Sitting of 7 April 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Registration of Births, &c. (Scotland); Holyhead Harbours; Spurn Point.
2° Oxford University.

CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATUTES.— QUESTION.
MR. BOWYERsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) whether the Statute Law Consolidation Commission was to cease; and, if so, whether the consolidation of the Statutes was to be given up, or any other, and what measures were to be taken to effect the purpose for which the Commission was appointed.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the state of the case was this:—The Lord Chancellor had appointed a Commission, which expired on the 31st of March—a temporary Commission—with a view to consider how far the consolidation of the Statutes was practicable, and in what manner, if practicable, it should be effected. The Commission so appointed terminated on the 31st of March, and their labours had been placed in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, in order that he might see how far they would form a foundation for the consolidation of the Statutes. If the Lord Chancellor should be satisfied from this examination that there were grounds on which the foundation could be placed, a Commission would be appointed for a term of years for that important purpose. If there did not appear adequate grounds, the Lord Chancellor and the Government would then consider what other course should be adopted on the subject.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read; Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he had several objections to the details of this measure, but as he felt the principle

673
to be sound, he should assent to the second reading, trusting that he might prevail upon the Committee to alter those features in the Bill to which he objected. The interest which he felt in the Bill induced him to take this early opportunity of explaining the vote which he intended to give on the present occasion; and he was the more desirous of so doing because his sense of duty and a consideration of the best interests of the University which he had the honour to represent constrained him to give a vote which was not entirely in accordance, although it was not entirely in opposition, to the petition from the University which he had presented against the Bill. He should hardly consider himself a good friend to the University if he were to shut his eyes to the urgency of the circumstances in which it was placed, and if he were to refuse to recognise the great importance of speedily solving the questions with which it was perplexed. The continued discussion of those questions operated to an unwholesome diversion of the energies of the University from their accustomed course. She could not afford to spare from study and from tuition her best and ablest men, in order that they might be absorbed in controversies concerning the amendment of a system of which the administration was their more proper and congenial employment. And of still more importance than the promptitude of the remedy was the probability that its application would be entrusted to friendly hands, and he could not but admit that the names of the Commissioners announced by the noble Lord were, in his opinion, a guarantee not only that the powers to be entrusted to them would be administered in a friendly spirit; but also that the Bill conferring those powers had been framed with no hostile disposition, and that it ought to be criticised in a spirit of fairness. If, on looking at this Bill, he had found it involved great principles to which he was entirely opposed, then, notwithstanding the urgency of the circumstances, he should have felt it to be his duty to oppose the second reading; but when he found that his objections, which were important and considerable, and which he should, as he had previously stated, endeavour to remove by proposing Amendments in Committee, were objections not to principles, but to the erroneous or excessive application of principles which he admitted under certain limitations, then it was clearly his duty to assent to the second reading of the Bill. The great principles which were
674
mainly involved in the Bill were whether the enactments should be compulsory or enabling, and whether the limitations under which founders gave their benefactions might be altered. The question as to the use of compulsory or enabling enactments was to be considered with reference to the University and the colleges as distinguished from each other, and on somewhat separate grounds. He did not deny that it was the right of the supreme Government of the country to deal with a great corporation like that of the University, so far as regarded the regulation of its constitution and its modes of action; but it ought to be dealt with with a very tender hand, especially as it was in the power of that corporation to apply a remedy if it should think fit to do so; and he had not disguised his opinion that the Government had not shown sufficient consideration for the governing body at Oxford, and that more frank and confidential communication from the Government to the Hebdomadal Board might have produced acquiescence in the course indicated. But, however that might be, he was bound to confess that so far as the University was concerned, if legislation was required at all, it was only on an hypothesis by which it was also necessary that the legislation should be compulsory. It was clear that the University could carry into effect all the changes which were desirable without an enabling Act, and if it did not think fit to do so, an enabling Act would not meet the case. With respect to the colleges, no doubt some legislation was required, but the question was whether it should be compulsory or enabling. The rights of the Legislature to interfere with them was, in his opinion, to be confined within much narrower limits than in the case of the University, but within those limits he thought that the interference must take the form of compulsory enactments to some extent, or that it would be nugatory. There were nineteen colleges at Oxford, nearly all of which had Statutes which seriously embarrassed their proceedings. Two of the colleges had power to alter the Statutes themselves. The remaining seventeen could not move a step unless they were enabled to do so, and one-half of these could not move even if they were enabled, because they were bound by stringent oaths which prevented them from initiating alterations. It was clear, therefore, that they could only receive improvement in the form of a compulsory imposition by an external power, having the force of positive law.

675
He felt no difficulty in admitting that any enactments with regard to the University must be compulsory; and in the case of the colleges, it would be nugatory with respect to one-half of them, unless it should be compulsory also. He had much more difficulty in dealing with the question relating to the property of the colleges and the Statutes, and the expressed intentions of the founders. Legislation with respect to the colleges ought to be applied under more strict limitations than in the case of a great corporation like the University. It ought only to be applied in extreme cases to make the intentions of the founders more effectual. There were four matters requiring consideration—the question of the founders' kin, the question of local preferences, the question of preferences to schools, and the question of the diversion of property. He did not agree with those who considered the matter in the light of a contract, and that the least alteration of the Statutes would form a breach of contract, and create a claim of restoration to the heirs of the original founders. Let the House consider how these arrangements were made, and whether there was anything like a contract under which the State could be said to have guaranteed these foundations for ever from all regulation by legislative power. It would almost appear from some of the Statutes that the Government made a bargain with the founders, and said, "If you will give your property to a great public object, we will guarantee its validity and permanence." But the real state of the case was this—that landed property in those days, being subject to all the incidence of feudal tenure, the Crown had a direct interest in keeping it out of mortmain, and in surrendering that interest received nothing, but, on the contrary, made a concession. The Crown gave charters of incorporation, and those charters empowered the persons incorporated to make by-laws, which, in such cases, were called Statutes; but that these by-laws were to be subject to the general law was so clear and elementary, that it must have been obvious to the founders at the time that these powers were given to them, subject to such surveillance. He did not view the matter as one of contract, but desired to look into each of the grounds on which the founders had established their preferences on their different merits. To the abolition of some he had no difficulty in assenting; but with respect to others he thought they had been dealt with by the Bill in a very reckless
676
manner; and it was his intention to place certain Amendments on the table, to be considered, as he had previously stated, in Committee. With respect to founders' kin, he thought the recognition of lineal descendants without stint, and of collateral relations for one hundred years from the foundation, was liberal and ample. It was not to be thought that founders contemplated that the claim of kindred would be set up indefinitely and for ever, but rather that the word "consanguinity" had in their eyes the definite and restrained meaning which both the canon and civil laws would in those days have made familiar to them, as at the present time a bequest of money in the most general words to relations would be construed by our courts to mean only those relations who would be recognised under the Statute regulating the distribution of personal property. It was also to be observed that our law would not now allow any man, even in a settlement specially intended to provide for his family, to do so for more than existing lives, and twenty-one years, and it was hardly reasonable that he should be allowed to provide for them permanently under colour of a charity. With respect to the subject of local preferences, there was more difficulty—a difficulty which he should in some respects have found insuperable, were it not that he thought that the purposes of local preferences might be carried out more efficiently by a school in the neighbourhood, than by giving the preference to birth or residence, because two or three exhibitions given to a large district could have hardly a perceptible effect in stimulating exertion. In general, too, when preferences were given to districts, except in special cases, such as that of a preference given to the birth-place of a founder, they had been given for reasons which had long since passed away, or for reasons arising from the existence of preferences elsewhere. If these preferences were uniformly abolished, there would be as much gain in one case as loss in the other; and he had, therefore, felt that justice required that if these preferences were interfered with all should be abolished, since the compensation to a district whose preference was abolished would be that you opened it to the preferences of other districts. It was certainly better for the districts as well as for the University that the best men of all districts should have a chance over an enlarged field, than that second-rate men should, from want of competition, obtain

677
prizes which they would not otherwise have obtained. So long as the fellows were merely students—the recipients of the bounty of the founder—there was no reason why, in their selection, local preferences should not be admitted; but now that, by the lapse of time and change of circumstances, the fellows had become the great instructors of the young men of the University, to a certain extent filling the position which was filled in foreign Universities by the professors, and now that they were at Oxford, as he hoped they would long continue to be, the regulating power in regard to instruction, it was of more importance that they should be eminent and distinguished men, and preferences which would not have been injurious under former circumstances became so under present ones. This afforded a strong reason for departing from local preferences with regard to appointments to fellowships, though not with regard to appointments to scholarships and exhibitions. He next came to the question of schools, and here he must confess that his objections very much preponderated over his approval of the provisions of the Bill. He believed that a great deal would be lost to the interests of the University and of the country at large by cutting up the great schools root and branch, as it had been designed to do; and that great care would be required in dealing with the smaller schools, by the destruction of which you might do serious local injury and much impede the expansion of education in remote districts. One of the efforts which ought to be made in these days was to push education into every place where you could find standing for a school; and it was a very cheap way of doing this if by means of a few exhibitions you could tempt persons to send their children to a school which otherwise would not exist. This applied not only to the small schools, but to some of the great ones. Take the case of the Merchant Tailors' School, which was a school of very great celebrity, turning out scholars of considerable reputation, and succeeding very well in attaining the object for which it was established. That school, however, was kept upon its legs entirely by the fellowships of St. John's, which the pupils there might look forward to. The situation of Merchant Tailors' in the heart of the City was not a favourable one; parents might rather be disposed to send their children into the country than to it; if,
678
therefore, these advantages were taken away, the school would have no foundation on which to rest, and an institution now educating some 200 or 300 boys with great success would dwindle down, and finally would be destroyed. The school had not abused these advantages, for a reference to the men who had been educated at St. John's College would show that, notwithstanding the closeness alleged against this foundation, they had distinguished themselves very remarkably both at the University and in the world. This was a case which deserved great consideration, and he hoped it would receive it at the hands of the country and of the Government. Another case was that of Winchester College, at which he was himself educated. That college, which had for 460 years maintained a distinguished place, did not stand merely in the position of a favoured school, but was, in fact, an integral part of New College, with which the founder of that college, by his Statutes, designed that it should be indissolubly connected. By the Statutes the fellows of that college were told to seek, not for those who were best skilled in letters, but for those who had been educated in his college at Winchester. Winchester College had always been restricted to a fixed, and that a small number; and could not, therefore, claim so many Members of this House as the kindred College of Eton, but there were hon. and right hon. Friends of his there whose names would show that it had borne good fruit, and when he remembered that he was then addressing one of the most distinguished ornaments of that school, and that both the Speakers of the two Houses of Parliament were from Winchester, he hoped that it would not be considered presumptuous in a Winchester man to say that he thought that school was entitled to some consideration from the House. He would not trouble the House with details, but he hoped to lay on the table Amendments, which should secure the greater schools entirely, and the smaller ones, under due limitations, against abuse. With respect to the diversion of property from the colleges to the University, he felt very strongly; but there was one view of the case which would lead him to consent to dealing with such property to a limited extent. He thought, for instance, that it would be fair to tax the colleges, not to take away part of their property, not to suppress their Fellowships, nor to impose upon them extra fellows to take a share in their government, but to tax them

679
by money payments, so far as the young men of their own colleges were to be benefited by the expenditure for University purposes. If, indeed, the colleges persisted in a claim to be treated as identical with the University, he thought that they would have no right to complain of being taxed indefinitely for the support of that which would then, upon their own showing, be themselves; but this was not to be the case. By this Bill it was proposed to establish private halls, which would admit independent persons, and he did think it was monstrous to expect that the colleges should be taxed further than was necessary for their own members, in order to afford advantages to persons who came there without any reference to them, except as members of the University. He looked with considerable jealousy at many of the provisions of the Bill on this subject, and hoped to see it much modified. He should be very unwilling to see the number of fellows diminished, but he thought it quite legitimate to convert fellowships into scholarships; because he thought that by that course the intention of the founder would in most cases be carried out better than it was at present. The intention of the founder generally was to have well-educated persons living on his bounty, for the purposes of study, and not persons who were conveying instruction to others. He was afraid that the Amendments which he should have to lay upon the table would be rather voluminous; but his object would be to secure as much as possible the application of property in the direction indicated by the founder, and to provide that, where its disposition was altered or rearranged, this should be done chiefly and almost entirely with regard to college rather than University purposes, and that, above all things, no attempt should be made actually to take it away. From the whole statement he had made on the subject of the Bill, the House would see that he must vote for the second reading, and that all his objections were simply objections of detail. He trusted the Government would be disposed to listen to those objections, which, so far as he was concerned, he could assure them would not be raised in any captious or hostile spirit. He hoped they would discover that a spirit of candour and moderation with regard to this measure had been predominant in that House, and he intreated the Government to consider that if they insisted too pertinaciously upon their own view of the case,
680
and refused to give way upon points of detail, but made it a matter of party division, on them would rest the responsibility of damaging a Bill from which, if it were worked out and amended, as he hoped it would be, he for one really expected great benefits would result to the University and to the country generally.
MR. BYNGsaid, he must express his deep regret that the University of Oxford should have been so insensible to the exigencies of the times as to render compulsory legislation on this subject necessary. He believed very few persons, either in or out of this House, would deny that some change was required in the system now pursued at Oxford. Indeed the University itself, so far back as the year 1837, speaking through its late Chancellor, had declared that steps were being taken for the amelioration and improvement of its educational system, as well as of its Statutes; and in a debate which took place in the House of Lords on the 8th of May in the same year, the Chancellor of the University used these words:—
"I am authorised to say that they, the governing body of Oxford, are prepared to bring forward those changes and improvements which the noble Lord has so eloquently urged upon the House."
That promise the Legislature accepted, in the confident hope that these changes would be introduced at an early period, and had patiently forborne from interference; and yet, from the year 1837 up to 1854, one measure, and one measure alone, had been submitted to the heads of houses and carried into effect—he alluded to the new examination Statute; and even this scheme had worked so confusedly in its details, that changes had been, and were even now, introduced into its different bearings. With respect to the right of the Crown to appoint Commissioners, in his judgment the University could in no more graceful manner have testified their gratitude for the benefits and privileges which they enjoyed from Royal favour than by cordially co-operating with Her Majesty in the views which had been expressed in the appointment of this Commission. As to the measure now submitted to the consideration of Parliament, he thought the new kind of government which was to take the place of the board of heads of houses stood forward more prominently for approbation. The chief objections against the Hebdomadal Board were, first, the manner in which that

681
Board was constituted; and, secondly, the isolated position in which it stood for the most part as regarded the University. The heads of houses were too often chosen from some non-resident fellows who possessed rich college livings; and he thought that the man who spent his life at a distance from the University was the last person fitted to govern its councils or take part in the management of its affairs, for though a man might be exemplary as a minister, and most diligent in attending to his parish, this did not necessarily constitute a knowledge of passing events in a very distant sphere of action, or of being thoroughly well versed in Oxford Statutes and its educational requirements. Now, he thought that under the new system all classes were fairly represented—the heads of houses, the college tutors, the professors, and, lastly, a body of men as accomplished and as industrious, and to whom he would wish to tender his most earnest feelings of gratitude and respect—he referred to the private tutors of the University—for he could not help hoping that some from among that body would be chosen to assist in the government of Oxford. He hoped, too, that the residence of fellows would be more rigorously insisted upon, and that those who were best calculated to assist, if not in the education, at least in the social and moral improvement of the students, would not be permitted to spend the income which they derived from their college at whatever distance from Oxford they pleased. With regard to local exhibitions and scholarships, he believed great and incalculable good had arisen from these, and he should be sorry to see any change made in this respect. In very many cases able and distinguished men had been enabled to enjoy the benefits of a University education, which they could never have otherwise obtained but for the existence of these advantages; and upon this point he would venture to quote the evidence of the senior censor of Christ Church, who said:—
"I can point to many who have been brought here by local foundations; I am myself one of those, and I could instance many others who have not disgraced themselves, and whose thoughts were turned from school to college by the operation of this sole cause. And I venture here to call upon you not to give up silently this patrimony of the poor, and not to convert into prizes for 'merit,' as developed in examination, what was intended as a relief of poverty and the support of men who would not otherwise have thought of coming here. It is to the establish-
682
ment of local foundations, in connection with training, national, and other schools in towns, that I look for the extension of the University to the poor, and it is the means of providing for such classes which I have especially considered."
There was one important omission in the Bill which he trusted the lapse of time would supply. He could assure the House most respectfully, sincerely, and unaffectedly, that he yielded to no man in his earnest respect and veneration for the pure and simple ritual of the Church of England, which he trusted never to see endangered or tampered with; but, at the same time, he could not help thinking that that would be a great and generous measure, and that the Legislature which produced it would be worthy of the thanks of all those who were not animated by feelings of sectarian animosity, which, while maintaining the undoubted claims and privileges of the Established Church, should, nevertheless, devise some means by which upwards of 5,000,000 of their countrymen—he alluded to the Protestant Dissenters of England—might be enabled to enjoy the advantages which a more extended educational system at Oxford would well supply, especially as they had lately been reminded that there was no surer road to honour and distinction in this country than an enlightened system of education. He would not have ventured to rise at so important a moment as this had he not felt compelled to express his hope that reforms might be made in the University, for which he felt sure every one who, like himself, had had the honour and happiness of being educated there, must always entertain feelings of gratitude and respect. It was because he felt that a wider field of education, and a more extended educational policy, was necessary both for the present and future well-being of the University, that he ventured to hope the measure now before the House might speedily become the law of the land.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was unable to express opinions so favourable to the Bill as had been pronounced by the hon. Member who had just addressed the House for the first time, in a manner which, he was quite ready to admit, seemed a most favourable promise of his future career in that House, and showed the possession of very considerable ability on his part. He confessed that he felt desirous to enter at greater length into the provisions of the Bill, than his hon. Friend the Member for the University (Sir W. Heath-

683
cote). He, like his hon. Friend, was disposed not to offer any resistance to the second reading of the Bill, but to reserve the objections which he entertained to its provisions to be the subject of consideration when the Bill was in Committee; but at the same time he felt bound to state that he had arrived at that conclusion, and at the intention of not opposing the second reading of the Bill, after considerable doubt and hesitation. The present was, however, the appropriate time to consider and examine what were the principles of this Bill. He had heard that question asked, but he had never heard it answered without considerable hesitation and difficulty. In his opinion, that difficulty and hesitation arose from the fact of the principles of the Bill being not simple and uniform, but, on the contrary, manifold, complicated, and contradictory. Doubtless in a great measure, the principles of the Bill were for the purpose of reforming the University, and for the extension of its powers of action; and to these principles he did not take any exception; but were there no other principles in this Bill? He was sorry to say that, in his opinion, there were. In the first place, from the first to the last word of this Bill, he found pervading every clause, even pervading every line, a principle which was entirely unnecessary, unmerited, and uncalled for, and therefore unjust—it was a principle of distrusting every existing University authority. He next found a principle of what appeared to him to be an exceedingly arbitrary, not to say tyrannical, control over bodies which hitherto had been free and independent, possessing great powers of self-government, which now they were about to be prevented from continuing to exercise. Again, he found what he considered to be the worst and most objectionable principle of all—a principle which involved a violation of the rights of property, inasmuch as it interfered with the dispositions made by the founders of colleges, and it interfered, in an unjust and arbitrary manner, with the rights which had accrued under those dispositions. If he were justified in the opinion he had now expressed, that these were principles contained in the Bill, he was also justified in feeling the degree of hesitation which he had entertained as to whether he could, consistently with his sense of duty, give even a qualified assent to the second reading of the Bill. If he had, however, arrived at the conclusion which he had stated to the House, he had done so because he was desirous, before it
684
was too late, of remonstrating with Her Majesty's Government upon the manner in which the Bill, from beginning to end, had been drawn. If he was willing to abstain from making this most important measure the subject of a party conflict, he did so in the hope that the Government would accept in a fair spirit the criticisms and objections to this Bill—criticisms and objections which had been shadowed forth in a spirit, which every one must admit of the greatest moderation, by his hon. Friend the Member for the University (Sir W. Heathcote); and he himself was disposed to deal with the subject now very much, if not entirely, in the same spirit. Further, if he should feel compelled to criticise with some severity parts of this measure, he hoped that the Government would believe that those criticisms came from one who was not adverse to necessary change—that they came from one who was ready to admit that there was great room for improvement in the University of Oxford and in the arrangements of some of its colleges—but that, at the same time, they came from one who was of opinion that, in adopting any legislation which might be necessary to effect those objects, it was the duty of the Government to approach the subject in a spirit of conciliation, of moderation, and of justice, and not to frame a measure which must necessarily give umbrage and offence to the University with which it was to deal.
The first portion of the Bill, and that portion of it which related to the establishment of a Commission, was, as it appeared to him, the subject best adapted to be first treated of. It was intended to establish a Commission, and to place in the hands of that Commission powers of what appeared to him to be unusual and objectionable control. He must here express the surprise he had felt at hearing Gentlemen in that House who had entertained objections to the establishment of that Commission, say that their objections had been disposed of by the names of the parties who had been selected to serve on that Commission. He would most willingly subscribe to any compliment addressed to those persons composing the Commission, and although he considered them to be persons judiciously selected, who were well qualified for the duties they were required to discharge, still he felt bound to state that he could not see what security that House or the University had for the continuance of those gentlemen in the fulfilment of their

685
duties as Commissioners. On a former night the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) gave the names of two persons whom he had selected to serve in this Commission—the Bishop of Ripon and Mr. Justice Coleridge—and he would at once admit that the names of two persons more competent could not have been selected; but, at the same time, considering what was the nature of the duties of a bishop, and also of those performed by a judge, he had no confidence that either of those eminent persons could spare time for four successive years at least, to deal with the complicated details of University reform. He found by the third clause of the Bill that—
"If any vacancy occurs in the number of such Commissioners, by means of death, resignation, or otherwise, Her Majesty may fill up such vacancy."
Now it was well known that, in those cases, the Crown meant the Minister of the day, and, whatever confidence there might be in the names of the Commissioners, he doubted if the University would feel equal confidence in the Minister of the day, that Minister being the very same person who had drawn up a Bill which was open to so many grave and serious objections. He could not, therefore, think that the names of the Commissioners could be looked upon as a sufficient reason for reconciling the appointment of this Commission to the University, more particularly considering the arbitrary powers with which the Commissioners were to be intrusted; but, speaking of the University as distinct from the colleges, was it necessary to give these powers at all? He thought not, and had no doubt but that those powers were given in consequence of that feeling of distrust to all University authority to which he had already adverted. What was the power more especially delegated to the Commissioners? The power most prominently given to them by the Bill was the power in connection with the establishment of halls for the extension of the University. By the 41st clause it was enacted that if the Hebdomadal Council had not by a certain day
"Framed and submitted, for the approval of the Commissioners, such Statutes or Ordinances as may, in the opinion of the Commissioners, be sufficient for carrying into effect the objects of this Act in respect of the several matters and things intended to be done by them respectively under such powers, it shall be incumbent on the Commissioners, as soon as possible after such day as aforesaid, to proceed themselves to frame Statutes
686
in respect of any matters or things so left undone or imperfect by the said University or by the said colleges."
Now he asked, had the conduct of the University upon this subject been such as to call for or justify this arbitrary power being conferred on the Commissioners? What was the fact? He held in his hand a Statute not yet submitted to Convocation, but which would be submitted early in Easter term next, in which it was proposed to
"Permit colleges and halls to annex to themselves, subject to certain conditions, 'affiliated halls,' or houses for the reception of their members, such halls being under special regulations, in regard to economy, or otherwise, at the discretion of the college or hall to which they may be annexed; and to permit the establishment of 'independent halls,' to be exclusively placed under special regulations for diminishing the expenses of the students."
By such a proposal the advantages of the University would be extended as effectually as they could possibly be by the appointment of the Commission, and the discipline of the University would be less impaired than by the measure proposed by the Government; and, in his judgment, Her Majesty's Government would have done well to leave the University to arrange this matter without the interference of a Commission. With regard to the colleges, he believed—and his hon. Friend the Member for the University had, if he had understood him aright, made the same admission—that, although even in that case he objected to the arbitrary powers given to the Commission, it was desirable that some external authority should be established, but at the same time he wished the Bill had been drawn up in the shape of an enabling rather than a compulsory Bill, although he thought that some external authority was desirable to encourage those colleges which were not in the first instance willing to make any change of themselves. That object could, he thought, be obtained without the establishment of a Commission, either by increasing the authority of the visitor, or in some other way, and he believed that this Commission was invested with powers so arbitrary and so extensive that the new constitution would not be acceptable to the University, and that the members of the University would not consent to be members of that constitution, which would be over-rode by the powers of the Commission.
Having stated the objections he entertained to the part of the Bill which pro-

