Lords Sitting of 11 July 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Portland, &c., Chapels.
Reported—Ecclesiastical Courts; Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges.
3a and passed—Indemnity; Insurance on Lives (Abatement of Income Tax) Continuance; Poor Law Board Continuance; Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland); Union Charges Continuance; Holyhead Harbours; Dublin Carriage; Linen, &c. Manufactures (Ireland).

LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILLS.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he had a question to put to the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) of which he had not given him notice, as the circumstance to which it related had only come to his knowledge within the last hour; but as the matter was of very considerable importance, he trusted the noble Duke would excuse his alluding to it. It might be in the recollection of their Lordships, that various Bills had been introduced in that and the other House of Parliament by the Government and by private individuals,
2
with a view of settling the much-vexed question of the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland. Those Bills were referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships for consideration. In that Committee, after much time and labour had been expended on the work, two measures were elaborated, which were for the most part identical with the measure introduced by the noble Duke. The third reading of these Bills was moved by the noble Duke the Lord Privy Seal (the Duke of Argyll); they were passed and sent down to the other House of Parliament. He had been informed, however, that notwithstanding that circumstance, Her Majesty's Government in the other House had distinctly denied that they were responsible for these measures, and that they had accordingly thrown the onus of carrying them through upon private Members; but he was still more surprised to hear it announced that there was no intention of proceeding with them at all during the present Session. Now, he did hope that when so large a number of their Lordships' House had been put to the trouble and inconvenience of attending the most laborious Committee which had elaborated

3
the two Bills, Government would have kept faith with their Lordships; and at the same time he did hope that the Government would have assumed the full responsibility of carrying them through. He therefore wished to know from the noble Duke, whether it was a fact that the Bills were not to be proceeded with this Session.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he had only just heard of the withdrawal of the Bills alluded to by the noble Earl, from the noble Marquess sitting opposite to him (the Marquess of Bath), and he consequently had had no opportunity of conferring with any of the Members of the Government in the other House of Parliament as to the circumstances connected with it. He supposed, however, it had taken place at the morning sitting of that day. However, he would of course make himself fully acquainted with all the causes which had led to the adoption of that course, and he should take care to inform the noble Earl what had induced the Government to act as it had done. All he knew of the matter was, that it had always been intended, if the circumstances of the Session allowed, to carry the Bills through this year. The noble Earl must be aware, however, from the experience of their Lordships' House—and the rule would apply with much greater force in the case of the lower House—how easy it was to delay the passing of a measure if only a few persons were bent on opposing it; and as it would appear that the two Bills in question were threatened with such an opposition in the other House, it might have been found impossible to get them through during what remained of the present Session. As to the Government being responsible for the conduct of the Bills, all he could say was, that the Government were not parties to framing the Bills in any way. The Bills were not party Bills, and had not been looked upon as such; but though, technically speaking, they might not be Government Bills, there was no doubt that Government had adopted them in their essence. They were introduced by the law officers of the late Government, were then taken up by the Members of the present Government, and in an altered shape came before their Lordships' House, when they were referred to a Select Committee, of which the noble Duke the Lord Privy Seal was Chairman. He was quite sure that there was no unfair repudiation of the Bills intended by
4
the Government; and though he could not as yet say under what circumstances the Bills had been withdrawn, he was quite satisfied that that course had not been adopted from any dislike entertained by the Government to the character of the measures.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, as a Member of the Select Committee which had elaborated the two measures referred to by the noble Earl, and as one who had taken a prominent part in the discussions of last Session, when the subject was brought before their Lordships, he could not help expressing his sincere surprise and deep regret at the course which Her Majesty's Government intended to take; at the same time he readily acknowledged the noble Duke was justified in deprecating any further discussion at the present moment in reference to this topic, as he certainly appeared not to have had an opportunity of possessing himself of the necessary details. But at the same time he could not help saying how strange it was that a Member of the Cabinet, and he too a Secretary of State, should not have known what were the intentions of the Government upon so important a matter until the last five minutes. He would ask their Lordships, was it not a subject for most legitimate and natural surprise that the abandonment of a number of most material Bills should have been decided on, and yet that the noble Duke, whose peculiar measures they might be considered to be, was obliged to tell them that he was able to give no information as to the causes of such a proceeding? However, he judged the matter of so much importance—important, not merely in its relation to the loss of the measures in question, but as involving the conduct, not merely of the present Administration, but of all Governments, towards their Lordships House—that it was his intention to bring the subject formally before them on Thursday next. He certainly understood that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll), who had acted as Chairman of the Select Committee, had spoken in the name of the Government, and under authority, when he told the Committee that the Government would interest itself in the passing of the measures through the House of Commons. He was, therefore, much surprised at hearing the Bills were about to be withdrawn without any apparent reason, and he could not help contrasting the conduct evinced by the noble Duke last year—when, within

5
seven or eight days of the termination of the Session, he peremptorily charged their Lordships with the duty of passing the Bills—nay, even insisting with impetuosity upon the necessity of their doing so—with the fact of his Colleagues, with a month or six weeks of this Session still before them, suddenly throwing up these Bills. Although, therefore, he could not expect the noble Duke to give any further reply upon the present occasion, he found it necessary to give notice, that on Thursday next he should again invite their Lordships' attention to the subject, when he hoped he might count on the presence of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), who acted as Chairman of the Select Committee.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments read.
VISCOUNT CANNING moved, That the said Report be now received.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that he wished to address a few words to their Lordships upon this stage of the Oxford University Bill. Their Lordships were aware that it was not the practice in their Lordships' House to place upon record any Amendments that might be moved upon Bills in the stage of this present measure unless they were agreed to. As, however, he was extremely anxious, not only on his own part, but also on the part of his noble Friend the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, who was not now present, that those Amendments which he had proposed should stand upon the records of their Lordships' House, he was induced to take the present course with the view of obtaining that object. He felt he would be consulting their Lordships' convenience by at once stating that he merely wished to be printed, and laid before their Lordships, those Amendments which bad been moved by his noble Friend the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, in order that they might be duly placed upon the records of their proceedings. He, however, felt that he could not part with this Bill without expressing his regret that their Lordships should have adopted it without any of the Amendments that had been submitted to them by his noble Friend. He trusted that, in another place, where much attention and a great deal of time had been given to the consideration of the question, the Bill would be so amended as to meet at least some
6
of the views which their Lordships on his side of the House entertained in respect to its provisions. He would occupy the time of the House but for a few moments, while he referred to the most important of those Amendments upon which their Lordships divided last Friday. In respect to the first of those Amendments, upon the question of the oaths taken by persons connected with the University, he must express his regret that some of the right rev. Prelates had not deemed it of sufficient importance to favour the House with their opinions upon the subject, involving as it did matter of conscience—he was certainly anxious to hear from them whether they thought that an Act of Parliament could relieve a man from the obligation of an oath he bad once taken. He would not trespass upon the attention of the House by dwelling any further upon that point. Another Amendment moved by his noble Friend was to omit the sixth clause for the purpose of inserting another in its place, to the effect that the election of the legislative body of the University should take place by the votes of Convocation instead of Congregation. Although their Lordships were pleased to reject that Amendment, he hoped that in another place the subject would be reconsidered, because he conceived that no accident could happen to the scheme of liberalising, as it was called, the University, so fatal to that object, as the course which the majority of that House had taken in respect to this Amendment. The noble Viscount who introduced the Bill (Viscount Canning) had argued that the University was not doing its duties efficiently; that it was behind the age, and had not kept pace with the general advance of enlightenment and improvement which characterised other similar institutions. Now, what was the course usually adopted when it was deemed desirable to liberalise constituencies? Why, they naturally sought to extend those constituencies. Their Lordships had, however, in the present instance deliberately preferred to leave the election of the legislative body of the University in the hands of some 250 or 300 members, instead of extending the constituency to some 2,000 to 3,000 persons. He confessed he was at a loss to see the value or consistency of this proceeding; for it seemed to him to be a contradiction, considering the preamble of the Bill, and the constant complaints they heard of the bigotry and darkness of Oxford, to confine

