Lords Sitting of 28 April 1864

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS— First Reading—Fish Teinds (Scotland)* (No. 62).
Second Reading—Regius Professorship of Greek (Oxford) (No. 44); Registration of County Voters (Ireland)* (No. 50).
Third Reading—Punishment of Rape (No. 52); Joint Stock Companies (Foreign Countries)* (No. 45), and passed.
Royal Assents—Consolidated Fund (£15,000,000) [27 Vict. c. 11];
Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Ireland) [27 Vict. c. 7];
Conveyancers, &c. (Ireland) [27 Vict. c. 8.]
Malt for Animals [27 Vict. c. 9];
Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance [27 Vict. c. 10];
Warehousing of British Spirits [27 Vict. c. 12].

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, the Department of the Colonies having been transferred from the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) who had for a considerable time discharged the duties of Secretary of State with great efficiency and ability, he wished to put some Questions regarding India to the noble Lord opposite, the newly appointed Under Secretary for the Colonial Department (Lord Wodehouse). The first Question he wished to ask related to the seat of Government in India. The most contradictory reports appeared in the public newspapers on the subject. One of those reports declared that the seat of Government was to be removed from Calcutta to the Upper Provinces; whilst another report was that a despatch had been received by the Governor General from the Secretary of State directing that no change should take place. He wished to ask the noble Lord, Whether either of those reports were true; and, if so, which of them?
  LORD WODEHOUSE: The answer which I have to give is this—that no opinion had been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India with regard to the removal of the seat of Government. The matter was, no doubt, an important one, but no decision had been come to on the subject.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, it would probably aid the Secretary of State in coming to a decision on the subject, to know that the late Duke of Wel-

  1757
  lington had more than once expressed to him (the Earl of Ellenborough) his decided opinion that the Government of India, depending for its support upon our maritime power, should be in a position to maintain always certain and free communication with that power; and that the seat of Government in India should be in a place unattackable by land or by sea, as it is now.

DISPOSAL OF THE NATIVE DEAD.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had another Question to put to the noble Lord relating to a matter of rather recent occurrence in India. He wished to know, Whether it was the intention of the Bengal Government to interfere with the custom, of the Natives in disposing of their dead by throwing them into the Hooghly; and, if so, whether that order had been communicated to the Governor General previous to its promulgation?
  LORD WODEHOUSEwas understood to state, that no official information had been received at the India Office, but the Secretary of State had heard that the order of the Bengal Government prohibiting the throwing of dead bodies into the river Hooghly was issued with the sanction of the Governor General. His right hon. Friend had also heard that the order for removing the burning-place to a greater distance from Calcutta was not published with the previous sanction of the Governor General, but was issued by the Governor of Bengal upon his own responsibility.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he could not but regret that, before the order was issued prohibiting the throwing of the dead bodies into the river, some arrangements had not been made to enable the Natives to dispose of those bodies by burning, and thereby to have avoided any ground for a disturbance of the peace of the country; and that the order for removing the burning places, a matter so deeply affecting the feelings of the people, should have been published without the previous sanction of the Governor General residing within a few hundred yards of the Governor of Bengal.

PUNISHMENT OF RAPE BILL— [BILL 52.]