687
posed to confer such extraordinary powers on the Commission, he would proceed to advert to the constitution of the new governing body of the University, and in that part of the scheme the Government again showed distrust of all the University authorities. The University itself had submitted the plan of an altered form of Government, to which, in his opinion, no fair, no just objection could be taken; but that plan had been peremptorily rejected by Her Majesty's Government—rejected without discussion, though there was not, he was assured, any disinclination on the part of the University to modify it. And he could not help remarking that it would have been more consonant with the principle which Her Majesty's Government professed to be actuated by in respect of the Bill, if they had done so, or at least left the University more freedom of action in the matter. But was the Bill of the Government free from objection on the score of the governing body of the University? On the contrary, he believed it would be found open to grave, just, and serious objections in that particular. The principle of this part of the Bill was, that the governing body was to consist of three classes in equal proportions. The first was to be composed of heads of houses; the second was to be composed of professors, and here he (Sir J. Pakington) might add that he thought members of the rank of tutors might be admitted to this class; the third was to be composed of members of the University, chosen generally. He would ask Her Majesty's Government whether the mode of election to this body was not obviously open to improvement? Would it not be far better, instead of electing them by means of a body, to be called the Congregation—(he was aware that a body of that name existed in the University, but it had no analogous functions to that proposed in the case of the body he had alluded to)—would it not be more acceptable to the University that those three portions of the governing body should be elected each by the class to which it belonged; the heads of houses, for instance, by the heads of houses; the professors by the professorial body, and the third portion by Convocation. He had reason to believe that, if the Government assented to this change, the constitution of the Hebdomadal Council would be more acceptable to the University, and would be more likely to act harmoniously. He thought, among other things, that the establishment of the body to be called the Congregation
688
would be found of very doubtful utility, if not positively injurious, and that it could therefore be very well dispensed with. It was, indeed, one of the most objectionable parts of the Bill, in his opinion. By the plan proposed as regarded that body, the Congregation would, in fact, ultimately subside into a useless—he might add a mischievous—debating society. He saw great danger to be anticipated from a body who would have the right to discuss everything, without the power of deciding anything; and, as a necessary consequence, he anticipated that it would keep the University in a constant state of agitation and disturbance, that it would be productive of great discord, and that, by the differences of opinion it would tend to create and to foster, it would end in the most pernicious results. He therefore called the attention of Her Majesty's Government in the strongest manner to this point. In connection with this subject, he believed it would be necessary to extend the present functions of the Convocation, but the mischief would be, if the Congregation was established, that the Convocation would in fact be almost entirely superseded. He would next call the attention of the House to the other branch of the subject—that which had been also adverted to as one of the objectionable principles of the Bill—namely, the spirit and mode in which the measure proposed to deal with the wills of the founders of the colleges, with existing rights of property and with the modes in which the fellowships and the emoluments of the University were hereafter to be obtained. To the preamble of the Bill in general he took no exception, but he wished to direct the attention of the House to one point in the preamble. It was there stated:—
"Whereas it is expedient, for the advancement of religion and learning, to enlarge the powers of making and altering Statutes and regulations now possessed by the University of Oxford and the colleges thereof, and to make and enable to be made further provision for the Government and for the extension of the said University, and for the abrogation of oaths now taken therein, and for insuring the enjoyment of fellowships and other collegiate endowments according to personal merit, and for promoting the main designs of the founders, both as respects the appointment to the said endowments and the continued tenure thereof."
Now he would ask the House if those words were consistent with the way in which the Bill invaded the designs of the founders. It seemed to him that only one of two things could be done—the preamble must be struck out, or that part of the Bill

689
referring to the appropriation of part of the college funds for the erection of new professorships. He could show that over and over again the designs of the founders were entirely disregarded, and he would ask the House to look at the provisions in the 28th clause, which established the regulations as regarded fellows, and see if they did not bear out that assertion. That clause said, in substance, that no preference should be accorded to any candidate by reason of his place of birth, kinship, education at any particular school, or from any other cause, over any other person of superior knowledge. Was that what the Government called respecting the designs of the founders as regarded these appointments? The designs of the founders were clear and specific; they referred to all these things, kinship, particular schools, particular districts, particular colleges, and in very many cases to indigence. But these things, though designed by the founders, were disregarded in the Bill; and all gave way, with some few and unimportant modifications, which did not affect the general argument, to the one single principle of examination. The man who could therefore pass the best examination—in other words, to use a phrase well known in University life, the man who was best "crammed"—was to attain these fellowships. Was that a wise principle? Was it in conformity with the words of the preamble? Was there any man of experience who would venture to say that the examination of a young man of one or two and twenty could be taken as a trustworthy test of his future qualities. He (Sir J. Pakington) admitted the principle of examination was, if sufficiently guarded, valuable in itself. But it existed under the present constitution of the University in that form. Examination prevailed in the favoured schools. Above all, however, the principle, as sought to be applied in the Bill, was not in the intention of the founders. They had other objects in view, objects which had been acted on for centuries. Had they been attended with bad results? On the contrary. No man could say that Oxford was deficient of eminent men at any period; while, on the other hand, the intentions of the founders had been respected, existing rights had been regarded, and the principle of indigence, which was entirely set aside by the clause in question, had been specially recognised. What was the feeling excited by the attempt now made to invade the wills of the
690
founders, and change the principle on which these emoluments, as they were called, had been awarded? He had in his hand a pamphlet written by the Rev. Mr. Woodgate, rector of Belbroughton, an able and good man, an ornament to his profession, and in every way entitled to have his authority in a matter of this kind respected, and he referred to that portion of the Bill in which the fellowships and emoluments were dealt with. He said:—
"The strongest case, however, is that of Worcester College. Here, by the terms of the endowment, some of the scholars, from whom the fellows are chosen, are to be elected from certain schools in Worcestershire, the founder being a Worcestershire man; a preference being given to five schools with which he was more immediately connected; with remainder, so to say, to any other endowed schools in the county, in default of persons qualified from those first mentioned."
Here, then, were endowments on liberal and comprehensive principles. Certain schools were to have a preference, but, in their default, the advantage was extended to other persons in the county. On what principle of justice could such a foundation be interfered with, the obvious intention of the founder having been to give a preference to the locality with which he was connected? He repeated that he could not see the reason or justification of such a flagrant act of injustice. Oxford, as he had previously stated, was not deficient in eminent men; though he maintained that the desire to send eminent men to the University was not a sufficient motive for this violation of the intentions of the founders. In the pamphlet from which he had just quoted there was another reference to Worcester College:—
"Six other fellowships at Worcester College were founded for the 'sons of English parents in the provinces of Canterbury and York, and none other;' a preference to be given, cœteris paribus, to the 'orphans of clergymen of the Church of England.' Seven other professorships were founded for sons of clergymen of the Church of England who want assistance to support them at the University.'"
The test of this want was a certificate from the clergyman of the parish and four respectable householders. But the 28th clause proposed to set aside that portion of the intention of the founder, as it did the other portions; and the claim of the sons of clergymen would be disregarded for those of the best crammed candidate. There was nothing like a personal illustration of a point; and this was furnished by Mr. Woodgate. In reference to the existing state of things and the proposed change,

691
the rev. author of the pamphlet thus states his own case:—
"Owing to a sudden change of circumstances in my own family, at the very moment when I was desirous of entering the University, I could not have done so but for the assistance provided by one of those 'close' fellowships, which it is now proposed to appropriate to other objects. To one which became vacant at that time, my fellow-townsmen elected me, and by the assistance thus given, was I enabled to receive the benefit of a University education. And my case is that of hundreds. I may venture to say, that in my own college, and other colleges similarly situated, there are very many who, like myself, would have been debarred the University, but for the assistance thus given. Small comfort would it have been to us to be told (as those boys at the same school must be told, should this measure of confiscation be carried) that this resource was now for ever cut off, in order that the funds may be converted into prizes for 'literary merit,' or to be bestowed on those whose parents' ampler means would enable them to complete their University course without such assistance."
He hoped this illustration would not be thrown away on the noble Lord opposite. The case of Winchester School and New College, adverted to by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, was a strong one, and showed the necessity of reconsidering this part of the Bill; for of the seventy scholarships and fellowships of New College, thirty-five were enjoyed by Winchester men. He asked the House to recollect the words of the preamble, and he would inquire whether the main designs of William of Wykeham, who etablished Winchester School, would be carried out? In the petition presented from the warden and fellows of St. Mary's School, Winchester, they gave an extract from the 66th Rubric of the Statutes for establishing that institution; and from the words one might suppose that William of Wykeham had foreseen that some attempt like the present might one day be made to violate the purposes of founders:—
"In order to complete the number of seventy scholars, as above limited by us, we have ordained that in all future times should be elected and admitted, not those already learned, skilled in letters, and wealthy, or accomplished in arts, as we see generally elsewhere, but those only and exclusively who, as it were from their cradle—that is, from their childhood—must first in our College of Winchester (which, too, we have established and founded for this very reason) live continually on our bounty, and attend to and be instructed in the rudiments of grammar; and who, in their youth and to their old age, are to be supported by our bounty, giving themselves to the study of the liberal arts and sciences in our two colleges aforesaid."
He believed that these rights and endowments would not be respected by the words
692
of the Bill as it now stood, and the alarm was great at Winchester and New College last, by the passing of the present Bill, these rights should be, at an unhappy moment, destroyed by the consent of Parliament, carried away by party considerations and the indifference of the moment. He would not detain the House by going into the particulars of other colleges, but he had seen memorials, most powerfully and conclusively drawn up, from Christ Church, one of the finest institutions in Oxford, and from Oriel, the latter college being directed to elect none as fellows but pauperes, humiles, et indigentes; and yet this claim, founded on "indigence," was, according to the Bill, to give way to "examination." His feelings on this part of the Bill were very strong, and he would quote with respect a higher authority than his own—that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1850, when the noble Lord opposite proposed the Commission to inquire into the University of Oxford, the right hon. Gentleman dwelt with his usual force and power on the necessity of maintaining "local freedom and independence in local institutions." The right hon. Gentleman said:—
"Into the question of the restraints in the election of fellowships I will not enter at length. It is plain, however, that neither the House of Commons nor the Crown can assume a jurisdiction to remove those restraints. …. It is plain the principle of examination must have some limitation. I would not like to see a Prime Minister or any other Member of the Cabinet appointed by examination. I would as soon have thorn chosen out of a particular county or a particular diocese. And so in the case of fellowships—you may ascertain the competency of candidates by examination, but we all know there may be as much trick in passing through an examination as anything else; and I protest against examination being taken as the sole and only test of the fitness of candidates for those foundations."—[3 Hansard, cxii. 1498.
That was the language of the right hon. Gentleman. How, then, could he reconcile it with his support of the present measure? The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say:—
"What was wanted was, to see the Universities embracing a large number of persons from the poorer classes; and if they wished that object to be attained, they must not interfere in this way with the Universities. The noble Lord had large means in his hands of doing good in communication with the Universities; but the course he now followed held out but little hope of that, because the course now proposed would be resisted by the members and friends of the Universities; and whatever might be said of those Universities, it could not be denied that they formed a great,

693
powerful, and conspicuous figure in the history of this country."—[3 Hansard, cxii. 1511.]
What was meant by this was, the appointment of the Commission. The 28th clause, however, excluded indigence; how could the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, give it his support? The right hon. Gentleman then concluded with this proposition, that freedom and self-government were essential to the prosperity and welfare of the Universities. The Bill before the House did not say one word on that subject; it simply said to the colleges, if within a twelvemonth you do not do certain things, I'll step in, and make you do them. Was that the freedom and self-government which the right hon. Gentleman advocated as essential to the welfare of the University only four years ago? He (Sir J. Pakington) read these extracts because the interest felt by the University of Oxford on the question was intense, and because he had a right, when he found a Gentleman of the eminence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer using words so utterly irreconcilable with the principle of the Bill, to ask that right hon. Gentleman on what ground he had changed his opinions and views on the subject. He felt, also, that he had a right to claim the support of the right hon. Gentleman in virtue of what he had formerly advanced. If the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman had undergone that change—if they were in 1854 directly the reverse of what they were in 1850—he had a right to quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman against himself, and as an authority in favour of the views which he (Sir J. Pakington) was now advocating. He attached more weight to the opinions expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in 1850 than to those he now expressed, trammelled as the right hon. Gentleman now was by that strange alliance with a Government from which he was free when he first spoke on this subject. He wished, before he concluded, to call the attention of the House to the last words of the pamphlet of Mr. Woodgate, to which he had previously alluded, and which were as follows:—
"After looking at this scheme in all its bearing for several years, and trying it by all the tests which, in my opinion, honest men can recognise or prudent ones admit, I can only see in it perfidy towards the dead, injustice to the living, and cruel wrong to those who come after us."
These were hard words; but if they were true, they were not too hard. It was no light consideration, even if these words
694
were not true, that men of high standing and ability, of acknowledged piety and worth, should believe them to be true. He appealed to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) whether it would not be better, even at that time, and more likely to attain the object he had in view, if he were to attempt to frame the measure in a spirit of moderation and conciliation, so as to carry the support of the University along with him, and not allow it to feel that their feelings were outraged and their rights invaded. The noble Lord might, perhaps, boast of the division which had taken place the other day in the University of Oxford, when a trifling majority was obtained to petition against the Bill—a majority so trifling that some might suppose, if there had been a larger gathering of members of Convocation, that the division would have been equal. He would not stop to consider on which side of that division the greater weight of authority lay. The division itself was no matter for the noble Lord or the advocates of this Bill to boast of. Considered in the most favourable view, it only proved that the University was divided in opinion on this question. Was it well to have the University so divided? It would be far better, as he had already stated, to frame a moderate measure in a conciliatory spirit—a measure that would not outrage their sense of justice, less arbitrary in its character, less open to the objection of invading the rights of property, less tyrannous over the authority of the University than the present, and more in accordance with freedom, self-government, and the spirit of the Constitution. Admitting the necessity of change, he would, therefore, abstain—though he did so reluctantly—from resisting the Bill in its present stage. He clung to the hope that the noble Lord would still meet the opponents of the measure in a conciliatory spirit, and would make such concessions as would render it acceptable to those who disapproved of it. If the noble Lord should not do so, the opponents of the Bill must use their privilege, and endeavour in Committee to introduce the Amendments they deemed necessary. If they failed in these Amendments, he for one should not be able to assent to the third reading.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, that his object in rising to address the House was simply to state the view which he thought a liberal, and one who approved of the recommendations of the late Royal Commission

695
might fairly take of the present measure. He never regretted more than he did on the present occasion the exclusion of Dissenters from the University, and he almost felt ashamed to invite them to consider the reformation of an institution, from the benefits of which they were so studiously excluded. He thanked the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell), not only for the labour which he had bestowed upon the present Bill, but also for the courage and wisdom he had displayed in issuing the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the University. It must always remain as an immortal contribution rendered by the noble Lord to the cause of academical reform that he first broke ground on this subject, and invited Parliament to aid in dealing with the wealthy corporations of Oxford and Cambridge. It was impossible to appreciate either this measure or the objects at which the Commissioners had aimed, unless they considered the state of things which the Commissioners found existing in the University. No one could consider that as either creditable or satisfactory. No one single liberal study was prosecuted in a manner which could be regarded without shame and sorrow. Every liberal science had been sacrificed to the one pursuit of theology and the one object of educating clergymen; and it was not surprising that under these circumstances theology itself shared the general caducity and decline. Some colleges, notwithstanding their splendid endowments, did not even attempt to give instruction in the rudiments of mathematics. Physical science, in spite of the splendid names of Buckland and Daubeny, who filled professorial chairs, was so totally neglected, that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), in the able evidence which he gave to the Commission, dwelt upon the notorious disadvantages to which Oxford men found themselves exposed in colonial life, on account of their astonishing ignorance of the most ordinary laws of the physical world. Medicine, again, was so entirely neglected, that he (Mr. Blackett) only recollected two gentlemen going through the academical course as a preparation for the medical profession during the seven years that he was connected with the University. The remuneration for law lectures was but scanty, but it was more than sufficient, when they looked at the small number of students who, in threes and fours, presented themselves for instruction. The study of Greek
696
and Latin was conducted through the medium of the works of German and French professors; and even in the favourite study of theology, the failure of the University was conspicuous. Dr. Pusey, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, said, with reference to this point, "Instead of extending our usefulness, we have been gradually losing the preliminary education of the clergy." The Commissioners, in their Report, entered more into detail; they said:—
"Oxford still educates a large proportion of the clergy; but learned theologians are very rare in the University, and, in consequence, they are still rarer elsewhere. No efficient means at present exist in the University for training candidates for holy orders in those studies which belong peculiarly to their profession. A University training cannot indeed be expected to make men accomplished divines before they become clergymen; but the University must be to blame if theological studies languish. Few of the clergy apply themselves in earnest to the study of Hebrew. Ecclesiastical history, some detached portions excepted, is unknown to the great majority. The history of doctrines has scarcely been treated in this country. It may be safely stated that the Epistles of St. Paul have not been studied critically by the great bulk of those in orders."
Such was the state in which theology found itself in the great theological University of England. The Commissioners had no difficulty in tracing the failure of this institution to the suppression of the University, properly so called, and the substitution for it of a vast collegiate system; nor could they forget that the regulation first established by Archbishop Land, that each student should attach himself to a particular college, arose from his intention to suppress Puritanism in the University. It was remarkable that, from that moment, Oxford had more and more divorced herself from the progressive march of English thought and science. The first consequence of this step was, the government of the University was monopolised by the heads of colleges, and its teaching by the college tutors. It was to be remembered that the office of college tutor was generally filled by young clergymen, who, although in most instances, men of exemplary piety, zeal, and devotion, could, nevertheless, scarcely be expected to have acquired profound erudition on any one subject, yet they were called upon to teach on all. The effect of this was, to restrict the number of subjects on which the University professed to teach, and her inability to teach on more was only rendered more obvious by the recent endeavours to extend

697
the curriculum of studies. On this point the Tutors' Association said that there were two prominent defects in the University as regarded teachers and teaching; the first was the want of a body of instructors who, confining their attention to a single branch of study, should be capable of prosecuting it to its utmost limits; the second was the want of means to retain in the University men of eminence in a particular branch of knowledge, hardly any of the present tutors in Oxford looking on teaching as the business of their whole life, or as affording a preparation for future employment. As remedies for the two evils to which he had adverted, the Royal Commissioners proposed the establishment of a Board similar in its scope to that contemplated by the present measure, and the appointment of a strong staff of professors, endowed with funds sufficient to secure the services of the ablest men, and to make it worth their while to devote themselves to University teaching as the business of their lives. The funds for this purpose they proposed to provide by a suspension of fellowships in the different colleges. These principles had been accepted in the Government Bill. He thought the Government had done wisely in proposing to enact, that from the first day of next Michaelmas term, the authority of the heads of houses should cease; and it would have been well to apply the same principle to the college tutors and fellows. For he should no more think of leaving the Corporation of London to reform themselves, than of leaving it to the fellows of Oxford to strip themselves of their endowments to enrich a rival power, which they considered—he was sure most conscientiously—to be of a dangerous and most heterodox description. He thought it was most important that the House should see how professorial teaching, recommended, as it was, by the Commissioners, and adopted by the Bill, was disliked by the present authorities of the University of Oxford. The heads of colleges, in the Report they had lately issued, said that the scheme of the Royal Commissioners, with its ample staff of well-endowed professors, and its unattached students, was one which the University never knew, nor hoped to know, for it would tend, they feared, to substitute information for education and sciolism for religion. The Tutors' Association complained that the professors should be raised from a comparatively subordinate position, and should be invested with the almost ex-
698
clusive direction of the studies and examinations, while they (the tutors) would subside into mere channels for the dissemination of the professors' lessons. This was sufficient to show the House that, if they valued the establishment of professors at all, they must not leave their appointment at the mercy of a class of men who declared the jealousy and suspicion with which they regarded them. In fact, he had no hesitation in saying that a merely permissive enactment would be entirely nugatory. He must now invite the attention of the House to the clauses which related to the appointment of professors; but, before doing so, he must remark that he had never met with a Bill which it was so difficult to understand. A clause commenced with a liberal, sweeping enactment; but we then encountered checks and limitations to its operation which, he was sure, did not proceed from the hands of the noble Lord who introduced the measure. In fact, what was given with the right hand was taken away with the left, and too often the latter seemed to be the stronger hand. Take, for instance, the 38th clause; that enumerated a number of points on which the colleges were to be left free to make ordinances for the amendment of their Statutes, and the most important provision of the clause was that which enabled the colleges to contribute from their annual revenues a sum not exceeding a fifth part to the foundation or better endowment of professorships; and to diminish the number of fellowships or suspend payment of the emoluments of any such fellowships for that purpose. By the 41st clause, this power given to colleges was declared to cease at Michaelmas Term, 1855, and if the colleges had not by that time framed such ordinances for the approval of the Commissioners, then the Commissioners themselves were required to do it. But then came the 45th clause, which was perfectly unique in its kind, and a real marvel in legislation. After the powers given by the 38th and 41st clauses, the 45th clause literally negatived those powers, for it said that—.
"No statute should be proposed by the Commissioners, purporting to do any of the following things, with respect to any college, that was to say:—(1) Abolish any fellowship belonging thereto; or (2) Suspend the same for twenty years and upwards; or (3) Require the application of any fellowship to special studies when the whole number of the fellowships belonging thereto is not more than twelve; or (4) Cancel any Statute limiting elections to the headship to be from

699
among actual or past fellows of such college; or (5) Appoint any person extraneous to the college to exercise any authority therein; or (6) Abolish any oath other than such as may have been declared unlawful by the provisions of this Act—without giving to such college at least two months' notice of such intended Statute; and if the authorities of such college, including an absolute majority of the fellows, within the said period, declared in writing to the Commissioners that in their opinion such change would be injurious to the college, then no such change should he proposed by the Commissioners."
Again, the 38th clause gave the colleges power not only to diminish the number of fellowships with a view to the foundation of professorships, but to raise the income of the remaining fellowships to 250 l., and also to found scholarships in their own colleges. Now he would ask which step were the colleges likely to take first, to appoint professors, or to raise the income of the fellows? By the 44th clause, no college was to be called upon to contribute to the establishment of professorships unless it had twenty fellowships. If then they exercised their power of raising the income of their fellowships, he believed that no college, except Magdalen, would have twenty fellowships, and thus be liable to be called upon for a contribution. He had told the House what the tutors of Oxford felt, and in what way they looked upon the proposed new professorships. They had themselves stated how they intended to act in respect to the matter in which the Government invited their co-operation. A letter was addressed by the Home Secretary to the nineteen colleges at Oxford last year to ascertain how far they meant to act in conformity with the views of the Government. Out of the nineteen colleges eight sent no reply whatever; and this was not a case in which it could be said that silence gave consent. One of the colleges—Corpus Christi—had made a most handsome contribution, and had set a noble example by endowing a Latin professorship out of its own funds; Christ Church had offered an endowment of between 300 l. and 400 l. a year; and Merton College had promised to do its best in promoting this object. But what was the answer of the other colleges? Magdalen College offered to contribute in a proportion which it was hardly possible could be seriously intended. It offered to give 100 l. a year to one professor and 50 l. each per annum to two others, while the Royal Commissioners stated their opinion that it ought to support three professors at 800 l. a year each. The other colleges
700
did not tender any contributions, but assigned various reasons for declining to assist in carrying out the scheme of the Commissioners. He thought this must show the House that it was utterly impospossible to trust to a measure so purely permissive as the present for the endowment of professorships out of the college funds. There was, he considered, one point connected with the regulation of the University with respect to which he thought all parties would agree—that was, with respect to the recommendation of the Commissioners that the idle and nugatory oaths that now defaced the college Statutes should be repealed. The Government attacked this question in the 24th clause, but they only proposed to remove those oaths which bound the authorities of the colleges to resist any change in the Statutes. Surely they could not be aware of what oaths there were in the college Statutes—that the fellows of Merton College swore to talk Latin at dinner in the college hall, and the Fellows of All Souls that the porter should shave them once a week. It was absolute profanation to continue the administration of such oaths as these. It was true that the 41st clause gave the Commissioners the power to make Statutes; but then the 45th clause forbade them to abolish oaths other than those to which he had adverted, without the sanction of the colleges. The obligation of these oaths had been made by some of the heads a pretext for resisting the Royal Commission, and he thought it was a matter too serious to be left to the determination of these parties. The next point was the abolition of local preferences, in regard to which the noble Lord had, in his opening speech, laid down most just and wise principles. The Royal Commissioners recommended that all such preferences should be abolished, and merit in examination made the sole ground of election. Clause 28 did abolish them with certain exceptions; Clause 29 excepted the founder's descendants for ever, and his collaterals for 100 years; Clause 30 excepted the heirs of future founders for fifty years; Clause 31 excepted the cases of close scholars, and of the inhabitants of districts having a population of less than 100,000. As an instance of the present effect of these local preferences, he might mention the case of Mr. Senior, who was elected to a Berkshire fellowship, although he had not been in that county since he was six years old; but he happened to have been born there,

