Lords Sitting of 22 July 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Small Debts' (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from various Places, for Edinburgh Poor-Rates' Bill.—By the Earl of BANDON, from Raphoe, against the Removal of Donegal Infirmary from the County Town.—By the Earl of ABERDEEN, from Lochmaben, that all the Rights of the Church of Scotland may be preserved.—By the Bishop of Exeter, from the Clergy of Wells, for the Protection of the Protestant Church (Ireland).—By the Duke of BUCCLUGH, from various Places, against Universities' (Scotland) Bill.

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND.)
The Earl of Caledonpresented a petition from the Grand Jury of the county of Tyrone, praying their Lordships to postpone to a future period the Bill for amending the system of Grand Juries in Ireland. It was impossible that the measure could, at this period of the session, be properly considered. The Bill had been introduced into the House of Commons on the 28th of May, and had been brought up to their Lordships' House on the 20th of July. It contained 171 clauses, and it was preposterous to call on their Lordships to pass it at this late period of the session.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, he thought the noble Earl would admit, that the grand jury laws ought to be amended.
The Marquess of Westmeathhad no doubt that the noble Lord who introduced the Bill in the other House had done so under the conviction of his own sense of
430
duty, as well as from being pressed on the subject by different parties. He (the Marquess of Westmeath), however, thought that the old grand jury system, as it at present stood, which it was the object of this Bill to amend, was essentially a bad one. What he would recommend was, that the funds to be devoted to public works should be placed under the superintendence of a scientific Board of Works. He wished that the present grand jury system should be considered, not with reference to its amendment, but with a view to its total abolition.
Petition laid on the table.

SOUTH DURHAM RAILWAY.
Lord Teynhamwished to take that opportunity of noticing a statement which had appeared in the Morning Post of this day, in which it was asserted, that he was the author of certain paragraphs that had appeared in the Globe newspaper, imputing unfair motives to a noble Marquess, with reference to the proceedings respecting the South Durham Railway Bill. Now, he felt it to be his duty positively to contradict this statement. He had no connexion or communication with newspapers; and, with respect to the Globe, he was not in the habit even of seeing it.

NATIONAL SYSTEM OF EDUCATION (IRELAND.)
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that a paper had recently been laid on their Lordships' table (he alluded to the third Report of the Commissioners of national education in Ireland), which was of so important a nature, that he trusted he should be excused in thus adverting to it. Having looked at that Report, he begged leave to state, that nothing should prevent him from renewing the motion which he had made this session in the early part of next session, for an inquiry into the operation of the national system of education which had been introduced into Ireland. No member of the Education Commission in Ireland—no friend of any member of that commission—could, he conceived, object to such an inquiry. He hoped, therefore, for the support of that House, when, early in the next session (and he pledged himself that he would bring the subject forward at the earliest period of the session), he should move for an inquiry into the operation of the system of national education adopted in Ireland.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it would be almost impossible for individuals to give a prompt explanation upon points connected