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, on a former occasion, he had given notice of an Amend-
  1758
  ment which he intended to move on the third reading. The punishment of flogging might be very appropriate in many cases of rape, but was not necessarily so in all, and the object of his Amendment was to render it discretionary, and not compulsory, on the Judges to order the infliction of flogging in addition to the other punishment in cases of conviction. This would be effected by striking out the word "shall" from the first clause, and restoring the word "may" as it stood in the original Bill.
  Amendment moved, to reinstate the word ("may") in lieu of the word ("shall").
  LORD WENSLEYDALEopposed the Amendment upon the ground, that if the punishment of flogging were to be inflicted at all for the crime, that sentence should be made compulsory.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that it was necessary to consider what would be the effect of a particular kind of punishment, not only as deterring from crime, but as influencing a jury in convicting a prisoner. Now, however much the Judges might differ as to the propriety of inflicting the punishment of whipping at all in the cases to which the Bill referred, they were, he believed, unanimous in holding that, if authorized, a discretionary power should be given to Judges to inflict it. If it were made compulsory it would tend to produce a greater disinclination in juries to convict than existed at present. He had previously received the opinions of the Judges of the Common Pleas and Exchequer in that sense; and he had since learned the unanimous opinion of the Judges of the Queen's Bench, to the same effect, through a letter from the Lord Chief Justice. That learned Judge stated it to be his persuasion that the reluctance and hesitation of juries to convict did not arise from any want of a proper abhorrence of the offence, but from the frequency of cases in which this charge was made either without any foundation, or where the woman turned round upon the man to whom she had given encouragement. Hence the Judges thought that to make flogging compulsory would have the effect of increasing the disinclination of juries to convict, and that it would be better to make it discretionary.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, after what he had heard he should be unwilling to do anything that would be likely to endanger the result of trials of

  1759
  this character. He would therefore assent to the Amendment.
  EARL GREYsaid, that the arguments contained in the letter of the Lord Chief Justice did not bear out the conclusion which it announced. He had no doubt that charges of rape were frequently made without just grounds. No man, however, ought to be convicted unless there was a reasonable certainty of his guilt; and in such a case he did not see why a jury should be indisposed to convict merely because the consequent punishment would be a flogging. In his, opinion the sort of punishment which was inflicted on an animal was exceedingly fit and appropriate as the penalty of so brutal a crime.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:
  Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 20; Majority, 35.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH, in moving that the Bill do pass, expressed his opinion that it was most injudicious ever to have taken away the capital punishment for offences of this sort where more than one person was concerned.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor).

  Annaly, L.

  Aveland, L.

  Belper, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery).

  Somerset, D.

  Carew, L.

  Bath, M.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Chesham, L.

  Westmeath, M.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye).

  Albemarle, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Bandon, E.

  Dacre, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne).

  Carnarvon, E.

  Cathcart, E.

  Foley, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Houghton, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore).

  Ducie, E.

  Effingham, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Monson, L.

  Home, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Lucan, E. [Teller.]

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough).

  Romney, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Rivers, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery).

  Stradbroke, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown).

  Wicklow, E.

  Eversley, V.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife).

  Hardinge, V.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde).

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster).

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Taunton, L,

  Wodehouse, L. [Teller.]

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  1760

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland).

  Derby, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Grey, E. [Teller.]

  Lyveden, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford).

  Hawarden, V.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll).

  Churston, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Wensleydale, L. [Teller.]

  Dunsany, L.

  Harris, L.

  Wynford, L.

REGIUS PROFESSORSHIP OF GREEK (OXFORD) BILL.

