Lords Sitting of 7 June 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Infants' Marriage.
3a Ecclesiastical Property (Ireland).

THE TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM.
LORD LYNDHURSTwished to call the attention of their Lordships to a question of very considerable importance. He observed from the newspapers that a returned convict on ticket of leave was yesterday placed at the bar of the Bow Street police court, charged with using gross, insulting, and obscene language to a policeman when in the discharge of his duty. From the report in the papers, it appeared that the magistrate, Mr. Jardine, a gentleman of great learning and experience, expressed himself in the following terms—
"The language must have been bad, indeed, to shock a policeman. It formed a striking contrast, no doubt, to the sentiments expressed by the prisoner in his interviews with the chaplain of the prison from which he had obtained his 'ticket of leave.' On these occasions, it appeared, the adoption of a hypocritical tone and a canting expression of the countenance (which the worst of them were capable of assuming best, when it served their purpose to do so) sufficed to obtain their discharge before the expiration of half the term of the original sentence, with the further advantage of a written character, enabling them
1534
to impose upon the public. Why, he had not presided there any day for some time past without having to dispose of some charge against a 'ticket-of-leave' man. The neighbourhood was infested with them. They stood at the corners of streets at midnight, and, pouncing suddenly upon the lonely passenger, half strangled and robbed him before even an alarm could be given."
This was the magistrate's statement, speaking of cases that had come within his own knowledge. Then Inspector Mackenzie, a policeman, said—
"There were forty ticket-of-leave men in the immediate neighbourhood of the court, and chiefly in Charles Street, Drury Lane, who had returned to their old haunts, and to their former course of life. In order, however, to avoid the personal consequences, they usually employed boys and women to assist them, and these were constantly apprehended, while the principal delinquents escaped altogether."
After those observations Mr. Jardine said—
"He had a very strong feeling upon the subject. Society was not safe with the present system in operation. It might be a desirable thing to clear the gaols of these men, but it was a bad thing for the public when they returned to a life of crime, having escaped more than half the punishment which it had been thought proper to award them for previous offences. The expense even of reprosecuting these men, when they were detected, must amount to a formidable sum."
Now, their Lordships would recollect that a discussion took took place on the Convict Bill when it was before that House, and he remembered that on that occasion the Lord Chief Justice stated his anticipations of what was likely to take place if the Bill were passed, and pressed upon the Government to reconsider the subject. He must say that the anticipations of the noble and learned Lord had been fully confirmed. Every day would greatly increase the number of men discharged on tickets of leave, and the sooner the subject was taken up by the Government and their Lordships the better it would be for the public.
THE LORD CHANCELLORtrusted that when his noble and learned Friend had any question to put, or any motion to make, he would give notice of it. The matter to which he had called the attention of the House was no doubt well worthy of attention; but it came upon him perfectly by surprise, not having seen the account to which his noble and learned Friend referred. The subject was one beset with difficulties, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department had it continually under his consideration. No