7
the constituency to this small number when they might extend it to as many thousands. Now, in respect to the question of private halls for the students—the more he considered the subject—the more he reflected upon the character and constitution of the University and the discipline that was required there, the more he was convinced that the provision for the establishment of those private halls would be attended with the most mischievous results, both as regarded the morals of the University, and the students within its walls. He knew that a great many of their Lordships were prepared to vote for and to support the Government in regard to the clauses which would admit Dissenters to the University, if the clause in respect to the halls were rejected. He had never concealed his opinion as to those halls. To use the words of the Earl of Carlisle the other evening, he believed they would be "retreats for Dissenters." He should be sorry if his feelings towards the Dissenters should be misunderstood. In his opinion, there was no arrogance so objectionable as the arrogance of religious orthodoxy. There was nothing which so shocked him in private life as when he saw a man presumptuously stating that he was right, and that all who held different views were wrong; and he was more disgusted when he heard this said on subjects of religious doctrine and conscience than on any others. In respect to Dissenters, and those others who differed from him in religious opinions, he had always held that they were entitled to be treated upon a footing of equality with himself. He flattered himself that in his own humble and private way he had set an example of this principle. He had been frequently remonstrated with by ministers of the Church of England for not being more exclusive in his dealings, in the employment of his labourers, and the selection of his tenantry; he had always positively refused to adopt any such principle, for he thought that no such differences should exist in private life or upon private business. But this was a peculiar case. In his view the establishment of the University of Oxford was originally intended to be wedded, and closely wedded, to our Church and State. And although he was aware that it had received many endowments from Roman Catholics, and that the University had for centuries existed under the will and by the funds of Roman Catholics, he recollected,
8
too, that during that time the Roman Catholic religion was the State religion, and it ceased only to be the State religion when the Reformation was accomplished. The law then changed the nature of the case, and the Reformed religion became the State religion, and he saw no reason why after eight centuries we should alter the recognised character and constitution of the University in connection with the Church that was established by the State. Now, one or two things he thought must necessarily happen upon the admission of Dissenters to the University. First, it could hardly be expected that the number of Dissenters admitted to the University would remain exactly the same within its walls; they would either convert the members of the Church, or they would be converted by those members. The noble Duke opposite thought it would be more likely that the Dissenters would be converted by the members of the Anglican Church. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) was not prepared to agree with the noble Duke that the Dissenters would necessarily have the worst of the trial, if worst it could be called. They must remember that by the Bill any member of Convocation might establish there a hall, if licensed. [Lord CAMPBELL was understood to intimate that it was at the discretion of the Vice Chancellor] Now, he was almost disposed to consider his noble and learned Friend, while presiding in his court, as infallible; but he must be excused for saving that he bad no such high opinion of his judgment in that House. It appeared by this Bill that the Vice Chancellor had no choice, if the party agree to certain conditions mentioned in the Bill, than to give him a licence for the establishment of a private hall. He did not think he was acting offensively in mentioning the name of Dr. Newman in relation to his argument. During a considerable part of the time Dr. Newman was in Oxford, if this Bill were then in operation, he would have been in a position to claim a right to establish a ball. Their Lordships might easily guess what the consequences would have been. They knew that Dr. Newman did not all at once become a convert; he was for some years gradually descending from the position in which he originally stood, and accepting the creeds of another Church. Dr. Newman's great object at that time was to convert to his own religious opinions as many as he could. Well, then, supposing that the Doctor was at the head of one of

9
those halls, he would naturally have the greatest influence over the religious opinions of the students that frequented it. There was another strong argument against the establishment of these halls—he referred to the encouragement that would be given to religious disputes. He could conceive nothing more obnoxious than this in an University. For the last ten or twelve years, up to a very recent period, Oxford had been the scene of religious disputes and theological discussions. Young men of the age usually attending the University were sufficiently presumptuous and argumentative of themselves, and the introduction of religious discussion could not but be attended with prejudicial results. This was no fancy of his. Let their Lordships remember what had taken place at Oxford within no very distant period, when every private room and association was the arena of controversies about doctrines that were bandied from one side to the other with more zeal than discretion and more passion than knowledge. Now, he asked, whether it was not more likely that these angry religious discussions would be greatly increased by the admission into the University of the champions of the Roman Catholic and of the Dissenting Churches who would be admitted into the same room, and the same society, with the members of the Church of England—and would not these private halls afford great facilities for these disputations? He conceived that there was nothing less desirable in the University of Oxford than the adoption of any measure that would give encouragement to such disputes. The life of a student at Oxford tended greatly to encourage the spirit of controversy. The students there had not the same occupation or amusements which young men in other large towns could command; and he could conceive nothing more natural than that young men should rush into those argumentative disputes upon religion which had lately brought so much evil upon the country, and so much scandal upon the Church. His noble Friend opposite said that the admission of Dissenters into the Scotch schools connected with the Church was attended with no such evils as had been referred to. He denied that there was the slightest analogy between the Scotch schools and the University. In the first place the Scotch schools were not bound up as the University of Oxford had been for centuries with the State religion; and, in the second place, the students in
10
the Scotch schools were of a much younger age generally than those that were to be found in the Universities. Most anxious that his feelings with respect to the Dissenters and Roman Catholics should not be misunderstood, he trusted he had explained, clearly and distinctly, on what grounds, and on what grounds alone, he objected to their admission to the University; and he further must express his hope that when the Bill had left their Lordships' House some parts of it to which he entertained objection would be revised in another place.
EARL DELAWARRwas anxious to express, in a very few words, his decided opposition to this Bill, as a measure which was based upon injustice, and was likely to introduce discord where peace and harmony had formerly prevailed. He regretted deeply the manner in which the measure had been dealt with. In passing through the other House of Parliament, the Bill had been modified in several material particulars and with respect to some of its most objectionable provisions, and deeply did he regret to find that in passing through their Lordships' House, not only had every attempt at further improvement been successfully resisted, but it had been actually reinvested with much of that mischievous character of which the decisions of the House of Commons had partially deprived it. But if he had before objected to the measure, his objections had been materially strengthened by what he had heard in that House. The private halls which it was proposed to establish had been spoken of by a noble Earl, the other night, as likely to become retreats for Dissenters; and if it had been correctly assumed with respect to the students in those halls that they would not be required to attend the chapel worship, it would follow, as a necessary consequence, that they would not be able to enforce attendance on the divinity lectures of the University; and, in that case, what became of the protestations of noble Lords and right rev. Prelates opposite, that nothing would induce them to introduce anything which would in any way involve a departure upon the part of the University from her standard of teaching and doctrine? With respect to the expenses of education in private halls, much of what had been said was based upon fallacy and delusion. He held in his hand a statement, with which he would not trouble their Lordships, but which showed incontrovertibly that the necessary expenses