  [BILL 44.] SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that in some respects the Bill was likely to attain a good object, and he was informed that, upon the whole, the University of Oxford were desirous to see the measure passed. But while he did not intend to offer any decided objection to the second reading, the Bill seemed to him to be open to some serious objections. The chief of these was, that by the operation of this Bill it would become necessary that the Professor of Greek should be a clergyman; and although, undoubtedly, there were among the clergy men as well qualified as any others for the duties of the Professorship, yet these duties were not such as appertained exclusively to clergymen, or for which they were peculiarly adapted. If such a Bill had been in operation some years ago in the sister University, the result would have been that Professor Porson would have been disqualified from occupying the office of Greek Professor there. The present Professor of Greek at Oxford was a man of extreme ability, who had laboured most zealously in the duties of the Professorship, and it was needless to say that the wretched stipend of £40 a year was totally inadequate to remunerate a man who was both a gentleman and a scholar. But then came the difficulty of assigning an endowment for the Professorship out of the revenues of the Church, thereby rendering it necessary to select a clergyman for this office.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Crown appointed to the Regius Professorship of Greek.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was quite aware of that, and it was one of the chief points of objection. The chief merit of this Bill was that it was likely to put an end to the unhappy controversy that existed in the University on the subject of the remuneration of the Greek Professor. The members of the University had been actuated by two motives in not granting an augmentation of the salary; first, that such a course would be looked upon as a tacit approval of the sentiments put forth by the present Regius Professor, to which the majority of the University were opposed; and, in the second place, they objected to endow out of the University funds a Professorship with respect to which they exercised no choice, the appointment being in the Crown. The noble and learned Lord met one part of this difficulty by proposing to assign to the Professorship as an endowment one of the canonries in the gift of the Crown. But this carried with it the necessity that the Regius Professor of Greek shall always be a clergyman. This he (the Earl of Derby) objected to, not only because of their limitation, but because it would still further increase the number of canonries to which special duties elsewhere than in their cathedrals were attached. Such was the case at Gloucester, at Norwich, and at Rochester. At Gloucester, where the number of canonries was now four, one of them was attached to the Mastership of Pembroke College, Oxford; at Norwich two canons had separate duties assigned to them; and at Rochester three had duties assigned to them separate from those connected with the cathedral. He confessed he had great doubt whether this was a proper mode of legislation. No doubt, if the noble and learned Lord should hold office until the canonry should fall vacant, it would be quite competent to him to endow the Greek Professorship with it; but he could not help thinking that such a course was open to grave objections. At the same time, with the feeling in the University that it was most desirable to get rid of the anomaly of a Professorship founded by the Crown and endowed by the University, he should not take upon himself the responsibility of asking their Lordships to reject the Bill on the second reading.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he quite agreed with his noble Friend in all the objections which he had stated against this measure, but there were others of a very serious kind to which the noble
  1762
  Earl had not adverted. He could not consent to take away one of the very few rewards which were left for hard-working clergymen, and apply it to secular purposes. He was aware that this had been done in other cases, but the precedent was had, and it was better to make a good precedent than follow a bad one. What was the use of teaching critical Greek? He would much rather at all times, but more especially at present, when clergymen were called to defend the very foundation of the Christian faith, that they would apply themselves to theology than: to the peculiarities of Greek literature. He objected, therefore, to force, as it were, a clergyman upon that Professorship. He would not enter into the peculiar opinions which Professor Jowett might entertain. Those opinions were not sufficient grounds for refusing to give him an adequate remuneration. He wished the Professor had a remuneration adequate to his great abilities and knowledge, and doubtless he ought to have it. But knowing what Professor Jowett's opinions were, and that they were contrary to those of the vast majority of the members of the Church of England, he could not consent by Act of Parliament to allow to devolve upon that gentleman a piece of preferment belonging to the Church of England. It would be done knowingly — indirectly, indeed, but still knowingly — and that he did not think right. It was the duty of Government and of Parliament, whenever Parliament was called upon to act, to preserve the whole patronage of the Church of England for the benefit of those who were unmistakably and wholly members of that Church, and who agreed with the vast majority of those who professed its doctrine.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not conceal his regret that the noble Earl who had just spoken, and to whom their Lordships always listened with so much pleasure and even instruction, had, on the present occasion, departed—in his humble judgment—from the usages which ordinarily governed that House. There was nothing in the world which he deprecated more than that theological controversy should be introduced into a discussion of that kind. He had carefully abstained from doing so on introducing the Bill, and the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) who had most properly drawn attention to the difficulties inherent in the nature of the case, had not only abstained from theological discussions, but had given this