1535
doubt evil had been anticipated from the Bill, but whether that evil had been exaggerated in the statement now read by the noble and learned Lord it was impossible for him to say.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that all his anticipations as to the probable ill effects of the ticket-of-leave system had been more than realised since the passing of the Bill. He was filled with the utmost dread and apprehension when he was told that the punishment of transportation was to be abolished, and that convicts in this country were to be admitted to their freedom upon tickets of leave. It was easy to perceive that the safety of society would soon be at an end under such a system. That prophecy, he thought, had been fulfilled to a considerable extent. He did not believe that the language of Mr. Jardine, which the noble and learned Lord had read, was exaggerated, and therefore he most cordially joined with his noble and learned Friend in entreating the earnest and immediate attention of the Government to this most important subject.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.
LORD BROUGHAMasked the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack when he would introduce his promised Bill for increasing the number of circuits?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that ever since the noble and learned Lord directed the attention of their Lordships to the subject of criminal procedure, he had had the matter constantly in view, and at the present moment a Bill was in course of preparation for carrying out the main part of the noble and learned Lord's recommendations, namely, an extension of sessions and assizes. There was no difficulty whatever with regard to the sessions; but the question of the assizes was not so easy of settlement. The Judges were not only willing, but extremely anxious to carry out the suggestions of the noble and learned Lord; but still the subject was surrounded with difficulty, though he hoped that difficulty would be overcome. That very morning he received an elaborate report from Mr. Bellenden Ker as to the mode in which the proposed alteration could be introduced immediately after Michaelmas term. That report did not, however, exactly agree with the plan of the Bill which had been prepared, and some alterations would have to be made in it. He would lay the report before Mr. Graham, a gentleman of great
1536
ability and experience, whom he had instructed to prepare a Bill on the subject, and would take care to bring forward the measure as soon as possible.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he would suggest that his noble and learned Friends in that House would obtain the best possible information as to the working of our system of criminal jurisprudence if they would themselves go as Judges of assize, and assist in delivering the gaols. They were now members of the Central Criminal Court, and he saw no reason why they should not be called upon to aid in the administration of criminal justice in the provinces as well as in the metropolis. He would especially suggest to his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) that he should go upon the northern circuit in the December assizes.
LORD BROUGHAMfelt assured that the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend was made in the most kindly and courteous spirit; but he could not comply with it for two reasons—in the first place, because he was unwilling to interfere with what was now so admirably done by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) and the reverend Judges now upon the bench; and, in the next place, because he really had not health and strength left to undergo labours which he knew to be very arduous. He was, however, ready and willing to do anything short of going circuit himself or of asking his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) to attend the winter assizes, in order to prevent the grievous scandal which arose from the fact that 6,200 persons had been acquitted either upon trial or for want of prosecution, many of whom, upon an average, had suffered an imprisonment of sixty days before trial, although they were guiltless; while, in the case of sessions, many of the persons charged with offences had suffered five or six weeks' incarceration before trial. In many instances persons who were convicted, and who had suffered imprisonment for such a period before trial, were punished by imprisonment for some four or five weeks, and the consequence was, either that these persons were punished by five or six weeks' imprisonment more than they ought to undergo, or they were sentenced to less punishment than they would otherwise receive in consequence of the period of their imprisonment before trial, and the effect of the punishment was thus lost upon society.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee (on Recommitment) read.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished to explain the nature and scope of the Amendments he intended to propose. The main object of the Bill was to constitute a proper Council to exercise legislative functions in the University of Cambridge. At present the University was bound by certain statutes granted by the Crown, but it was part of the provisions of those statutes that the authorities of the University might front time to time adopt rules for regulating its proceedings, provided such rules were not inconsistent with the Royal statutes. The governing body at the University of Cambridge was a body called the "caput," consisting of six members, a doctor in each faculty, two masters of arts, and the Vice Chancellor, whose function it Was to submit propositions to the senate, which the senate might either adopt or reject. The senate could not take up any proposition unless it came from the caput. The objection to this system was, that, according to the provisions of the Royal statutes, any one member of the caput had an absolute veto, so that, as the Vice Chancellor was always ex officio a member of the caput, and exercised very material influence in the nomination of the other members, nothing could come before the senate which had not his sanction. It was, however, very creditable to the University that, in spite of this defective constitution, the Royal Commissioners stated in their Report that very active and energetic endeavours had been made during the last half-century on the part of the University to reform itself, and that in many material particulars reforms had been effected. But that was no reason why, now that they were legislating on the subject, they should not endeavour to constitute a better council for the University, so as to guard against the possibility of abuse. The great object of this Bill, therefore, was to form a body that would fairly represent all the interests of the University, and that would not be open to those objections which applied to the present caput. The mode in which the governing body was proposed to be constituted by the Bill, as it was originally introduced, different materially, for several reasons, from the mode in which the Oxford council was constituted by the Bill of last year. In the first place, an election according to the Oxford
1538
system among the resident members of the senate appeared undesirable to many persons on account of the supposed great preponderance of two large colleges, for out of 4,500 members of the senate 2,500 belonged to Trinity and St. John's Colleges. Another reason for the difference between the two Bills was, that long before the issuing of the Royal Commission the University of Cambridge had set about reforming itself, and devising a plan for a council to supersede the caput, and they recommended a scheme which they thought well calculated to constitute a competent and independent governing body. The Royal Commissioners referred to this scheme in terms which he supposed to imply their approbation of the plan, which provided for the appointment of eight masters of arts, four professors, and four heads of Houses, not, perhaps, in a manner which was perfectly unobjectionable, but which prevented the exercise of undue influence on the part of Trinity and St. John's, Thus fortified, he had thought he could not do better than adopt the plan which had been so suggested and recommended. On the very day, however, before that on which he was to have moved the second reading of the Bill, he received a letter signed by four out of the five Commissioners, and by the secretary, stating that they had been misunderstood if they were supposed to have given anything like unqualified approbation to the proposed mode of election, and pointing out various objections to it. He therefore immediately communicated with persons at Cambridge who were competent to give an opinion on the subject, and who manifested no indisposition to meet the views of the Commissioners; and these persons stated that they would consider the question and see whether the undue preponderance of Trinity and St. John's had been exaggerated, and, if so, whether some plan could be devised to obviate the objections to the mode in which the senate, in the first instance, and the Commissioners afterwards, had proposed to constitute the governing body. It was thought that if the elective body consisted, not of the whole members of the senate, but of that portion only who were resident at Cambridge, the preponderance of Trinity and St. John's would not exist, because of the 230 resident members only a comparatively small number were connected with those two colleges. Finding that there was a perfect readiness upon the part of the heads of

