Lords Sitting of 7 December 1852

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths. — The Lord Clanbrassill.
PUBLIC BILL. — 1a West India Colonies, &c, Loans Act Amendment.
Reported. — Oaths in Chancery, &c.; Bank Notes.

NEW ULSTER AND THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEpresented a petition from the inhabitants of the Province of New Ulster, in New Zealand, urging on their Lordships' House the impolicy and injustice of burthening the revenues of the Colony for the losses sustained by the New Zealand Company. He was not going to trouble their Lordships by reading the petition, because it was probable that in some form or other the subject to which it related would again have to be discussed in the course of the present Session of Parliament; for he anticipated that, before long, the legislation of last Session, with reference to the colony of New Zealand, would elicit such remonstrances from the settlers on the subject of the claims of the New Zealand Company as would render it incumbent on their Lordships to raise the question in some shape or other. In New Ulster the New Zealand Company never purchased land at all, and their whole operations were calculated to inflict injury rather than advantage on the colonists.
The EARL of DBSARTsaid, he rather wished to remove an impression which existed in that House, that the present Government had had anything to do with the legislation of which this petition complained. The real fact was, that the only legislation which had fallen into the hands of the present Government relative to New Zealand was that contained in the important Act of last Session giving a new constitution to that rising colony. When that was under consideration, the Government did not think it a lit time to enter on a consideration of the conflicting interests of associations and colonists, but took all those interests precisely as they found them. They would, they thought, incur a serious responsibility if they failed to confer institutions on the colony which experience showed were likely to prove beneficial.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, he certainly could not allow the observations which had fallen from the noble Earl opposite to pass altogether unnoticed; because

1059
he must remind the noble Earl that not only in the last Session of Parliament, in the other House of Parliament, but on the hustings also, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir J. Pakington) took the greatest possible credit for the legislation with reference to the constitution of New Zealand; and he (the Duke of Newcastle) thought, if the Government deemed it just at that time to take credit for the constitution they gave to New Zealand, they were not now entitled to wash their hands of that measure, which imposed on the inhabitants of the colony debts to which they were not liable. The Government ought to do one of two things—they ought either to disown the measure, or to take on themselves the whole responsibility of it. And when the noble Earl said the Government found certain conflicting interests, and that they did not think it was right to consider the Colony on the one hand, or the Company on the other, with reference to the claims which they admitted and the claims which they denied, he would remind the noble Earl that this was exactly what they had done, and what he had urged them not to do. This question between the Colony and the New Zealand Company was of a very serious nature, and the argument which he (the Duke of Newcastle) used when the measure for granting a constitution to New Zealand was under discussion, was this: "Do not attempt to legislate upon this question between the Colony and this Company now; wait for further information; do not prejudge the question, and impose a tax upon the people for the liquidation of a debt which they say they are not liable to pay until you have heard their remonstrances, and until you have an opportunity of investigating the grave charges which the colonists have made against the New Zealand Company." That was precisely the argument he used; and but for the conduct of the Government, he believed that part of the measure would never have passed into a law. He did not mean to say that the noble Earl or the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir J. Pakington) were, solely or originally, responsible for the legislation in question; he was ready to admit that the same view which they had taken of it was taken by the noble Earl recently at the head of the Colonial Office (Earl Grey); but it would be a novel doctrine if a Government should introduce a measure of legislation in that
1060
House, and succeed in carrying it through Parliament, and then, when they found that an obnoxious proposition had been passed, and one about which grave remonstrances were presented, that they should come forward and say they were not responsible for that part of the measure. He protested against such a doctrine.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, I beg to call your Lordships' attention to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the University of Cambridge, and the respective studies and discipline there, and which report has been laid on the table of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships are no doubt aware of the charges which have been repeatedly preferred of late years against the two Universities, accusing them of negligence, supineness, and indifference to improvement —and not only indifference to improvement with regard to the discipline of those learned bodies, but an absolute disposition to oppose all improvement. With respect to these charges against the University of Cambridge, I wish to direct your Lordships' notice to a few passages which are contained in the Commissioners' Report. The Commissioners say—
"Before we conclude this Report, it is with unfeigned pleasure that we attempt another task; that we endeavour in a few words to indicate the points wherein the University has in modern times shown in the spirit of her administration her willingness to enlarge the cycle of her studies, and to modify her institutions so far as the rigid severity of her laws permitted. We have abundant proofs supplied by our evidence that the University has been liberal in the general administration of her funds, not husbanding them parsimoniously, but bestowing them to the very limits of her power upon objects of great academical importance. Nor should we fail to notice the vote of a committee to revise the statutes of the University, with a view to petitioning Tour Majesty for Your Royal sanction to an amended code of University laws. This committee was voted by the Senate some time before the issue of a Royal Commission had been by any one anticipated. That the University was ready to enlarge its cycle of studies, is proved by its instituting new triposes of the moral and natural sciences, and thus affording to most of the professors an extended field of usefulness. A like spirit has been shown by the colleges, which in several instances have, at a great cost, and no small sacrifice of personal interests, enlarged their buildings, and in all cases shown themselves careful guardians of their corporate property, by foregoing a part of the income of the existing body, with a view to the prospective benefit of the society. Many of the colleges also have sought wholesome modifications of their statutes,