701
and was therefore entitled to a preference. The late Mr. O'Connell used to boast that he could drive a coach-and-six through any Act of Parliament, and no doubt the fellows of Magdalen and New College would find means to drive through the present measure. The next point was most important of all, namely, the obligation imposed on fellows of taking holy orders. The Commissioners proposed to abolish this on the very proper ground that persons otherwise indisposed for them might be placed under the temptation to assume these sacred functions from pecuniary considerations; another reason was, that the multitude of these clerical fellowships tended to fill Oxford with theological controversies. Clause 34 proposed to do away with the obligation; it provided that no person should be liable to vacate his fellowship by reason of his not taking orders so long as not less than three-fourths of the fellows were in orders. The succeeding clauses as to residence, however, tended to diminish the attraction for laymen. Clause 35 provided that a lay fellow might be excused from residence for five years, but surely five years were not sufficient to start a man in the profession of law or physic. Clause 36 gave great privileges to fellows in holy orders as to non-residence; it exempted the incumbents of parishes within three miles of Carfax, and of those in which the college owned the great tithes or any property in land, and it named no limitation as to the value of them. Merton College held two livings in Northumberland, of which they owned the tithes; at present, a fellow accepting either vacated his fellowship, but under this Bill he need not. He held in his hand a document, signed by several members of the University, amongst others by two members of the Royal Commission and the secretary, which declared their conviction that the proposed provisions would only tend to preserve the exclusive ecclesiastical character of the University, and they especially referred to Clauses 34, 36, and 38. They expressed their belief that the number of college livings was sufficient inducement to the fellows to take orders. He wished to call the attention of the Liberal Members of the House to the fact that the noble Lord had deliberately departed from and run counter to the recommendation of the eminent individuals whom he had chosen to inquire into the state of the University, and who were Liberals themselves, as all persons selected by him ought to be. The pro-
702
posed measure must materially diminish the influence of laymen in the University, and diminish the meagre encouragement given to the prosecution of the liberal studies. If it was thought that this was a point of no importance, he would refer to the conduct of the opponents of the measure. They knew perfectly well the influence Oxford must exercise on education in England—that as they increased or lessened the predominance of the clerical element in the University so it would be through the country in general. Dr. Pusey had declared that this was the question, whether the education of the country was to be in the hands of the clergy or the laymen? In former days the work of education was in the hands of the clergy; as they then had the monopoly of learning, of course they had that of teaching. He felt that the maintenance of the clerical element in education would only tend to check the spread of the liberal sciences, which had grown up under the genius and industry of laymen. The susceptibility of the clerical character was not suited to calm investigation. An example had lately been set in the education of the individual in whom all England took the highest interest. He believed it was a fact that as soon as Mr. Birch took holy orders, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales was removed from his care, and a layman selected to educate the future King of England. It might be said that Oxford was a place for the education of the clergy, but this was a dangerous argument; to attempt to keep Oxford as a nursery for the Church was incompatible with its position as a sanctuary of literature. Any one who had known Oxford for the last twenty years must be aware how it had been distracted with bitter theological discussion, often on such points as the lighting of a candle or the colour of a gown; sometimes, certainly, on points of great importance, but far better suited for a synod than a school of science. During the time that he had known Oxford, only two books of European reputation had issued from the University press—Arnold's History of Rome, and Liddell and Scott's Lexicon—whilst every little town in Germany, as Heidelberg and Gottingen, was pouring forth works that were to be the basis of Oxford teaching. The clerical inhabitants of Oxford were occupied in theological controversies that produced the persecution of Dr. Hampden, Dr. Pusey, and Mr. Gorham, and had lately shown their influ-

703
ence in the attack on Mr. Maurice. It appeared to him that there was one great omission in the Bill—it did not provide for the admission of Dissenters to the University. But they ought to take care not to do anything that would tend to perpetuate their exclusion; they would do so if they strengthened the clerical element. In the observations he had made, he believed that he had appealed to no principles which would not be recognised by hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House; he had attempted to show that it was utterly hopeless to suppose that the colleges would strip themselves of their endowments to enrich a rival college; he had pointed out the baneful effect of retaining a heap of profane and idle oaths to insult morality and to perplex weak consciences, and, above all, he had shown the bad effect of the Bill in increasing the clerical element of the University. Of course, he did not expect Conservatives and High Churchmen to agree with him in the opinions he had expressed, nor was he much moved by the satisfaction with which the measure had been received at Oxford, but, on the contrary, he looked upon it on that account with greater suspicion. When had the University of Oxford ever before accepted a measure of the noble Lord's with satisfaction? Did he think that Oxford had really abandoned her Conservative principles? He believed that the noble Lord had not well considered the effect of all the clauses in the Bill, and he hoped he would consent to expunge some of them in Committee; for, if not, he should be compelled to admit that this measure was a departure from the wise principles which had been laid down by the Royal Commissioners, and that it was not a measure which the Liberal leader of the House of Commons ought to recommend the Liberal Members of that House to adopt.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, he had taken great pains to attain an accurate knowledge of the measure, for it was one in which he took a deep interest. He and those most intimately connected with him owed all the advantages of their station and position in life to the University which was the subject of this debate, and if the Bill he supported would produce the result foretold by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington), he would be guilty of black ingratitude and the basest treachery, not only in supporting, but in not opposing it to the utmost of his power; but he did not believe that the measure was open to the grave objections so strongly though tempe-
704
rately urged against it by the right hon. Member for Droitwich. The Government had every reason to be satisfied with the reception it had met with in Oxford, and in the country at large. Two gentlemen had from the same premises arrived at the most opposite conclusions with respect to the measure now before the House. The right hon. Member for Droitwich charged the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with giving up the University to the Commission, whilst the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Blackett) made an attack on the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) for having given up the recommendations of the Commission to the prejudices of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The one accusation might fairly be set against the other, and the conclusion of reasonable men that the Bill was drawn in a spirit of temperate, wise, sincere, but conciliatory reform. He had heard with much satisfaction the dignified and temperate speech of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heathcote); it was worthy of the constituency be represented; and he was pleased to find that his only objections to the measure were such as might be obviated in Committee. He understood him to agree with the Government except as to the clauses relating to the schools and open fellowships. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) had opened a question of much difficulty, which would require much future careful discussion, as to the question of founders' wills. It was not without much consideration that he (Mr. R. Phillimore) had arrived at the conclusion that the Government were justified in introducing these clauses. But it appeared to him, after much reflection, that the right of Parliament to legislate upon this subject could not be denied upon any maintainable ground. He would ask the House to consider on what principle wills were held sacred in every country. People were accustomed to consider this as a matter of natural law, but it could not be placed on such a footing. Nothing could à priori be more extraordinary than that a man should be enabled to declare what should become of his property long after he had been mouldering in the dust. The truth was, that this power, however deeply rooted in the practice and habits of all nations, was a mere creation of positive law. It was limited in all countries of Europe, but in none more so than in this, where so many restrictions were imposed

705
on the testamentary power. On what grounds, in a case of eleemosynary bequest, is the bequeather to say, "My property shall be devoted for ever to such and such purposes, and any one who alters it in any one respect will be guilty of a violation of trust?" Can any one approve of such a doctrine? The whole matter was a question more of discretion and degree than of principle and right. He would not say that they had a right to tamper with such a bequest lightly, and without cause; but the Legislature had a right to consider the circumstances under which the original bequest was made, and, placing itself in the position of the founder, try to ascertain what, if he were now alive, would be his wishes with regard to the bequest. Two things were to be looked at, which must not be confounded—the main object and the specific character of the bequest. If they found that, in any instance, a minute attention to the specific character would conflict with the paramount object of the founder, the Legislature might step in and say, "We will do what the founder would do if he were now alive." It is admitted that time and circumstances have compelled a departure in many respects from the original System, and any further change is surely, therefore, a question of degree rather than of adherence to principle. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford had said that he was perfectly satisfied with the provisions as to the founders' kin in lineal descent, but not quite with those as to collateral relations; but it can easily be shown that they are justifiable. It is urged, with very great probability, that those making these bequests had in view the provisions of the canon law, which would limit the number so entitled. In the case of one college that view was taken by the visitors; and supported by the decision of a court of law. If they considered the circumstances of the time when the bequests were made, they would give power to the colleges to make alterations, as the only means of carrying into effect the paramount intentions of the founders: the Colonies were not then in existence; Scotland was at that time a separate kingdom, and the country torn by civil war; some districts were favoured on the ground of their poverty, which no longer had that claim to preference. It was stated in a pamphlet by Mr. W. Thompson, that some of the most valuable preferments in Queen's College were given to natives of the counties of Westmoreland and Cumberland
706
on account of the devastation of the country, and the great difficulty of finding educated men in the district. These reasons no longer existed. Surely the founder would not persist in these restrictions if he saw these counties now teeming with mineral wealth, and heard of the eminent men they had sent forth, and found that the restriction did not promote general literature, but had a contrary effect. Moreover, with respect to the illegality of altering the provisions of the founder, it must not be wholly forgotten that when those provisions were made there then existed a dispensing power in the head of the Church, which is more than once alluded to in the Statutes of the different colleges. Any person looking calmly into the case must come to the conclusion that when cause for change is shown, it was a question of degree rather than principle. They ought not to be deterred from making a beneficial change by the fact that the institution depended on the will of a person who had been dead for 500 years. Another point to which many persons entertained a great objection was the proposed endowment of professorships in the University by the suppression of fellowships in the different colleges; but he did not think that the clause justified the conclusion to which some hon. Members had come. In his opinion it did not propose to take the fellowships from the colleges to endow professorships altogether independent of them, but in certain cases and under certain restrictions gave power to the colleges to establish professorships which might be confined to their own fellows. At present a number of the most important professorships were held by callous of Christ Church. In Magdalen and Corpus Christi the founders devoted portions of the revenues to support professorships for the benefit of the University at large. It was said that the interference with local and family preferences would dry up the sources of eleemosynary bounty. To this he would answer, if the future founder was a person of judgment and good sense, he would not desire that at no time, and under no circumstances, no alteration should be made; if he were a person who wished to exercise such an unreasonable power, he must say that the University would be better without such bequests, which had heretofore exercised, in some respects, an unfavourable influence on her fortunes. He did not believe,

707
however, that any person who meant to endow a college would be deterred by the reflection that his foundation, like every human institution, was liable to change. With respect to the clause relating to the abrogation of oaths, he held that the State was the imposer of oaths, and that if the great corporation might alter or repeal oaths, but could not empower the inferior corporation, like the college, to do so, a manifest absurdity would ensue. The hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Blackett) complained that Government had not adopted all the recommendations of the Commissioners. Now, he had a great respect for the Commissioners—he knew several of them personally—he had a high opinion of their talents; but he could conceive no course more tyrannical than that any propositions that were made by these four or five gentlemen should be subject to no modification by Parliament, but must be accepted or rejected as a whole. Then he thought it was very strange that the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) said he had no exception to take to the names of the Commissioners appointed by Government, but that there was no security for the character of their successors. For his part he could not see the force of this argument; or why if the right hon. Gentleman approved of the present Commissioners, he should suppose that the appointment of their successors would be made under the influence of worse motives than those which had dictated the selection of the present gentlemen. It was important to bear in mind throughout this debate the great distinction that there was between the University and the colleges—a distinction often forgotten, perhaps hardly recognised even, by many hon. Members present; and with reference to that subject the immense importance that attached to the establishment of private halls under proper academical restraints. He confessed he looked upon the establishment of these halls not with the certainty, but with the reasonable hope, that they would introduce to the University a large class of his poorer fellow-countrymen, and open to them the inestimable blessings of a University education. With regard to the question relating to the alteration in the scholarships now belonging to public schools, he agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heathcote). He had himself been educated at the old school of Westminster,
708
and he could not forget that Christ Church derived its studentship in the time of Queen Elizabeth through Westminster, and that but for Westminster they would not have been granted. He had listened with great pleasure to the eloquent and the just eulogium which the hon. Baronet had passed upon the school of Winchester. He thought he could furnish a list of alumni nearly as splendid from Westminster. He at all events counted upon having the sympathy of the noble Lord below him (Lord John Russell), for he was one of Westminster's most distinguished scholars. He counted also upon having the sympathy of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty for Westminster, and also might claim him as one of her ablest sons; and if he had time to run through the list, he believed he would be able to claim various other Members of the Administration as distinguished Westminster scholars. Therefore, when this question came before the Committee, when the hon. Baronet struck in for Winchester, he would strike in for Westminster, and he would do so with the more confidence, because her scholarships at Trinity College, Cambridge, and her studentships at Christ Church, Oxford, were open to all the scholars in the school; and he must say for himself, that the examination he had undergone, in order to obtain admission to St. Peter's College, Westminster, was more severe and arduous than any that he had been subjected to since. Upon the whole matter he was very anxious not to be misunderstood. Far be it from him to say that Oxford had either betrayed her trust or forfeited her privileges. That was the language of extravagant calumny, not of sober truth. The history of the country would refute the accusation. For his own part, he could never forget the magnificent hall of Christ Church, in which it had been his good fortune to be educated. He could never forget those walls, adorned with the portraits of those students whom that great house had reared to do illustrious service to the Church and State of these realms. He remembered well the effect which was produced upon his own mind, and upon the minds of his fellow-students, when they first looked upon the portrait of Grenville, associated as it was with all that was profound in civil wisdom, all that was erudite and elegant in scholarship, all that was manly in eloquence, all that was upright in moral character. He remembered also—he felt as if he saw

709
it now—the portrait of another student, the portrait of George Canning, beaming with all those rich and varied endowments which formed in rare combination the character of that most accomplished statesman. There, too, well fitted to excite the virtuous emulation of their successors, was a goodly array of other students, who had carried into the dust and fray of active life the inestimable advantage of the habits which they had acquired, the precious fruit of the studies which they had prosecuted within the fostering shelter of those walls.
"Quique sui memores alios fecêre merendo."
There, too, he trusted would one day be—as he was absent at this moment he might say so—the portrait of another student whom it was his high privilege to call his friend, and with whom he had been a fellow-student at the University of Oxford—he alluded to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was sure it would be admitted on all sides of the House—even by his political enemies, for personal foes he had none—it would, he said, be admitted by all those on both sides of the House who heard his admired and admirable speech on the Budget last year—which, with the most enlarged statesmanlike views, combined a mastery over the most minute and complicated details—how false the charge brought against the University was, that she had men of classical acquirements indeed, and of elegant minds, but that she did not equip them for the hard practical business of the life of public men. It was not only his personal friends, nor his party, but the whole House who on that occasion—
"Sensêre
Quid mens rite, quid indoles
Nutrita faustis sub penetralibus
Posset."
He must say, in conclusion, that he supported this measure because he believed that the main scope and tendency of it was to increase the efficiency, to widen and strengthen the foundations of the University, to which he was deeply attached—because in the language of the Statute of Elizabeth, which incorporated the University, "it was to increase the good and godly literature, and the virtuous education of youth;" and in the language of the greatest of that Queen's councillors—Lord Bacon—"it was for the glory of God and for the relief of man's estate."
MR. WARNERsaid, he thought the noble Lord might congratulate himself and
710
Her Majesty's Government on the fact that the House had had an opportunity of reading this Bill, for the objections against it were fewer now than had been urged on a former occasion. They had heard very little to-night on the subject of confiscation as compared with what was said when the measure was first introduced. Something had been said on the subject of the endowments of public schools. He thought the House ought to deal very gently with the scholarships attached to particular schools; but he could not at all agree with those who argued that the appropriation of University funds to college purposes was to be considered as a measure of spoliation. He thought enough had been said that evening to show the absurdity of supposing that the University either could or would reform itself. Not that he meant to attach much blame to the University, because he knew the difficulty in their way, on account of the oaths that were imposed upon the governing bodies, and, indeed, upon all the members of the University, which led to immorality and to difficulties of various kinds. It was notorious that when young men came up for matriculation oaths were put to them to observe the Statutes which it was quite impossible that any man could keep. And how did they get over this difficulty? Why the head of the college, surrounded by the tutors, called up the young men, and delivered to them an opinion, ex cathedrâ, that they were to observe these Statutes in a non-natural sense—that was to say, that they were to submit to the punishment provided for those Statutes which they broke. This might be said to be the first lesson they were taught, to disregard the sanctity of an oath. He thought it would be better to get rid of the whole system than to maintain a practice like that. He regretted that the Bill did not propose to remove the tests which proved only a stumbling-block to the conscience, and which excluded a large portion of the community from the benefits of the University. He hoped that this provision would yet be introduced into the Bill, for the present system was more injurious to the Universities than to those whom it excluded. Even for the purposes of the Church the tests were absurdly stringent, because, though all the students were at present members of the Church of England, yet all were not designed to be clergymen; but this system made no distinction whatever. He objected, also, to the continuance

711
of those provisions which compelled so large a proportion of fellows to take holy orders, and enjoined compulsory residence; the last provision having this effect, that it precluded the fellows from following any other pursuit than that of theology. A great deal had been said against the professorial system provided for in the Bill, as if it militated against the system of tutors. In his mind it did no such thing. He would vote in favour of this Bill, because he thought it would tend to break up the established system in Oxford, which he was afraid had become far too antiquated for the country. But at the same time he hoped that various points would be considered in Committee, especially those which compelled all the students to subscribe to a test that was rejected by half the population of England. However that might be settled, he hoped that the Bill would be passed, and that when the Commissioners were got fairly to work, the University would be brought into a more efficient state than it had ever yet been of late years. Still he could not avoid looking forward to the possibility that the intentions of the Legislature might, after all, be defeated by the resistance of those who were opposed to all change. If so, he trusted that Parliament would, in another Session, pass a far more stringent measure. Without some such measure of extensive and compulsory reform, he feared that Oxford would never be brought to bear a comparison, as a seat of learning, with her European rivals, nor would ever again be restored to the splendour and the world-wide fame of her earlier days.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he rose to express the great regret with which he learned that no Member of weight in the House was prepared to divide against the Bill. The hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Blackett) rested his main argument for the appointment of professors on the ground that it would take the education of youth out of the hands of the clergy, and that it would tend to diminish theological controversy. The hon. Member quoted his own experience, and he appealed to the experience of others, to prove that theological controversy was more bitter at Oxford than in any other part of the country. Experience could only be met by experience; and he must say, that in his experience he had found that while controversy was bitter in other parts of the country, in Oxford it was comparatively mild. The hon. Member had cited several cases of theological controversy that of
712
late had agitated the country. But he begged to remind the House that the two last cases quoted by the hon. Member—those of Mr. Gorham and of Mr. Maurice—had no connection whatever with Oxford. He remembered in 1851, when he left Oxford, the whole country resounded with theological disputations—when every town was protesting against what was termed the Papal Aggression—and at that time he left Oxford calm, while he found London in a storm; and this not because there was any backwardness in Oxford—she had protested through her own constituted authorities—but simply because she had a larger knowledge of the subject, because the clergy were her teachers, and because the controversy having been well studied by them, they were able to take a calm view of it in all its various bearings. It was perfectly clear that the extension of the University and the institution of professors were within the power of the governing body of the University; and if it should be said that that body showed an unwillingness to act in the matter, then it might be very proper to infuse into them some fresh blood. Within the last few weeks the governing body of the University had put forth a scheme of reform, as matured and as well calculated to work efficiently, as that which had been introduced by the Government, and even if the Government had had some objections to minor points, surely a little negotiation, and a little less of a resisting spirit, might have produced some conciliatory propositions; but the Government were actuated by no such spirit, for when they sent their scheme down to Oxford, the only persons who were excluded from all knowledge of it, were those who had the government of the University. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was understood to dissent from this statement.] He did not make that statement of his own knowledge, but he had been assured of it by competent authority. He must say it seemed to him that the institution of these professorships, the establishment of private halls, might have been effected by the governing body themselves, and without the dangerous precedent of Parliamentary authority, and a precedent, too, which was a violation of the constitution of the University. What seemed to him the main objection of the Bill was, that it swept away at one blow all the preferences which the founders of colleges had shown for the place of their birth, all the preferences for the schools with which they had been con-

713
nected, all the preferences for kindred, with the exception of one, the generosity of which could not fail to be appreciated—it proposed to admit the lineal descendants of the founders. This exception was little better than an insult, for, with two exceptions, he believed not one of the founders had left lineal descendants at all. One hon. Gentleman who supported the confiscation of fellows argued that the founders had no right to tie up this property for generations and for centuries. But then, if that were so, the analogy of private estates ought to be followed, and if the will of the founders was to be overturned, let the property return to the heir, in the natural course of law. It was a vulgar popular error to talk of these foundations as having existed for many centuries. It was true that some of them did, but it must be remembered that fellowships and scholarships without number had been established within the last 300 years. The hon. and learned Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore) said it was a mockery to talk of the colleges as keeping their Statutes. Now, it might be true that some colleges might have broken their Statutes, but that was by no means the case with all. Magdalen and Corpus might have violated their Statutes, but was that a reason for punishing Worcester and All Souls, that had not? They might as well disfranchise Liverpool, because Hull was corrupt. Then it was said by the hon. and learned Member, that the altered state of the country would induce the founders, if they lived now, to alter their bequests. But it curiously enough happened, that within the last ten years a man had founded a number of fellowships upon precisely the same antiquated restrictions which generally prevailed. The hon. and learned Gentleman also argued that the founders contemplated an alteration in their Statutes, because there was a constant reference in their Statutes to the dispensing power, which was then admitted to reside in the Pope. It was very true that there was that constant reference to the dispensing power, but what was the nature of the reference? Why, the fellows of the different colleges were then bound by the most solemn oaths that they would never, under any circumstances, have recourse to the dispensing power. The right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) had very ably argued the constitutional grounds on which this Bill ought to be rejected. He (Lord R. Cecil) would rather rely upon the
714
narrower and more commercial ground, but which he thought would appeal more closely to popular sympathies; namely, that if they squandered in this manner the endowments of the various founders, they would have no more endowments to deal with again. What Confidence could there be that some future Ministry, with the word Conservative on its lips, but destruction in its hand, would not drive home the wedge now introduced, and altogether destroy these endowments? The supporters of the measure might be prepared to state that they considered it a final one, but Parliament and the country must be aware by this time of the value to be attached to any such statement. In the year 1842, Sir Robert Peel had asked his Protectionist supporters to sacrifice a portion of their privileges for the sake of obtaining a final adjustment of the question then in dispute, but they all knew how long that adjustment had lasted. Then, again, they were at present asked to reform the final Reform Bill of 1832; and it further appeared, that although the main argument adduced in favour of Roman Catholic emancipation in 1829 had been, that it would set the Roman Catholic question at rest for ever, they were in this very Session called upon to pull down the last bulwark left by that measure against the attacks of the most relentless foes of the Established Church. He could not believe that the Bill then under the consideration of the House would satisfy those who wished to convert the Universities into pensioners of the State, and he feared that if it were to pass into law it would ultimately lead to the accomplishment of the views of those who were anxious to separate the Universities from the Church.
MR. G. E. H. VERNONcomplimented the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) who had just sat down on the ability and argumentative nature of his first speech in that House. He differed from the noble Lord, however, in one material point. It was because he thought that this measure had been brought forward not in any hostile spirit to the University, but, on the contrary, in a just, generous, and conciliatory spirit, that he (Mr. Vernon) should support the second reading of the Bill, however much he might object to some of its provisions in detail. He rejoiced to find that there was a considerable difference between this measure and the Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners, on which it had mainly been founded. There were

715
differences, not merely of detail, but also of principle. He was ready and glad to offer his tribute of acknowledgment to the labours of the Commissioners, and to the ability with which their Report had been drawn; and, if he did not entirely agree with all their views, he gave them full credit for conscientious earnestness of purpose. Their Report had created much, and not unnatural alarm in Oxford. It had been at once assumed that the measure of the Government must necessarily embody all the suggestions of the Report, and some prejudice had been excited against it in consequence. Could any one wonder that some anxiety was entertained? Could any one who looked back to a place, which, despite of regrets for time mis-spent, and opportunities wasted, was endeared to him by a thousand recollections,—could any one who had formerly paced the High Street and the Long Walk, who carried with him the memory of his first responsibilities in life, of his early struggles, perhaps of his early successes,—could any one who still cherished, as one of his greatest privileges, the friendships first formed and cemented within some college quadrangle,—could any one influenced by these feelings and these recollections fail to have taken a deep interest in a measure vitally affecting that great institution? But there were men who for years had lived in the exercise of powers and in submission to restraints which the University imposed—men who looked up to her with a fond reverence which nothing less ancient, nothing less venerable could have inspired; and was it strange if they should be unable to contemplate propositions of great change without alarm? was it strange that they should be loath to see an institution which they so reverenced tampered with, and, as they believed, placed in danger? Those who supposed that the able and learned men who were concerned in the conduct of the University wished to hide her defects from the public eye, or to cloak over her sins of omission and commission, did the great majority of them an injustice, and he believed that this opinion could only be held by narrow-minded and illiberal men. He regretted, indeed, that the authorities of the University had not thought it consistent with their duty—he would not say with their interests—to have afforded more general, full, and complete information to the Commissioners. Whatever doubts there might have been—and grave doubts had existed as to the legality
716
of the Commission—however difficult might have been the position of the heads of houses, hampered and restricted as they were by old statutes, and by oaths involving "Anathema," "the wrath of God," and other dreadful penalties—however much crippled they might feel—still, he thought they would have taken a fairer and a more prudent course if they had contented themselves with a formal protest against the Commission, and if they had then given full information to the Commissioners as to every particular which they wished to ascertain. Such had not been the case, and he regretted it, since thereby the difficulties of the Commissioners were much increased. He must say that all who had the interests of the University at heart, must, under the circumstances, feel greatly indebted to the Commissioners for the Report which had been presented to Parliament. It would be a mistake, he should observe, to suppose that the University had been wholly inactive in the cause of improvement. Something had been done in this respect. Even since he had left the University, many restrictions had been withdrawn from colleges, and certainly the Examination statute which had been passed was a very decided improvement. The most remarkable sign, perhaps, of the reforming spirit of the University, was the association of a number of gentlemen who were tutors of colleges, and it was only necessary to refer to the able Reports which they had issued, to bear out his assertion. Still, though something had been done, and was being done, much more was wanted to bring the University to a level with the requirements of the time. The Government had judiciously profited by the opinions and information which they had received from various sources. Without entering into discussion of the details of the Bill in this stage of its progress, he would proceed shortly to notice a few of its leading principles. The first point to which he would advert, as a matter of principle, was the question of legislative freedom for the University. It was impossible for the University to move unless she were freed from the harassing restrictions which were imposed upon her and the colleges. The next point to which he wished to call the attention of the House was the formation of the Initiative Board, from which all questions of internal reform in the University must proceed, and upon which, in fact, would depend the management of the studies in the University. Upon it hinged the whole