1539
colleges to lend a helping hand to anything that might be thought desirable1, and a petition for the adoption of the Oxford mode of election having been presented from the younger members of the University, he had come to the conclusion that, upon the whole, it would be more satisfactory to the University of Cambridge if this alteration were made. With that view, he proposed to introduce clauses altering the system of election, so as to make it, as far As the master's of arts were concerned, similar to the election at Oxford. He proposed to leave the election of four heads of houses and four professors as it stood before—namely, that the heads of Houses should be elected by the heads of Houses, and the professors by the professors; and that there should be besides eight masters of Arts elected by the resident members of the Senate, as in the University of Oxford. He could not but think that it would be most satisfactory if, in a body intended to be constituted of persons who had or who Were supposed to have different interests, those who represented each interest should be elected by their own body. He proposed, then, that the council should Consist of seventeen members—sixteen besides the Vice Chancellor—namely, four heads of colleges, four professors, and eight masters of arts who were neither heads of colleges nor professors. The heads of colleges and professors would be elected by their own body, and the eight masters of arts would be elected by the resident members of the senate, thus representing the interests of all classes in the University. It would have unlimited power of submitting to the senate any alterations which it might deem expedient; the senate, of course, being at liberty to deal With them as it might think best. Having effected these alterations, he thought he should have done nearly all that was necessary, though, at the same time, he was aware that it had been said that the Bill went extremely short of the length it ought to go. Objection had been taken to the powers which it Was said the heads of colleges would possess, and he thought it necessary to explain that though no doubt there were certain functions as-Signed to the heads of Colleges, yet those functions were either not of the smallest importance or could not conveniently be vested in other persons. The powers remaining in the heads of colleges were such as these—Under the statute of Elizabeth, the heads of colleges made "interpretation," as it Was called, of doubtful Statutes,
1540
but that was a function which they had never been called upon to exercise for the last twenty-five years, and was, in truth, merely a judicial duty that must be vested n somebody, and he confessed that he could see no body more fitted to discharge it than the heads of colleges, Certainly it would be extremely inappropriate to confide it to an elective body. Then it was said that the Vice Chancellor, together with the heads of Houses, would really govern the University. Now, how did that matter Stand? The heads of Houses certainly exercised an important function, inasmuch as they substantially elected the Vice Chancellor, whose duty it was to see that the proper discipline was carried into effect in the University. That, however, was a, function which an elective body were not at all fitted to. discharge, and it was, therefore, properly confided to the Vice Chancellor; but, before any expulsion could take place from the University It would be necessary to obtain the sanction of the majority of the heads of colleges. Still, it was said that unless some great alteration were made in the mode of electing the Vice Chancellor, the heads of colleges would practically rule everything. So far the result of everything having been ruled by the heads of colleges had been the most complete extreme of reform ever seen. Nothing could be more satisfactory that the mode in which the University had been reforming itself; but, supposing that the present state of things was objectionable, it would not exist under the Bill as now constituted. Formerly there could be no legislation that was not approved by the Vice Chancellor, and, probably, the heads of colleges, consulting with the Vice Chancellor, had had it in their power to put an obstruction in the way of any reform that was not suggested by their own body. The Bill, however, took away the veto of the Vice Chancellor, who in future would be merely one of seventeen members of the council; and the heads of colleges, together with the Vice Chancellor, would only be five against twelve, so that if they were resolved to obstruct improvements and reforms, they would be powerless. Doubtless, the heads of colleges, taking a great interest in the prosperity of the University, would often consult one another, and it would be undesirable, even if it Were possible, to do away with such consultations, because, after all, the heads of colleges had by far the greatest and most permanent interest

