, and substituting another in its place. The House would see that the clause, as proposed by the Government, abrogated and prohibited all oaths on two subjects—those to resist any change in the Statutes, and those "to

1053
do, or forbear from doing, anything the doing or the not doing of which would tend to any such concealment, resistance, or non-concurrence." It left untouched those idle and profane oaths by which members on a college foundation bound themselves in general terms to obey the Statutes of their college. He was quite aware that in a subsequent clause the fellows had the power of dealing with such oaths as they deemed fit. He thought the Commissioners who originally reported on the state of the University assigned a very sufficient reason for not leaving that power in the hands of the college authorities—
"It is not probable that the consent of several of the most important colleges could be obtained to any change in the Statutes. Some would think themselves precluded from aiding in bringing about changes which they would gladly see effected, because they had sworn not to alter or accept alterations. Considering that such persons live in habitual disregard of most of the Statutes which they have sworn to obey, it might be thought that they would gladly seek a remedy for the evil. But such inconsistencies are beyond the reach of arguments. It is probable, however, that many who would not promote a reform actively would willingly conform to the law, as they conform to the law which has set aside the religious purposes for which their college was founded; and we believe that the great majority, however averse to the interposition of the Legislature, would honestly obey its enactments."
That disposed of the argument that it should be left optional to the college authorities to dispose of those oaths if they pleased. There were two things that were plain—first, the solemn sanction of an oath should not be invoked to bind the juror to idle customs; and secondly, oaths were still more objectionable which bound the juror to absolutely illegal practices. He would show that these oaths were open to both those objections. What was the character of the ordinances which the fellows of colleges swore to observe? The Statutes of the college to which he belonged bound the scholars to have a reader at meals, to observe silence, and to attend to what was read. The provost and fellows of Queen's College were to sit together all at one table, to be convened by sound of trumpet by the porter, who was to be their barber, and to wash the fellows' heads. At New College all the fellows were to have a uniform, which they were not at liberty to pawn or to sell for five years. At All Souls the porter was to shave the wardens and the fellows. At New College the fellows and wardens
1054
swore that they would wear a gown closed in front from top to bottom; but when they were going beyond the limits of the University, they were allowed to have such an opening at the posterior and anterior of the gown as might be convenient for riding. At Brasenose attendance at daily devotions was to be enforced by whipping. The heads of Corpus Christi swore that they would forbid any person belonging to the college, servants excepted, to enter the house of any layman or laywoman in the University or its suburbs. At Jesus College all the fellows were to be present at daily prayers, under penalty of fines and whipping. There could be but one opinion as to the odious profanity of swearing, under a solemn sanction, such oaths as these. But that was not all, for oaths were also taken to perform acts which were absolutely illegal. At Queen's College an oath was taken that mass should be performed for the souls of King Edward and Queen Philippa. At New College they swore to hear mass every day, in the course of which they were to repeat the angelic salutation fifty times. All Souls was not founded entirely for the general purposes of study, but there the fellows bound themselves to pray for the soul of Henry V., of glorious memory; also of Thomas, Duke of Clarence, and other Lords, lieges of the realm of England. The only excuse for the maintenance of those forms was, it was said, that the general purport of the oaths was to observe the Statutes, and it was perfectly competent for the college authorities to reduce them,—in plain English common sense, to expunge their illegalities, and yet continue the oath. But any one who was acquainted with the awfully minute and stringent forms with which the oaths were taken year by year and month by month on the admission of candidates to Oxford, must admit it was high time to abrogate them. He would trouble the House with an instance or two, and he must confess he did so with delicacy on account of the solemn form of the words. At New College, William of Wykeham bound the fellows to observe all the Statutes and things contained therein according to the plain letter and grammatical sense. He merely mentioned that on account of its particularity. At Lincoln College the words were—
"I swear by the Holy Gospel of God, in the presence of the vicar, &c., as far as I can I will inviolably observe the Statutes of the college as