717
question, not only of the details of the studies and examinations in the colleges and University, but of the manner in which those studies and examinations should be conducted. It involved the vexed question of the professorial and tutorial systems. In this respect he felt especially grateful to the Government for not having bound themselves hand and foot to the Report of the Commissioners. He was not prepared so to alter the direction of the studies, however much he might desire to see those studies extended, as to throw them entirely under the governance of men who, however able and respectable they might be, would have few objects really in common, and would not, he believed, constitute a body the most likely to give the safest direction to the studies of the University. For the best vindication of the two systems he would refer, on the one hand, to the able and striking evidence given by Professor Pusey to the Hebdomadal Council; and, on the other, to the evidence, and recently published pamphlet, almost unequalled perhaps in beauty of language and logical power of argument, of Professor Vaughan. He did not propose to engage in this controversy now; he would confine himself to one remark. Professor Vaughan said that "a professor is the science or subject vitalised and humanised in the student's presence," and that "the type is a poor substitute for the human voice—it has no means of arousing, moderating, or adjusting the attention." He (Mr. Vernon) could, however, conceive the case of a professor, a man selected for his great learning and attainments, but yet who did not possess the charm of voice or of manner which are necessary to arouse and arrest the attention; whose lectures (to use the words of a great poet)—
"——neither ebb nor flow,
Correctly cold, and regularly low;
That, shunning faults, one quiet tenor keep:
We cannot blame indeed, but we can sleep."
His hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), who had been a great intellectual ornament to the University, and one of the mainstays of a system of private tuition which had prevailed for many years, had given some evidence to the Commissioners. His hon. Friend complained of the college tutorial system very much, but, he said, he had no great hopes of much being done by a professorial system. He evidently had a strong partiality for the system of private tuition, though, he admitted, there was an obvious objec-
718
tion to it on the score of expense. His hon. Friend seemed, however, chiefly to object to it because it had occupied him for some time at the rate of ten hours a day. He (Mr. Vernon) could speak from experience to this being the fact, for, when at the University and reading for honours, he had been desirous of securing the valuable assistance of his hon. Friend as a private tutor. He was informed, however, that Mr. Lowe was then already engaged with eight or nine pupils, and great as was his respect for the abilities of his hon. Friend, he had thought it better to secure a third or half of the time and attention of some one else, rather than be content with one-tenth of the attention of his hon. and learned Friend. He was most anxious that professors, as such, should have a proper status in the University, and that their teaching should enter into the regular course of University education; but he believed that, on the whole, an improved tutorial system in colleges ought to be maintained as of paramount importance; for each student required more or less individual assistance and explanation for his own particular difficulties. He (Mr. Vernon) thought that the Government had taken a just and temperate view of this question. With regard to close fellowships and scholarships, and the distinctions between local and school preferences, the time would come hereafter when they must enter minutely into this subject, and he, therefore, would, for the present, only say that, having been a student at Christ Church, and having belonged to Westminster School, he should be the last to consent to see that school deprived of what he believed to be its just rights. As to University extension, he could not say that he thought much would be done by the mere provisions of this Bill to effect that object, and he looked more to the general moral tone of the University to do this. Perhaps this was a fitting time for the expression of his opinion that he was unable to see why religions tests should continue to be required upon admission into the University. He had thought over this question with great anxiety, and he had come to the conscientious conclusion, that there was no real reason why they should not put Oxford on the same footing with Cambridge on this point. He could not consent to give up the endowments of colleges to members of sects dissenting from the Church of England, but, friendly as he was, warmly attached as he was to the Church to which

719
he belonged, he could not see that she would receive any injury by the admission of those who dissented from her to the general benefits of the University. In conclusion, he would say that he had no desire that the University should be a mere literary forcing bed, but he would excite her members to freer exertion in a more extensive range of science and letters. He wished that she might enlarge her sphere of usefulness without losing anything of her character as a place for training the youth of England in liberal studies—for the engendering of liberal and generous sentiments, for developing sound judgment, and for the encouragement of manly competition. He wished that high and lowly born might, even more widely than now, be there taught to be gentlemen in the highest sense of the word—to be men of gentle manners and gentle minds. He wished to see restrictions on the power of improvement removed—to see the University and colleges in the enjoyment of legislative freedom. He wished that new avenues should be opened for academical honours in many new branches of knowledge for which the special habits and tastes of studies might fit them. He wished that endowments should be rendered available for the assistance of poor and meritorious persons, for their encouragement in the prosecution of study, and their future advancement in life; and he wished to see the greatest number possible attracted to the teaching of the University. Much might be done, and much, he believed, would be done, through the instrumentality of this measure, without in any way hindering a main purpose of that noble institution—the education for the ministry of our national Church of a learned and pious clergy.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, the Bill consisted of two parts, one of which related to the University, and the other to the colleges. Seeing that both the Members for the University of Oxford concurred in that portion of the Bill which related to the government of the University, it might seem presumptuous to make suggestions; but he could not help calling attention to that provision which gave the right to Congregation of assembling and speaking in the English language, and debating the Statutes. Bacon, in his Essay on the Advancement of Learning, pointed out the requisites for the constitution of a University, and, particularly mentioning the importance of perfect tranquillity, com-
720
pares the condition which should be sought to that of bees—
"Principio sedes apibus statioque petenda
Quo neque sit ventis aditus."
Now, what would be the result with respect to the constitution now proposed? The Congregation before whom the Statutes would be brought for debate would consist of about 250 members; and, considering the probability of such a body being split into sections and parties, he would leave the House to judge how far the scheme would be likely to check those tempests which Bacon deprecated as so injurious to learning. That was a point of the utmost importance, and one which particularly deserved the attention of those members of the University of Oxford who took an interest in its well-being. The second portion of the Bill related to the colleges. In that respect the measure was, in his opinion, open to the objection, that it would impair that collegiate system which had hitherto been the distinguishing characteristic of the English Universities as contrasted with the Universities of other countries. It was proposed, in the first place, that the teachers who were to be a part of the governing body should consist of the professors only, and not include tutors of colleges. He could not see why it was not left to the electors to select either tutors or professors, and he thought the effect of that provision would be to throw undue power into the hands of the professors as contrasted with the college tutors. Then with respect to private halls, they might or might not be good things, but private halls, connected with the old system of the University, would have answered the purpose, and have maintained the English system—a system which had conferred great advantage, and against which he had heard no charge. The 28th clause of the Bill prohibited preference by reason of any membership of any college. He was astonished at such a prohibition. He considered it most objectionable. He was surprised, because the college of Trinity, to which he belonged, had become distinguished by this very system, and there the scholars were selected entirely from the members of colleges, and the fellows from scholars. Under the collegiate system you had the advantages of competition between different colleges, and under the new system, these advantages would be lost. With regard to the proposed general abolition of preferences, he could not agree with the ingenious arguments of

721
the Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore), who said that the protection conceded to these preferences was of an artificial kind. He must deny that assertion. It was a protection founded upon principles of justice, which were patent and plain, and which nothing could justify the violation of. The founder or donor gave property, annexing a condition to the gift, and you had no right to retain the property, and to reject the appropriation which he had made the condition of the gift. It was urged that in some of these cases the alteration of circumstances was such that there could be no doubt that in the proposed alteration you were doing right. Now the question was not whether circumstances might exist in a particular case which would justify you in making a change, but whether you were justified in passing such a law as this, and saying, without distinction or discrimination, that in all cases of this kind no preference should be allowed, except in cases of a very limited kind, to be approved of by the Commissioners at their sole will and discretion. It might be said that in some instances the condition was arbitrary, but this was no answer. The condition was the motive of the bequest, and but for it you would have never got the property. Nor was it as if these preferences necessarily were pernicious and introduced into the college a set of drones and idlers. Such was not the case. It had been judicially decided long since that the rule with regard to a right of preference was, detur, sed detur digno, and candidates might be and had been refused who had not sufficient attainments to fill the place with credit to themselves and to the college. There were several other clauses which were open to the like objection, especially the 34th, which provided that in a college in which three-fourths of the fellows were in holy orders, the remaining fourth need not be so. The effect of this would be to allow one-fourth of the fellows to violate the Statutes on condition that three-fourths should observe them. If the original terms of the foundation of a college required that all the fellows should be in holy orders, nothing could justify your departing from that rule. He agreed with Sir John Patteson in the opinion he had expressed before the Commission, that where alterations in the circumstances rendered changes necessary, there they were fully justified in making them; but that they were bound to have regard to the intentions of the founders as far as it
722
was possible to do so. He would not trouble the House by going through all the clauses that were open to the same objection. The parts of the Bill to which he had referred were so extremely objectionable, that nothing would induce him to give his acquiescence to them; and he hoped when they got into Committee these parts would be modified altogether. Another portion of the Bill which he thought to be very ill-advised consisted of the clauses which proposed to limit the tenure of fellowships. This subject was carefully investigated by both the University Commissions; and in the Report of the Oxford Commission there was a very able communication from Archbishop Whately, in which he pointed out clearly the manner in which, by such a course, you would destroy the real value of the fellowship, and the independence which it gave to a man while seeking a position in life. If they did this, they would destroy the value of the prize, and check competition for it amongst the class of scholars who now devoted their time to attain it. The Bill also attempted to insist on as many of the fellows as possible residing in the University. Of this he entirely disapproved. If persons had the taste and inclination for the pursuits and duties of office in the University, doubtless they would nowhere be so usefully employed as within its walls. But if they had no love for those pursuits, no greater mischief could be inflicted upon the University than to insist upon their residence there. Unless a man was actively employed in the duties of the place, he (Mr. Wigram) would prefer his being anywhere rather than idling in the University. He was sure he could do no good, but he might do a great deal of harm. And to that part of the scheme he should also object. He could not help thinking, in general, that the Bill attempted to go a great deal further into details than was advisable. It consisted of a mass of details—many of which were of so complicated a character, and the exact consequences of which it would be so difficult to foresee, that he was persuaded, if passed, the measure would require repeated amendments, and the necessity of frequent recourse to Parliament for that purpose. All that the framers had in view might, in his opinion, have been much better accomplished—and it would have been a safer course to pursue—if they had adopted even a more sweeping course, and given even larger powers to

723
the colleges, to be exercised with the approval of the Commissioners, under proper restrictions to be specified in the Bill, and then left those powers to be worked out by the colleges themselves.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMER: It is impossible for me not to remember the feelings with which I first heard the announcement from the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) of his intention to comply with the Motion of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood), when he moved in this House, three or four years ago, for the appointment of a Royal Commission upon this subject. I believe, Sir, there is no feeling more powerful in the mind of an English gentleman than the attachment which he feels to the place of his education. Certainly, no man who has had the benefit of that education which, whatever may be its shortcomings, those who have been raised by it to the position they have occupied in after life, have no right to pronounce other than excellent and most liberal—no man who has had the benefit of that education in such a place as Oxford—a place surrounded by time-hallowed associations, where all the beauty of antiquity is combined with all the refinement and enjoyment of modern life—no one who has himself eaten the bread provided by the noble and munificent founders in the palaces of that city, could hear any announcement which by any possibility might tend to shake the stability of those foundations, or to interfere with their performance of the excellent work which, after all, they were nobly discharging, without sentiments of alarm and most serious apprehension; and I am not ashamed to record the feeling with which I personally heard from the noble Lord the announcement which he made unexpectedly on that occasion of his intention to comply with the Motion of the hon. Member. I certainly heard it with a feeling of great opposition and dissatisfaction. That feeling was undoubtedly in some degree mitigated when, upon a subsequent occasion, the noble Lord stated, with dignity and with temperance, that it was his intention to issue that Commission in a friendly spirit towards the University; and when he proceeded to develope the views—with a great part of which, indeed, I did not agree—but still views which actuated him in thinking that Commission necessary, I could not but recognise, in the speech then made, a spirit which aimed at nothing but the objects which all lovers
724
of the University must themselves desire; and though not at that time feeling political confidence in the noble Lord, and although certainly believing that some of his views were actuated by a partial, and only a partial, acquaintance with the subject of which he spoke, yet I felt less disposed than before to apprehend unmixed evil from the issuing of that Commission. Sir, the Commission was issued, and the Commissioners were men too much, as I thought then, and still think, committed by their known opinions to a certain view of the question; but still men possessing every qualification, in point of intellect, learning, character, and love for the University, which could be requisite to ensure both the efficiency and the honourable and creditable discharge, according to their own views, of the duties committed to them. And accordingly, when their Report came out, it was impossible, even for those who might widely dissent from many of the recommendations contained in that Report, not to feel that a valuable mass of materials had been brought together with almost unparalleled labour as well as ability, and that a great and useful work had been done in collecting and concentrating both facts and opinions, so as to enable public opinion to be brought to bear upon those points in respect of which, if at all, legislation and change might usefully be adopted. The effect of that Report was very marked. As soon as it was issued it immediately caused all those within the University upon whom devolved the duty of considering the subject—the noble Member for the City of London, and the noble Lord who was subsequently at the head of the late Government, suggested that which would have been done without the suggestion—but still it caused them immediately to entertain the subject in the same spirit and with the same independence of mind with which the Commissioners had themselves discharged their duties. The heads of houses, the Hebdomadal Board, appointed their own Committee; the tutors of the University formed themselves into an association, and they with great diligence, industry, and ability, also investigated the subject; and the result was this—both these bodies came unanimously to the conclusion that extensive and important alterations must necessarily be made. Here, then, was a definite and tangible result, from which escape became impossible. Some change, and that an important and extensive change, was agreed by the University—

725
was agreed by both the Hebdomadal Board and the tutors of the University—to be indispensably necessary. But it did not stop there. They were agreed also as to the principles of that change; not as to the process and methods, but as to the principles. For, let it be observed, it was first of all agreed, both by the Commission, the Hebdomadal Board, and the Association of Tutors, that the University government must be reconstituted, and that with a view to dissolve the exclusive collegiate system, and the exclusive power of the governors of colleges, and to admit professors to some larger share of power; and at the same time to preserve the principles of freedom and independence in the government of the University. They proposed different means of accomplishing that object; but in the object, in principle, they were agreed. And, therefore, one point was ascertained by the independent action of the University—concurring so far with the Commissioners; that it was necessary to reconstitute the government of the University,
and to reconstitute it on these principles. The observation made by my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down, the Member for the University of Cambridge, is therefore answered by the resolutions both of the Committee of the Hebdomadal Board and of the Tutors' Association, not less than by the Report of the Commissioners, when he objected to any encroachment upon the exclusively collegiate system which has hitherto prevailed within the University. Then came that other and much larger object, in which I venture to say the people of this country take more interest than in any other branch of this question—the subject of University extension. The people of this country have a right to say that a great institution like Oxford, with such magnificent resources, ought to be capable of answering any extending demand which the wants of the country may make upon it. Under the exclusive collegiate system as now administered, with all the virtues and merits of that system, it was not, and is not, capable of doing so; and that I have always thought the main point of the whole question. The country also thought, in connection with that, and most justly thought, that the system of expenses, the system of imperfect discipline which prevailed in the University, the excess of aristocratic habits, was also an impediment to its just and proper extension which it was imperatively necessary
726
to remove. On that subject also, the result of independent thought and inquiry in the University itself was the same as was that of the Commissioners' looking into the subject, for the Tutors' Association distinctly adopted the principle of extension by the admission of non-collegiate students, although they, I think most wisely and justly, recommended that that extension should be accomplished under the safeguards of private halls governed by masters of arts, responsible for their discipline, and for their moral and religious government. That, I think, was a very great improvement, which has been adopted into this Bill upon the suggestion of the tutors; but it was distinctly a conclusion in favour of a system enabling the University to be as largely as possible extended by the admission of students unconnected with colleges. Did the Hebdomadal Board come to a different conclusion? In the first instance it seemed they did; but the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) has referred us to-night to a notice which they have given of a Motion to be made in Convocation in the present month, or in the month of May, for the extension of the University to non-collegiate students upon principles not materially distinguishable from the principle of this Bill. I give great credit and honour to the Hebdomadal Board for making that proposal, although I must say that such proposal having been previously made by the Tutors' Association, and having in the first instance been adopted by them, and since made in the present Bill, it is too late to say that the action of the Legislature and the Government upon that subject should be suspended, because the Hebdomadal Board has been in the latest stage of the question converted to that view of the subject. Therefore, we have this point also ascertained, that there is to be a large extension of the University to non-collegiate students, and, in the opinion of the tutors, by means of private halls. Then, with respect to the only other branch of the subject touching the University—that is, the arrangement of the studies, that is very properly omitted from the present Bill, because it is not a proper subject for legislation; but the University and the colleges have not been inactive upon that subject. We know that Statutes have been passed recently of the greatest importance, which the University are now engaged in acting upon and developing to the best of their power; but I venture confidently to

727
say, that that extension of the studies of the University will be altogether nugatory and fruitless, with reference, at least, to its larger and more important results, unless you can have such an extension of the University to a greater number of non-collegiate students as, according to the principle now established, is admitted by almost all, and is contemplated by this Bill. Now we have come to this point—that upon the important subject of University reform there is agreement by the Hebdomadal Board, the tutors of Oxford, and the Commissioners as to the necessity of doing something; and the Convocation of Oxford is almost equally divided. When you come to that, remembering that the University of Oxford is conservative—I use the word with satisfaction, because I sympathise with its conservative character—almost beyond any other corporation in the kingdom, remembering that it is a fault which attaches to conservatism of every kind that it is over-cautious and over-apprehensive as to the result of changes, I think the circumstance that, in a Convocation summoned for the purpose of considering a petition proposed to be presented against this measure, the petition should have been carried by a majority of only two, is equivalent in real truth to a very strong declaration by the University in favour of the general principle of the Bill. I have so far dealt with the question of the University—I mean as to the necessity of doing something of this kind. Then welcome to the colleges. Now here I am on delicate ground, because I am one of those who have taken—and mean both here and everywhere else most strictly to observe—an oath to obey to the utmost of my power and support the intentions and the institutions of the founders. But with respect to the colleges, I have observed by the papers laid before Parliament that a very large number of colleges, and very important colleges, have expressed their anxious desire to have larger powers, and to some extent alterations not made by themselves, introduced by authority of Parliament. I find such desires expressed by Brasenose College, by Merton College, by Exeter, by Corpus, by Jesus, and by several others. In that state of things, how can any one say that we must not entertain the question whether we shall legislate concerning colleges? In truth, there are several points which make such legislation, if not necessary, yet of grave importance, which are independent of the
728
Statutes of founders. One thing is, the difficulty, acknowledged by all, which arises from the mixture of obsolete enactments with those which are living and in force. The reasons of the one are often so inextricably intertwined with the reasons of the other, and the influence of the one upon the other was originally so great, that sometimes you have persons whose consciences are perplexed as to whether it might not be their duty to endeavour to maintain parts of institutions and ordinances which are really dead, and which have become practical anachronisms. In other cases you have the caput mortuum remaining, and maintained as if it were that which the founder intended, when it has lost all its vitality, and when in every point of view it has ceased to accomplish any one of the objects which the founder intended. Now I will illustrate that by a particular example. I will take it from the college for which I have a peculiar attachment, which I hope to evince before I sit down—I mean Winchester College, which, although not included in this measure, is really part of that academical system with which this measure deals. At Winchester the college consists of a warden, ten fellows, and seventy scholars, who are boys receiving education. The ten fellows were originally meant to perform divine offices in the chapel, with the solemnities which existed at the time of the foundation, and, at the same time, I believe, it was in part thought necessary to have them for the management of the college estates, which in the then circumstances of the country were difficult to manage, except under the personal superintendence of the heads of the society. In the lapse and change of time the chapel service no longer requires the attendance of these fellows, and the college estates are better managed without them. They no longer live under monastic rule, but they are married gentlemen, and do not live at Winchester. In point of fact, these fellowships have lapsed into absolute sinecure institutions, through no fault of the gentlemen who have held them; and they are mere prizes for the members of New College. But what man, dealing candidly and reasonably with the subject, can say that that is anything but the shell and outward crust of the institution of William of Wykeham? Is it not obvious, must it not be obvious to every man, that if you consolidate some of those fellowships with the masterships, or found additional masterships for the school by

729
means of them, or if you take part of the revenues which now go to these fellows and extend the school to a greater number of scholars, you will be succurrens fundatori—you will be not merely upon conjecture doing what William of Wykeham might have done if living, but manifestly making the endowment which he left subservient to his own purposes? That is one illustration of that class of cases. Then you come to the next class, in which the obstructiveness of legal interpretation has taken place, and really chokes up a great portion of the good which a college might do. The founder never thought of such things; but he has constituted the visitors his judges, and before them, or in the courts of law, some quibble or other has prevailed, and the consequence is that irrational laws have been engrafted upon the laws of the founder, which prevent his institution from being so extensively beneficial as it might be. I speak now of what is the subject of a special clause in this Bill—Clause 29—which gives a preference to lineal descendants of the founder for ever, but limits the right of preference of collateral kindred to the period of a hundred years. It might strike some Gentlemen, who take an excessively conservative view of this question, that that is an interference with the founder's intentions. Sir, it is practically a restoration, for it puts an end to a gross and preposterous abuse, which, through a perverse legal interpretation, has been enforced in some of the most important colleges of the kingdom for a long time. The whole system of founders' kin, as at present administered, is as flagrant an absurdity and abuse as it is possible to imagine. Sir William Blackstone, the great author of the Commentaries, did his best, when a young man—I wish he had done it when he had attained his subsequent reputation, for then it would have been successful—to put an end to that abuse, by a most unanswerable treatise, in which he demonstrated its absurdity. In that treatise, Sir William Blackstone, dealing with the case of All Souls, showed the ridiculous consequences of the system of collateral consanguinity, as recognised under the Statutes by the visitors of that college. In the first place, he showed that the founder spoke in his Statutes the language of his time and of the Church of which he was an Archbishop; that in the language of the law of the Church, collateral kindred ceased at the seventh degree; that in the language of the civil law, from which the canon law
730
was derived, it had also been held to cease at the tenth degree; and he showed that Lynwood, the great civilian, and the reputed author of the Statutes of All Souls, had laid down that doctrine in terms in his book on the ecclesiastical law of England. He also showed that the consequence of holding the infinite extension of collateral consanguinity necessarily was to prove that everybody was everybody else's kinsman, because we are all, of course, Christians, and believe in the Bible, which tells us that all mankind come from one ancestor—originally from Adam, and since from Noah. It is perfectly clear that all men must be kindred one to another, unless you adopt some limited sense of the word "kindred," because all are descended from one ancestor. As he says, "What is the use of telling men to make out their pedigree, when you already know for certain that they are related? In such a case, one text of Scripture is of more avail than thousands of heralds' visitations." Who can deny that? Then he goes on to examine the practical application of the doctrine. When he wrote this book, a descendant in the fifteenth degree from Archbishop Chichely, was claiming a preference as founder's kin, and he shows, by an arithmetical calculation with which no human being can find fault, that a person one of whose ancestors in the fifteenth degree is the founder's father, has 32,767 other ancestors in the same degree, and he proves that when you get to the twentieth he has 1,048,576 ancestors. Then he goes on to multiply the probable number of collateral kindred, and but for the happy accident of some relatives in this small world of ours intermarrying with each other, there would be a number to which I am not arithmetician enough to give a name. In that state of things, who can doubt that he had demonstrated his case? The argument was unanswerable; but, nevertheless, a perverse interpretation has said that to the end of the world, subject to the burthen of proving your pedigree, without any preference of nearer relations over more remote, the kindred shall have the preference. What is the practical result? Take New College. The same principle is admitted there; but to escape from its consequences a compromise is made, and although the founder has given his kinsmen a right to all the fellowships if they have a right to any, yet the visitors have said, "You shall only put in two founder's kin each year into Winchester

731
and two into New College." Is it not manifest that the whole principle is given up by such a compromise, if there was a principle? But, in truth, the principle is the other way, and the violence done to the founder's intention is by the custom which you now propose to abolish. Then I come to the third class of cases, in which there have grown up in colleges customs independent of legal interpretation, but which have become inveterate, which the founder never created, and which he would, I am sure, have rejected with indignation in some cases could he have foreseen them, but which the visitors have felt themselves unable to disturb, and which the colleges cannot, or will not, disturb without the order of the visitors. I will mention two cases of that sort; one in my own college of Magdalen. The founder of Magdalen has divided his foundation into fellows and demies, but has nowhere said that a demy should have the least preference in the world in any election to a fellowship, but almost from the time of the foundation it has been the custom of the college to give the demies the preference. The consequence is, that is adopted as law, but it is not the law of the founder. They cannot, however, be expected very easily to get rid of it unless they have some assistance to release them from it. Then I take the case of Brasenose, which is, I think, the strongest case of this kind that could be mentioned. At Brasenose, the founder has given the power of governing the college to the principal and six senior fellows, the whole number of fellows being twenty or thirty. He has given them the sole power of granting leases, and a custom has, I regret to say, sprung up and existed in the college so anciently that only a very few years ago that good man, the late Bishop of Lincoln, with the assistance of legal advice, no less than that of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, felt himself unable to alter it upon the appeal of the junior fellows. I will tell the House what that custom is, and I do not reflect upon the present or any recent generation of fellows, because, if the visitor could not alter it, I suppose they could not, and they are not to be blamed for taking the benefit of it. The custom is nothing short of this—that they actually receive all fines upon the granting of leases, and divide them amongst themselves as the governing fellows, without admitting the junior fellows to any share of these fines. The result is an enormous disproportion
732
between the incomes of the fellows—that while the senior fellows receive, I believe, as much as 400 l. or 500 l. a year, the junior fellows have only 70 l. or 80 l. a year. The founder, in this case, is totally innocent; he intended nothing of the kind; and I put it to the House whether this is a state of things which ought to endure. I now proceed to consider the question whether you can deal with this subject by way of enabling powers. Now, I say it is impossible you can adequately deal with it in the way of enabling powers in the case of colleges, the members of which have rules imposed upon them binding them from using such powers if you grant them. Several of them are so strictly bound by oath against change that they cannot use any enabling power whatever. If, therefore, those things are to be done, which, by scrupulous men, may be supposed to involve a change in the existing Statutes, which they have sworn to observe, they must be done by the Legislature, and not by themselves. I must also say, it is manifest to my mind that when the Legislature is once called upon, it is impossible for it to decline the duty of looking at the subject in a large way. The Legislature must see what are the public objects which it is desirable to accomplish; it must not only see that these very bodies may, if they please, accomplish them; but, as to principles at least, it must take precautions to secure that they shall be accomplished. Even those who, like myself, feel most strictly bound by founders' intentions, cannot possibly, standing in this place, deny that when a question of this sort comes before the Legislature, it is entitled to look at it upon large and public principles; that it cannot confine its view to any of those more narrow considerations which must necessarily limit the views of the members of particular societies. Besides that, it would be manifestly unsafe to extend enabling powers without control. Nothing could be more against the spirit of the founders, or more contrary to the policy of the law, than to give to any college in Oxford, even if it desired it, the power to suppress fellowships, to increase emoluments, or to alter the terms of the constitution of old foundations without any supervision. Enabling powers alone, therefore, at once go too far, and do not go far enough; consequently, if you deal with the subject at all by legislation, you must have some power which can control the local authorities. Having proved, then,