1541
in the prosperity of the University. For the reasons which he had now stated, he did not propose to make any alteration in the mode of electing the Vide Chancellor. It was, however, considered desirable that if the council thought any changes in the mode of nominating the Vice Chancellor, or in the functions of the Vice Chancellor, could be usefully made, they should be enabled to submit any such propositions to the Royal Commissioners named in the Bill, who were to sanction those alterations which they might deem necessary; and thus the recommendations of the Council, when approved by the Commissioners, would become the law of the University, though not provided for in this Bill. He thought by pursuing this course their Lordships would be acting more safely than by introducing into this Bill changes of the effect of which they could not judge. There was one other material alteration in which he hoped their Lordships would concur. In the Bill, as originally introduced, it was provided that no test as to membership of the Church of England should be required from any one on taking his B.A. degree. The object of limiting this to the B.A. degree was that the persons obtaining higher degrees necessarily had a voice in the government of the University, and became members of the senate. Now, he thought it would not be wise, safe, or expedient to propose any alteration which should give to Dissenters, however much he might sympathise with them, & voice in the government of the University. But short of this he considered it to be the bounden duty of the Legislature to afford to Dissenters the fullest possible access to the education and social advantages, and to all the benefits which the University could confer. It had been felt to be a grievance that no Dissenter could become a master of arts, and, to put an end to this it was now proposed that Dissenters should be allowed to take M.A. degrees; but unless persons subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles, or did that which implied that they were members of the Church of England, they were not, though masters of arts, to become members of the senate. A provision to this effect he proposed to introduce, and he believed it was perfectly well received among the most influential members of the University.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, the Amendments about to be proposed by my noble and learned Friend are so numerous as almost to constitute a new Bill; and I think, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord has done right in proposing to consider them together, rather than in detail in the Bill itself. The most important of these Amendments relates to the Constitution of the Council. Long before the appointment of the University Commission, however, the University itself had taken measures to reform the constitution of its council. There had been a syndicate of eighteen or twenty of the ablest men in the University appointed, and after great care and due deliberation they had framed a plan, which was the best that had yet been framed for the constitution of the Council. Their plan was afterwards referred to the Senate, by whom it was nearly unanimously adopted. I should say that before it was submitted to the Senate it was laid before the Commissioners then acting in the discharge of their functions, who considered the proposal, highly approved it, stated the reasons why they approved it, and hoped it would be adopted by the University. The Commisioners expressed themselves strongly on the subject in their report. They said—
"We cannot hesitate to express our pleasure to find such a proposal emanating from the University itself. It has evidently been framed with careful deliberation, and with an especial view as well to preserve a balance of power among the several colleges, as also to prevent the excitements and rivalries of a more popular and unlimited mode of appointment. The suggested scheme has received the unanimous approval of the syndicate, and we hope it may, in due time, receive the sanction of the Senate."
Well, my noble and learned Friend took this report of the syndicate, thus sanctioned by the Senate and the Commissioners, as the basis of this Bill; but, one or two days before the second reading, he received from four of the gentlemen composing the Commission a letter, in which they stated they had altered their opinion with respect to the constitution of the Council; they stated, however, no reason why they had done so. The principal objection they set forth was as to the mode of election by the colleges, and this, therefore, was something in the nature of a War against the heads. Hereupon, my noble and learned Friend says, "I will get rid of the objection," and got rid of it accordingly. He said they shall not be elected