431
with this subject, unless they were apprised, in the first instance, of the nature of the charges that were to be brought forward. The right rev. Prelate might bring forward as he had done on a former occasion, a number of minute facts, with reference to which the parties criminated might not at the moment possess any information. It would therefore be extremely convenient, and certainly more satisfactory to those who were immediately connected with the motion of which notice had been given, if the right rev. Prelate would, in the first instance, furnish a list of those facts on which he intended to found his motion, in order that the parties might know what charges they had to meet, and also that their Lordships might be enabled to discuss the question in a more satisfactory manner.
The Bishop of Exeterfelt the full force of what had fallen from the noble Viscount. He wished, however, to observe, that he had already put the House in possession of the general view of the case which he intended to present. He was quite ready to state, that the main points of the case which he meant to adduce in moving for a Committee were those which he had formerly noticed. He should not, however, consider himself prevented hereafter from going further, if in the course of investigation new cases presented themselves to his observation, as would very probably be the case. It was not unlikely, that between the present hour and that at which he meant to address their Lordships on the subject hereafter, new facts and new cases might be elicited; but he certainly would give the Commissioners a full and fair opportunity for the investigation of every case which he should feel it to be his duty to bring forward. He would only ask, as so much had been said on both sides of the question, that the noble Viscount and his Majesty's Government would concur with him in calling for a full and fair investigation of the subject.
The Duke of Wellingtoncould not agree to the doctrine laid down by the noble Viscount with reference to the notice given by the right rev. Prelate of his intention to renew a certain proceeding in their Lordships' House. When a noble Lord made a motion for inquiry on any particular Subject, he did so on his own credit, and stated those facts which he deemed proper in support of his case. Assuredly it was not usual—assuredly it was not in accordance with the practice of Parliament—for individuals to come forward, in the first in-
432
stance, with written statements detailing the facts on which any specific motion was to be founded. Such a proposition was quite of a novel nature, and he hoped that it would not be adopted.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he did not wish to introduce any new rules, or to fetter the discretion of any noble Lord as to the course which he might think it proper to adopt in making a motion for inquiry. What he had stated was, that in this particular case, where a charge was to be made, founded on small and minute facts—such as particular proceedings in a school, or writing copies permitted in a school—it would be convenient that some notice should be given of those facts. Under these circumstances, he had put it to the candour of the right rev. Prelate whether, in a case of this nature, it would not conduce to a full and fair inquiry on the subject if the facts were stated before the motion for inquiry was made. Otherwise it was clear, that they might be led to proceed on mere matter of assertion; and it ought to be observed, that to sanction an inquiry into the conduct of a number of individuals, without due information, was of itself, so far as those individuals were concerned, a matter of no light importance.
Lord Plunkettdid not think, that the course taken by the right rev. Prelate was the most prudent or discreet. The right rev. Prelate had taken the same course before, but finding that he was not borne out in his statements, he had abandoned his motion. A charge, it appeared, was intended to be brought against a public body—against persons who were performing an arduous duty without reward or compensation. This charge was to be introduced without letting the parties know the facts on which it was founded. Now, he conceived that it would be much better, that it would be more consistent with Christian charity, if the right rev. Prelate, before he made his charge (a very grave charge, though it rested on minute cases), would give the accused parties an opportunity of knowing exactly what his facts and cases were, in order that they might be prepared to meet them. On some of the points formerly brought forward the right rev. Prelate might have procured more correct information than he appeared to possess, if he had applied to the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin; or, if he did not wish to apply to him, he might have consulted the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin. He conceived that it was only