733
that it is impossible to avoid doing something, I now proceed to inquire what are principles upon which a conservative reform should be based. I think it must provide a machinery which shall be enabled, by extraordinary compulsory powers, under limitations for a definite and limited time, to introduce, once for all, such changes as are really required; and not any further or otherwise to interfere with the independence of academical self-government. The object and the principle of this Bill is to place things in a situation in which they cannot be placed without the immediate intervention of foreign authority; but having placed them in that situation, as soon as possible to resign to the University and the colleges perfect independence and freedom of action in self-government. This is a sound principle, and, so far, I give my approval and sanction to the Bill. Then I think, also, it would undoubtedly be necessary, for a conservative measure of reform, to proceed upon the ground of respecting the founders' intentions; and the preamble of this Bill professes to go upon that ground; and I am bound to say I believe its provisions to be framed with the utmost sincerity, for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects declared in the preamble. The judgments of men must necessarily differ as to the manner in which the principle is carried into effect in its details, and as to the changes which may advance or retard the fulfilment of the main objects of the founders, by retaining or interfering with particular subordinate provisions of the Statutes. I, therefore, although by no means agreeing with the mode in which that is proposed to be done in all parts of the Bill, am bound to say I recognise in it a sincere, cordial, and conservative spirit, a spirit manifesting true attachment to principles and foundations, and intending to proceed upon grounds consistent with the fulfilment of the main intentions of the founders. And in those very carefully-detailed provisions to which my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Wigram) has referred, in some respects with apparent justice, I see in them great evidence of the desire of the Government to be as just, as temperate, as cautious, and as conservative as possible—not to give too large or unlimited power to the Commissioners, not to allow the Commissioners to do everything without the assent of the colleges which they might do with such assent. In all these points—whe-
734
ther they are right or not, whether they go too far or not, I do not now say—I see strong evidence of a bonâ fide desire on the part of the Government to carry into effect the principles stated in the preamble, which are
"For promoting the main designs of the founders, both as respects the appointment to the endowments and the continued tenure thereof, and otherwise for maintaining and improving the discipline and studies, and the good government of the University of Oxford and the colleges thereof,"
I, therefore, have no difficulty in saying that it seems to me this Bill is in its principle worthy of support. I do not intend to detain the House by any lengthened comments upon all the matters of detail in the Bill, though upon one or two points I shall have some argument to offer. But, passing lightly over the part which relates to the University, I have already disposed of so much of the objection of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge as is founded upon the idea that the Bill interferes with the integrity of the collegiate system. It is quite clear, from the unanimous voice of the University, that it does not concur with his principle in that respect. I am convinced that, if the private halls are established in the manner proposed, they will be likely to afford at least as good a guarantee for proper discipline and good management as the collegiate system does at this moment; and, if you attempt to extend, by affiliation or otherwise, the collegiate discipline over a larger surface of the University, the connection with the colleges will be more nominal than real; and even if it be real, those habits which by lapse of time have tended to great expense and to a too aristocratic tone of mind, will extend to the students in lodgings or in the affiliated halls, and prevent the resort to the University of those classes of persons who are not quite so high in the scale of society as those that at present matriculate at the colleges. On this point, therefore, I have no doubt the principle of the Bill is right. With regard to the institution of Congregation, I feel the force of the observations of my hon. and learned Friend, that it might be too much like this House. I do not pledge myself to it, but I may point out that the change of one word in the 20th clause would answer the objection; if in that clause you take out the word "English," and put in the word "Latin," the objection is at once answered. Then I come

735
to the question as to the mode in which the Bill deals with preferences. Certainly there are very important questions, both of principle and of detail, upon that clause; nevertheless, it is a very fair question to consider whether the principle of respecting founders' intentions is or is not carried far enough, or whether it is carried too far. With regard to kindred, I have disposed of that part of the question, and I do not expect I shall be answered. With regard to the point of local preference, I view that in connection with the subject of indigence; and it is my intention, unless the Government adopt my view, to propose in Committee, not that local preferences shall be universally maintained, or that, under a nominal provision for indigence, you shall retain only a portion of them, but a proviso to the effect that it shall continue to be lawful in all cases in which the right of preference is now given by any Statute to any person who shall have the qualification of poverty or indigence, combined with any other special qualification, for the electors to give effect to such right of preference in favour of any candidate claiming the benefit of it who shall, upon his examination, obtain from the examiners the certificate referred to in the 33rd clause, and who shall have shown to the satisfaction of the electors (to be certified by them in writing at the time of the election) that he is, or is likely to be, unable to prosecute his studies in the University without pecuniary assistance from some charitable fund or endowment, Such a provision would meet cases of bonâ fide poverty, and I think it will be found to adhere to the true principle; for it is quite manifest that the qualification of indigence, if preserved at all, should be adhered to in cases of real indigence, and not where it is comparative only. With regard to local preferences, except in this respect, I do not express any opinion on this occasion;—the question touches the foundation with which I am myself peculiarly connected, and I do not desire to enter upon questions which may affect the obligations by which I am personally bound. But I come now to another point upon which I have a strong opinion in common with my Friend the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. I allude to the provision concerning schools. I think that question has not been sufficiently investigated or considered with relation to this Bill. The question
736
has not been sufficiently investigated upon the school side. There is a school side of the question. The Commissioners who inquired into the Universities and colleges had no authority given them to look at all upon the school side of the question; and moreover, they had not that authority even in the eases of the colleges of Eton, Winchester, and Westminster, which are so closely connected with several colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. We must consider it, then, in that point of view; and it appears to me we are bound to consider, first of all, the influence of those college endowments upon the schools connected with colleges, and whether the purpose of the founders was merely to make an University institution, or to establish University institutions, with a view thereby also to promote education in the places where the schools are carried on. If these endowments act as great prizes for the schools, then all we should do is to amend them by better management and by better regulations in the colleges and the schools; then we cannot justly forget the interests of the schools—by which I mean all the local and general interests which are bound up with them; because the public schools of this country—and every grammar-school has the chance of being elevated into an important public school—are no less deserving of the respect, the consideration, and the protection of the Legislature than the Universities. Our attachment to these schools, and to the general interests of school education, is not less than to the Universities; and I am sure that my right hon. Friend below me (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) feels even more warmly for Eton (were it possible) than he does for Christ Church; any attempt to divide these schools from the colleges, which have stood in this relation to them from their very foundations, would be most unwise and unjust. Let us look for a moment at the progress which our public schools have made. In our time the numbers of our important public schools have been increased. Formerly there were only Eton, Westminster, Winchester, and Harrow; but within the memory of some gentlemen now living, others, which were formerly secondary, have risen into the first importance. Rugby School, in Warwickshire, has become an important public school; Shrewsbury, the same; Birmingham, the same; Manchester, the same; and we have, besides, the schools at Macclesfield, Sher-

737
borne, Tiverton, and other places. I might easily multiply the number. All our grammar-schools, under the fostering care of the law, owing to the wise regulations made as to many of them by Parliament, and as to others by the Court of Chancery, in consequence of the research of the Charity Commissioners, have become institutions of growing public use and importance. I hope that system will be continued, and that we may see many more of them rescued from the comparative neglect and obscurity into which they have in times past unhappily fallen, and used as great centres of education, and thus promoting that most important public work which we have so much at heart. To take from these schools their great University prizes, to destroy their connection with their colleges, would be suicidal. If you desire to make them effective, important, and increasing instruments of education, by all means see to their improvement; by all means interpose such regulations as may make the prize effective for its objects; but do not destroy the prize; do not alienate that which is really part of the substance of the school endowments—of the school foundations. Having made these observations generally, let me observe, in addition, that the Court of Chancery, whenever a school has come before it for a scheme, has continually directed exhibitions in the University to be founded. It has always thought that one of the most necessary means for extending the usefulness of the school. But having so far argued the general principle, I now wish to investigate its application in one case which has been already mentioned, which may be taken as an example, but perhaps as the most defined example of this whole class of cases. I mean the case of Winchester and New College. If there is one foundation which more than another deserves such notice, it is the foundation of William of Wykeham, part of which is at Winchester, and part in Oxford. It is a foundation which occupies a most important place, and I put it before Eton and King's because it is the prototype of that institution. I confess I think that the elections into Winchester College should be by merit, and that the elections from Winchester should proceed by examination for merit to New College. I have no objection, speaking as I think, in the interest of the great founder, to the introduction of a longer and more efficient sys-
738
tem of probation at New College before a scholar is made a fellow, nor even to the introduction of a system of election from scholarships to fellowships, under which all the graduate scholars should be eligible by competition among themselves. But while I think it is fully open to Parliament, regarding the spirit of the founders' intentions, to consider such regulations as these or others, I do protest most humbly against any attempt to destroy the connection, or to diminish or to impair the connection, between New College and the seventy boys who are brought up at Winchester on Wykeham's bounty, in order that they may have their education completed, and their entrance into life provided for, by going to Oxford. I say I protest against the separation of the two institutions, which would prevent the founder's purpose with regard to the school from being fulfilled by means of the college. On what ground is this proposed? It may be said that the thing has not answered. Now what is the foundation of that statement? I will tell the House. Let us look, in this matter, to time. The foundation is now more than 460 years old; and, during that time, let me try it in comparison with other institutions in the University, by the contributions it has made to the English Church. I find that it furnished to the Church of England, since the date of the foundation, and before the end of the last century, excluding the present century, and only reckoning down to the year 1777, five archbishops and thirty other prelates—in all thirty-five. Christ Church, during the same period, furnished seventy-five prelates to the Church of England. But observe the difference in position. Only thirty-five prelates were furnished by Wykeham's foundation; but it had no commoners; it elected none from other colleges; it had no additions from extraneous sources; yet from its own resources it contributed five archbishops, and thirty other prelates, all genuine thorough-bred Wykehamists, to the Church of England. During this period, Christ Church had its hundred students, its many commoners, its deans and canons, often eminent men, adopted from other colleges; yet, taking them altogether, it barely doubled the number of Wykehamites, for it only furnished seventy-five prelates. There were only two other colleges in the whole University which produced nearly the same

739
number of dignitaries in the English Church—Merton (a hundred years older), which produced forty-four; and Magdalen, which produced thirty-six; all the rest were much below. It may be said, "But this is not sufficient." Let me, then, try another test. The system of examination for degrees was first introduced in Oxford in 1807; and it is a great misfortune to New College to have had a privilege of a mischievous nature, which exempted the scholars from the necessity of passing the examination for degrees, so that until within the last twenty years they were thus debarred from competition for the honours which those examinations produced. This entirely threw them back; and in consequence, during the whole period while the examination system prevailed, the institution lost ground. About twenty years ago they had the wisdom to give up this most unwholesome privilege; but they had then no tutors who had been educated under the system of University examinations, and consequently they had a great deal to do to make up the lost way. But I want the House to see, in order to judge of the intrinsic capabilities of New College, as a foundation, what was done during the thirty-nine years preceding the institution of the examinations in 1807, when there were Chancellors' and other University prizes, which, instituted in 1767, continued during that period. During those thirty-nine years of the University prizes, twenty-one prizes fell to Christ Church, thirteen to New College, ten to Corpus, and six to Queen's. All the other colleges were left in a ruck behind. Therefore we have New College, standing upon its own intrinsic merits, bearing off many prizes, and coming second in the competition with the whole University. Then, I ask the House not to conclude, because of the unhappy drawback which arose, during the last half-century only, from the working of the examination Statutes, that the college was not supplied with good blood, or that Winchester is not capable of competing for the University prizes under such regulations as may be provided without violation to the integrity of the principle of the foundation. I shall now confine myself to a few observations upon two other subjects—the one with regard to the clause in this Bill which relates to the tenure of fellowships. I think, with regard to the tenure of fellowships, there
740
may be a good many details on which we may differ. First, I would say, I concur in the opinion generally entertained, that too short a time is proposed to be given for those persons to hold their fellowships who are to enter into the liberal professions. I would suggest that further time should be given, not only to those designed expressly for holy orders, for law, and medicine, but for all intended for other learned or liberal professions. With regard to residence in the Universities, I would say that the certificate of study which it is proposed to require is in principle vicious, and ought to be given up. In this respect I differ from the suggestion of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Byng), who to-night addressed the House with perhaps as much ability and good taste as I have ever heard in the first speech of any Member. I certainly think that, instead of making stricter this certificate of study, it ought to be abandoned; that we ought to be content with the voluntary declaration of the fellow of a college himself as to the purposes for which he resides; for gentlemen who have attained to years of discretion, and have gone through the University course, are not to be treated as children. Some regard should be paid to the dignity of the individuals. I must, however, take leave to express my astonishment at that part of the observations of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Wigram) which had reference to the clause intended to make non-resident fellowships terminable. The hon. Gentleman spoke with great earnestness of the propriety of adhering to the intentions of the founders, and he complained of the Bill for departing from them. Now, this clause in the Bill is conceived in a restorative spirit, and in a belief that, if the founders intended anything, it was that there should be no sinecurists, but that the fellows should reside in the University and study or make themselves useful. Yet the hon. Gentleman was not in the least embarrassed by the fact that the founders enjoined residence; he said that he thought it would be more beneficial to the colleges that the fellows should not reside, and, therefore, he recommended that they should not be required to do so. Well, but this is exactly the principle, upon which all the provisions of the Bill, which he objects to, are framed. Where it interferes at all with the directions of the founders, it does so, rightly or wrongly, on the ground that such inter-

741
ference will be most beneficial to the colleges and the University; but when the hon. Gentleman differs as to the expediency of any particular deviation from the will of the founder, he says that the principle is wrong. Therefore, according to him, the Bill is wrong because it departs from the founders' intentions in one thing, and it is wrong also because it proposes to return to these intentions in another thing. Of course, if we go upon the absolute principle of merely regarding the founders' intentions, it is manifest that the founder has required permanent residence; and non-resident fellowships continuing not permanently, but only so long as may be useful to the introduction in life of persons who have distinguished themselves at the University, are clearly much more in accordance with the spirit of the founders' intentions than non-resident fellowships held for life; and they are also more useful, because the more quick the succession in them, the more competition you will have for the prizes of the University. Where persons are engaged in the study of law or medicine, for instance, if you continue such fellowships beyond the point that is adapted to the requirements of University purposes, you will be alienating the funds which might otherwise be extremely well applied in promoting those purposes. With reference to the property clause of this Bill, I think that those who support the measure on the general principle may reserve to themselves fully the free consideration of that part of the question in Committee. It does not follow, because I agree to the foundation of professorships, and concur in the principle that, beyond all doubt, the University and the colleges have that species of connection with each other that would justify the University, and the Legislature on its behalf, in calling on the colleges for a contribution towards University purposes and objects, that, therefore, I may not be extremely jealous of any invasion of the college foundations, or of anything which may affect the appropriation of a part of the funds of those foundations for University purposes, unless it be demonstrated to me that those purposes are absolutely indispensable, and cannot be otherwise provided for. As to the professors, I confess that I entertain no jealousy with regard to them. My sincere conviction is that the best arrangement would be that which unites the most efficient professorial with the
742
most efficient tutorial system. I think that either of these must be incomplete without the other; and, therefore, I think it is a just object of the Bill to make a provision for a more efficient professorial system than prevails at present. With these observations I feel that I have only discharged a duty in stating the grounds which lead me to recognise in this Bill a measure which is conceived on the whole in a really conservative and friendly spirit towards the University; and, although we are not now bound to enter into all the details of the Bill, I should certainly have felt great regret if I had not bad an opportunity of tendering to Her Majesty's Government my thanks, as an individual who is deeply interested in the welfare of Oxford University, for the spirit in which they have dealt with this important subject.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that with many portions of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down he certainly very much agreed. If he had understood him aright, the hon. and learned Gentleman had condemned any attempt to interfere with the resources of the colleges against their will, for the purpose of setting up professorships. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also declared that in his judgment the tenure proposed to be extended to the fellows in the colleges was too short; he distinctly stated that the proposed system with respect to studies was vicious. The hon. and learned Member had also altogether dissented, and that in the strongest manner, from the provision of the Bill with regard to the existing preferences in favour of particular schools; and he had perhaps only forborne to tell the House that he objected still more strongly to the abolition of the privileges of particular localities. The hon. and learned Gentleman had certainly dwelt on the question of kindred: but his argument on that point cuts both ways; besides he had quoted the authority of Justice Blackstone, and if that eminent man had possessed the authority that belonged to him in his later days, when he gave the opinion to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, his views on the point of kindred would no doubt have been different.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMER, said, he must explain, that the point had been decided in the meantime against Justice Blackstone, by the visitors, before he became a distinguished man.
MR. HENLEY: No doubt when he became more distinguished, he saw reason for assenting to the decision which had been given against him. The rights of schools in connection with this subject had had powerful and able advocates in that House, but the rights of localities had been very much overlooked. It had been said, that benefit would accrue to particular colleges if the privileges of these localities were done away with. Now he (Mr. Henley) could quite understand, that an ambitious head of a college, or the fellows belonging to it, might desire to have a larger field of choice in order to render their society more distinguished; but what comfort was it to the small town, or other district which was to be deprived of the advantages which it enjoyed from these magnificent foundations? He thought that places which were to be made to take their chance in a competition extending over the whole country ought to be allowed a hearing on this matter, in order to let the House know if they thought that they would derive any benefit at all from this measure, or any benefit commensurate with the privileges of which they were to be deprived. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. R. Palmer), and the hon. Baronet the representative of the University (Sir. W. Heathcote) had completely exhausted that part of the question relating to the schools; and he (Mr. Henley) thought that the Government would find themselves pressed in Committee on this point in a manner which they would not be able to resist. He would quote the evidence of a witness of very great authority, because the Government had chosen him as one of the Commissioners to be appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Bill, should it be passed by Parliament. He alluded to Sir John Awdry, who stated that whatever ground there might he for the interference of the Legislature, the Legislature had no right to confiscate the college property; and in another part of his evidence he also stated his opinion that to confiscate the college funds in order to endow professorships would be sheer robbery. If, therefore, he (Mr. Henley) had used strong language on the introduction of this measure, the language above quoted was quite as emphatic. He was certainly not sorry that a gentleman of such sentiments was to be placed upon the Commission, because if Sir John Awdry's opinions did not (like those of sonic Gentlemen now on or near the Treasury bench) undergo a great change
744
in a very short space of time, he would no doubt take care that the operation of the measure should be rendered as little mischievous as possible. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. R. Palmer) expressed great alarm and distrust when the noble Lord first announced the appointment of the Commission to inquire into the University; but he seemed from some circumstance to look with no alarm at the present Bill, although he certainly condemned, in no very measured terms, every part of it, concluding, however, rather oddly by thanking the Government for having introduced a measure the details of which, he said, must be very prejudicial to the University. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Byng), who had addressed the House for the first time that night and with great ability, made an observation with reference to the heads of houses that was only part of a system which the Commissioners themselves were not altogether free from, namely, an unjust system of running down the present heads of houses. It was said that that body was elected not at all for literary merit, but for every other reason; and, in fact, jobbing had been insinuated against them; and it was even said that elections were frequently made to clear out a college in order that other fellows might obtain livings. Now, he happened to live in the neighbourhood of the University, and knew something of the heads of houses, and he could not hear the reference that had been made to them by the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore) without saying that his intercourse with them led him to believe that the reports were wholly unfounded. As to the Dean of Christ Church and Dr. Routh, the head of the college to which he belonged, it was not needed to speak of their learning and literary reputation. It was a great mistake to suppose that persons should be elected to these high offices merely for their literary acquirements. It might be a fortunate thing, both for the person himself and for the college, that he should not have been confined all his life within its walls, but should have moved about at some period of his life in the world, and going back to his college duties with larger and more correct views on many subjects. Now this Bill, although it might not be so intended, certainly evinced a spirit of jealousy towards the heads of houses; it took away the legitimate influence which they ought to exercise, and cast a slur upon them, and degraded them. The Bill

745
proposed to re-constitute the Congregation, but if its power of debating was to be taken away from that body, he did not know what it would have to do at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman who approved of this Bill said, "Just strike out the word English and insert the word Latin, and then I should like to know what would become of the Congregation?" Why, it would only become a sort of alter ego of the Convocation, and the next step should be to abolish it altogether, because it would certainly then be one of no use. It would be better to allow the heads of houses and the professors to elect their respective shares of the governing body, and leave the members of the Convocation to elect their own particular body, and thus do away with the Congregation altogether, because the mere election of some half dozen persons was hardly a matter for which it would be worth while making such a change as was proposed with regard to the Congregation. What was wanted appeared to be some greater facility for getting at the governing body, with the view of suggesting legislation affecting the University. He did not think a convenient mode for accomplishing this was pointed out in this Bill, It would be impossible to say when a measure would be finally decided if the machinery of this Bill were adopted. When a proposition was made to 200 of the sharpest wits of the University it would be very hard indeed if they could not suggest successive amendments in it which would then have to be promulgated; so that the whole process would have to be gone over again and again. This would therefore be anything but a working measure, but the subject would require to be fully considered in Committee. It was now four years since the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) first thought fit to throw the University into a state of agitation and comparative confusion by appointing the Royal Commission, and ever since that Commission had been issued, every moving spirit in the University had been at work in some direction or other; and nothing like quiet would be restored until some measure or the other was passed. He confessed that this consideration weighed more heavily than any other with him in inducing him to refrain from voting against the second reading of this Bill. There was very little to find fault with in the preamble of the measure; and if the Government were honest they ought not to object to frame the enactments in con-
746
formity with that preamble. If they were not honest, it would be no discredit to anybody who supported the second reading, to vote against the Bill after it came out of Committee. The Commission issued by the Government was distinctly inconsistent with the letter which they sent to the late Duke of Wellington. He hoped now that the Government would not proceed in regard to this Bill in contradiction to its preamble. The hon. and learned Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Blackett), a University reformer, had rather oddly described this Bill. He had said it gave with one hand and pulled back with the other, and that it pulled away with the left hand more than it gave with the right. When such was the view of so acute and learned a Member, he (Mr. Henley) might be excused if he felt very uncertain as to how the enactments of this measure would practically work. There were so many clauses and provisoes, and so many things which the colleges might do, or which, if they did not do within certain conditions and restrictions, they would be done by the Commissioners themselves afterwards, that until they went into Committee to discuss the details of the Bill, he could not understand the exact bearings of its various clauses. He believed that legislation was necessary, for many of the colleges at this moment were existing under Statutes with respect to which they hardly knew whether they could be considered to be disobeying them, or whether the Statutes themselves might be regarded as so far obsolete that no disobedience could fairly be urged against them. There were many conscientious men, members of those colleges, who he believed would be very glad to have this point made clear. There were many persons, also, who thought that alterations might be made which would be within the scope of the intentions of the founder; but which the colleges now had not the power to carry out. Of course for such persons a mere enabling Statute would not do; because if a man believed that in consequence of an oath he had taken he had not the power to do a certain thing, they could not by an enabling Statute relieve that man's conscience. He confessed he thought it a very fine distinction—and he could not exactly realise the ground on which it had been put forward, but as it had been put forward they must deal with it; it was, he said, a very fine distinction which was taken by those gentlemen, who said—"We are