11
in these new institutions must be greater than they were in the colleges, and that, taking the very lowest estimate, they could not be less than 21 l. per term in the former case, as against 15 l. in the latter. He could not but consider that there lurked in the present measure a desire to impair that close connection between the University and the established religion of the country, by which it had been hitherto so prominently distinguished, and which had caused it to be considered, not only in England, but throughout the civilised world, as the great bulwark of our Constitution in Church and State. Feeling so strongly as he did upon this subject, he deeply regretted that those right rev. Prelates who ought to have thrown their shields around the University had paired with those who had attacked its rights and privileges.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that he totally dissented from those provisions in the abstract which provided for the admission of Dissenters, and had consented to the Amendment, not because it involved his own views, but because it amounted to a mitigation of the evil. He objected to those provisions because they had formed no part of the original measure, and had no original connection with it, and because he considered it at variance with the permissive character of the Bill. But, beyond this, by the early clauses of the Bill, the Government had proceeded to frame a constitution which he admitted to be wise, and sound, and rational—which, upon their own hypothesis, was likely to work well, and had all the elements of reformation—and yet, before that constitution had been set at work, they virtually asserted that they could repose no confidence in the governing body they had created, and acted as though no new constitution were in existence, and as though the old Hebdomadal Board were still in force. But although they had admitted Dissenters to the University, and had relieved them of tests and subscriptions, they had not advanced them one iota nearer to that which they sought, which was, not a separate existence in private halls, but the equality of collegiate life; and this they could not give them, unless they gained the co-operation of the colleges. He looked upon the admission of the Dissenters, as effected by the present measure, as a mitigation of an evil which would have been incomparably worse had they been admitted to the government of the University. He would be the first to object to any penal restrictions, but he
12
maintained that this was a question, not so much of the admission of Dissenters to the University as of the exclusion of the Church of England—a question of disqualifying the University for the education of members of the Church. That which was asked for was more than toleration; and if it were an act of generosity upon the part of Parliament towards one class, it was an act of generosity done at the expense of another. If it were summum jus it was also summa injuria; and if the effort should be crowned with success, he thought that the results were less likely to be peace and harmony than disorder and disunion. He could not forget that the Church of England was bound up with the University in all its associations; that it had followed that Church through evil report and good report, and was its organ and exponent in the great matter of education; and it seemed to him inevitable that if this policy were to be pursued further, its tendency must be to force the members of the Church of England to seek repose in other quarters, and to drive them into other institutions, as free as possible from Government control.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he was anxious to explain the vote he had given on a former occasion. He trusted that no one could imagine that he had voted against the establishment of private halls from apprehending any dangerous influence resulting from the admission of Dissenters; on the contrary, there was no portion of the Bill to which he attached so much importance as that which provided for the admission of Dissenters, because he believed that their admission would conduce to the interests of the University, to the interests of the Church, and to the interests of the great Dissenting bodies themselves. He believed, however, that to admit them at all with any hope of a beneficial result, they must admit them generously, and without any feelings of mistrust, upon the very terms of which his noble Friend was most apprehensive—upon terms of perfect equality. They would neither do justice to their own intentions nor make their legislation operative for good, if they intended to admit Dissenters upon terms which were unbecoming and unjust. He could not think that their unreserved admission would do any mischief to the Church or to the University. He felt that he might speak with authority much higher than his own upon this point, because, as long back as the

13
year 1834, he had presented to the other House of Parliament a petition in favour of the admission of Dissenters to the University, which was signed by four of the most distinguished members of the episcopacy of this country, and by some of the most distinguished members of the University, by the Archbishop of York, Bishop Thirlwall, the late exalted Bishop Boustead, the Dean of Ely, the Astronomer Royal (Professor Airey), and many others equally known to Europe. Earl Grey had presented at the same time a similar petition to this House. He was entitled, therefore, to say, on the authority of those great men, that the admission of Dissenters would do no mischief whatever to the University. This petition simply entreated Parliament to allow the admission of Dissenters to the University. There was no question at that time of admitting Dissenters into a position which might be considered by themselves—or which might ultimately be understood by others, although not intended by those by whom the present Bill was proposed—to be degrading, unfavourable, or unequal; he thought that, unless they admitted the Dissenters upon terms which, as being just, ought to satisfy them, they had better not admit them at all. But if there were danger to the Church—which he denied if they dealt with this matter rightly—he thought that that danger would be created and carried to its greatest height if the Dissenters in the University were to be admitted on terms of inferiority, formed into small confederacies through the agency of these private halls, and cut off from communion and companionship with the undergraduate members of the Church who might be pursuing their education at the Universities. His noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Carnarvon) seemed to think that the admission of Dissenters was inconsistent with the principle—which he (Lord Monteagle) advocated as strongly as his noble Friend—of preserving the government of the colleges to the Church of England. But was it impossible to obtain this object without abandoning the other? It was not impossible to obtain it, unless, indeed, we were to assume that the Universities of England and the people of England were much less moderate, much less calm, much more likely to be excited by the violence of religious faction, than the Universities and the people of Ireland. From the year 1793 Roman Catholics and Dissenters had been admit-
14
ted to the University of Dublin, and what had been the effect? Had it deranged in any degree the government of that University? Had it made the University less attached to the Church, or less effective as a school for the education of its members and ministers, than it would have been if the Roman Catholics and Dissenters had never been admitted? He had heard many charges against the University of Dublin, but he had never yet heard it alleged against her that she was not sufficiently orthodox to satisfy the desires even of the most orthodox among their Lordships. Well, then, if that were so, why could they not boldly effect at Oxford what had been already done at Dublin, and at once admit Dissenters frankly and freely—not into places which had been called "retreats," in which it is to be presumed they were to lurk and conceal themselves—but admit them in the open day to the full benefit of the education of the place, and allow them to take degrees in common with all other persons who received their education at that University? What was the object of these halls, and to what would their establishment lead? Were there not dangers to be apprehended intra muros et extra? Were there not persons now members of Convocation, who, under the provisions of this Bill, might set up schools or establishments of their own, under the name of private halls, in which something worse might be taught than any Dissenter would be likely to introduce? Might not undergraduates be taught to desert the doctrines, and yet adhere to the ordinances, of our Church under a false allegiance. It was said that there was power to refuse a licence for the establishment of a hall to any member of Convocation who might apply for it. But, as he read the Bill, it was obligatory on the authorities of the University to grant such a licence. He would take one case as an example. Mr. Newman, he believed, was at this moment a member of Convocation, and if he should apply for a licence for the establishment of a hall at Oxford, could he be refused, or had he a right to claim his admission? As he read the clause he must be admitted, because the only qualification prescribed was, that the applicant should be a member of Convocation. His great objection, however, to these private halls did not rest upon the possibility of a case of this kind occurring, but upon the fact that, by establishing these halls contemporaneously with the