433
fair to acquaint the Commissioners with the facts which it was intended to allege, instead of making charges, some of them on anonymous authority, which it was impossible for the accused parties to refute at the moment. He had no doubt that the right rev. Prelate would fail, as he had formerly done, in making out any case.
The Marquess of Westmeath: Whom does the noble and learned Lord designate as the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin?
Lord Plunkettwould have been more correct perhaps if he had called the individual the titular Archbishop of Dublin.
The Marquess of Westmeath: The noble and learned Lord began by speaking of the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, and then he alluded to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin. Now, in my opinion, there is but one Archbishop of Dublin.
The Bishop of Exetercomplained, that the noble and learned Lord had misrepresented him, he was sure unintentionally. He could assure the noble and learned Lord, that his confidence in the truth of the statements which he had formerly made was not at all diminished, and he had never said anything to justify a contrary inference. He said now, as he had said before, that he felt it to be his duty to the Commissioners, to the Church of Ireland, and to the people of Ireland, to call for this inquiry. The noble and learned Lord had made use of very strong expressions, and had charged him with making charges which could not be borne out by facts. Now, he would ask the noble and learned Lord what right he had to make such an accusation? He would further ask the noble and learned Lord, the first Equity Judge in Ireland, whether it was consistent with justice or equity, when a solemn inquiry was called for—an inquiry which he hoped would be granted—to anticipate the result of that inquiry by such an assertion as he had been pleased to make? Such a proceeding, to say the least of it, was totally unusual.
Lord Plunkettdid not wish to prevent the inquiry which the right rev. Prelate was so anxious to institute. But he must be allowed to say, that the right rev. Prelate himself, when he formerly introduced the question, was so conscious that he could not make out a case for inquiry, that, in the very outset, he declared that he did not mean to take the sense of the House on the subject. The right rev. Prelate had come forward with charges which he would not press on the House, and yet he now stated,
434
that he would again introduce his motion for inquiry.
The Earl of Mansfieldbegged leave to protest against the inference drawn by the noble and learned Lord from what had occurred on a former occasion. The noble and learned Lord said, that the right rev. Prelate having laid before the House what he conceived to be a proper ground for granting an inquiry, abandoned his motion, because he felt that it would not be supported. Now, he (the Earl of Mansfield) would assert, that several noble Lords expressed their regret at the time that the right rev. Prelate did not proceed. Nay, one noble Earl, not now present, was going to do that which would have effectually manifested his opinion, though the course would have been somewhat irregular. That noble Earl was anxious to carry out to the full extent, the motion which the right rev. Prelate had abandoned. In obedience to the advice of others, the right rev. Prelate had withdrawn his motion; but this he would state most positively, that in the opinion of many noble Lords, he would say of a majority of that House, the right rev. Prelate ought not to have withdrawn it He expressed regret at the time, and other noble Lords had expressed regret since, that the question did not go to a division.
Lord Hathertonsaid, he knew that any noble Lord might introduce a motion for inquiry without communicating with the parties to whom it related; but, at the same time, he was of opinion with the noble Viscount, that in a case like this, the convenience of the individual implicated, as well as the convenience of the House, would be best consulted if such information as might be deemed essentially necessary were produced before any proceeding took place. What would be said, if persons were to go about collecting a catalogue of abuses in the army, in the navy, or in the law, for the purpose of dragging the conduct of individuals before the House, without signifying to them the specific nature of the charges that were to be preferred against them? The noble Duke opposite who had been at the head of the army of this country, would not, he was convinced, encourage a practice of that description. He would ask of the right rev. Prelate how he would like such a principle to be adopted with reference to the Church? Looking to the different departments of Government, if charges were intended to be made against any one of them, he conceived, that it would be most unjust

435
not to inform the parties meant to be called to account, of the nature of the accusation, in order that they might be prepared to give, if possible, a satisfactory explanation; and precisely the same principle applied in this case.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, he had already stated that his motion would be mainly based on the facts which he had already laid before the House.
Conversation ended.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES (ENGLAND).
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Tithe Commutation Bill.
The Duke of Richmondproposed to substitute a form of affirmation instead of an oath in the 9th Clause of the Bill.
Motion negatived.
Several verbal amendments were made, and the Bill was read a third time and passed.

CHURCH AND TITHES (IRELAND.)
Viscount Melbourne, in moving the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Church of Ireland Bill, said, that notwithstanding the great interest which had prevailed, and which continued to prevail, on this subject, throughout the empire, and particularly in that part of the country to which the Bill related, notwithstanding the great consequences that might result from it, and the great consequences that had resulted heretofore from the agitation of this question, and notwithstanding the urgent necessity which existed for their Lordships coming to a settlement of this question, yet, he believed there were many circumstances which would go to relieve him on the present occasion from going into any very lengthened arguments upon the subject. In the first place, this was the third Bill which had been presented to their Lordships for the purpose of effecting that desirable object, the settlement of this question. It had been been fully discussed in that House, as well as in the other House of Parliament; it had afforded topics for much discussion and repeated debate out of doors, as well as in both Houses of Parliament; he might therefore be excused for not intruding very long on their Lordships' patience on the present occasion. With respect to the greater part, at least with respect to the general principle of the Bill, there was in fact no great difference of opinion between that House and the other House of Parliament; nor, indeed, between
436
the present and the former Government, for that general principle had been admitted by both Governments, and sanctioned by the votes of both Houses; and therefore he did not think it necessary to delay their Lordships by going into any very general discussion upon that subject. He would particularly avoid any attempt to stir up those matters which had produced the warmest discussion and debate in that House on all occasions. He should confine himself, as far as he could, to a statement of the general features of the Bill, without entering into its details, and he should do that the more readily, because on a former occasion he had adopted the rule of saying nothing upon that part of the subject which was likely to rekindle a lengthened debate. The object of the Bill was fourfold—the first object was, to establish a rent-charge payable by the landlord in lieu of tithes payable now by the occupier of the land and it was unnecessary for him to state his reasons for that alteration. The second great object of the Bill was a more equal distribution of the benefices of Ireland. The third object was the regulation for the future of the duties and incomes of those incumbencies. The fourth object was the payment of any residue that might remain, after all those objects had been attended to, into the consolidated fund, in order to meet a charge of 50,000 l.; for the moral and religious education of the people of Ireland. In the first clause it was stated, that the right of all persons in and to all tithes or compositions for tithes at any time hereafter to accrue due in Ireland shall wholly cease and determine. The second clause related to those persons who had received relief under the Act of the 3rd and 4th of William 4th c. 100; it provided, that all sums payable by instalments under that Act should be remitted, and that any money heretofore paid there under should be refunded. The Bill then proceeded to charge all land in lieu of tithes with a permanent rent-charge of 70 l. for every 100 l. to be paid to each tithe-owner, whether clergyman or layman. He was perfectly aware that that was a larger defalcation from the income of the clergy than was proposed on a former occasion. It was not necessary for him to go through the details and provisions of former Bills, whether those of the present Government, or those intended to be introduced by another Government; but the reduction proposed in this Bill was undoubtedly a larger defalcation from the income of the clergy than it was formerly