747
under certain obligations by which we consider ourselves bound; we wish to be relieved from those obligations; but the Legislature must do it." This seemed to him, he must say, something like "seeing a thief and consenting unto him;" yet it was in many cases the ground upon which a claim for legislation was put forward. Although he did not think this was a sufficient ground for legislation, he did believe that there were many things which came strictly within the intention of the founder which could not be carried out without an enabling power from the Legislature. The fate of this Bill must depend upon whether the Government would permit—he would rather say whether the Government would not resist—anything that might be fairly shown to be reasonable. It must be admitted upon all hands, that the measure had been received in a fair spirit—that there had been nothing like party opposition to it; and that every disposition had been shown to confine the discussion within the four corners of the Bill itself. There was enough there to call for grave and serious consideration. They had heard a great deal about whether this measure would most favour the tutorial or professorial system of education; but he thought that was a very short way of looking at the subject. In his opinion, any Government intending to remodel, as this Bill proposed to do, one of the first educational institutions of the country, had a much larger question to look at than whether the education given should be carried out according to the tutorial or professorial system. The great question which they ought to lay before the country was what should be the quality of the education which they should endeavour to secure to the people; and, having come to an understanding upon that point, it would be a fair subject for discussion, whether the tutorial or professorial system would be most likely to accomplish what they wished. Upon this point, unhappily, they were in a most unfortunate position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said he would have nothing to do with the education of dissent; the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) wished to educate dissent; and thus they had those two Members of the Government, to whom the country ought to look with confidence for information as to the principle of education and the quality of education which they thought it most desirable to carry out—they had these two
748
Members of the Government, who appeared to have most to do with the measure, judging from the part which they had borne in the discussions which had taken place, distinctly opposed to each other upon this important question. Between these two points what could there be but the widest latitudinarianism? It was impossible that that House could consider, with any prospect of satisfactory result, how education should be carried on, until they knew what the education was to be, and that was a point upon which the Government had not yet informed them. He thought that the system of private halls had been introduced purposely to favour the views of the noble Lord. The noble Lord smiled; he bad no doubt he felt that, in carrying that portion of the present measure, he would be getting in the small end of the wedge wherewith to effect his object. His right hon. Colleague (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) probably would say that he did not see the matter in the same light; but he (Mr. Henley) could not understand how that right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord could lay down together a common principle of education. The question which was really involved—and the question which would have to be decided—was, whether they were, or were not, going to give a religious education to the people. If they were to give a religious education, they must make up their minds what that education was to be, for they could not teach religion in the abstract. If they attempted to do that they would have infidelity on the one hand and superstition on the other, while latitudinarianism would sit smiling between. If they had a distinct proposal to carry out either the views of the right hon. Gentleman or the views of the noble Lord, they should know what they were about; but this measure having been framed, partly with one view and partly with the other, he could not look at it with the same confidence as he might do under other circumstances, and he feared they would not get what he was most anxious to get—a sound religious education for the country. He trusted that the University would for ever remain an institution to secure to the people of this country a sound religious education. Dissenters were as much interested in that object as the members of the Church of England. Persons dissenting from the Church were always sincerely religious persons—they would not dissent if they were not—and they had, therefore, a great interest in the people being religiously instructed. He believed

749
that a great national institution, like the University, holding forth to the country the necessity of educating its inmates in the religion which it believed to be true, did much to support the cause of religious education generally; and that if the places of education in this country were to be frittered away, as he believed this Bill was now laying the foundation of frittering them away, down to indifference to all those matters which education ought to concern itself about, the dissenting bodies would be less able to keep up the religious spirit of the country, and, in proportion to their numbers, would suffer equally with the Church. He regarded the University as one of the great causes of forming the national character, for from it came the teachers of the people; and the character of mind there acquired—the love of truth and justice, the habits of hard and severe study, which were there inculcated, and which not only enabled a man to acquire knowledge, but rendered him more capable to discharge effectually the active duties of life—were spread, imperceptibly perhaps, but certainly, among all classes of the people. He thought there would be great danger that the national character would be impaired, if our University system were superseded by any foreign system encouraging a habit of learning merely by rote, and that they would be running the risk of stamping Sheffield plate with a silver mark. He trusted rather to see the University extend its sphere and improve its usefulness, and continue, as it had been, one of the greatest blessings of this country.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, as representing another University, he had, perhaps, but little claim to address the House on this occasion; but he considered that the two Universities were so intimately bound up together, that it was highly important that, in considering measures which applied to one, they should not put out of view the effect which those measures would have if extended to the other. The Universities, rivals though they might be for public approval, co-operated for the benefit of the public; and it was necessary to consider their joint influence on the general interests of the people. It must be borne in mind that they differed materially in their original constitution. They differed not less materially in the principles of their several foundations; they differed also in the class of instruction which they imparted, and in the respective systems by which they strove to make, and did make,
750
their education effective as a preparation for the active business of life; and they differed also, he regretted to state, in this, that whereas the University of Oxford had not adopted what had been recommended to it in 1837, by modifying its institutions and enlarging its sphere of usefulness, the sister University from that period to the present, had been uniformly labouring to make improvements in her system of education, and to adapt herself to the varying circumstances of the times. Differing, then, as the two Universities did in these important points, it followed that any legislation designed for their improvement must necessarily differ also. If there had been a Bill on the table of the House for regulating the University of Cambridge, he should have been able to ascertain whether the framers of that Bill had attended to the distinction he had just shadowed forth. As that, however, was not the case, he thought he could not render greater service to the University he had the honour to represent than by pointing out at once, for the information of those by whom any such Bill might hereafter be drawn, what would be the necessary effect of certain provisions of this measure, to the University of Cambridge. If he had had the good fortune to address them at an earlier period of the evening, he might have gone into detail. At present, he should merely content himself with drawing the attention of the Government to particular points, in order that when a Bill for regulating the University of Cambridge came under discussion, it might be, as it ought to be, a different measure from this. It was his intention to support this Bill as far as the second reading was concerned, if he had had any doubt upon that point, the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) would have convinced him. There were three provisions in the Bill, however, which, if they were introduced into the measure affecting the University of Cambridge, would impair its usefulness, if not altogether destroy its character and influence. The first of these was the provision with respect to the establishment of halls for members of the University not belonging to any college; the second was that defining the mode by which scholarships and fellowships are to be obtained; and the third, that by which the duration of fellowships was to be abridged. Now, the first of the three provisions to which he had referred was in direct opposition to the recommendation of

751
the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the University of Cambridge. If this and the other provisions to which he had referred were applied to Cambridge, the character and the benefit of the collegiate system would, in great measure, be destroyed. At present, an individual belonging to a college felt an interest in the institution with which he was connected. He felt not merely a personal pride in the honours which he might obtain; he was animated by a still stronger feeling—that of maintaining the character of his college. He recollected seeing the letters which some of the successful competitors wrote home to their parents in the year when the seven first men in the classical tripos belonged to Trinity College, and he had not forgotten that they dwelt not on the glory which they had themselves acquired, but on the strength and stability they had added to the college of which they were members. And when, in three successive years, the senior wranglers were from St. John's College, the same feeling animated those who had attained that high honour. They felt gratitude to the institution which had received them when poor, and which had nourished their youth; and they felt an honourable pride in being able to repay the obligation by contributing to its honour and glory. It was not wise to discard the incentives to exertion and industry which the present system afforded. By the 28th clause of this Bill it was declared that no preference in the competition for college fellowships was to be given to any member of the college foundation. Such a clause as this introduced into a Bill with respect to the University of Cambridge would necessarily excite alarm. He should certainly feel great surprise at hearing that Trinity College, to which he belonged, was, as this Bill would designate it, a close body. That college—which admitted everybody, whatever might be his birth or station in life, provided he owned allegiance to the Queen—that college, the scholarships and fellowships of which were only awarded after the strictest competition—that college, where merit and character always obtained its due reward—that college, which he always considered one of the most open institutions that existed in the world—would be entirely changed in its character, if this 28th clause were applied to it. It was said that the object of this clause was to secure competition. But where would they find stricter competition than in that college? On a vacancy in any one of its seventy-two
752
scholarships, there were 300 members of the college who might compete for it. There were four or five fellowships vacant in each year, for each of which there might be seventy-two candidates, who had already submitted themselves to the ordeal of a previous examination, who had since made progress in their studies, and who could only be admitted to the higher honour in consideration of good character and superiority in attainments, which they had exhibited during their college course and under the ordeal of a strict examination. They had here, surely, every security they could desire for the advancement of merit and the defeat of competitors of inferior attainment, while it seemed to him clear that if they admitted students living in halls to become competitors, they would be doing an injustice to those who had already entered the college and would defeat the intentions of its founder, that intention being to train up men from the commencement to the close of their University career, so as to be assured of their character and ability. He quite accepted the principle laid down by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth that that House was at liberty to deviate from the scheme laid down by the founder of any one of these colleges, in order to give effect to his real intentions. But they were not to frustrate their intentions, nor to deviate for any other purpose or to a greater extent than was rendered necessary by the altered circumstances of the present as compared with past times. It was further proposed by the present Bill that the duration of a fellowship should be limited to one year. Now, he would ask, who would devote himself to laborious study for five years in order to gain a miserable pittance of 150 l. for a single year? [Mr. R. PHILLIMORE: The fellowship might last five years]. That might be the intention of the framers of the measure; but let the House see the position in which the successful competitor for a fellowship would be placed. He would have a right to his fellowship for twelve months only, but the president of the college to which he belonged might give it him for five years. His enjoyment of it was thus contingent upon the will of the ruler of the college. Great uncertainty was thus introduced into the prospects of the man who received the reward; while great suspicion must necessarily be cast upon the conduct of those at the head of the institution, if they gave in particular cases the extension of time which they

753
refused in others. What was the effect of the fellowships as at present constituted? Persons who did not enter holy orders might retain them for seven years. During that period they launched themselves on that profession which they had chosen. Many eminent lawyers had thus, and thus alone, obtained the means of entering their profession; and if the term for which fellowships were held should be shortened to one year, he believed that the bar would be deprived of many of those who, under more favourable circumstances, would become its highest ornaments. Nor did this apply to the legal profession only. The effect of such a provision would be to impede the advancement of many most valuable members of society, who might rise to eminence and distinction in other professions, were the tenure of the fellowships not shortened in duration. He hoped and trusted he might receive some assurance from the Government that the provisions contained in this Bill, and to which those most intimately connected with Oxford, and best acquainted with what would be beneficial for it, saw no objection, would not be applied to the sister University. They were not required there by the circumstances of the case, they were not recommended by the Commissioners to whom was delegated the task of pointing out what reforms were necessary in that University, and he believed that if introduced there they would be detrimental, not only to the interests of the University, but to the higher interests of learning and religion. As he was only anxious to put the Government in possession of what he believed would be the consequences if, without regard to the difference of circumstances, they applied similar provisions to the University of Cambridge even though supposed by them to be conducive to the welfare and benefit of the University of Oxford, he would not detain the House any longer from proceeding with this measure.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend who has just addressed you, that in any legislation with respect to the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, we ought to have a careful regard to the distinctive character of those Universities; and although it is undoubtedly true, as stated by my noble Friend at the head of the Government in another place, that the general principle and outline of the legislation they require bear close resemblance
754
in the one case and in the other, yet also it is obviously true with respect not only to minute details, but several important provisions of the Bill, it is desirable Parliament should pursue a course somewhat distinct for Oxford and for Cambridge. I shall, therefore, think it quite unnecessary to follow my right hon. Friend in the discussion of the three points to which he has just adverted, but simply say I do not think he has exactly collected the purport of the provisions of this Bill even as they stand, while in respect to one point, the too great abbreviation of the term during which the fellowships may be held in conjunction with non-residence, surely I may remind my right hon. Friend that that point, if no other, may be regarded simply as a detail of the Bill, with which this House can deal according to its wisdom and judgment after due consideration. Now, it appears to me, that after from seven to eight hours' debate, Oxford, and all those interested in that University, have just reason to be satisfied with the tone of this discussion. Without a single exception, beginning with my hon. Friend the Member for the University (Sir W. Heathcote)—proceeding next with the right hon. Baronet opposite the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington)—that discussion has been conducted on the part of those belonging to Oxford in a tone of affectionate attachment and veneration for the place which it well deserved; and with respect to those who do not belong to Oxford, with a seriousness and calmness of consideration, and an entire freedom from any reference to party politics, which likewise eminently distinguished other speakers. And, Sir, if in former times—in times long gone by—Oxford has presented Parliament with the illustrious names of Mr. Fox, Mr. Canning, and Sir Robert Peel—it has been no common gratification to me to have listened to-night to the first efforts of two Members of this House, the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Byng), and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil), whose first efforts, rich with future promise, indicate that there still issue forth from the maternal bosom of that University men who, in the first days of their career, gave earnest of what they may afterwards accomplish for their country.
Sir, having said this with perfect truth and sincerity, I must likewise say, when I listened to the noble Lord, it occurred to me that, though he has learnt much, I

755
may venture to assure him he has something to unlearn. For, when the noble Lord speaks of the levity and precipitancy with which majorities of this House deal with great interests and great institutions of this country—when he tells us we have one year a Ministry of the highest Toryism, and another year a Ministry at the lowest point of Radicalism—when he says the majority of this House is no more than a weathercock, swayed by every passing breeze—I venture to promise him that his future practical acquaintance with the constitution conducted within these walls, where I trust he will long remain, will give him in a short time, I doubt not, a better opinion of the British House of Commons. I feel that, though it may be liable to be influenced for the moment with gusts of passion and of party feeling, he will find Parliament does not deserve the character of representing in its deliberate decisions no more than the fancies of the passing hour. Certainly the noble Lord did oppose the principles of the Bill, and I am afraid I must consider that the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) likewise declared himself an opponent on many points of it. But I am bound to say, referring to the general character of the debate, not only the tone, but the opinions expressed, have been such as to satisfy me there is every hope and reasonable prospect that this measure will, after discussion and such modifications as appear to the House to be just, pass into law in the present Session. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Oxfordshire referred to one or two points on which I must briefly touch. He stated that one of the Commissioners whom it was proposed by the Government to appoint, Sir John Awdry, had distinctly declared an opinion with respect to the foundation of professorships by the heads of colleges, which he thought at variance with the Bill. I do not read the opinion of Sir John Awdry to be so, and the passage quoted does not imply any such contrariety of opinion. The passage, as I think, implied that confiscation of college property in order to found professorships to be filled up by the Crown, was a thing that could not be endured. No such confiscation is contemplated. There are no compulsory provisions requiring the separation from a college of any part of its foundation. There is no provision in the Bill enabling or empowering the Crown to intrude any professor, or appoint any professor to a college. Sir John Awdry, con-
756
senting to remain as a member of the Commission, made himself master of the provisions of the Bill, and his well-known character is a sufficient guarantee of his comprehension of those provisions, and his intention, should his name be inserted by the vote of Parliament, to give effect to them in good faith, and without diminishing their efficacy. Then, I think, the words fell from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman, that this Bill is purposely intended to throw a slur upon and degrade those high in authority at Oxford, as heads of colleges and halls. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to render it necessary for me to give an emphatic and even a warm denial to any such accusation, because I do not think he intended to impute any such intention to the Government. As to the question whether we give sufficient power to the heads of colleges and halls, or too much power, that is a matter, I think, which we can best discuss in Committee. The Bill proceeds on this principle, that the heads of colleges and halls is one very important and influential class, yet still only one class in the University, comprehending several; and, therefore, for putting an end to a state of things which places virtually the whole initiatory power, almost the whole legislative power, in that class, we invite the House in Committee to consider how best to frame a constitution which shall give the main elements that particular share of influence and power to which they are entitled. The right hon. Gentleman likewise referred to another subject—the subject of the admission of Dissenters—with respect to which he lamented to find a contrariety of opinion between my noble Friend the Member for the City of London and myself. There was no such contrariety. My noble Friend stated his opinion in favour of the admission of Dissenters to education and honours in the University of Oxford, but stated at the same time his intention to vote against any proposition for inserting such provisions in the present Bill. I, following the noble Lord, likewise stated I should give a similar vote. I did not enter into a discussion upon the subject of the admission of Dissenters, for this plain reason, inasmuch as we were promised full opportunity of discussing the matter when in Committee. I did think it in my position, having the honour to be one of the burgesses of the University of Oxford, more befitting me, and more respectful to my constituents, to reserve any declaration

757
of particulars, until I had the opportunity of stating them fully, than that, by speaking hastily on a subject so important, I should run the risk of causing any misapprehension. I think I shall carry the universal opinion of the House with me that that was not the time, but when that time comes, if the patience of the House will admit it, I shall be prepared to state with all the precision in my power the reason, the meaning, and the grounds of the vote I am prepared to give.
The debate, with the exception of certain particulars to which my hon. Friend and Colleague has referred, so far as it involved material objections to the present Bill, was opened by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, in a speech which I have great satisfaction in saying was distinguished by perfect fairness and candour, as well as ability. But the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich earnestly and fervently conjured the Government to abandon all idea of proceeding by measures so violent and sweeping as those which are now before the House; and for once, if they could, adopt the method of conciliation. Conciliation, Sir! Why, look at the condition of this House. [There were scarcely forty Members present.] I say that we have conciliated, and conciliated until we have conciliated all animation out of this debate, and three parts of the Members who form the usual attendance of Members out of the House. And, however unsatisfactory that may be to those who rise to address the House, that the main recipients of their opinions are the empty green benches, it bears, nevertheless, emphatic testimony to the spirit of conciliation respecting the measure under discussion. The right hon. Baronet, however, falls back, as he is perfectly entitled to do, on a former speech of mine, and he has compelled me, by sending a message to Downing Street, to disinter a speech delivered four years ago. In that speech I expressed a strong opinion in favour of the freedom of government of the University. Sir, I still entertain those views. It is with reluctance that I have come to the conclusion that there is a case which really demands the consideration of Parliament, and I will not now enter into the grounds of that proposition, because I am perfectly ready to refer to the speeches made by my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) and Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore), with respect to the demonstration contained on that subject. I do not wish
758
to weary the House by what I have said of done on former occasions. More important matter is now before our consideration than such personal questions; at the same time, after what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet, I may say, when I did speak at that period, I did contemplate the time when, unless large changes were made in Oxford by other means, it would be necessary for Parliament to interfere. These words, and they are very few, were used immediately after the University passed the University Statutes, which introduced some important changes, and were pregnant with other changes. I said:—
"If the colleges fail to act in the spirit of the University, if they do not make it their aim to render their endowments available in the highest degree for the encouragement of learning, the reward of merit, and the enlargement of the circle within which their benefits are diffused, I grant the time may come when the interference of the State may be required, but at this time you have no justification."
That is precisely the case. The colleges found themselves, generally from no want of will, actually disabled by these Statutes, or the customs which had grown up under these Statutes—to adopt changes that were necessary, and we propose to Parliament to attempt that intervention which is in consequence required; but I hope, with the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, intervention does not mean perpetual meddling by the Legislature. Nothing can be so fatal to the dignity and independence, and the repose, usefulness, and efficiency of the University. And if the Government now interfere with provisions of some scope, it is because we feel it is desirable, above all things, that this interference shall, if possible, be an interference once for all—an interference effectual for its purpose, and, being effectual for its purpose, one which will leave no disputes, and no necessity for a repetition, at any rate for an early repetition, of any such interference. The right hon. Baronet says he thinks there is great fault to be found, not with the Government, but with the Bill, on account of the provisions relating to University extension, and he says he thinks the plan which, as he said, is proposed by the University, but which, in fact, is not proposed by the University, but is about to be submitted to the University, a better plan than the plan of the Government. Now, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to understand there is no rivalry whatever between us. I must confess I am not so very sanguine of any great extension of

759
the University by means of affiliated or independent halls. That is not a new question. For the last eight years it has been the subject of incessant discussion and consideration, and though there has never been any practical plan, much has been said and written—there have been many good and wise intentions, but after eight years nothing has been done, nothing has been proposed to the University, except in the immediate prospect of this Bill. It is not for the purpose of imputing any want of appreciation of the subject in Oxford that I say this. On the contrary, I know its importance is appreciated, but it is unnecessary to say that the difficulties are very great. The purport of this Bill is not to determine in what way University extension shall be conducted, in connection with the colleges, or under the control of the Chancellor. That is a matter with which the University is dealing, and I have every desire that it shall be successful. Our extension of the University is not a mere extension; it likewise pertains to other topics and other objects more vital and important in our view. The Bill was introduced, because the Government thought the time was come when it was desirable to make an endeavour to give more freedom and power of expansion to the system of instruction pursued at Oxford. We propose that the conditions of the expansion should not be dependent on the discretion of the University or colleges, but that they should be fixed by law for regulating the discipline, order, and quality of instruction, and that that instruction should not depend on the college system alone. For that purpose we propose under conditions—not in the discretion of any executive officer whatever, but on conditions to be fixed by the laws and rules of the University—that it shall be the right of any properly qualified person to open his house and convey instruction to all who might choose to attend. We have no wish to see any plans of extension in connection with the colleges hampered or interfered with. We wish them to succeed; but we also wish to see whether they could not have a freer and more elastic system established at Oxford—to see if it was not possible for the University of Oxford to expand her energies, to unbend herself somewhat, and to rise to the wants of this teeming age. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman understands that it was not our intention to set aside the existing legislation of the University, but it is our intention simply
760
to ask Parliament to legalise a system of expansion. We only interfere by intervention from without, to undo what was done by intervention from within. It is not more than three centuries ago since, not by the will of the University, but by the influence and by the interference of the Chancellor, acting as the Minister and organ of the Crown, that the close system was introduced which placed the University under the control of the colleges; we seek, by the aid of the Legislature, to strike off the fetters which were forged with its assistance. This is the principle on which these clauses are founded.
I will not, at this late hour, attempt to enter into a discussion on the proper method of constituting the Hebdomadal Council—whether it should be elected by a body like the Congregation, or in sections, by the different classes in the University—this will be discussed with more advantage in Committee; but I wish to make one general observation: the plan as now proposed, is founded on the expectation that the generous and temperate spirit which now pervades all parties in Oxford, under this pressure, will always continue. Our expectation is, that the business of the University will be conducted, under the proposed provisions, with a spirit in every class to respect the fair claims and rights of every other class. If we cannot trust the University, this Bill is a bad one; it proceeds on the principle, that if we start the University with good institutions, it may be trusted to work out the plan. If we said to the heads of houses that they were to look forward to a perpetual election by heads of houses, if we told the professors that they were always to be chosen by professors, and other members of the University by their own classes, we would only perpetuate the distinctions which have been thrown over for a moment, and which I hope and trust will be lost in the general desire to promote the common work and great purposes of the University. Well, Sir, the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) on one point seriously misunderstood the Bill. He argued on it as if it proposed that all offices in the University, or (I am not sure if I use the technical term) emoluments in the Bill, were to be disposed of on the sole test of examination, as a mode of ascertaining qualification and competency; and he then quotes a speech of mine in 1850, in which I stated that examination alone was an unsafe and unfit test of this. I am still, Sir, of the same opinion, and I do not think, when we consider the usual

761
character of this condition, that it was safe or prudent to make the result of an examination the sole criterion; but, Sir, the Bill does not in any way lay down the rule that examination shall be the only test. Clause 28 provides expressly for superior fitness in character and attainments; and it is also provided that the examiners shall be satisfied, by examination or otherwise, of the fitness of the candidate. I do not think it was possible to make the condition of qualification more liberal. I must say that it is not wise to make examination the sole and indisputable criterion of qualification; but if we wish by regulations to secure a permanent and vigorous succession of subjects, we must call in the aid of examination, and give it a principal place in the determination of competency. This is the principle of the Bill; and the right hon. Baronet, when he impeached its provisions, did not state them with accuracy.
Passing from the speech of the right hon. Baronet, I come to another speech, delivered from the other side of the House and in a very different spirit—I mean the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Blackett). I must pay both Gentlemen the tribute of saying that both their speeches, though differing in spirit, displayed that warm and lively interest in the fortunes and welfare of the University which distinguished all her children who have taken part in this debate. The objections of the hon. Member were directly counter to those of the right hon. Baronet, and I was struck with the fact that he said in commencing that he would take no notice of the objections of the right hon. Baronet; he did not, but directed his criticism wholly against the Bill of the Government. It might, perhaps, be more convenient for the House if, instead of referring first to the argument of the right hon. Baronet, and then to that of the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, I was to put one in one scale, and the other in another, and see which would weigh most. The hon. Member states various objections, but I think they were mainly four. The first is, that the colleges will not reform themselves. Now, Sir, I hope that many of them will; but whether they do or do not, this Bill provides machinery under which those who are disposed will be enabled. I hope that will be sufficient; if it is not deemed so, we shall have an opportunity of considering the matter in Committee, and I hope to be able to make it plain to the
762
hon. Gentleman, that if the colleges will not reform of themselves they will on coercion. The second objection is, that the Bill leaves a mass of profane and idle oaths; but it does not. I will not deny that there are some oaths which may merit the term he applies, and these the Bill abolishes. One general oath to the observance of the Statutes may be considered as inexpedient, but it cannot be pronounced idle; even of these we do not require the maintenance. The colleges may abolish them, but the hon. Gentleman knows that a great deal of religious feeling is mixed up with this matter, which cannot be overlooked, consequently we were of opinion it was better to leave the matter to the discretion of the authorities under the control of the Commissioners. Then the objection is that the Bill does not diminish the influence of the clerical element which the hon. Gentleman pronounces to be the bane and pest of Oxford. Where has the hon. Gentleman derived the principle that the clerical element is the bane and pest of Oxford? I ask him, as a practical man, what chance he thinks there would be of passing a Bill through this House which stated in its preamble "Whereas the clerical element is the bane and pest of Oxford," and so on. It appears to me that the predominance of the clerical element at Oxford is only in accordance with the genius of the country, and that it is not very desirable to attempt by the mere force of Acts of Parliament to constrain our institutions into a line which their own genius did not impel them naturally to take. I do not believe it would be possible to induce Parliament to pass any Bill altering the clerical influence of Oxford; the expansion of studies will act upon it, and, if incompatible, will dislodge it. We have provided clauses under which these who desire it may obtain fellowships without assuming the clerical character, and at present we do not think it wise to go further. Individual opinions are not worth much, therefore I will not press my own upon the House at length, but I doubt whether we can separate the large clerical element from the collegiate system. I doubt very much if any legislation could effect it. The feeling of the parents is in favour of having education conducted by those who have taken holy orders, and that is not affected by the clerical character of Oxford. If we look to those schools through the country which are most approved of, and patronised by parents in this country, we shall find