  1763
  cheering assurance that, upon the whole, the measure was satisfactory to the great body of the University, and had been accepted by them in the spirit in which it was offered, as the best remedy under the circumstances which could be devised, and one calculated to prevent the recurrence of the painful scenes they had lately witnessed. The noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) said that one of the rewards of Churchmen would be taken from the Church and given to a secular purpose, and then he talked of critical Greek not being necessary for a clergyman. Did the noble Earl mean to contend that the most acute critical knowledge of Greek was not of the greatest importance—was not essential for clergymen, even for the purpose of defending the very foundations of the Faith? Did the noble Earl mean that the highest critical knowledge of Greek was not necessary in a University where the great majority of the students were destined for the Church? He (the Lord Chancellor) must offer the strongest possible opposition to such a doctrine, and protest against its being accepted for one moment. Well, then, what better purpose could the canonry be given for? He came now to the more important objections of the noble Earl the Chancellor of the University (the Earl of Derby). And first with regard to the supposed exclusion of a layman from the Professorship. It was perfectly true that this Bill did not provide for the alternative of appointing a layman to the Greek chair, if such a person should be selected on account of his peculiar endowments. But suppose there should be at Oxford a layman as eminent for his knowledge of Greek as Professor Person of Cambridge, the Crown would say to the University, "It is our desire to appoint that man, but inasmuch as the canonry cannot be applied to his sustentation, will the University consent for this particular occasion to make provision for him?" He could not suppose for a moment that the University would be slow in making provision for a case which would happen in the proportion of about one to ninety-nine out of 100. There had not been a single lay Professor—he spoke under correction, but such was the result of his inquiries—in the chair of Greek from the time of its first institution to the present day. Therefore, this Bill had the merit of providing for a state of thing which, judginging from past experience, from the present condition of affairs, and from the expectation of the
  1764
  future, was most likely to occur; and if a case should arise which the Bill did not provide for, he had no doubt that the University would make the necessary provision. Their Lordships would remember that the University of Oxford had received certain pecuniary exemptions on the understanding that it would make proper provision for its Professors. First of all it enjoyed an exemption from stamp duties on its degrees; it was also exempted from the patent of the Queen's Printer— a benefit amounting in value, as he was informed, to £12,000 or £14,000 a year. In addition, to that, by the late Oxford University Act, colleges were enabled by the suppression of some of their scholarships and otherwise to make provision for the public Professors. Now, he was perfectly ready to attach to this Bill a proviso of this character—that whenever the University or any college would make a permanent endowment for the chair of Greek to the amount of £600 per annum, the canonry which he proposed to attach to the chair should be placed at the disposal of the University, if the endowment was made by the University; or of the college, if the endowment was made by the college. If, then, the objection was real—he did not mean on the part of the noble Earl, for the noble Earl was incapable of making any objection which he did not believe to be real—let the University meet the Bill by the provision which he had suggested, and he would most readily introduce a clause to the effect that the endowment should be the price of the canonry, and that the canonry should be placed in the gift of the University. The difficulty which had occurred in this case had not been raised during the passing of the Act 3 & 4 Vict., by which it was provided that as soon as might be convenient two canonries in the cathedral church of Ely should be permanently annexed to the Regius Professorship of Hebrew and Greek respectively in the University of Cambridge. No objection was then raised on the ground that the Professor of Greek at Cambridge might be a layman; but now it was said that another Person might arise, and that the effect of this Bill would be to compel the Government to give the chair of Greek to a clergyman. Although he would admit that the effect of the Bill would be greatly to influence the election of a clergyman, yet it did not by any means render it indispensable that a clergyman should receive the appointment The Legislature had pro-