437
proposed to make. He could only say with respect to that point that it must be evident to their Lordships that the longer the settlement of this question was protracted, the longer the present state of things in Ireland was allowed to exist, the longer disturbance and resistance to the law were continued, the more difficult would it be to arrange matters, and the more obstinate would conflicting interests become, because they would be more accustomed to that state of things which already existed. Their Lordships must be well aware, that it would be very unwise to prolong that disturbance and that resistance to which he alluded, or to encourage the feelings and dispositions in which they originated, by delaying the settlement of this question, because there were persons enough who found it advantageous, and who were willing enough to have that state of things rendered permanent. If their Lordships would only consider the great object of the Bill now before them—namely, the final adjustment of this question—he thought they would scarcely think it worth while to stop and consider whether they should agree upon 2½ per cent, or 3 per cent. The settlement of the question was worth some sacrifice on all sides, and he trusted their Lordships would not lose the present opportunity of effecting the termination of that state of things in Ireland, the continuance of which, whatever opinions they might hold with respect to the commencement all must lament and deplore. The rent-charges were to be collected by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for the first seven years, and after that as Parliament might determine. The great objection which was taken to that arrangement last year by a noble Duke, and a noble Baron, he believed, opposite, was, that it would have the effect of making the clergy dependant or stipendiary, and of placing them entirely under the control of the state. He thought the advantage which the clergy would derive from the powers of the Crown being employed in the collection of their revenues, and the certainty of payment they would enjoy, would be a very good compensation for any slight dereliction of principle in this respect. Many noble Lords, he believed had no practical experience on this subject: but he could assure them that there was no comparison between an income paid by the State and that which depended on other sources, payment being a contingency and the amount an. uncertainty.
438
If their Lordships intended to preserve the interests of the clergy, they would do so. at least in one important respect, by giving them this security for their incomes. With regard to the payment of the rent-charges, it was to be made in precisely the same manner as it was provided for in the former Bills. Then came certain Clauses to permit the re-opening of compositions for tithes: and to these clauses very great objection had been already taken in that House. At the same time, it had been admitted by noble Lords connected with that part of the country to which the Bill related, and by a noble Lord who seemed to take a more calm and deliberate view of the subject than some others, that the provisions of Lord Stanley's Act in regard to compositions had in effect been got up in too hurried a manner, and with too little consideration for the interests of all the parties concerned, so that in some cases great injustice resulted. Some of those instances were so glaring, that he at once perceived there was an absolute necessity for some provisions of the kind contained in the present Bill to guard against any concealment or misrepresentation of the facts, which would vitiate the whole contract ab initio. The Clauses in the present Bill would completely remedy the defects of the original Tithe Composition Bill in this respect. After referring to some observations which had been made by a noble Lord respecting appeals against the decisions of the Commissioners, which the noble Viscount said he did not consider either very forcible or applicable to the present subject he proceeded to remark that the next great object of the Bill was the re-distribution of the benefices in Ireland, with reference to the duties belonging to them. On that it was not necessary for him then to make any observations, for when he looked at the debates of the House of Commons, he found that when the second reading of that Bill was moved in that House, an amendment was proposed, for "leave to bring in a Bill for the conversion of tithe-composition into rent-charges, and for the redemption thereof, and for the better distribution of ecclesiastical revenues in Ireland," by a noble Friend of his, whose secession from the Government to which he belonged he had never ceased to regret, and whose authority on the present occasion, he thought would have great weight with their Lordships. In addition to that, there were numerous petitions from the clergy of Ireland, expressing their anxiety with refer-