763
them conducted by clergymen. Parents in this country do not look to the mental character of their children only, but also to their moral disposition, and they feel that the clergy of this country, as they now stand, are the persons best calculated to develope the moral faculties. For these reasons the Government have not thought fit to attempt any violent interference with the clerical character of a large number of fellowships.
But the principal objection of the hon. Gentleman is not so much to anything within the four corners of the Bill as to the fact that it has been well received at Oxford. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich told us to conciliatet—the hon. Member for Newcastle says we have conciliated too much. The fact that the measure has been well received at Oxford has been to me a source of the most lively satisfaction, and I think it important it should be so received. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman's correspondence is carried on, but I have received letters from Oxford, not, indeed, representing the majority of the constituency, but containing a choice selection of racy and vigorous terms applied to the provisions of the Bill, which would meet the argument of the hon. Member, that the Bill should not pass unless objectionable to Oxford. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Wigram) has started a most important question with regard to the Bill; his objection went entirely to the root of all the provisions affecting the colleges; he laid down very high doctrine, and said it was no longer a question of prudence or of policy, but of honesty. The founders have left certain funds, but have left them subject to conditions. You now violate the conditions, but seek to retain the bequests. Yet, after making this charge, the hon. and learned Gentleman says he does not intend to divide against the second reading of the Bill. If such were the character of the Bill, it would require explanation; but that it is not is proved even by the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. My hon. and learned Friend says that we are going to violate the conditions of the bequest, and yet to retain the property; and when he spoke of the sole motive of the bequest, I think he had in view some of the local preferences to which an allusion has been made. Now, I deny that local preferences formed the sole motive of the Oxford endowments, and that they influenced the minds of the founders in
764
the slightest degree. The main object of the local limitations was to make the bequest more effective for the general interests. We are speaking of times when communication between one part of the country and another scarcely existed, and when, in order to make the Oxford benefactions efficient, it was necessary to attach them to a particular spot, where they were known to exist, and where their operation was felt. But that state of things has entirely passed away, and I must say that I trust the whole of these local preferences, except such as represent some peculiar feature in the character of the locality, will be brought under the operation of the provisions of this Bill. I would ask my hon. and learned Friend, are those conditions observed at present? He is shocked at this Bill, but he does not appear to be shocked at the present state of things. Are the Statutes of William of Wykeham observed? Who relaxes those Statutes? By what authority are they dispensed with? Are the Statutes of William of Waynfleet observed? What is done with the conditions of Archbishop Chichely at All Souls? Why, Sir, all interfered with, and yet the House of Commons is told that it has no right to make the slightest alteration. This is not the first time that that sort of argument has been made use of here. Exactly the same line of reasoning was adopted last year in regard to the University Tests Bill for Scotland. We were told at first that it would be a violation of the Treaty of Union, and then we were informed that the then existing tests did no harm, because the Senatus Academicus had the option of dispensing with them. So that the argument really amounted to this, that the House of Commons had no right to touch the tests, while the Senatus Academicus might deal with them as they pleased. The same argument has been urged tonight; but, I would ask, what is the case of All Souls? I say that there the laws of Archbishop Chichely are not only broken, but broken in a manner the most objectionable, because the visitor not only exercised a function which Archbishop Chichely never intended to give him, but he likewise exercises that power, as the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil) well knows, under what I may be permitted to call, without offence I trust, false pretences; for under the plea and in the name of interpreting the Statutes, he alters, he mutilates, he cuts in pieces, he does exactly what he pleases. That is an esta-

765
blished practice, a practice which absolute necessity has established, and which does not spring from the caprice or the levity of any body of men; and, that being so, all I can say is, that if the visitor of All Souls is intitled to take such liberties with the Statutes, surely it would not be a stretch of power for the Legislature of the country to exercise the same privilege. My hon. and learned Friend entirely overlooked the present state of things; but having done so, he went on to admit that all necessary changes might be made. But who is to judge what is a necessary change? I can hardly quarrel with my hon. and learned Friend, after he has made so liberal an admission as that.
MR. WIGRAM: I said changes rendered necessary by a change of circumstances.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Just so. Changes rendered necessary by a change of circumstances. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that I could not find it in my heart to desire a more liberal licence than that. It will cover everything in the present Bill, and if necessary a great deal more. Who is to be the judge of the change of circumstances, and of what has been rendered necessary? My hon. and learned Friend will not tell me that the Oxford founders constituted the governing body of the colleges the judges. They have given them no such power. He will not tell me that those founders constituted the visitor the judge. They have given the visitor no such power. The power of the visitor is to enforce the observance of the Statutes, not, under the name of interpretation, to pare and construe them away. To whom, then, can belong the right of judging of this necessity, but to that body which is the fountain of law in the country, and which alone has the authority to give sanction to such changes as are rendered necessary by a change of circumstances? The right, in short, belongs to the Legislature of the country—to that body to which it appears to me alone my hon. and learned Friend is inclined to deny the power of interfering in any way whatever. It is hardly necessary to refer to the extraordinary application which my hon. and learned Friend made of his own doctrines when he came to speak on the subject of
residence. He talks of the main object of the founders. If there was one thing more than another which the founders did contemplate—which was interwoven and
766
intertwined with every idea in their minds, and with every requisition of their Statutes—it was that the members of their colleges should reside. There is not a page of these Statutes which any man could read without observing that, above all, residence was the only condition which they were intended to enforce, and upon the basis and foundation of which the whole collegiate system was raised. It is a question of honesty, says my hon. and learned Friend. I hope it is not so; because, if it is, there are a great many worthy gentlemen in a very disagreeable predicament. But I say it is no question of honesty. I hold that these changes have been forced by time upon the judgment of individuals. It is a question of necessary and legal improvement, and in bringing that question to the test of parliamentary discussion we are bringing it, not to a lower, but to a higher sanction, and that which has hitherto been an unauthorised licence we seek now to place upon the ground of law and regulated order.
I need hardly detain the House any further at this late hour, because I feel that we shall have ample opportunities for discussing the Bill in Committee. This is a Bill whose main provisions should be taken up and discussed one by one; and when we come to the Committee, I hope we shall be able to discuss satisfactorily all the important features of the measure. Therefore I shall say no more upon any of those points to which allusion has been made. I must, however, before sitting down, be allowed to express my satisfaction at finding, upon the whole, so general an acquiescence in what I shall call the real principles of this Bill, namely, the recognition of the necessity for parliamentary interference; the wisdom of using the instrumentality of a Commission for conducting and regulating that interference; the desirableness of making enabling powers available, and of putting those powers into the hands of the University and collegiate bodies; and the necessity, for the interests of the University itself, of providing that the Commissioners shall be armed with sufficient legal authority to give effect to the views of the Legislature, if, through the unhappy operation of disabling oaths, the colleges themselves do not furnish the means of doing so. These are the real principles upon which this Bill has been framed; and I am bound to admit that, so far as I have observed, no disposition has been shown to question the motives or

767
the intentions with which the measure has been constructed. I venture to say, whatever else it may be, it will, above all things, be an emancipating measure. It emancipates the University from the influence of institutions which of itself it has no adequate power to correct, which came upon it from an extraneous source, and from which it is but fair that the power of the State should relieve it. It emancipates in like manner the colleges of fetters which they cannot of themselves undertake to break, bound as they are by conscience in many cases, and by strong social and personal influences in others. I think it is undeniable that this Bill, though it contemplated a great interference for the moment with the powers of the University and the privileges of the colleges, is not framed upon any principle of animosity to the University or colleges of Oxford. It is not a Bill which aims at maiming or fettering the University; on the contrary, it founds the government of the University upon that representative principle which we know from experience to be the source of almost immeasurable strength. It aims at enabling the University to provide for a want which it has never hitherto been in a condition to meet, thereby increasing the power and influence of Oxford, and deepening its hold upon the heart and mind of this great community. It proposes to make the endowments of Oxford really available for the purposes for which they were intended. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend or any one acquainted with the situation of Oxford, will not deny that at the present moment a large portion of those endowments are almost entirely dormant. I believe my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) will not deny that if we take the working of New College for the last half century, we shall find it to have been very unsatisfactory; and I am afraid the endowments of William of Wykeham are not applied in the manner in which they ought to be applied. That is the case, I do not hesitate to say, with the great mass of the endowments at Oxford. We are aware that at Oxford there are a great many men who work hard enough. I believe Oxford enjoys the respect of this House, because it is known that there is there an able and intelligent body of men, engaged day and night taxing their energies to the utmost in carrying on the work of learning and education. We do not want to increase the labours of these
768
men; we want that all the arrangements of the University shall be made to yield those precious fruits which part of them yield at present. I will only add one more word, and that is with regard to the professorial system. In regard to that system, we would like to see it brought into a condition worthy of a University occupying the elevated position of Oxford. We do not believe that it would be possible for Parliament to organise a professoriate in the precise manner which is recommended in the Report of the Commissioners. I do not think a measure of that kind would be at all acceptable to Parliament. if we were to come down and ask an endowment of several thousands a year for thirty or forty professors—and you would no doubt get very able and learned men; but you must not place them under any restraint—you must not expect them to lecture too much, but must trust to the richness of the prizes to produce the necessary result—I think it would be an obvious answer to say, that if we constituted these professorships at the present moment, the next question will be, where are the gentlemen whom these professors are to teach? We cannot raise a large class to receive professorial instruction in a day. That must be a work of labour and of time. The professorial body must be organised by piecemeal and in detail; but, at the same time, I trust, that it will be organised thoroughly, and that it will be amply and adequately endowed. I believe the existence of such a body is eminently favourable to the pursuit of profound learning. We know that the present system at Oxford is not so favourable as we could wish to profound learning; but the first clause of this Bill has been so framed as to provide, in a circumspect and judicious manner, for the gradual organisation of an efficient professorial system; and I am sure, with the candid spirit which the House has shown without exception in regard to this Bill, and with the desire which I can truly say animated the Government, we shall be able to place Oxford in a better position than she has ever hitherto occupied. The present Bill is not so much a measure for curing an evil as for developing and extending what is good; and I am persuaded that, if carried, it will effect what will prove a permanent increase of the fame, of the strength, of the prosperity, and of the usefulness of Oxford.
MR. WALPOLE: Sir, I ought to apologise to the House for rising to address them at this late hour; but the speech of the

769
right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down conveys so much of argument that is applicable and so many observations that are of importance to the University of Cambridge, that I, for one, being a member of that University, cannot even now consent that this discussion should close without pointing the attention of my right hon. Friend and of the Government to the very serious manner in which, as I think, the principles announced by my right hon. Friend makes this, not an enabling measure, but a Bill of unnecessary compulsion, uncalled for by the necessities of the case, and undemanded either on the part of the University or of the country. My right hon. Friend commenced his speech by stating that the principle of this Bill was applicable to the University of Cambridge, though he certainly said the measure to be applied to that University might be somewhat different in its details. At the end of his speech he tells us that the principles of the Bill comprise the necessary intervention of the Legislature—the appointment of Commissioners to direct and superintend the reforms of the University—that enabling powers should be given to the University and to the colleges to alter their Statutes if they think fit—and that still larger powers should be conferred on the Commissioners in case the University and the colleges do not agree to carry into effect the reforms contemplated in this Bill. Looking, then, at the Bill with these views, I say that this is, in point of fact, not an emancipatory measure, but a compulsory measure of the strongest description. It is true that by the charters, statutes, and oaths, imposed upon members of different colleges, there are impediments which require to be removed out of the way of those members, in order to enable them to work out and complete the requisite reforms; but is that a reason why you should impose other impediments in place of those you remove? is that a reason why, in knocking off one set of fetters, you should put others upon them? is that a reason why, in removing one set of barriers which prevent the members going in one direction, you should erect others which compel them to move in another and a contrary direction, and which absolutely prevent them from walking in that path which alone is prescribed by their Statutes and their oaths? Now, what is the power that you bring to bear upon the University and colleges? You bring to bear upon them the power of Parliament—the power of a
770
body that is singularly ill-calculated to devise reforms of this description, imperfectly acquainted with the needs and requirements of those bodies, which can only be ascertained from local information, the power of a body which acts from impulse, and according as it is moved by party spirit operating upon it from time to time—the power of a body which is admirably adapted from its mixed constitution to lay down general rules for the government of the courts, but remarkably ill-adapted by the same constitution for prescribing a particular code of regulations to any particular society which can only be governed upon the spot and by those who know everything relating to its affairs—that is the power which you propose to bring to bear upon the Universities. And how does my right hon. Friend propose to apply his emancipatory process in the material parts of the Bill? I allude first of all to the point which he took first—the introduction into the University of licensed halls. With regard to them my right hon. Friend said that they were necessary for the extension of education in the University at large. But my right hon. Friend knows that these licensed halls, which are merely, after all, licensed lodging-houses—will not more extend the means of education than the system of extension which now exists in the University of Cambridge, where between 700 and 800 of the students attached to the different colleges reside in lodgings. These students, however, are attached to colleges, and not left at large, as my right hon. Friend now proposes according to his new system; a system, indeed, which, he truly says, prevailed 300 years ago, but which was then given up, because it was found to produce a sectarian and Puritan influence in the University. My right hon. Friend will find that his system, if introduced, will, as I firmly believe, break up the principles of salutary discipline on which the colleges are framed, namely, that the students should go together to the same lecture-room; that they should meet together in the same common hall; that they should worship together in the same chapel; and that, being constantly under the eyes of the same tutor, with the same influences operating upon all the young men so associated together, they might learn together the same discipline which they never would learn if they were left alone in separate halls. And the argument that is used for these licensed halls is the necessity that a poorer class

771
of students should participate in the advantages of a University education. Sir, no one knows better than my right hon. Friend that, judging by the analogy of the public schools of this country, this advantage will not be conferred upon the poor, but it will be taken advantage of by the rich; it is the rich, and the rich alone, who have private tutors in our public schools, instead of being contented with the public tutors whom the schools provide. I say, therefore, in the first place, that this, instead of being an emancipating clause, is a compulsory clause for the University; and I say in the second place, that if the Universities were left to themselves, they are ready at this moment to admit students to reside out of college whenever there is no room for them, and therefore there is no necessity for the introduction of such a clause as the present, except perhaps for the better working of the professorial system which you are about to institute. The next part of the Bill which was noticed by my right hon. Friend was the interference with the endowments of particular founders. My right hon. Friend admitted that these particular endowments are held on particular conditions. And it ill becomes this House to step in and say that these conditions shall not only be broken, but that the property which is held for one purpose Shall be applied to another and a different purpose. Yet this is what you propose to do in the present Bill. I agree, indeed, with those provisions of the Bill which are applicable to the next of kin. I think that the reasons given for the limitation of the benefit of those endowments to the lineal descendants, and not to the collateral descendants, except within the last 100 years, are sound, and for this plain reason, that if you extend the limitation further, you defeat instead of carrying out the intentions of the founder; because, in all cases of collateral descent, the advantage to be obtained from such endowments, must depend upon proof of such descent, and in that case those collateral descendants who are not fortunate enough to possess, or not rich enough to procure, the evidence of their pedigree are deprived of the advantages to which they would otherwise be entitled. But with regard to schools, this argument does not apply. I observed that my right hon. Friend in the course of his speech omitted all allusion to the case of schools, and I hope I may derive from that omission this consolation—that the expression of opinion by the House
772
to-night in favour of the continued connection of schools with the University and with particular colleges will have its weight with the Government, and that that connection will not be broken up but that the provisions of the Bill in that respect will be altered. When the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) first introduced this Bill I understood him to say that the public schools of the country would be left as they are at present connected with the colleges, and nothing excited greater surprise in my mind when I came to peruse the Bill than to see the complicated clauses which, under the plea of keeping up the connection between the schools and the colleges, do really break up that connection altogether, or make it depend, as in open scholarships, upon merit alone. My right hon. Friend has argued strongly against a preference for localities. He says, why should not Parliament interfere, and, for the benefit of the colleges themselves, alter the mode in which their property is held? I trust my right hon. Friend will consider well the principle upon which this argument proceeds. If he is to proceed upon the principle that the purposes of property may be altered whenever it may appear to be for the advantage of the community, then he will be placed in this difficulty, that upon the same ground and plea he may take away any corporate property whatever, and apply it to any national purposes whatever. The only principle upon which you should proceed in this case should be that which pervaded the whole system of our law, namely, the principle which allows the owners of property to resettle and redistribute that property after the lapse of a certain period. You cannot interfere with corporate property in any other way, or to any other extent, than with the property of individuals. This House could not come in and say to individuals, "You are applying your property in a way which we disapprove of, and therefore we will interfere." Let your Bill, then, be made an enabling one, and say to the colleges, "You shall have the power, as any individual has power with respect to his property, after a certain period of time, to vary the term upon which it shall be held, and the different conditions which, according to circumstances, it may be right to impose or fix upon. This you may safely do under those restrictions, but more than this is confiscation." Now, allow me to add a few words with respect to the professorial system. If there is one fault

773
more than another connected with this system, it is that it destroys profundity of knowledge, while, on the other hand, the tutorial system is best adapted for the training and discipline of the youthful mind. No one can doubt that the great point of early education is the discipline of the mind, and this discipline can only be attained by habits of close reasoning and long study, and continuous thought; and such habits can never be produced under the professorial system of teaching, the effect of which was to fill the memory with large masses of vague, desultory, and undigested learning. Most cordially do I hope, that the professorial will be so regulated as not to interfere with the tutorial system. Upon the whole, then, I am fully convinced that all that you ought to attempt in this Bill would be the enactment of enabling or permissive powers. Commissioners should be appointed, not possessing controlling authority, but advising, superintending, and assisting powers. It should rest on the expediency of enlarging the powers of the University and colleges, for improving, extending, maintaining, and upholding their discipline, studies, and general good government, and it should proceed to enable such bodies to effect these great objects with the authority which Parliament alone can confer on them. You should then appoint a Hebdomadal Board, composed, however, in a very different manner from that which is now suggested. You should next proceed to the establishment of Congregation, not such as that which is now introduced, and which in practice would be nothing more than a mere debating society; you should then do away with the oaths which prevent them from making any changes, and declare in simple terms the "preferences" which ought still to be continued, and the terms upon which those "preferences" should be held. Having done that, I would simply enact that a general power should be given to the colleges to alter their Statutes or charters so as to adapt them to the circumstances of the times, but with the consent of their visitors, subject to the sanction of the Commissioners, and ultimately with the allowance and approbation of the Crown. If you were to do this, you would have simply an enabling Bill, and not a compulsory measure, and depend upon it, you can never reform the University satisfactorily unless you proceed in some such manner as this. By acting otherwise you would be establishing, as my right hon. Friend the Chancel-
774
lor of the Exchequer described it about four years since, "an authority for wrong." The Universities have not been negligent. Cambridge had already done almost everything which was necessary to promote the best system of education in the whole of the colleges connected with that University. A Bill of the sort I have described would be more acceptable than the one now proposed, more in harmony with the institutions of the country, and better adapted to the general accomplishment of those objects of extended education which in order to be successful must be voluntary and progressive. Proceed in this way, and much good will be done; give to the colleges your trust and confidence, and do not say, as you seem to be saying, "We cannot give you our confidence, for the time has come when we must coerce and restrain you." Say rather to the Universities and colleges, "We will enable you to advance yourselves, self-governed, self-moved, acting freely by your own internal power, and that indwelling vigour and energy which alone can make reforms advantageous to yourselves, and to those whom you will have hereafter to educate." These are the views and these the objects with which I shall apply my mind to this Bill when we go into Committee, in the hope that we may give to the measure that character which alone can, in my opinion, make it an useful and effective measure for the accomplishment of the object for which it professes to be framed.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I did not expect, after the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the debate would be further prolonged. But as the right hon. Gentleman who last addressed us has thought it necessary not only to comment on the provisions of the Bill, but to protest against its provisions and character altogether, I must endeavour, in a few sentences, to vindicate the measure which we have proposed. Let us recollect what was pointed out by an hon. Friend (Mr. Byng), who has spoken with so much ability for the first time, and whom I was delighted to hear deliver a speech of so much usefulness combined with so much temperance. My hon. Friend stated that, in the year 1837, the colleges of Oxford declared, by the mouth of the distinguished Chancellor whom they had the honour of seeing at their head, that they were then setting about plans of reform, and that they expected to make great progress with those

775
plans. Parliament would, I have no doubt, have been delighted to hear that the only obstacles which Oxford had in the prosecution of its voluntary plans of reform were in certain restrictions, which, without the help of the Legislature, they could not overcome, and that, therefore, they had determined to apply to Parliament for the removal of those restrictions, in order that they might be able to carry out those reforms. I have no doubt that such powers would have been readily granted, and that by the year 1850 they would probably have had time to carry into effect all those excellent plans of improvement and reform which they contemplated. But this House is well aware that the course of the University has been totally different. When it appeared that the attention of the public and of Parliament slumbered, the zeal for reform grew slack, and we heard little or nothing of these great intentions. In the year 1850 a plan was adopted, very commendable in its way. I think it is not likely to produce such fruits as were expected from it, but still it showed a wish to improve at least in one part of that University. At the same time I thought it advisable that the Crown should issue a Commission of Inquiry. That Commission has produced a vast deal of information, and has shown that although the Hebdomadal Board and the authorities of the colleges were not stirring, yet that there were a great number of men of most active minds, of accomplished learning, and of very general information, who had occupied themselves with the reform of the University. It was said, however, when the Commission was first issued, that the information would be all on one side—that none but one party, who were zealous for reform, would produce their views before the Commission—and that, of course, Parliament would be imperfectly informed, if not entirely misinformed. However, I trusted that when that information was produced—when many persons came forward with voluntary zeal to give their evidence—that those who took a different view, and were against the plans proposed, would find it incumbent on them, in order to obtain the aid of public opinion on their side, to lay before the Commissioners the information which they possessed, and the views which they held. I was not disappointed in that expectation, and the Hebdomadal Board has given us a Report, and has produced most valuable evidence on the part of those who took a contrary view from the view
776
taken by the Commission. We have received information from the Tutors' Asociation and other persons connected with the University. By these means we have been put in possession of a great deal of information of which Parliament was not before aware, and we have the evidence of enlightened men to which we can refer in our debates, who can supply any want of knowledge respecting Oxford which it was said the House of Commons did not possess. I will not at this late hour enter into the various points on which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) has touched, but I will say this at once—that, although the general outline of the plan for Cambridge may agree with the general plan of the Bill for Oxford, yet I certainly should not think it necessary servilely to copy the provisions of this Bill. For instance, Oxford entirely differs from Cambridge with reference to the first point he mentioned—the undergraduates living out of college. We propose the plan of private halls for Oxford—a plan that I believe will tend to the extension of the University in a very safe and gradual manner. The University of Cambridge has adopted the plan of allowing young men to live in private lodgings with the security of a licence from the college, and such other securities as they think proper to take, and as no less than 700 undergraduates are lodged in that manner, it would scarcely be necessary to propose the plan of private halls for Cambridge. This, however, I will say, that if any such plan had been adopted at Cambridge—if the plan of private halls had existed there, and we had proposed that young men should live in private lodgings, I can conceive the indignation which we should have brought upon ourselves, and we should have been charged with a want of discipline, and with instigating to immorality for sanctioning an untried system. The right hon. Gentleman, in his denunciation of the plan, has gone very far in his assertions. He has denied not the power, but the moral right of Parliament to interfere with corporate property, and deems its application as sacred as that of private property. I should have thought there was this great distinction between them—that whereas private property is settled on no other conditions than those of general compliance with the law and those duties which every loyal subject owes to the State, there are attached to corporate property certain implied or express conditions, and the Legis-

777
lature of a country in whom power is lodged—whether in a despotic State it is lodged in the Monarch—whether in the United States it is lodged in the Congress—or whether in this country it is lodged in Lords and Commons—I have always thought that the supreme authority has a right to see that the ends of that corporate body are attained, and that that property is rendered beneficial to the public. The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if we had not acted on this principle. Why, Sir, what have we been doing of late years with regard to the property of the Church? Much of that property, no doubt, was granted for the benefit of a particular bishopric, or chapter, or benefice. But we have said that the great ends of the Church are to be looked to—that the instruction of the people in religion and in the doctrines of the Established Church was the end for which that Church was maintained—and that the diversion of property given to Canterbury or Durham, to Yorkshire or Lancashire, would better serve those ends if Parliament would sanction an application of the revenues to other places. This is nothing but acting on the principle on which a State always has the power to act. I was glad to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Wigram) the admission of the principle that a change might take place when circumstances changed. The admission of that principle would cover a great deal more than this Bill proposes. Gentlemen talk of these institutions—of this property—as being so sacred that Parliament ought not to meddle with it. Now, without going into the case of particular colleges, let us see what was the general purpose, and what has been the general use, of these colleges. As far as I can see, they were generally intended, and wisely intended, according to the state of society at the time they were founded, in the first place to form a provision for a number of students, generally speaking of poor students, and persons who could not otherwise pay for their education, and who would not be able to provide themselves with sufficient maintenance. They were intended to give general instruction, in the University of Oxford, in divinity, moral philosophy, natural philosophy, the canon law, and logic. In the third place, they were intended very often to keep up the performance of religious services, among which masses for the souls of the dead were not uncommon.
778
What do we find with respect to these things? Is there any one of these general conditions which is observed? So far from there being a number of fellows and students living in the University, and devoting themselves to the study of certain sciences and of books of learning, we find that a great number of the fellows are not resident in the University at all—that they are pursuing other studies—qualifying themselves for professions, or employing themselves in other occupations. Others, again, were engaged, not in studying for the benefit of their own minds, but as tutors in teaching in the University. With respect to the saying of masses for the dead, that has not only been neglected, but has been prohibited by Parliament. Indeed, as to the original conditions imposed by the founder, there is hardly a trace remaining of their actual practice or existence. These changes have been made according to the view of the Crown by the Laudian Statutes, and by the colleges with reference to the better usages to which the funds might be applied. I say, then, if there has been that change, and a change made by those of whom the founder was particularly jealous, namely, the recipients of his bequests, surely we have a right to say, "We will not oblige you to go back to the exact fulfilment of those original conditions; but you having entirely departed from those conditions, we, the Parliament, consider ourselves equally at liberty to depart from them also." We are doing this, because we believe the general object of the founder was the promotion of religion and sound learning; and we believe the cause of religion and sound learning will be promoted by such a measure as the one now before the House. With respect to an enabling Bill, such as has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), to give the University and colleges of Oxford power to reform their own institutions, I should think such a measure would be inadequate to such a state of things. I should say there had been no general disposition shown to induce us to admit the long delay which would be sure to follow the adoption of any such plan. I cannot, therefore, join in the recommendation of such a measure. While the right hon. Gentleman has thus spoken against the Bill on the side of its going too far, some hon. Gentlemen, especially the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Blackett), have complained that it does not fulfil all the objects which the Royal Commissioners

779
had in view. My belief is, that this measure does, in its main provisions, comply with the objects which the Commission had in view. I stated last year that these objects were, in the first place, the extension of the University; in the next, the alteration and improvement of the governing body; in the third place, the endeavour to apply some of the revenues to the general instruction in the University; and, in the fourth place, the removal of those restrictions which gave preferences to particular studies. Undoubtedly many observations have been addressed to the House in the course of this debate, which are well worthy our consideration; and, without saying that the clauses of the Bill may not be defended as they are, I think the Government is bound to take into consideration all the suggestions of the Commission. To any suggestions with the view to the improvement of this Bill, come from which quarter they may, the Government will be most ready to listen. I consider this is a question of national importance; and if those who pay attention to the subject will devote their minds to a calm consideration of the different clauses of the Bill, I believe that, instead of destroying, as it is said we mean to destroy, the real foundations of the University of Oxford, or that excellent collegiate instruction which has been hitherto given in that University, we shall, on the contrary, superadd to the present worth of that University by a more expanded and extended instruction, in conformity with the science of the age; that we shall be able to give to a greater number of persons than at present enjoy it the benefit of that instruction, and that the nation at large will for a long period derive advantage from this improvement of one of its greatest educational institutions.
Question put and agreed to:—Bill read 2°.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Unauthorised Negotiations; Church Building Acts Continuance.
3a Testamentary Jurisdiction.