1055
far as they concern me so long as I am a fellow of the college."
At Corpus Christi the form was—
"I do swear by the holy body of God, which has been by me corporeally touched, that I will inviolably observe all the Statutes and ordinances so far as they concern me, or may concern my person, according to the plain literal and grammatical sense and meaning of the words, so far as in me lies."
It could not be denied that the observances they swore to in such an awful and even horrifying form were most ridiculous, and he quoted the opinion of Dr. Peacock and Dr. Tyler, who stated that there was not one of these oaths that could not be dispensed with. The Commission of Inquiry into Dublin University, consisting of the Archbishop of Dublin, Lord Ross, the Bishop of Cork, and Lord Chancellor Brady, unanimously recommended that these promissory oaths should be abolished or greatly reduced in number; the Commissioners of Cambridge University came to the same conclusion; and on that point he had double testimony, for those Commissioners adopted the recommendation of the Syndicate of the University. Even the Durham University, which was founded on strict Church of England principles, and on the model of the University of Oxford, shrank from the perpetration of such oaths, only requiring a general declaration of obedience to the authority of the college. He could also quote the high authority of the opinions pronounced last evening by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. He thought, therefore, it was his duty, without objecting to the limitations proposed in this clause, to move its entire omission, with a view of substituting another to provide for the entire abrogation of the oaths in question.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsubmitted that the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman was inconvenient, and not adapted to promote the unprejudiced discussion of the important question he had raised. He would not go the length of saying it would be wise and prudent to prohibit the administration of all promissory oaths in the University of Oxford, and lie thought not only himself and the noble Lord the Member for the City, but a large proportion of the House, could not very consistently go the length proposed by the hon. Gentleman, of prohibiting the administration of all promissory oaths whatever in the University. What he suggested was,
1056
to allow this clause, which he thoroughly approved as far as it went, to pass, and then to introduce his own separate clause. If that clause was carried, the proper course for the Government to pursue would be to drop this clause altogether. That would be a simple course to pursue; by adopting it the hon. Member would be entirely unprejudiced, and would not be in the anomalous position of voting against a clause which he approved. It was true he might now succeed by combining with others to defeat this clause, but it might so happen that by a different combination his own clause might be rejected, and thus the present extreme and objectionable oaths would be left entirely untouched. With this view, if he would withdraw his Amendment, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no objection to give a distinct pledge that if the House expressed a general opinion in favour of the clause intended to be proposed by the hon. Member they would drop their clause.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, it was a matter of regret the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not saved the House the trouble of hearing his (Mr. Blackett's) statement on the Amendment; but as he did not wish to weary them by a repetition of the same objection in introducing a separate clause, he should, unless the House expressed a very decided opinion in favour of a different course, persist in the Amendment.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLdid not think any time would be lost in hearing the Motion for the introduction of a separate clause on the subject; but, if it were introduced now, it would lead to considerable discussion, and many Members might wish to state their reasons for or against it. He doubted whether the present would be a convenient time for raising such a discussion.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERbegged to say one or two words in vindication of the gentlemen who had for many years taken these oaths as they had been administered in the colleges of the University. They had taken them upon a more sound and due construction of their meaning and legal purport than that which was implied, or seemed to be implied, in the speech of the hon. Gentleman. The person taking the oath uses these words—"inasmuch as in me lies," and does not undertake to observe the Statutes further than it is possible for him physically and morally to do so. Though it was undoubtedly desirable that oaths should not be taken which compre-

1057
hended a body of obsolete matter, and contained matters that might be illegal as well as matters that were legal and possible, he did not think a true view of them had been taken by the hon. Gentleman. A thing might become illegal by the intervention of the Legislature, and the law of the land being against the observance of the Statutes, it would be morally impossible to observe them. It seemed to him that, although the form of oath might well deserve to be considered if taken at all, yet that no man swore that he would attend mass or wear a certain description of clothes, or do any of those things in detail, but that he would observe the Statutes according to the strict and grammatical truth, as far as in him lies, that is, as far as the Statutes can be observable by him he will observe them.
MR. BLACKETT,in deference to what appeared to be the wish of the House, withdrew his Amendment.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed. Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock till Monday next.