439
ence to the duties which they had to perform, and for the better distribution of the revenues of the Church, and for all the objects described in that amendment. These things would, he was sure, relieve him from the necessity of stating any further observations on this part of the measure. The authority of his noble Friend in the other House might be considered invincible, therefore he would not enter into particulars, unless any noble Lord should adopt a course to compel him to do so. But it was now proposed that his Majesty under the sign manual should appoint a Committee of Privy Council, to be styled "The Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council of Ireland," and to consist of members of the Established Church, the Archbishops of Ireland to be members of the council ex officio. To this Board the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have to report whenever benefices might fall vacant, the state of the population, the number of persons of each religion in it, and the various circumstances connected with the spiritual condition and welfare of the people; that Report having been duly made, the Lord-Lieutenant in Council would then have to make such orders thereupon as to them might seem good. The third object of the Bill was the regulation of the incomes of the future incumbents. It was proposed, that where the number of members of the Established Church was less than fifty, the annual income to be assigned to the incumbent should not exceed 100 l; where the number of members exceeds fifty and does not exceed 500, the income to be not more than 200 l., and not less than 150 l. Where the number of parishioners exceeds 500 but does not exceed 1,000, the income to be not more than 300 l. nor less than 250 l. Where the number exceeds 1,000 but is not more than 3,000, the income to be not less than 350 l. nor more than 400 l, Where the number amounts to 3,000 or upwards, the income to be not less than 450 l. nor more than 500 l. In no case was it proposed that an income of more than 500 l. should be allowed; that was to be the maximum of the income of the rural benefices in Ireland; those of the cities and towns to be left in the same situation they were at present. That amount of income would give to the clergy of Ireland a considerably larger average income than was at present enjoyed by the clergy of England, where the religion of the majority was the Pro-
440
testant religion. Where the Protestants of any benefice in Ireland exceeded 1,000, it was proposed to appoint one or more curates, on the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, with a salary of 100 l. a year. It would be necessary to consider what number of benefices was to be provided for. The number at present, he understood to be 1,385, but of these forty-one were without a single Protestant, and no less than 124 having only from one at the lowest to twenty-five at the highest. It was therefore proposed by the operation of the Ecclesiastical Commission that these benefices should be added to others, so as to reduce the whole number to 1,250, which was supposed to be the number of benefices for which it would be necessary permanently to provide. Supposing then, it was necessary to provide for 1,250 benefices, the next thing to be considered was, what was the available revenue of the clergy, and the average amount of the tithe compositions. It was estimated that the sum required would be 368,350 l. It was proposed also to give to every benefice thirty acres of glebe land. The glebe lands at present were very unequally distributed, and it was proposed, that in future no benefice should have more than thirty acres. The residue would be sold or exchanged, whichever plan would be deemed the most profitable. The total available amount to meet the future expenses of the clergy was calculated at 461,900 l. But there were some other benefices to be provided with curates, which would occasion an expense of 18,075 l. more, which being added to the 368,350 l. would make the whole demand 386,425 l., which deducted from the gross revenues, estimated at 461,900 l., would leave 75,475 l. There would then be a surplus to dispose of. All they wanted was a surplus, and there it was. [Lord Lyndhurst: How much do you say it is?] 75,475 l. Out of that it was proposed that there should be paid into the Consolidated Fund, for the purposes of the moral and religious education of the people of Ireland, the sum of 50,000 l. As to the objections which had been urged against the power of Parliament to interfere, he thought they were absurd. The example of this country, and of all European nations, warranted such interference. Let them look east, west, north, or south, to any country, whatever might be the form of government, whatever might be the re-