15
admission of Dissenters, they were practically proclaiming to Dissenters that they might enter these halls, but that these were the only places of education at Oxford into which they would be allowed to enter. He thought this would be objectionable to Dissenters, and dangerous to the Church and to the University, because it would draw a distinction between two classes, one belonging to the ancient colleges, and the other to these new halls, and with such a distinction, founded, as it would be, on religious grounds, they never could expect to see cordiality and good fellowship established. On the other hand, if they adopted the system of the University of Dublin, frankly admitting all to degrees, without admitting Dissenters to the government of the colleges, or of the University—he did not ask for that—they would be taking a course which, he ventured to say, would be safe to the University, a welcome concession to the Dissenters, and beneficial in every way to all classes in the State.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he could not assent to the parallel which the noble Lord had drawn between the Universities of Oxford and Dublin. Dublin was rather an examining University than a place of education; for, if he remembered rightly, a student might reside anywhere, at the Giant's Causeway if he pleased, and only need come up to Dublin twice a year in order to pass his examination.
VISCOUNT CANNINGsaid, that although he was not prepared for such a discussion as the present— for he thought the objections raised went to the principle of the Bill, and would have been made more properly upon the second reading—he was by no means disposed to complain that the speeches which they had heard had been delayed until that night, because, if his noble Friends opposite had made on Thursday night the observations which they had made to-night, they would scarcely have had any possibility of escape from dividing against the second reading. He would confine himself to making a few observations upon some of the points which had been touched upon by the noble Lords who had spoken. He thought that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury), who had charged against this Bill that it was an illiberal rather than a liberal measure, could scarcely have appreciated all that this Bill would effect for the benefit of the University of
16
Oxford, and all that it would enable the University to effect for itself. That could not certainly be said to be an illiberal measure which took the government of an institution like the University out of the hands of a few men, elected for the government of their own particular societies—elected without any regard to their qualifications in reference to the University at large—holding their offices for life, and being irremovable—whose interests were frequently separate, and in many instances directly at variance from those of the persons whom they were called upon to govern. A government of that kind could not be called liberal, and could hardly be expected to produce good fruits. It was because they were deeply impressed with this consideration, that Her Majesty's Government had determined to lay the axe to the root of the evil, and to establish a principle of government which could not be characterised as illiberal—namely, a government based upon representation. His noble Friend complained that power had been taken out of the hands of the great mass of the University body in Convocation, and placed in the hands of Congregation, which was a smaller body, to the exclusion of the larger. But his noble Friend had fallen into some misapprehension with respect to the precise character of the body which he called a legislative body, created by a constituency of small numbers. He did not admit that the Hebdomadal Council was by any means correctly designated a legislative body. The legislation of the University was by no means concentrated in its hands. It would originate measures no doubt; but those measures would be subject to revision and rejection by Congregation, and Convocation would have the same power as it had had hitherto, of placing a veto upon any measure which it might think would not be advantageous to the University. The most important point on which the noble Earl had touched was that which related to private halls, and he objected to the proposed change as inconsistent with the constitution of the University, which had endured for 800 or 900 years, and had deprecated interfering with institutions so venerable. Now, he (Viscount Canning) could conceive no stronger reason, à priori, for reconsidering those institutions. Could his noble Friend put his finger on any one of our institutions—political, social, or religious—which had existed for anything like that time, and had not undergone great and important

17
changes? The noble Earl had not stated the point with regard to the power of withholding licences with complete accuracy. He had stated that the Vice Chancellor would have no power to refuse a licence, if claimed by a person possessing certain qualifications. He (Viscount Canning) gave no opinion upon that point, but he wished to remind their Lordships that the University was not only authorised, but obliged, to prescribe what qualifications should be required, and what should be the conditions upon which alone the licence should be given. He did not desire to be understood as wishing that the University should act otherwise than liberally in fulfilling this obligation; but she would be perfectly mistress of her own position, and whatever qualifications or conditions she thought proper to lay down could not be barred or checked by any other authority. Dr. Newman had been referred to, and a suggestion had been made as to what might have happened if Dr. Newman had applied for a licence as master of a private hall. He supposed his noble Friend referred to the time when Dr. Newman was still a member of the Church of England, and resident, more or less, at Oxford. But surely his noble Friend would see that if it should be the pleasure of the University to leave any discretion to the Vice Chancellor who was to issue these licences—or if, in anticipation of such dangers as his noble Friend had had in his eye, it should make it necessary that the master should make a declaration of conformity with the Church of England— in any terms which the University might think proper to lay down—such conditions, framed in a cautious spirit, might surely meet the case of Dr. Newman, even at the time to which his noble Friend referred. He really did not see how the clauses relating to private halls, in connection with those relating to Dissenters, could with any justice, be considered as divorcing the University from its connection with the Church, or as likely to import into it polemical disputes. In the first place, the connection between the Church and the University, so far as it existed through the colleges, was altogether untouched by this Bill, and there was no intention on the part of the framers of the Bill to require the governing bodies of colleges to make any departure from the strictest rules of discipline and teaching which they might think best adapted to secure connection between the Church and the Uni-
18
versity in its full integrity. It was conceded on all sides that the number of Dissenters who would be admitted would, probably, be comparatively small, and he did not think their admission at all likely to increase that warfare of opinion on matters of faith which had existed whilst the University was wholly closed against Dissenters. He doubted very much whether opening the door to a certain number of such members, who would pursue their studies and mix in habits of intimacy and friendship with members of different religious opinions, would have any tendency to increase at all the asperity or animosity with which questions of faith were now discussed; he was, on the contrary, much inclined to think that a larger difference of opinion, differences more openly avowed than those which existed between members of the same Church, would have a tendency to soften those feelings of variance, rather than to exasperate them. He cordially concurred in the wish expressed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) with regard to the manner in which this change should have been effected. It would have given him much more satisfaction if it had been brought about by the free agency of the University itself, rather than by the intervention of an Act of Parliament; but he had explained at some length on a former occasion how it was these clauses now stood in the Bill. He explained how it had been the wish of Her Majesty's Government, to which they had openly and steadfastly adhered, that the proposal should have come from the University, and it was not until the other House had declared the contrary that they could bring themselves to deal with the question of Dissenters in this Bill at all. These clauses were, however, inserted, and he hoped ho should not be considered as using any argument unworthy for their Lordships to hear or for himself to express, though he knew it was liable to some misrepresentation, when he said that, as the other House had asserted by a large majority so decided an opinion, he earnestly trusted their Lordships would not endeavour to expunge these clauses, though fully entitled to do so. He did not urge that so much on account of the feeling of the other House of Parliament as for the sake of the University, for he conceived nothing could be more disastrous to the University than to leave it uncertain as to the opinion of Parliament—assured that in one House the opinion in favour of the admission of Dissenters