1543
by the governing body of the college, but by the whole college, members on the foundation and members not on the foundation, if they are only members of the Senate, and provided they reside within the limits of the University. So far I concur with him. But these four gentlemen, finding my noble and learned Friend of a very yielding disposition, wrote him another letter; they were not satisfied with this amendment, for, finding they had obtained it so easily, they endeavoured to get much more. It is in consequence of that letter that my noble and learned Friend has brought forward the Amendments now submitted to your Lordships. Now, what are those Amendments? The Council is composed of four heads of Houses, four professors, and eight members of the Senate, that is to say, eight members of a grave, and eight of a much more popular and active character. The heads of Houses in the Council are to be nominated by heads of Houses, and the professors by the body of professors, but these nominations are subject to the approbation of the Senate; whereas the eight masters of arts are to be elected by the bulk of the resident masters of arts, without any check whatever, so that the effect is to place a check upon the appointment of the graver part of the Council, while no check whatever is placed upon the election of the rest, elected as they will be by the bulk of the Senate composed of the younger Members of the University. This appears to me very extraordinary, and, with the permission of your Lordships, I will read a letter upon this subject, written by a very high authority. That letter says—
"By Clause 6, as amended, the resident masters of arts elect eight Council, and the heads of Houses and professors nominate four each. For every nomination a grace must pass the Senate. Hence every nomination by the heads of Houses or the professors may be thrown out by the Council or by the Senate—in other words, the choice of representatives on the part of the seniors of the University is subject to the control of two popular bodies, while the wild democracy of young men, who form the bulk of the resident masters of arts, is allowed to elect its representatives without any control whatever. No scheme that has been hitherto proposed places the heads and the professors in so unsatisfactory a position. By the original Bill all parties—heads, professors, and masters of arts—nominate their representatives, and their nominations could be negatived by the Council or by the Senate. By Lord Lyttelton's Amendment—which may be considered as Dr. Peacocke's—ali parties—heads, professors,
1544
and masters of arts—alike elected their representatives. Now, for the first time, a distinction is drawn between the classes represented, and this entirely to the disadvantage—not to say the degradation—of the heads and the professors."
I do not mean to cast any reflections upon any person in these proceedings, especially upon Dean Peacocke, whom I know to be a learned and an acute man; but I have no hesitation in concurring with the writer of this letter in his view on this subject. During the whole of these discussions all parties have appeared to be anxious that the Oxford Act should be taken as a model for Cambridge. If that was so, then my noble and learned Friend has certainly gone much beyond that model in his Bill. In Oxford, the Council is composed of six heads of Houses, six professors, and six masters of arts. The grave element in the Council, therefore, exceeds the popular element in the proportion of two to one. In the Bill of my noble and learned Friend, however, these proportions are equal. Again, by the Oxford Act a member of Convocation is required to be of five years' standing; in the Bill of my noble and learned Friend, however, no qualification whatever as to time is required. I would, therefore, submit to my noble and learned Friend, as worthy of consideration, whether the constitution of the Council, under these circumstances, will be such as to enable it to exercise that caution, that prudence, and that care so requisite in a body legislating for such an establishment as the University of Cambridge? With regard to the proposed extension of degrees to Dissenters, the Bill originally provided that it should not be requisite for a student to subscribe to any test before being admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts. That limit was fixed because the degree of master of arts confers a seat in the Senate, and consequently a voice in the government of the University, and it, no doubt, would be productive of great inconvenience, and would be a great anomaly that persons dissenting from the Established Church should have a voice in the government of institutions so closely connected with that Church as are the Universities. My noble and learned Friend now proposes that a person may be admitted to the degree of master of arts without undergoing any religious test, but that before becoming a member of the Senate he shall be obliged to declare himself a member of the Established Church. I

1545
quite agree with my noble and learned Friend that the Universities are national institutions, and that it is desirable that, as far as can be done without endangering the Established Church, their advantages should be extended to all persons, and therefore I see no objection to the degree of master of arts being conferred upon a Dissenter so long as the safeguard is provided against conferring upon him a voice in the government of the University. Under these circumstances, he (Lord Lyndhurst) had no great objection to the extension, especially as he was of opinion that the University, being a national establishment, its benefits should be extended as widely as possible, without endangering its connection with the Established Church. With regard to the election of the Vice Chancellor at Cambridge, by the Amendment the election of the Vice Chancellor is to be transferred to the legislative body. The Vice Chancellor is nominated, in the first instance, by the heads of Houses, or rather, two names were presented to the Senate, who selects one of them; this nomination and selection, however, is made by a rule of rotation which has now existed 250 years, and which has been always found to work well. In Oxford, the appointment is made by Convocation presenting a name to the Chancellor, whose nomination was always accepted by the Senate. The Oxford Royal Commission made no objection to that mode of appointment; the Bill made no objection to it; the Cambridge Royal Commission made no objection to it; and the noble and learned Lord made no alteration in the Bill. Why, then, should it be altered now? The Vice Chancellor certainly has at present extensive and extraordinary powers. As the constitution now exists he could put his veto upon any proposition proposed in the Senate; but by the alteration in the constitution he will have no such power, and therefore all the arguments for a change in the mode of appointment to that office falls to the ground. The heads of Houses, in all important cases of University discipline, act with the Vice Chancellor; they have also the power of interpreting the statutes of the University. Is that power to be transferred to a legislative body in Council? That will be perfectly absurd. There has been no complaint of the manner in which that power has been exercised. Why, then, should it be taken away? It has been stated to me that a great mover in the matter contained in
1546
the letters to which his noble and learned Friend referred is the Rev. Dr. Peacocke; he it is who desires that the power of the heads of colleges should be transferred to the Council. The Rev. Dr. Peacocke, however, at one time published a work on the statutes of the Universities, in which, under the title, "Heads of Houses," he expresses himself in this manner—
"The heads of Houses are the assessors and administrative councillors of the Vice Chancellor, and possess many other privileges which have been elsewhere enumerated; and there seems no sufficient reason for proposing a material change in the rights which they now enjoy. There is, in fact, no other body of men in the University with whom the exercise of such powers could be so safely and advantageously lodged."
I will, therefore, appeal from Dr. Peacocke under the excitement of authorship, to Dr. Peacocke when he gave notice, in the letter alluded to by my noble and learned Friend, that he has changed his opinions. It is stated in one of those letters that the government of the University is mostly in the heads of Houses; that no proposition can be brought forward except by their consent; and that that is detrimental to the interests of the University. If that is so, I will take the liberty of quoting to your Lordships the opinions expressed by the Royal Commission in its Report—that Commission of which Dr. Peacocke was a member—as to the manner in which the government of the University is carried on. That Report is signed by the Rev. Dr. Peacoeke, and also by the three other recalcitrant members of the Commission; but not by the right rev. Prelate opposite (the Bishop of Chester). It runs thus—
"It is with unfeigned pleasure 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 law permitted. We have abundant proof 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 the view of petitioning your 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 constituting new triposes of the moral and natural sciences, and thus affording to more of the professors an