441
ligion of the country, whether the reformed religion, or that of Popery was adopted, whether the government was despotic or republican, whether the creed was Calvinistic, Lutheran, or Zuinglian, in no country would it be found tolerable or possible to leave the revenues of the Church as they had been accumulated by the piety or superstition of past ages; therefore, to say that it was not in the power of Parliament or predominant party of the State to do this, was in his opinion contrary to all fact, reason, experience, and common sense itself; but, at the same time, he acknowledged this was a subject of great importance and great difficulty, and one which ought not to be decided hastily—one which ought not to be approached except under difficult circumstances and in extreme cases, and he would assert that Ireland was an extreme case. With respect to the condition of the population, and the state of religion in that country, it was altogether an extreme case, and required the most serious consideration to enable them to deal with the question as it deserved. He would not go into the present state of Ireland, with regard to the violence of religious parties there. None of their Lordships were unacquainted with that subject; but he would suggest, that the only way in which they could deal with that difficulty would be to reduce the establishment of the Church of Ireland within bounds commensurate to the duties she was called upon to perform, and the congregations she had to serve; within the bounds of reason, so as to render a church establishment there defensible by argument; and the collection and application of her revenues more advantageous to the people. He believed he had stated the general provisions of the Bill, and he should now move that it be read a second time.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that although he might very safely urge against the present motion, that notwithstanding the difficulties and privations under which the Anglo-Irish Church had so long laboured, that Church was never in so good a position or situation as it now was, owing to the protection which had been afforded to the clergy by enforcing the law in that country; although, he repeated, he might with truth say, that this was now the case, yet he should not deem it necessary to oppose the second reading of the Bill before their Lordships, or throw any difficulties in the way to obstruct its
442
progress to the Committee. This was his present conviction upon the subject; and having observed the moderate tone in which the noble Viscount had proposed the second reading, he should not trouble their Lordships with any extended speech on this occasion, but would follow the example of the noble Viscount, and even confine himself to two observations on the statements of the noble Viscount. He hoped their Lordships would consider the present Bill in the Committee, with the view to introduce such amendments as would reconcile it to, and render it consistent with, the interests as well as the means of the Church of Ireland. It had for its object the establishment of a fixed rent-charge in lieu of the present tithe payments; but he could not agree with the noble Viscount in the amount of the future revenues, as stated by him. He would not enter into the details of this question, but simply state his sentiments. With respect to the re-opening of the tithe compositions, he agreed with the noble Viscount in thinking that some opportunity ought to be afforded of reconsidering them, or, at least, those compositions which were entered into under Lord Stanley's Act; but he saw no reason why former compositions should be suffered to be re-opened. He admitted, however, so much of the principle of the Bill. He was likewise disposed to agree with the noble Viscount in the necessity for adopting some measure to provide for the reconsideration of the distribution of the revenues of the Irish Church, with a view to apportion a due income to those persons who had the greatest proportion of duty to perform, and he was the more disposed to do this, because of the wishes of the members of that Church as for the general benefit of its clergy. The consideration and settlement of this question would not, he believed, if justice were done to the Church and to the people of Ireland, leave any such magnificent surplus as the noble Viscount had with such apparent ease and with so much triumph made out. He only hoped that such might prove to be the case when the details came before them, and the subject could be considered more accurately. But under all circumstances, he feared the noble Viscount would find his surplus to fail him. At all events, he was sure that, according to the views he entertained of the proper mode of applying the Church revenues, there would be

443
no such surplus. He would, however, go no further into the question; he was disposed to agree to the second reading of the measure, and that for the present was all he felt it necessary to say.
The Bill read a second time, and the Committee was fixed for Monday next.