19
was strong, decided, and unmistakable, and doubtful if in the other that opinion or a contrary one was entertained. To place the University in such a position would be to cramp all exercise of freedom on the subject, and, in fact, to transfer the scene of contention from within the walls of Parliament to the University itself. Feeling as he did, that if the hands of the University had been untied she would have taken this step on her own part, he earnestly deprecated any attempt to go back to the condition in which they were when this Bill was introduced, because he thought that the real intentions of the University could not then be carried out in consequence of the course which had already been taken in Parliament.
LORD WYNFORDsaid, he would anticipate one great difficulty, which he did not see that the Bill would obviate. One of the most important parts of examination at Oxford was the divinity examination, and whether an undergraduate went in for the highest honours, or only an ordinary degree, the same extent of religious knowledge was exacted. Every person was required to possess, besides a knowledge of the Greek Testament, an accurate knowledge of the Thirty-nine Articles, and to be able to support that knowledge by texts from Scripture, and by his own reasoning. Such an examination, he considered, involved to a certain extent a profession of belief; and he did not see how the difficulty could be reconciled unless they exempted Dissenters from that part of the examination.
On Question, agreed to; Amendments reported accordingly; Amendments made.
On Clause 17 (Regulating the composition of Congregation).
LORD WROTTESLEYrose to propose an Amendment to that part of the clause which enacted that Congregation should consist, in addition to the persons specifically named, of "all such persons as shall be provided to be added by election or otherwise to the said Congregation by any Statute of the University approved by the Commissioners, or, after the expiry of the Commission, passed by licence of the Crown." The Amendment was to insert after the word "Crown" the following words:—" Provided that at least two-thirds of the persons so to be added shall be such as have attained high honours in the said University, or such as are distinguished in literature, science, or art." The principal object which he hoped to
20
accomplish by the adoption of the Amendment was the encouragement of the study of physical science at the University. When he was at Oxford this branch of study was at a low ebb, and he believed it had not made much progress since. Nevertheless, it was a study of the greatest importance at the present day. In proof of this he would quote a passage from the evidence of Mr. Lowe, the Member for Kidderminster:
"I must also"' says Mr. Lowe, "as a sincere well-wisher to the University, express my hope that the physical sciences will be brought much more prominently forward in the scheme of University education. I have seen in Australia Oxford men placed in positions in which they had reason bitterly to regret that their costly education, while making them intimately acquainted with remote events and distant nations, had left them in utter ignorance of the laws of nature, and placed them under immense disadvantages in that struggle with her which they had to maintain."
The residents of Oxford lead a life of too much seclusion, and, therefore, he availed himself of the opportunity which this clause afforded of infusing what he might call a metropolitan element into the Congregation. The proposal which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) made on a former evening to substitute Convocation for Congregation was not, in his opinion, judicious, because the great body of Convocation consisted of country clergymen, who knew much less about these matters than the Oxford residents; but the composition of the Congregation would be much improved by persons of the class pointed to in the Amendment. The phrase "high honours" employed in the Amendment was well understood in the University; but if any doubt prevailed on the subject, different words might be adopted to make the meaning clear. In framing the ruling body of the greatest educational institution in the country, Parliament ought to recognise the claims of education. The names of such men as Mr. Hallam and Sir Charles Lyell would confer honour on the body to which they might be attached. It was not, of course, to be supposed that these eminent men would be able to attend the meetings of the Congregation generally; but it was probable that they would be able to attend meetings for determining questions connected with studies and the appointment of professors; and their presence on such occasions would be of the greatest possible advantage, in consequence of their living in the world and being cognisant of the state of public opinion and of education