1061
given up valueless or injurious privileges, and cone to the full extent of their powers in obtaining the removal of restrictions which prejudicially limited the free election to their fellowships and scholarships. All these were spontaneous acts, and in the right direction. We regard them as the marks of a wise and honourable spirit, and they have been in good part suggestive to ourselves of the reforms we have ventured to recommend."
In another part of their Report the Commissioners observe as follows:—
"One happy circumstance in the position of the University is deserving of special comment. A great majority of the college fellowships have long been open to free competition; this has given to the University a high moral elevation, and contributed in a high degree to make her the honoured instrument of public good. The same condition marks the distribution of many valued University prizes. It is, we think, this fact which has called forth a high sentiment of honour, and an unbending sense of public duty on the part of the governing powers and examiners, whether of the colleges or of the University. That the rewards of competition be given to the most worthy is a principle now so deeply penetrating the moral life of Cambridge, that its violation seems almost beyond the region of thought.
"What above all other things gives us hope for the future good of Cambridge, is the manly, free, and truth-loving character of her sons, springing in part, at least, from her collegiate system, the character of her studies, and the uprightness of her administration, producing in return confidence and goodwill on the part of those committed to her care. In all her members she believes that she possesses a body of men, who, strong in their historical remembrances, cling to what is truly good, would seek for no needless change, and would admit of no change which had not the fair promise of scientific, moral, and religious benefit."
My Lords, as one of the oldest members of the University of Cambridge— having been a member of the Synod of that body for nearly sixty years—having represented the University of Cambridge in successive Parliaments — and holding, at present, a high office in that learned society—I thought it my duty to read these passages from the Report of the Commissioners, as affording the best answer to the charges, so often reiterated, to which I have referred, and which, I am sure, can have risen only from entire ignorance of what is passing within the walls of the University, and of the exertions made by that learned body to improve and extend, as far as their limited authority admits, the benefits of that noble institution. I hope your Lordships will excuse me for this intrusion.

SELECT COMMITTEES.
EARL GRANVILLE moved—
"That, in the event of a division taking place in any Select Committee, the Question proposed,
1062
the Name of the Lord proposing the Question, and the respective Votes thereupon of each Lord present, be entered on the Minutes of Evidence, or on the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee (as the case may be), and reported to the House on the report of such Committee."
The noble Earl referred to the alterations adopted by the other House in reference to the record of the proceedings of Select Committees; and said that a Committee of their Lordships' House was appointed last year to consider how far those alterations would be applicable to the Committees of the Lords. As Chairman of the Committee he communicated with the Speaker of the House of Commons, who told him that from what he had heard he understood the alterations worked admirably; and, having received the evidence of some Members of the other. House, the Committee reported on the subject. He moved their Lordships to agree to the recommendations of the Committee, with some alterations. On that occasion he was defeated, it being argued that it was not desirable to decide so hastily, as the evidence had not been laid before their Lordships. The evidence was now in their hands, and would be found strongly in favour of the Motion he proposed. He was aware that one objection to the Motion was, that it was the practice of their Lordships to assimilate the proceedings of Committees as much as possible to the proceedings of the whole House, and that no divisions were ever recorded in their Lordships' journals. But he did not see the great virtue of the existing regulation with respect to the whole House; for he thought that House, like every other body, would gain by publicity. He called their Lordships' attention, however, to the fact that not only what was said in that House was recorded in the public newspapers, but it was the practice of two noble Peers, having a sort of semi-official position, to make out a list of divisions, which appeared first of all in the newspapers, and afterwards in Hansard. It might he said by some that there was no occasion to publish the divisions in their Lordships' House, as their Lordships represented no constituencies. Nobody, at any rate, would deny that their Lordships were amenable to public opinion. However, the same argument did not apply to Committees, as they were composed of Peers delegated by their Lordships; and it was desirable that their Lordships should know how the majority and minority were composed. He recollected that in one of the

1063
most numerously attended Committees of that House a Report was prepared by the Marquess of Lansdowne, as representing the opinions of the then existing Government. Now, whether that Report was wrong or right, as it was in conformity with the existing legislation on the subject, some record of it ought to have been retained; and it surely would have been of interest to their Lordships and the public to know what it contained, and what the opinion of the minority was on the subject to which it referred. It was also of importance to know in what way particular paragraphs and recommendations in a report were carried—whether by a large or small majority, and in what way the Members voted; for it might happen that their Lordships would not give the same weight to the views of persons forming the majority which they did to those of the minority. When examined before the Committee to which he had already referred, Sir James Graham stated that the change which had taken place in the practice of Committees of the other House had been productive of unmixed good, and had proved most salutary in its results—one of the great advantages being that a minority had the opportunity afforded them of making known their views. He had no hesitation in saying that there was no department of the business of their Lordships' House that was more likely to do credit to their Lordships in the eyes of the public than the labours of their Select Committees. From the knowledge, the experience, and the ability of those who usually served on those Committees, they were peculiarly fitted to go into the investigations for which they were instituted; and as they examined witnesses on oath—which was not the case in the Committees of the other House—he believed that the publication of their proceedings would go far to keep up and increase the estimation which their Lordships held in public opinion. He believed the opinion of the public was very much influenced in the case of public bodies, as in individuals, by what took place in small as well as in great affairs; and, if their Lordships opposed the Resolution which he now proposed, it might lead to an opinion—which was the very reverse of the fact—that their Lordships were op-posed to the safest and most necessary reforms.
LORD REDESDALEobjected to the proposed Resolution, on the ground that it would entirely alter the character of the
1064
Committees of that House. When then Lordships delegated a certain number of its Members as a Committee to consider a particular question, the Report which they made was the Report of the Committee, and was so regarded by the House. But the effect of the alteration would be, that everybody's opinion would be given as well as that of the majority. He would certaiely say "No!" to the Resolution, though he would not divide the House on the subject.
On Question, agreed to.
House adjourned to Thursday next.