1547
extended field of usefulness. All these were spontaneous acts, and in the right direction. We regard them as 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."
So say the University Commissioners in their report, a document carefully founded on copious evidence, and universally received with deserved respect. Such is the character and such the conduct of the heads of Houses that; supposing the, statement to be true, the administration of the University was originally entirely entrusted to them. The best consolation of the University, however, was the efforts which it had made for the advancement of literature and science. I advance these facts, not with the view of opposing the change proposed to be made in the constitution of that body, but to the end that your Lordships should consider whether the constitution of the Council now proposed is not one which ought to be modified and moderated. Having done this, I have done my duty, and will leave the case confidently in the hands of the House.
THE BISHOP OF CHESTERsaid, that as one of the Commissioners of inquiry into the University of Cambridge, he desired to make a few remarks on some of the points that had been referred to by the noble and learned Lord. The draft of the letter to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded, and which was signed by all the members of the Royal Commission except himself, had been courteously forwarded to him, with a request, that if he approved of the statements which it contained he would append his signature to it. It was a matter of very great regret to him that he had been compelled to decline that request, because during the whole period that the Royal Commission was in operation his colleagues and himself had acted in a spirit of perfect harmony and mutual good understanding, and at the close of their labours they were perfectly unanimous in the Report which they presented to Her Majesty. He declined to sign that document for two reasons: first because the powers of the Royal Commission having long since expired, he felt some hesitation as to the propriety of its members resuscitating the subject ant meeting together to make virtually second Report; another reason was, that he really did not concur in all the statements or opinions expressed in that letter Without going into a detail of the points
1548
on which he differed, he might state that he did not agree in the recommendation that all the powers exercised by the heads of Colleges collectively should be transferred to the new legislative Council, Now, although all the powers which the heads of Colleges exercised were to be taken out of their hands, he would remind their Lordships that, in a petition numerously signed by the resident masters of arts, which had been recently presented to their Lordships' House, the petitioners did not ask to sweep away all those powers indiscriminately, but confined themselves to two or three particular powers which they wished, to see transferred from the heads of Colleges to the new legislative Council; and of those powers the maintenance and enforcement of the discipline was not one. They might, therefore, fairly conclude, that the resident members of the University were well content to leave that power in the hands of those who at present exercised it. The tone of the letter to which allusion had been made, appeared to, him to convey to the mind of an ordinary reader, an impression that there existed at present very great grievances and defects in the University of Cambridge, and that, those grievances and defects were in some way connected with the fact of the government of the University being lodged in the heads, of colleges. Upon that point he would merely ask their Lordships one question. Be the existing government of the University of Cambridge lodged where it might, had there not after all been very great progress and improvement in that University? All his brother Commissioners concurred in stating that, and also in bestowing very great praise upon the University for it. That was in itself an answer to the statement that the government of the University was a grievance, although, if there were other men of distinction not heads of colleges fit to undertake the greater part of that government, he had no wish to exclude them. At the same time, let it be done without disparagement to the governing body of a University who had had no other desire than to do their duty to the University. It was the head of a College who took the initiative in that internal reformation; for the master of Pembroke College several years ago, when he held the office of Vice-Chancellor, induced his, brother heads of Colleges to appoint a committee, which undertook the laborious duty of going through the laws and statutes of the University of Cambridge, arranging them, dis-