  1765
  vided that no person should be capable of receiving the appointment of dean, archdeacon, or canon until he should have been a certain time in complete orders, except in the case of a canonry annexed to a professorship or the headship of a college. The Regius Professorship of Greek at Cambridge was provided for by a canonry, and why not the Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford? The Professor of Ecclesiastical History need not be a clergyman, yet he was provided for by a canonry. The Regius Professor of Hebrew need not be a clergyman, yet he was provided for by a canonry in both Universities, and only by a canonry, He trusted that their Lordships would share in the sympathy felt for the eminent person who now displayed so much ability, zeal, and energy in the discharge of his duties, and who was by none more admired and beloved than by the youth of the University. He hoped that their Lordships would have no difficulty in acceding to the second reading, and that the effect of the Bill would not be marred by a division. When their Lordships went into Committee he would propose some Amendments which would, he trusted, obviate some of the objections to which the measure might appear to be fairly open.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that having had the honour of being one of the Oxford University Commissioners, he might be allowed to say a few words on this subject. In other cases the Commissioners were able to offer the Colleges a share in the patronage; but in the case of the Regius Professorship of Greek the difficulty was twofold. The first was one of a personal character, and arose from an unwillingness on the part of the colleges to identify themselves with the opinions of the gentleman in question. The Commissioners, in the next place, had no power to give the Colleges any share in the appointment, which was vested in the Crown. They were obliged, therefore, to leave their work imperfect in this respect. It appeared that the Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge was provided for by a canonry, and he did not see why an objection should be felt to do that at Oxford which was already done in Cambridge. He believed that a canonry was just the appropriate reward for learned men in the Church, and there could hardly be a better application of it than to attach it to an office which must be held by an eminent scholar. He thought that no practical difficulty would arise from the Professor's
  1766
  absence, and that he might without inconvenience reside for three months in the year at his canonry. He considered that it was a very graceful act on the part of the Government to give up a valuable piece of patronage for an object so praiseworthy in itself, and which it was hoped would have the effect of allaying much of the dissension that had arisen in the University on this matter.
  EARL GREYcould not say that either the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack or the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Harrowby) had in his opinion given any satisfactory answer to the objections that had been raised to this Bill. It was very desirable that nothing should be done to restrict education to clergymen alone. He had no objection to see a clergyman fill the chair of Greek if he were properly qualified, but he could not think it desirable that so important an appointment should be practically confined to one profession. The Lord Chancellor had expressed his belief that if a layman—another Porson—were appointed to the chair, the University would make an adequate provision for him; but it was a curious recommendation of the Act that it must be set aside whenever the Crown appointed a layman to fill the chair. He could not think it would become the dignity of Parliament to pass a measure which would have to depend for its fulfilment on the course to be pursued by the University; and, in his opinion, if they interfered at all in the matter, their legislation ought to be of a complete and final character. The noble and learned Lord had shown that the Legislature had done in the case of Cambridge what it was now asked to do for the same chair at Oxford. But because they had made a mistake with respect to Cambridge, was it wise to repeat it at Oxford? He thought it a valid objection that it withdrew so valuable a piece of Church preferment from the rewards of purely clerical service. In the metropolis there were many devoted clergymen who had toiled for the greater portion of their lives in populous parishes upon scanty stipends. After a time it was frequently found that the health of these clergymen broke down, and a canonry would afford a well merited retreat in their advanced years. He confessed that he was not reconciled to the measure by the Amendments which the noble and learned Lord proposed to introduce. He should view with strong objections any