21
at the present time. Whatever might be the result of his Motion, he could not regret having had the opportunity of advocating the extension of physical education, and he would at all times gladly lend a helping hand to improve an institution in which he must ever take a lively and enduring interest.
VISCOUNT CANNINGsaid, the tying the hands of the University was entirely contrary to the whole spirit in which the Bill was framed. There was great difficulty also in describing accurately the precise meaning of what they had in their minds. The expression used in the noble Lord's Amendment was, "such as have attained high honours." Now he could easily conceive the case of a double second-class man, who, perhaps, not aiming at honours, had been invited subsequently to continue his examination. He believed they might, with perfect safety, leave the University free and unrestrained, confident that the object of the noble Lord's proposal, in which the Government sympathised, would be attained.
Amendment negatived.
THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTERsuggested that a preliminary examination for students entering the University would have a good effect on the schools where the youths of the middle and upper classes were educated, and tend to remove the great difficulty at Oxford, the inefficiency of the previous training of the undergraduates.
On Clause 28,
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that before their Lordships passed the 28th clause he wished to make an explanation with regard to an argument which he used upon the clause in Committee. Their Lordships would remember that upon that occasion he argued in favour of giving power to the colleges to convert their class fellowships into exhibitions, and maintained that those fellowships did not give so much encouragement to the schools with which they were connected as the same amount of endowment would give if thrown into the form of exhibitions. In urging that argument upon their Lordships he alluded to the case of the Abingdon School and Pembroke College; but the report of what he then addressed to their Lordships had been much misunderstood by a party greatly interested in that report. The Master of the Abingdon School felt himself aggrieved, because he understood from the report that the present state of
22
the school was spoken of as being depressed and abject. That, however, was not what he said. What he was urging upon their Lordships at the time was, that the Abingdon School was a good example of the little encouragement which close fellowships give to the school itself; but he was not alluding to the present condition of the school, because he knew that the Abingdon School had lately had the advantage of an active master, who had done a great deal to raise its character. He was referring to the state of the school a few years ago, when, with all the advantages of its close fellowships, it was reduced to nine scholars, not having one single boarder among them. Therefore, his argument was conclusive; but he did not mean to say what the reverend gentleman had understood him to say, that the Abingdon School was at the present time in a state which would prevent parents sending their children to it; he knew, indeed, that the present master had made great efforts to improve the condition of the school, and with very considerable expense.
VISCOUNT CANNINGsaid, that he had received a letter from the Bishop of Exeter with reference to the published report of what he had said while discussing the 28th clause upon a former occasion. The Bishop stated that he was reported to have said, with regard to the case of Exeter College, that the bishop of the diocese as visitor had refused his assent to any change in the Statutes of the college. If he did use those words, which he certainly was inclined to think he did not use, it was not right to have done so, because he was fully aware that the Bishop of Exeter had, upon many very important points, assented to suggestions made to him by the authorities of Exeter College. But he was also aware—which, indeed, the Bishop stated in his letter—that upon other points he had either delayed or refused his assent to the suggestions of the college; and accordingly he did cite the case of Exeter College and its visitor, because in replying to Lord Derby, who pressed upon him very strongly the propriety of requiring the consent of the visitor to any step taken towards the improvement of the college, he argued that that would be a very doubtful benefit to the college itself, inasmuch as, if the consent of the visitor was necessary, and if the visitor upon any pint should refuse his consent to a proposed change, the consequence would be that the college would by that refusal at once lapse into the hands

23
of the Commissioners, and, instead of being at liberty to deal with its own affairs upon its own rules, would pass over to the judgment of the Commissioners acting upon theirs.
Upon the 43rd clause (providing that no oath should be necessary on taking a degree, save the oath of allegiance),
LORD WROTTESLEYmoved the following addition to the clause—
"But such degree shall not as such constitute any qualification for the holding of any office which has been heretofore always held by a member of the Church of England, and for which such degree in the said University has heretofore constituted one of the qualifications, until the person obtaining such degree shall have subscribed a declaration before a magistrate testifying that he is a member of such Church."
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the intention of the proposed addition was very good, and one in which he entirely concurred.
THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that the effect of the Amendment would be to make the clause more stringent, which he was sure was not the object their Lordships had in view.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsuggested that the 43rd clause should be omitted altogether, and the following substituted—
"Such a degree shall not constitute any qualification for the holding of any office which has been heretofore always held by a member of the Church of England, unless the person on taking his degree shall have made the declaration now prescribed by law."
THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTERthought that the clause suggested by the right rev. Prelate would be more stringent than that in the Bill as it now stood.
LORD WROTTESLEYsaid, he would not press his Amendment.
Clause agreed to.
Further Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

THE CENSUS OF 1851—RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDrose to move for the production of the documents of which he had given notice, namely, the details on which the returns of the Religious Census had been founded. At the time of the taking of the last Census in 1851, certain papers were sent round in order to obtain information relating to the religious worship of the population. Objections were taken by him (the Bishop of
24
Oxford) in their Lordships' House to the sending round of those papers, on the ground that it was beyond the power vested in the Secretary of State; and he had subsequently taken occasion to point out the evils which he thought would be likely to arise from papers of that important nature being circulated, without there being any power to compel the information required to be sent in. He had pointed out that those returns must be entirely dependent on the good-will of those who were expected to furnish them, and that there must necessarily be a risk of mistakes, and even deception, occurring in them. The returns, however, were made in the manner originally proposed, and were now published, embodied in a general statement issued from the Registrar General's Office, as part of the results of the Census of 1851. This statement certainly did infinite credit to the gentleman who had drawn it up, and he had evidently applied himself to his very difficult task with a determination to do his best by it. He was very far from undervaluing the result of this gentleman's labours; but he thought it must be allowed that a great public document such as this had become, which professed to fix the relative number of the members of the Established Church and of those dissenting from it throughout England and Wales, in proportion to its importance ought also to be accurate, and that to spread inaccurate statements on such a subject would be a fertile source of many evils. This Census of Religious Worship had been referred to and used in that manner, and that marked the exceeding importance that such documents, if they came at all stamped with the weight of public authority, should be accurate, and not misleading documents. He had no complaint whatever to make of the Office of the Registrar General; the gentlemen employed showed no want of care on their part in making the returns; but the fault was to be traced to the returns which were given to them as the data on which the public returns were to be founded by those who furnished the subject-matter of the reports—namely, the clergy of the Established Church and the ministers of the different Dissenting bodies. With respect to the clergy, many of them refused to send in any returns; and the consequence was, that applications were obliged to be made to the churchwardens, or any other person who could assist in the matter, or take any trouble about it.