UNIVERSITIES OF SCOTLĂND.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Universities of Scotland Bill.
The Marquess of Bute The Marquess of Bute moved an amendment to the 1st Clause, which, he said, he had copied verbatim from the Scotch Act, to the effect, that instead of having several boards, as provided by the clause, there should be but one general board.
Viscount Melbourneobjected to it, on the ground that it would throw too onerous a duty on the members of that board, while, by appointing several boards for the different Universities, they would not only be dividing the amount of duty to be performed, but would be infusing into them persons from the neighbourhood of the Universities, whose local knowledge might enable the board to discharge its duty better than it otherwise would.
The Duke of Buccleughsaid, that the very reason why he objected to a variety of boards was, "because persons locally interested might be made members of them.
Amendment postponed.
The clause agreed to.
On Clause 10,
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that this clause enabled the boards to make regulations regarding the abolition of professorships within the Universities to which they might be appointed, or to the institution of new professorships therein. That was a power he thought too extensive, and he would propose to limit it, by obliging the Commissioners to report to his Majesty any intended change in that respect.
Viscount Melbournehad no objection to the amendment.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Haddingtonproposed to follow up his former amendment by the introduction of a new clause, to the effect, that when any new regulation was about to be made by the Commissioners in the curriculum or course of theological study, they should communicate at least the substance of the proposed change to the moderator of the Church of Scotland for the time being, and they should transmit, together with their own report, any objec-
444
tions or suggestions that might be received from him to one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, in order that the same might be laid before his Majesty in Council, for whom it should be lawful, upon considering said Report, &c, to make such order as might seem fit, which order should have full force and effect until altered or abrogated by his Majesty in Council, or a future Act of Parliament.
Viscount Melbournehad great objections to such a clause, because it would give to the Church, and to the authorities of the Church of Scotland, new powers over the Universities, which they never were possessed of, and which were totally at variance with the principle laid down in their own Report, which stated, that the Universities were not of an ecclesiastical character, and were not connected with the Church any more than with the other professions. Notwithstanding the high respect which he entertained for the Church of Scotland, he should oppose this clause.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that if any person had heard the noble Viscount without having heard what he (the Earl of Haddington) really proposed, that person must have supposed that he was going to give to the Church of Scotland an unlimited interference in the management of the Universities—in short, to identify them with the Scotch Church; whereas, his only object was to have the opinions of the clerical authorities on any change proposed in the course of theological study forwarded to his Majesty in Council, &c, who should decide, upon oath, if such change ought to be carried into effect.
Lord Hollandthought it would be introducing a new principle, which was unnecessary, and giving to the Church of Scotland an authority which it never had before.
The Earl of Rosslynsaid it did not confer a power to interfere with the Universities at all—but merely provided, that in case any alterations were to be made in the general course of study in theology and divinity, the church might get notice to that effect, and not be taken by surprise.
The Earl of Haddingtonobserved, that the Church of Scotland required candidates for holy orders to have gone through a certain specific course of study in one of the Universities, and it was but right that the clerical authorities should be made acquainted with any addition or substraction the commissioners might think fit to make in that course. What

445
sort of a church would it be, if it had not the power to see in what way candidates for holy orders had been educated?
Lord Hollandsaid, that what the church at present required was, that candidates should have studied in one of the four Universities, but the course of study was not settled by the church, and might be altered without having its consent. This clause would be placing the Church and the Universities in a relative position which they never before had assumed and never should.
The Archbishop of Canterburyobserved, that amongst the different professions in the Universities, the church undoubtedly stood first. These Universities were for the promotion of religious education and sound doctrine and if they were to pursue a course of education which was contrary to the doctrines of the church, the consequence would be, that the church would not have a supply of ministers from these Universities. He should look upon it not only as a grievous injury to the Church of Scotland, but a grievous insult and injury both, to the people of that country, to exclude persons intended for the Church from the Universities.
The Lord Chancellorpartly agreed in what had fallen from the most rev. Prelate. The Bishops of England were in the habit of requiring that candidates should have taken a degree at one of the Universities. So it was in Scotland, but in neither country was it necessary for the church to have any communication with the Universities regarding the course of study to be pursued. If, then, these Universities should alter the present course, which it was competent for them to do, and that the Scotch Church did not like that alteration, they had it in their power to refuse candidates whose study was confined to that altered course. If they were to have the power of objecting to any alteration in the course of study, it was quite clear it would end in the veto of the party to be consulted.
The Committee divided, on the amendment; Content 16; not Content 8;—Majority 8. Amendment agreed to.
Several other amendments were made and the House resumed.