  1767
  arrangement under which the canonry would cease to be attached to the Professorship, and the patronage given to the University, in return for a suitable endowment for the Professor of Greek to be provided by that body. He did not think the University a proper body to exercise the patronage of the canonries of the Church; and, if Parliament having full power to legislate directly on the subject, refrained from exercising its authority in a straightforward manner, the attempt to bribe the University to fix an endowment upon the Greek Professorship would be utterly unbecoming. At the same time, he concurred with the noble and learned Lord in regretting that in discussions upon this subject reference had been made to the religious opinions of the Professor; it would have been far better for the question to be considered totally irrespective of the views imputed to that very distinguished scholar, and his own opinion had certainly been formed free from any such influences. He could not think it creditable to the University of Oxford that they should upon such grounds have refused an adequate remuneration to the holder of the office.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the opinion of the University of Oxford, especially when backed by that of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), must carry very great weight, and he should certainly rejoice at the carrying of any measure which would tend to allay the unfortunate antagonism and irritation existing in that University, in reference to the remuneration of this Professorship. Any fair compromise would be hailed, he was sure, by those who loved the University. But after what had passed, both in that House and out of doors, he felt that objections were capable of being urged to the Bill, and he could not divest himself of the impression that the proposal was most unfortunate which virtually required that the Regius Professor of Greek should henceforward be a clergyman; for it could not be reasonably expected that any but a clergyman would be appointed when in one case there was to be an income provided for him, and in the other none at all. He thought also that it would be an unfortunate thing in the present state of the Church to withdraw from her ministers one of the few remaining prizes and emoluments fairly applicable to the rewarding of long services or great ability; but he thought it beneath the dignity of the
  1768
  Crown to bargain with the University of Oxford as to the terms on which she should remunerate the Professor of Greek; and, in fact, the proposal was hardly fair to the Professor himself; for with the limited number of canons to which the cathedral of Rochester had been reduced, he thought that a continuous residence at Oxford would be found imcompatible with the performance of the ecclesiastical duties, or vice versâ. He would also add that it appeared to him highly improper that Parliament should legislate upon the assumption, that if a distinguished layman should hereafter be appointed to the Professorship, the University might, in the exercise of their discretion, remunerate him from their own funds.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, when the Oxford University Commission was in existence several years ago, it appeared that the endowment of this Professorship of Greek was made out of an estate or estates belonging to Christ Church College. The endowment was £40 a year, but the real value of the estate must now be some £600 a year. The natural impression of the Members of the Commission was that the Professor ought to receive the real and not what had once been the nominal value of the estates out of which he was paid. But it was afterwards urged, on behalf of Christ Church, that legislation had diverted the funds of Christ Church from their original channel by compelling them to make provision for two other Professorships. As legislation had caused the difficulty, it ought to remedy it. In the meantime, however, a great hardship had been inflicted upon the Professor of Greek. He appreciated the full force of the objection that this Bill would practically restrict the appointments to this Professorship to clergymen; but the evil would not practically be very great, for he was happy to know that by far the greater part of our eminent Greek scholars had been clergymen of the Established Church, and there was no reason to apprehend that in future there would be any difficulty in finding men properly qualified among that body to discharge the duties of the Greek Professorship. It was true that under the Bill another class of ecclesiastics would be prevented from receiving appointments to one of those canonries; and no one could feel more strongly than he did the desirableness of reserving such preferments for clergymen who had passed their lives in the discharge of laborious parochial

  1769
  duties. But this was only one of a number of canonries, and he should be glad to be assured that none of them would ever be worse disposed of than by attaching it to an office whose holder must be one of the most eminent Greek scholars in the country. He could not, besides, help remembering that the scheme for the reform of the University of Oxford, which had been conceived in 1850, could not be completed in one of its most important features, while the Greek Professorship remained unprovided and without any adequate remuneration.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, in addition to the objections on account of theological opinions which had been felt against the endowment of this chair, there was felt one in many minds on the ground that while the endowment was to come from the University, the patronage of the Professorship remained vested in the Crown. He could hardly sympathize with the remarks which had been made by the right rev. Prelate as to the large number of canonries which now existed. Those preferments had lately been considerably reduced, both in amount and in number. There were now only thirty-five or forty; left, and he thought that these rewards of the clergy ought not to be further diminished, either in number or value. As a solution to the difficulty which this Bill was intended to meet, he suggested that, the Government should advise. Her Majesty to surrender the patronage of the Professorship to the University, in which case he had no doubt that the University would be induced to provide an endowment. If their Lordships divided upon this question, he should support the objections of the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Ellenborough).
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had not very recently been to the University, but he had sent down a copy of the Bill. He did not believe that the question had beer deliberated on up to this time by the University; but though he did not wish to commit the University in the matter, he might say that he had heard that the Bill was likely to be accepted. After all that was said on the subject he still adhered to his former position; but he would not take upon himself the absolute rejection of the Bill on its second reading. At the same time he hoped that the objections which had been offered would be well considered before the Committee was appointed, and that ample time would be given to the
  1770
  University and those who took a deep interest in the subject to consider the Amendments, which he hoped would be printed and distributed before the Bill went into Committee. If their Lordships should divide upon the question of the second reading, he was very unwilling to support the Bill as it stood; but if the question was, whether the Bill be summarily rejected, or be allowed to proceed to the second reading, he should feel himself obliged to support the second reading.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.