25
For this reason the numbers given in the official documents as purporting to belong to the Church of England were oftentimes very loosely put together, and considerably less than such numbers really were. In his own diocese, in which not a very great number of clergymen refused to send the return, he had desired that every clergyman should take the trouble, on several consecutive Sundays, to have the congregations numbered, and to send him the average of the congregations so numbered. The numbers in his diocese were 117,421 according to that enumeration; but in the same year the return of the Registrar General only gave the numbers at 98,410—a considerable difference. But the greatest mis-statements in the reports occurred, not from our own numbers being lessened, but from the numbers of the Dissenters of nearly all denominations being greatly exaggerated and set forth. He hoped that their Lordships would acquit him, in dealing with this subject, of any desire to speak uncharitably or in a spirit of undue disparagement of those connected with the great Dissenting bodies, for nothing could be further from his desire, and he could not feel otherwise than glad at heart at seeing that so many of those who did not worship in the church were engaged in the worship of God elsewhere; but the reason why he brought forward the subject of these returns was, that they were made use of to militate against the interest of the Church, and to give an unfair impression of what the numbers of persons belonging to the Church of England really were as compared to the Dissenting bodies. He had, therefore, taken the trouble to ascertain in detail how far the statement respecting the persons who attended worship in these places was accurate in this Census return, and he hoped their Lordships would not think there was any uncharitable feeling in his mind when he stated that the result showed that a great increase had been made in the returns to the real numbers of the Dissenters. He was by no means surprised that such errors should have been committed. Many of their ministers were not often in the same rank of life as the clergy of the Established Church. There was no doubt that in large Dissenting chapels in large towns the ministers were men of education, and he had no doubt that, if inquiries of this kind were addressed to them, their returns would be honestly made; but those inquiries were extended to very little places
26
—to all the small licensed rooms in remote villages—to men who had not the advantages of education—and who were not the objects of general view and observation; and with regard to these he had no hesitation in saying there was continually a misrepresentation in point of fact as to the relative numbers of the members of the Established Church and of the Dissenters. He should give a few extracts to their Lordships from answers received by him to letters from different parts of the country, and as he had the name and address and character of the persons who had written each one of those letters, he was able, therefore, to give a verification of the statements contained in them. The statements were such as these:—in one parish the Dissenters filled their place of assembly on purpose to swell the numbers in the return; in another many attended in the evening who had been counted previously as belonging to a different Dissenting congregation; another correspondent was informed that the numbers of the Dissenters were much exaggerated; another said that a fair average was not given; in one parish almost all the Dissenters from the next parish attended, and vice versâ, the services being held at different hours, and so they were counted twice over in both parishes. Again, special sermons were preached in a neighbourhood in all the meeting-houses, to attract congregations and swell the returns. Again, it Was stated that the return respecting the Church was sent in by a Dissenter in a neighbouring town. Again, another writer had reason to believe that the same person attended the services of different denominations on the day of the enumeration. Another writer had reason to think that the Dissenters were particularly active on that day in requesting attendance at their conventicles. Again, it was stated that in some cases the meeting-houses could not hold the numbers that were returned except the congregation was composed of very small children. Again, it was stated that the return from the Wesleyans was greatly exaggerated, and that the Dissenters had filled their chapels by advertising popular preachers and withdrawing many of the children from the national schools on that day. Another writer stated that there were no efforts made as respected the Church, and that the unfavourable state of the weather had kept many persons who lived at a distance from attending at church on the Census Sun-

27
day, while the preachers at some of the Dissenting chapels had given notice that it church was to be a trial of strength between the Church and the Dissenters, and the congregations were to muster in strength. That statement had particular reference to the Baptist and Independent chapels. Another writer said that some of them returned double the numbers the chapels Would contain. Another person wrote to him that he had no doubt he was right about the Census; that the clergy were careless and indifferent about it, having no notice of the use to which the returns would be put, and looking upon many of the questions as impertinent or intrusive, and they either neglected them, or else had no means of giving an accurate statement, whereas the Dissenters were wide awake on the occasion. Another writer stated that the return was made in his locality by parties hostile to the Church. Another writer said that the particular person who made the return was so hostile to the Church that he would never come within it as secretary of a certain charitable body, though all the other members of the society attended. Another writer begged to express his conviction that the Census returns were really worth nothing; that in many instances there was no return of attendants made by the clergy, and that he found that three congregations of Dissenters in separate chapels consisted of the same persons. He (the Bishop of Oxford) had received many other statements of the same kind, and his object was to show their Lordships that returns obtained by this process could not he relied upon as being true statements of the relative numbers of the two bodies. There was an important fact to which he should call their Lordships' attention—namely, that in the Census returns themselves, for the town of Liverpool the number of sittings given for the Roman Catholics amounted to 8,806, while at the same time the number of attendants in one morning was represented to be 27,650. In Manchester there was the same disproportion, and in the parish of St. Giles's a still greater. In St. Giles's the return of sittings was 460, but the attendants were put down at 3,000. It appeared that 286 persons were put down as belonging to the Established Church for a whole union; whereas it was stated by a clergyman that he had returned 550 as attending his own single church in that union. The answer was, to thank him for pointing out the omission, and to
28
state that the number attending at his church had been accidentally omitted. So that, in that case, the numbers should be 836 instead of 286—a very material difference, but certainly an accident that might happen in any case; and he did not attach any weight to it, or quote it to prove his case, except in this way, that they must see from it how useful detailed information would be in checking such errors. If they could get from the different parishes the returns sent up, or a considerable number of them, they would be able to apply to the allegations he made a rule or criterion, which was all they required. Whatever the truth was on this subject it ought to be told, and there should not go forth to the public, on mistaken facts, a statement as to the relations of the different religious bodies in this land. It should not go forth, except it was true, that it was an episcopal figure of speech to say what he said—that, thank God, the great majority of the people of this country do still belong to the Established Church.
Moved—
"That there be laid before the House the details of the Returns from which the Tables of Religious Worship, presented to the Houses of Parliament in reference to the Census of 1851, were prepared."
THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVIDSsaid, he was in a condition to confirm the statement of his right rev. Friend, though it was but very recently that his attention had been specially drawn to the subject. At the time of the last Census he had a conversation with the clergyman of a parish, who mentioned some practices that had come to his knowledge, which drew from him the observation that if such were the case, and if the returns were open to such abuses, he would very much have wished that the clergy of the Church of England should have declined making any return; for by doing so they were not assisting to ascertain truth, but were appearing to lend their countenance and sanction to that which was in the end an imposition on the public. Even supposing the returns had been correct, unless they were so guarded from abuses as to gain the general confidence of the country, they would fail in accomplishing their most important objects. With regard to the light in which the returns were considered by the clergy, a few letters he had lately received were quite sufficient to illustrate that part of the case. He found one of those clergymen stating that he really was not able to