1549
carding obsolete ones, and adjusting and modifying others so as to meet the requirements of the times. He thought great credit was due to the heads of Colleges for making the salutary internal reforms they had effected, and he, was enticed to, claim credit for them, there having been so much misunderstanding on the matter, for it was hardly fair that they should be held up as standing in the way of improvements when, as he had shown, they had taken the initiative in effecting them.
Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 1, 2, 3, agreed to.
On Clause, 4,
LORD BERNERS LORD BERNERS moved the omission of words to the effect, that no oath which may have been taken by any party should he a bar to the authority of the Commission. He would not say that it was not in the power of Parliament to pass such a provision; but he would contend that the sanctity of an oath ought not to be annulled, unless there were very grave and sufficient reasons for so doing, and that in this instance there were no such reasons. The clause, in its present shape, delegated, in effect, to a body of Commissioners the power of absolving a person from, any oath which he might have taken, and did not simply provide that such and such an oath should not be taken in future. If the clause were agreed to, and became law, he feared that it would result in a great increase in the crime of perjury.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONdid not think the words of the clause were open to the interpretation the noble Lord had put upon them; but though that was so, they still presented a difficulty to his mind. He granted that it was necessary and proper that the Commission, in executing the Act, should have full power to call for persons and papers, and compel the production of documents; but the words of the clause were attended with this inconvenience, that persons who had, taken an oath might feel themselves imperatively called upon to disobey the orders of the Commissioners. He thought, therefore, that the words should be omitted.
VISCOUNT CANNINGopposed the Amendment, and reminded the, noble Lord (Lord Berners) that when a similar proposal was made last year in the case of the Oxford University Bill, it was defeated by an overwhelming majority; he, therefore, hoped they should have heard of no such objection on the present occasion. The whole ques-
1550
tion resolved itself into this one point. The liberty of administering oaths by any corporation was held under the authority of the Crown and Parliament; and if it seemed to the Crown and Parliament that it was for the public good to abrogate that power, and to strike off the fetters imposed upon individuals by its exercise, there was no argument to be adduced against the abrogation. It did violence to no man's conscience to assert that that power was in the Legislature whenever it chose to exercise it. He trusted, therefore, that their Lord-ships would not sanction the omission of the words, and by so doing create a distinction between the two Universities.
THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, that the simple ground upon which it appeared to him that ha could, with a clear conscience, vote for the clause, was, that he apprehended the oath referred to in the clause was one which was originally a lawful oath, because there was no superior authority entitled to demand the information referred to; but that the circumstances under which the oath was originally taken had now undergone an entire change, so that the oath, which was innocent and lawful in its origin, had now by the very act of the Legislature become contrary to, public policy—became, indeed, unlawful, and an oath which ought not to be observed. That was the simple ground up on which he felt himself perfectly at liberty to vote for the clause.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, the clause merely stated that an oath should not be a bar to the authority of the Commissioners.
LORD BURNERS,in reply, said this was pot a parallel case to that of a person who had taken the oath of allegiance. There the Sovereign might absolve the party from the obligation of his oath But in this instance a third person took an oath to a fourth. Consequently there was a very wide distinction. With regard to the over whelming majority to which the noble Viscount (Viscount Canning) had referred, and which he seemed to think ought to have set the question at rest, he begged to remind the noble Viscount that that majority was the smallest which had beep obtained on any of the divisions in their lordships' House on the Oxford Bill, for it was. Thirteen only.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 5,
EARL POWIS,in rising to move the Amendments of which he had given notice,