29
give certain information about the last Census, because, having taken no pains to inquire into the matter, from his experience of the manner in which similar returns had been obtained by the Dissenters on previous occasions, he considered the Census, as far as it related to the number present at each place of worship, a mere farce. In one case, where the return from a chapel stated that the numbers attending amounted to 2,000. it was found the largest number it could contain was 1,200. He found another clergyman stating that it was generally believed that the Dissenters had made excessive returns, and the belief was supported by two facts, the first being that the returns of persons attending the different chapels in many parishes exceed their whole population; and the second being that the same individuals were well known to have been counted two or three times over as attending the chapels of different denominations. It was stated also to he a general practice that where there were several chapels of different denominations, each having its Sunday School, they clubbed the Sunday Schools together to attend each of their services at different times of the day. In many places they offered a peculiar attraction to attend, to many Welsh congregations—namely, the public catechising of the children, which not only secured a large attendance of children, but a large addition to the ordinary congregation. There was another kind of malpractice which was a still wider departure from fair dealing, because he understood that the grossest mis-statements had slipped into the calculation of the numbers attending the schools. In his own neighbourhood he found it mentioned as a fact of general notoriety, that the numbers reported from particular Sunday Schools were two or three times as large as it was possible for the buildings to contain. Another instance which came from particularly good authority, also in his own neighbourhood, was an illustration of the same practice. In that case the Dissenting minister seemed, for some reason or other, not to have found himself competent to fill up the return himself, and requested the registrar to do it for him. He stated that his congregation was 400; and then came the question as to the number of sittings, which he very innocently stated to be between 150 and 200. The registrar begged he would explain how 400 persons could meet in a room that would contain but
30
200, and he confessed that that little circumstance had frequently escaped his attention, and he desired the registrar to put down 200 instead of 400. The practical conclusion, however, did not depend on particular instances of this kind. It was a sufficient objection to the present mode of taking the returns, that the clergy viewed them with distrust, or rather with the fullest conviction that they were, on the whole, gross misrepresentations of the real state of the case. He had not made these statements in an invidious sense, or with the view of disparaging the Dissenters, but they had no right to presume that any body of men were above temptation. They had no right to place the Dissenters in circumstances in which they were exposed to the strongest of all temptations, or to leave matters of this importance to rest on the discretion of persons who were deeply interested in putting forward a certain view of the case. He really would not say whether, under similar circumstances, if the clergy of the Church of England were to be placed in a similar condition, they would be superior to the like temptation. He should hope and wish to believe that they would, but really he could not, under such circumstances, answer for them any more than for any other body of men. It was unfair to the Dissenters themselves, and highly prejudicial to the public interest, to expose them to the temptation of making such misrepresentations. He thought with a view to the future it was perfectly clear those returns could never accomplish the object for which they were designed if they were made in the manner in which the last returns had been made, and he could not himself see how they were ever to guard against such misrepresentations. Any day which might be appointed for the taking of the Census would be sure to be considered by the Dissenting bodies as the occasion for a trial of strength, on which, by canvassing in private and holding out the greatest possible attraction in public, they would endeavour to make a grand demonstration of the growing success of their cause. If the same plan was to be adopted in future, he hoped that some check would be devised which would be an effectual security against the abuses and misrepresentations which had, he was convinced, been but very imperfectly disclosed by the statements which had been made to the House.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the right rev.

31
Prelate had most legitimately brought this subject under the consideration of their Lordships, and the only regret he had in rising was, that in refusing to accede to the Motion, he should seem to place himself in opposition to the representatives of the Church of England in that House, especially on a matter on which they called for more ample and truthful information to the country at large. But, at the same time, he thought he could give reasons why it was not desirable to accede to the Motion for the returns moved for by the right rev. Prelate. The fact was, that the Census Office was now shut up, and their accounts closed; the returns were also very numerous, amounting to nearly 40,000—or, to be quite accurate, 37,381. But the great reason why he could not well consent, consistently with good faith, to the production of these returns, was, that in the circular printed and circulated by desire of the Secretary of State, it was stated that it was not intended that all the particulars in the returns should be published. Under these circumstances, it would be impossible for the Government to accede to the Motion. He heartily agreed in what the right rev. Prelate who spoke last said, as to the regret which he felt that some other legal arrangements did not exist when the Census was taken. He thought it would be most desirable that information which the public were so anxious to have should have been made compulsory, and an untruthful answer declared to be penal. At the same time he could not help feeling that the discussions in that House upon the conduct of the Secretary of State in somewhat overstepping the bounds of legality by sending these queries with the first form had to some extent caused the evil complained of, because it increased the unwillingness of district clergymen to fill up the returns, and this naturally produced an unfavourable impression as to the numbers belonging to the Established Church. His right rev. Friend did not raise any question against the Census Office, or the manner in which its duties had been performed, but his complaint was, that, on the one band, the Church of England returns did not give a sufficient statement of the numbers attending places of worship belonging to the Established Church, while, on the other hand, the numbers attending the Dissenting chapels were exaggerated. It was impossible for him to give an official opinion on this subject; but from the facts he had stated,
32
arising out of the debates that took place in that House, he did think it was made out that the returns as to the Church were below the numbers that ought to have been given. As to the Dissenters, he likewise shrank from giving any official opinion. The right rev. Prelates, no doubt, seemed to have made out a strong case, and the Dissenters, he had no doubt, would take some public opportunity of telling their own story, and the public would judge between the two. Some of the facts mentioned by the right rev. Prelate were strong, others were not so. His statement, for example, as to the weather having given an advantage to Dissenters was not a strong fact, fur both would be equally affected by this, and the weather no doubt varied in different parts of the country. As to the Roman Catholics, he would only observe, with reference to the number of sittings they possessed, that their services were short and more frequent than ours, and therefore it was obvious that their chapels gave accommodation to more persons than Protestant churches did, where the services were longer and the attendances more rare. He hoped he had said enough to show that it was impossible for the Government to accede to the Motion. At the same time, he was glad the statement had been made, that it might be considered by the public. Such answers as could be given would no doubt be put forward by the Dissenters, and the public would then be able to judge more accurately upon the subject. He wished to say one word as to what had fallen from a noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) the other day on the subject of these returns. The noble Earl had said that the returns were perfectly useless, and that not twenty persons looked at them. Now, this was not borne out by the facts, for he had been informed that of one edition of these returns 21,000 copies were sold almost as soon as published. With respect to the increase of expense attending the Census, the former Census having cost 23,500 l., while the latter cost 170,000 l., the noble Earl was mistaken. The mistake was a natural one for him to make, for he was probably not aware that the former Census was paid entirely out of the poor rate; and that while it cost 5l. 9s. per thousand, the last cost 5l l. 4s. per thousand, being a saving of 5s. per thousand, while much more information had been obtained. The estimate was 150,000 l., but only 127,000 l. was expended, thus

33
leaving a considerable sum to be returned to the Treasury. It was necessary to state these facts, as it would create an unfounded prejudice against the manner of doing the business if the statements which had been made remained uncontradicted. He might add, in justice to the Registrar General, that he had been informed by the head of his department, that in his conduct of the whole business he showed great powers of administration and great care for the public interest in every possible way.
THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, that in Wales, owing to one portion of the members of the Church of England being Welsh and the other English, of two services performed on the same day one was performed in Welsh and the other in English, therefore only one-half the congregation of a church attended each service. This did not apply to the Dissenters, whose congregations were generally all of one country, and, therefore, all attended each service.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that after what had fallen from his noble Friend (Earl Granville) he could not of course press for these returns, but he thought that the promise which had been referred to was one which ought not to have been given, as it was a direct temptation to an unscrupulous person to send inaccurate returns. He was convinced that no provision could meet the difficulty arising from taking the returns of the people attending the churches and chapels on a certain known day, as it would by both sides be considered a trial of strength, and would be no proof of the real religious state of the districts. Therefore, if this information was to be obtained again, he most earnestly trusted that the returns would be taken in some other way than from the attendance in places of worship on a notified Sunday.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House adjourned to Thursday next.