1551
said that a great portion of the discussion on going into Committee referred to this Clause and his Amendments. The object of the Amendments which were based on the petition he had presented a short time since, from the resident members of the University, was to place the Council at Cambridge on exactly the same footing as the hebdomadal Board at Oxford had been placed by the Bill of last year. Reference had been made to the present composition of the syndicate; but that had not been obtained without a great struggle and a strong remonstrance to the Vice-Chancellor against its composition as originally proposed. The argument now used against entrusting any powers to the syndicate was, that its constitution was too democratic. The great objection of the resident members to the Clause as it now stood was, that it would leave two bodies in the University with equal authority, which must have a prejudicial effect; and if the heads were allowed to retain the proposed powers, the new Council would be utterly powerless. The Amendments expressed the opinion of a very large majority of the Senate. With regard to the statutes, they wished to have a united, and not a divided, authority in the University. The Council would be as fit to exercise these powers as were the hebdomadal Board under the Oxford University Bill.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that his noble Friend would lead the House to imagine that he was asking for nothing more than what now existed under the Oxford University Bill of last year; but that was not so. The only question worth arguing was the question of the appointment of the Vice Chancellor. It was the nomination only, and not the election, of the Vice Chancellor that was committed to the hebdomadal Council. With regard to the interpretation of the Statutes, that was a matter rather for the Judges of the land than for either the Council or the heads of Houses; but if he were driven to an election between the two—the heads of Houses, or a body elected from time to time—he should not hesitate to prefer the heads of Houses as the depositary of the interpreting power. He trusted their Lordships would not adopt the Amendments.
THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, that the noble Lord had truly stated that the real question was as to the appointment of the Vice Chancellor, whether he should be appointed by the heads of Houses
1552
or by the Senate. If, in forming an opinion on that subject, he should decide in favour of the Amendments of his noble Friend, he did not think that he should be doing anything inconsistent with the veneration and gratitude he felt towards the University. He believed, however, that the alterations which he understood the noble and learned Lord intended to make would render the adoption of his noble Friend's Amendments unnecessary. With all his respect for the University and for the heads of Houses, he had no respect and no sympathy for those particular branches of the constitution of the University—those particular privileges which for a long period had been exercised by the heads of Houses. They were of an origin that could no doubt boast of a considerable antiquity; but beyond the fact of their antiquity their origin was of that kind which was not likely to procure for them much respect and sympathy from their Lordships on either side of the House, for this part of the constitution of the University was created by a single individual—Wycliffe—for purposes purely political and ecclesiastical, and which were of a transient and temporary nature.
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that if his noble Friend pressed his Amendments to a division he should be disposed to support them. With regard to the power of interpretation, he thought with the noble Lord, that it would be better to leave it in the bands of the Judges of the land.
THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFconsidered that no particular grievance resulted from the power which heads of Houses were supposed to possess. Therefore, if the Amendments were pressed to a division, he should vote against them.
Amendments negatived; clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 22 postponed.
Clauses 23 to 30 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLORproposed a clause securing to Westminster School the right of an exhibition, instead of a scholar, to Trinity College.
Clause postponed to report.
Clause 31 struck out, and a new clause introduced for regulating the election of the Vice Chancellor and other officers.
On Clause 35,
THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNproposed an Amendment, which raised the question, whether Eton College was within the jurisdiction of the Charitable Trusts Commissioners, under the Act of 1853?
THE LORD CHANCELLORadmitted that there were legal doubts on the point, but said that there was nothing in the clause before the House to prejudge the question one way or the other.
Amendment withrawn; Clause agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 42 inclusive agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
On clause 43—
"From and after the first day of Michaelmas term, 1855, it shall not be necessary for any person, upon taking any degree in arts, law, medicine, or music in the University of Cambridge, to take any oath, or to make any declaration whatever; but such degree shall not, until the person obtaining the same shall, in such manner as the University may from time to time prescribe, have subscribed a declaration stating that he is bonâ fide a member of the Church of England, entitle him to be or to become a member of the Senate, or constitute a qualification for the holding of any office which has been heretofore always held by a member of the united Church of England and Ireland, and for which such degree has heretofore constituted one of the qualifications."
THE EARL OF POWIS THE EARL OF POWIS moved to leave out the words "any degree," for the purpose of inserting the words "the degree of bachelor."
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that the adoption of the clause as it stood would force the University of Oxford to depart from the settlement which had been made only last year.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was an extraordinary argument against doing good, that it would lead to good being done elsewhere.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—For the Amendment 13; Against it 23: Majority 10.

List of the MINORITY.

EARLS.

Lincoln

Nelson

LORDS.

Powis

Berners

Bradford

Colchester

BISHOPS.

Sondes

Llandaff

Redesdale

Oxford

Lyttelton

St. Asaph

Bayning

List of the MAJORITY.

Lord Chancellor

Harrowby

DUKES.

Minto

Argyll

VISCOUNTS.

MARQUESS.

Canning

Lansdowne

BISHOPS.

Sligo

Chester

St. David's

EARLS.

BARONS.

Burlington

Byron

Ellesmere

Camoys

Granville

Cremorne

Foley

Monteagle

Hatherton

Panmure

Leigh

Stanley of Alderley

Lyndhurst

Wodehouse

Remaining clauses agreed to.
Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next.
House adjourned till To-morrow.