UNAUTHORISED NEGOTIATIONS BILL.
LORD CAMPBELL: I have a Bill which I propose to lay upon your Lordships' table. It is not my intention to go at any length into an explanation of the Bill, but if your Lordships will allow it to be read a first time, I will give an explanation of the Bill on the second reading. It is a Bill of great importance, and I invite your Lordships' attention to the subject. It is entitled "An Act to prevent any unauthorised negotiations or intercourse touching public affairs between the subjects of Her Majesty and any Foreign Potentate or State." The object of the Bill is to enforce the law of nations, by which it is clearly provided that all intercourse between individual nations respecting public affairs shall be conducted directly through the Government, or through foreign Ambassadors and Ministers duly authorised, and responsible for the advice they give. I shall be able clearly to show that this is the law of nations, and I shall be able to show that it has been in several instances infringed, to the prejudice of public affairs, in this country—that it is liable to be infringed to a degree alarming to the public safety—and that we
606
have an undoubted right to legislate with respect to the conduct of British subjects abroad, especially after the example of that most excellent measure of my noble Friend relative to the slave trade. We have no authority to legislate for foreigners; but wherever British subjects are, in any part of the globe, over them we have complete authority. I trust that I shall be able to show that it will be for the public advantage that this Bill should pass. I will now move that this Bill be read a first time, and, if your Lordships agree to this Motion, I will, after the holidays, name a day for the second reading.
Bill read 1a.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARMY.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I rise in pursuance of the notice I have given, to move for the production of certain papers, which, if granted by Her Majesty's Government, will show what changes, if any, have been made in the arrangements of the department of the Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, and in the transaction of business connected with the Army, in consequence of the war in which the country is now involved. In pursuance of the intention I declared when I gave notice of this Motion, I shall, in making it, take the liberty of laying before your Lordships the reasons that induce me to believe that changes much greater than any which seem to be at present contemplated, are urgently required.
My Lords, I have no doubt that your Lordships are aware that so long ago as the year 1831 or 1832, a Commission was appointed by the Crown to inquire into the existing arrangements for the administration of military affairs.
That Commission, which was presided over by a noble Friend of mine not now present (the Duke of Richmond), had made some progress in its labours, but had not completed them when it was dissolved in consequence of changes in the Government.
Under the Administration of Lord Melbourne the inquiry which had been thus interrupted was resumed by a new Commission, composed of five Members of Lord Melbourne's Cabinet, including Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston), and of my noble Friend Lord Stafford. In consequence of my holding at that time the office of Secretary at War, I had the honour of being named Chairman of this Commission, which, after a long and careful inquiry, unanimously agreed to a Re-

607
port, expressing a strong opinion of the necessity of an extensive change in the constitution of the public departments to which the management of the Army is entrusted. This Report was presented to Parliament in 1837, but notwithstanding its recommendations, from that time to this nothing has been done on the subject by successive Governments. I do not mean to blame them for having failed to do what was recommended, because there were obstacles to any effective reform, which hitherto it would have been difficult to surmount. It was contemplated, shortly after the date of that Report, to bring forward a measure carrying into effect most of its recommendations; but it was found that great resistance would be made to the proposed measure, and, at the same time, there was no reason to believe that it would receive adequate support from public opinion, which was not alive to the necessity of the intended reform. Hence the plan which was in agitation was naturally dropped; for, I believe that measures of improvement to which powerful interests are opposed, never can be pushed forward by any Administration till they are supported, or, indeed, almost stimulated into doing so, by public opinion. I think that it is rather the business of the Government in this country to follow than to lead public opinion in these matters, and that what is required is, that the public should understand the evil in order that they may call for the remedy. My Lords, it is with this view and with no wish to embarrass the Government that I now bring this question forward. I am persuaded that if the magnitude of the evil I am about to bring before your Lordships were once thoroughly understood by the public; if it were understood how the practical management of affairs in the army is year after year injured and impeded by the existing arrangements—I say, if this were once thoroughly comprehended, I have no doubt that, whatever might be the Government at the moment in power, that Government would be compelled to undertake, and would be able to effect every necessary reform. I must add, that the urgency of the question, when the country is entering upon an arduous war, is my reason for now bringing it forward.
I do not doubt that your Lordships are acquainted with the general character of the existing arrangements for the administration of military affairs; but at the same time it is perhaps desirable that I should
608
make a very short statement of what these arrangements are. My Lords, these important duties are divided amongst a great number of entirely independent departments. The Commander in Chief has the command of the troops—except of the Artillery and Engineers, which are not directly under his orders—but he has no authority whatever to adopt measures involving any increase of expense without the consent of other Departments of the Government. On the other hand, it is the duty of the Secretary at War to submit to Parliament the estimates for the Army, and to see that the money voted is duly applied to the intended objects. He is always expected to answer in Parliament all complaints which are made as to the misapplication of that money or the mismanagement of the service for which it was intended to provide. But, while he has this duty, he has no right, officially and properly, to interfere in the slightest degree in any one of the measures of the Commander in Chief, even those which most materially in their consequences affect the expenditure of the Army, unless they involve some immediate outlay. No money is required for carrying into effect the measures of the Commander in Chief. The Secretary at War, according to the theory of the service, has no right to interfere. Then, again, the Master General of the Ordnance has personally the command of the Artillery and Engineers. Without the assistance of any board, he performs, with respect to those two corps, the duties which, with regard to the rest of the Army, appertain to the Commander in Chief. In conjunction with the Board of Ordnance, the Master General has a very great variety of duties to perform, connected not only with the Ordnance and Engineer corps, but also with the general management of the Army: because, when I said the Secretary at War submitted to Parliament the estimates to provide for the expenditure of the Army, I ought to have said that it is only a small part of the expenditure of the Army that is so provided for; all that relates to the barracks, the arms, the provisions, and to the stores that are required, all these great departments do not come under the cognisance of the Secretary at War. The Master General and the Board of Ordnance have to attend to the barracks, the fortifications, and some of the arms; but nothing can be more capricious than the rule; for instance, the Board of Ordnance provides the cavalry

609
with carbines, not with swords. [A NOBLE LORD here made a remark.] Yes:—The noble Lord is quite right: I remember it is only the sergeants' swords of the infantry that the Board of Ordnance do not supply. Then again, the Ordnance provides part of the clothing of the troops, but only part of the clothing; it provides the great-coats, whilst trousers and coatees are supplied by the colonels of the regiments. Lastly, the Board of Treasury, in addition to having a general control over all matters relating to expenditure, keeps directly in its own hands all that relates to that important branch of military arrangements which consists in providing the troops with provisions, at least on foreign stations. The Ordnance have the duty of supplying provisions for the troops in this country. I believe, at any rate until lately, it was so. Now, all these various and independent authorities are, according to the theory of the army arrangements, kept in their places, and their mutual co-operation and concert are secured, by the paramount authority of the Secretary of State for War and the Colonies. All these offices, with one exception, are subordinate to the Secretary of State; but with regard to the supply of provisions to the troops he has no authority. The Board of Treasury are not under the orders of the Secretary of State, and all he can do is to signify recommendations without express directions. This is the theory of the arrangement, that all these independent authorities are made to act harmoniously together by the paramount authority of the Secretary of State. To a certain extent, perhaps, the practice formerly corresponded with the theory; but for nearly fifty years that theory has been, in a great measure, practically set aside. In the present state of affairs it is physically impossible that a Minister who is charged with the superintendence of all the complicated arrangements and all the details of our various colonial possessions can give a due superintendence to the affairs of the Army. Now, my Lords, I think this very slight sketch of the existing arrangements is quite sufficient to prove that it is absolutely impossible to expect that there can, under such a system, be that unity of purpose and vigour of management which, in the conduct of military affairs, is absolutely necessary and indispensable; and I will take the liberty of reading to your Lordships what was the opinion expressed by the Commissioners in 1837, in a report which was unanimously
610
agreed to and signed by them all. They say:—
"Various duties, which all have reference to one common object, and in the discharge of which it is highly important that there should exist the most complete unity of purpose, are entrusted to authorities, not merely separate and distinct front each other, but mutually independent, and only connected together by their common subordination to the supreme authority of the Government. Under this system, however anxious those who conduct the several departments may be to keep up a good intelligence with each other, we believe it to be impossible that a want of due concert and vigour in their various measures should fail to exist; and accordingly we are much deceived if the practical results of the absence of a more concentrated authority are not to be traced in conflicts of opinion, diversities of system, and delays exceedingly injurious to the public service."
Such was the opinion expressed by the Commissioners; and your Lordships will observe that in the passage I have read (though, for obvious reasons, they did not enter into details), they have pretty clearly intimated their opinion that the views they attribute to our system of military administration have been seriously felt in practice. I am afraid it will be my duty to do what the Commissioners have omitted, and to point out to you some of the evils to which they only alluded, because this subject cannot be understood by your Lordships unless you are able to trace by practical examples the mismanagement which has arisen in the affairs of the army from the system which I have described. My Lords, I know it is an ungracious and repulsive task—a task I would gladly have declined, if I did not conceive it my duty to undertake it—to point out the errors committed during a long series of years by the Governments of this country; but unless I did so you could not feel the urgency of the necessity for a change. In bringing this mismanagement before you, I can assure you I am only embarrassed by the overabundance of my materials. I shall select very few out of a whole host of examples I might bring forward, and I shall impartially select these from certain cases which have occurred under all the various Administrations except the two last, of which I do not pretend to know so much. I shall take them, I say, from various Administrations, not excluding those with which I have myself been connected; and in bringing forward these cases of mismanagement, I must further, at the outset, beg to be understood as meaning to throw no blame on individuals. It is not individuals, but the system, that I condemn; and I am

611
persuaded that under the system now existing the most able and the most conscientious public servants would fail to prevent those errors and those cases of mismanagement which it is my business to detail to your Lordships. I must add, that I am convinced that those to whom the management of the military departments had been entrusted, have generally been men of great merit; but this very circumstance—that, in spite of your having such able public servants employed, these errors have existed, is what, in my judgment, most tends to make this matter assume so serious a character.
My Lords, in trying to compress as far as possible what I have got to say, I have, of course, selected those very few examples of mismanagement which I propose to bring forward from what appears to me the most striking cases. Now, it seems to me that if there is one subject more than another of paramount importance in military administration during peace, it is that there should be the greatest attention to all that relates to the health and lives of the troops. Independently of considerations of humanity, independently of the gratitude we owe the brave men who risk their lives for our country—independently of those higher considerations, if we take it merely as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, the life and health of the soldier are of the highest possible importance. No soldier dies, or is invalided, in the army, especially on foreign stations, without imposing very considerable expense on the country. The House will see, without my insisting further upon it, the extreme importance of this subject, and your Lordships will allow me to show you how it has been attended to. When I had the honour of holding office as Secretary at War, I caused a careful examination to be made of the reports and statistics of the medical department of the army. Two most able and meritorious officers—Colonel Tullock and Dr. Marshall—were employed to conduct this inquiry. They did so with extreme ability and diligence, and the results of their investigations were ultimately laid before Parliament. Those results were of the most frightful description—so frightful indeed that it has always been to me a matter of surprise that while the attention of Parliament can easily be attracted to what appears to me such minor matters, the shocking details contained in these reports should have obtained so little of the
612
notice and attention of the Legislature. I will not detain your Lordships with many instances, but I am anxious to call your attention to the facts ascertained by the gentlemen to whom I have alluded with reference to the Jamaica and the West India Islands. On inquiring into what had been the mortality in these commands since the termination of the war, they found the following frightful results:—In Jamaica one-seventh of the whole force was cut off annually by disease, in addition to those who were invalided. That was the first result obtained. Taking the whole mortality of the twenty years ending in 1837, it appears that during that time there perished of the British force in Jamaica 6,700 men—6,700 English white soldiers—for the return did not include the coloured troops—had fallen victims to the climate of Jamaica. The average force of white troops in that island for the twenty years, from 1817 to 1837 inclusive, was 2,578; the average number of deaths annually was 350, or 130 in every thousand. Now, my Lords, it may give you some idea of what the extent of the mortality in that island really was if I compare it with the loss which was occasioned by the battle of Waterloo, the greatest battle of modern times. The loss occurring among those regiments which stood the whole brunt of the engagement, and excluding the others, some of which were only slightly engaged, and others not at all, was 100 men per 1,000; and that number included, not only those who were killed on the field, but who died subsequently of their wounds; so that it would appear that one single year's service in Jamaica was more deadly—that there was nearly one-third greater risk of loss of life to the soldier who took a year's service in Jamaica than there was of loss of life to the soldier who actually took a share in the terrible Battle of Waterloo. My Lords, I may be told that this is the inevitable result of the climate. If it were so, it would be a frightful thing; but I say it is not the inevitable result of the climate; for, after the investigation to which I have alluded had been made, various measures were immediately set on foot to counteract the frightful evils that were ascertained to exist; and in a very few years—if not immediately within the next four years—that mortality was reduced from 130 to 93 in the thousand—a saving of nearly one-third in the average annual number of the

613
troops. But the improvement did not stop there; for within the last ten years, instead of the deaths being 130 in the thousand, the average number has been only thirty-four. Now, what do these facts show? Why, that if the same precautions, which experience has proved are perfectly practicable and perfectly easy, had been adopted during the twenty years immediately succeeding the peace, instead of losing 6,700 British soldiers, we should have lost only 1,753, if the mortality had been in the same ratio as it has been in the average of the last ten years; that is to say, you would have saved the lives of 4,947 soldiers in twenty years; so that the lives of nearly 5,000 British soldiers have been thrown away through the neglect of taking proper and practicable precautions in the island of Jamaica during the twenty years succeeding the peace; and, in fact, they have been as much sacrificed through want of management as if they had been drawn out in front of their barracks, and shot upon the spot. My Lords, you may say this is not a very agreeable subject, and I will not trouble you with many details. The West India command was not so bad as the Jamaica; but even in the West India command the mortality among the troops has been, by the use of the most ordinary precautions, reduced from eighty-five to forty-five in the thousand. Nearly one half of the lives that used to be sacrificed were sacrificed through neglect; and I have no hesitation in saying that it is my firm conviction that the remaining mortality of forty-five in the thousand is a larger mortality than ought to take place if the various branches of the military service were managed upon a sound system, and treated with that care and intelligence that they ought to be. I have said this mortality might have been prevented by the most ordinary precautions, and it is necessary that I should prove to your Lordships the accuracy of what I state. We all know that one of the chief causes which leads to the prevalance of disease among large bodies of men is the want of good diet; and when the investigations were commenced into the state of the health of the troops in the year 1835, what, do your Lordships think, was discovered? Why, I find that, for a long series of years, medical officer after medical officer had reported that it was most injurious to the health of the troops to feed them upon salt provisions—every medical officer that went to the
614
West Indies had been giving this description of evidence—and what yet was done? Absolutely nothing; and at that moment your soldiers were every week receiving salt provisions for five days, and it was only on the two remaining days that they were allowed fresh meat. Now, my Lords, does it require a medical man to know that in a tropical climate like that of Jamaica it could not be healthy to give this vast quantity of salt provisions to men? Is not the fact perfectly palpable and obvious to the very meanest capacity? It is no part of the duty of the Secretary of War to interfere in anything relating to the victualling of the troops; yet when the existence of such facts came to my knowledge, when I found that such a frightful mortality was going on, and that the medical officers had repeatedly reported that so much salt food had the most injurious effect upon the health of the troops as actually to produce what I looked upon as a public calamity, I at once, without considering whether it was my business to interfere or not, commenced a correspondence with the Treasury upon the subject. That correspondence was laid before the House of Commons, I having moved for it myself in the year 1840; and it would be worth the while of any of your Lordships to look at the paper itself, which affords a most instructive example of the effects of the present system of transacting business. The correspondence was far too voluminous to admit of my attempting to give even a summary of it, and it will be sufficient for my purpose to call your attention to the dates of some of the most important letters. My first letter to the Treasury, pointing out the great evils I have described, and recommending a change in the rations issued to the troops, was dated the 30th of January, 1836. There were references and re-references, first to one party and then to another, until at last I almost despaired of seeing anything accomplished at all. But, following up my official correspondence from day to day, and almost from hour to hour, and, not content with my official correspondence, writing private letter after private letter, until, I believe, if your Lordships were to look, you would see a mountain of letters in my handwriting upon the subject, I received the final answer from the Treasury in a letter dated the 28th of January, 1837, which informed me that orders would be given—of course there would be some further delay before they could be

615
carried into effect—to the Commissariat Department to remedy the evil. There was, therefore, a whole year, with the exception of two days only, consumed in considering whether the troops in the tropical climate of Jamaica and the West Indies, who were shown to be suffering dreadfully in consequence of the salt diet they were subjected to, should continue to receive five days' salt provisions weekly, in spite of the unanimous opinion of the medical officers, who had been employed on the station for a long series of years, as to its injurious effect upon the health of the men. I think, my Lords, you will admit that that is a pretty strong case, but it does not stop there. My letter to the Treasury recommended reforms in this respect generally in all tropical climates; but when the final answer came, after all the references and re-references and consultations of every possible description, it said that I had made out my case with regard to Jamaica and the West Indies, and that their Lordships would direct that fresh provisions should be given every day in Jamaica and five days in the week in the West Indies, but that before they granted it elsewhere they would institute further inquiries. Well, my Lords, I was compelled to leave the case at that time in the hands of the Treasury; but of course I never doubted that further inquiry would be made, and that the matter would be properly followed up. But what happened? It came out incidentally—for the War Office has not necessarily any information on these subjects—it came out incidentally, at the beginning of the year 1838, that five days' salt provisions in the week were still being supplied to the troops stationed in a place where the climate is of the same character as that of the West Indies, although, technically speaking, it is within the North American command—I mean the island of Bermuda. Now, Bermuda certainly is not within the tropics, but it is a climate which partakes very much of a tropical character, and in which the health of the troops requires very great attention. As soon, therefore, as I became aware of the fact that the practice of supplying the troops with five days' salt provisions in the week was continued in that island, I wrote to the Treasury upon the subject. My letter was dated in May, 1838; and on the 6th of September an answer was returned, to the effect that their Lordships had heard no complaint upon the subject. Upon that
616
I caused a very elaborate investigation to be instituted into the reports of the medical officers, with a view of ascertaining how the matter actually stood, and whether it was necessary or not to make that improvement, which I confess it seemed to me that common sense required. When that investigation was concluded, a rejoinder was sent to the Treasury, which not only pointed out and proved the prejudicial effect which the practice of supplying salt provisions to the extent to which it had been persevered in had had upon the troops, but which showed that the convicts also stationed at Bermuda, who had fresh meat five days in the week, were enjoying excellent health. We were actually giving to these convicts at Bermuda five days' fresh provisions in the week, while our soldiers, quartered in the same island at the same time, who were unstained by crime, were condemned to salt provisions for five days out of every seven, and were thus less cared for than the convicts they were appointed to guard. And this had been going on for years, and although complaint after complaint had been made by the medical officers of the Army, they had never been attended with any satisfactory result. Well, the rejoinder containing these facts was sent in in November, 1838; and upon that there ensued a very long correspondence, and your Lordships probably will hardly believe that that correspondence was only brought to a close, and that orders for this most necessary improvement were only issued on the 21st October, 1840—just two years after the subject was first broached. Now, my Lords, there is another remarkable fact connected with the subject which I may notice; and it is this—that when this reform was introduced, which was attended with all the benefit, and more than all the benefit, which had been anticipated to the health of the troops, it was found to possess also this other advantage, that after some little time, when the contractors were able to arrange for the supply of fresh meat, it was found that there was actually some slight saving of expense to the Commissariat Department—that the substitution of fresh meat for salt provisions was, in fact, a cheaper arrangement, so that there was actually a saving to the nation by giving our troops wholesome instead of unwholesome food.
My Lords, you may perhaps think that while this service is entrusted to the Treasury Department, though there may have

617
been mistakes as regards the health of the troops, the business must at all events have been conducted with great regard to economy. I am sorry to say that that has not been the case, as I shall be able to show to your Lordships. For a short time the plan was adopted of having the supply of provisions to the troops on foreign stations voted by Parliament as part of the Army Estimates. After a short time that plan was discontinued—for what reason I know not; but while it was in operation, and when I was Secretary at War, the attention of one of the officers of the department was called to the extraordinary fact, that more than one half of the cost of the bread supplied to the troops stationed at Gibraltar would have been saved if the flour for the manufacture of that bread had been got at Malta. The actual cost of the bread in that year was 7,800 l.; the saving, if the flour had been procured at Malta, after paying the freight from that place to Gibraltar, would have been 3,500 l. Well, my Lords, that led to an investigation, and the result was so very curious, that your Lordships would hardly believe what turned out to be the manner in which the flour consumed by our troops at Gibraltar had been procured. That flour was got from America; and in tracing the matter out these extraordinary circumstances were brought to light:—In that year, owing to a bad harvest, corn and flour in America were very dear. At the same time, your Lordships will recollect that we had had two or three good harvests in this country, and that under the law which then existed there was a large accumulation of foreign corn in the bonded warehouses in this country. In that year there was a large quantity of Black Sea corn removed from the bonded warehouses in this country and exported to America; and it turned out that the flour supplied to the troops at Gibraltar had been manufactured from this identical Black Sea corn. It had passed by Gibraltar in the first instance—had been brought to this country and lodged in the bonded warehouses here—had twice crossed the Atlantic—and, at last, had been brought back to Gibraltar, for the purpose of supplying the troops stationed at that place. My Lords, that is a very curious fact; but the explanation of it is this:—Some years before, when New York was the cheapest market from which flour could be gut for Gibraltar, an order had been issued by the Treasury that the supplies required should
618
be procured from that place; but circumstances changed—the prices in the different markets altogether altered. But although the Admiralty altered their arrangements, and supplied the Navy with flour got upon the spot, with respect to the troops the old beaten track was followed, and when it became twice as expensive to procure flour from America as to purchase it at Malta, it continued to be procured from America, as if this change of circumstances had never taken place. Well, my Lords, I say is not this the natural result of the present system? Any man who knows the enormous extent of the business of the Treasury, and the manner in which it presses on the higher officers of that department, must know that it is utterly impossible that those higher officers can give any attention to the details of the Commissariat management. I do not blame them for it. On the contrary, I know that the business of that department could not go on with any degree of satisfaction if they were to give their attention to details; for, if they did, they must necessarily neglect the higher and more important duties they have to perform in relation to the country. The consequence is that the arrangement of those details falls into the hands of a class of persons well meaning, excellent, and conscientious, as I entirely admit them to be, but, like all persons in public departments, apt to fall into routine habits, if there be not a constant superintendence over their conduct from above. It is not in human nature—it cannot be expected, that the subordinate Members of a great public department, if they are not watched over and superintended by the superiors of that department, will give that constant and active attention which is essential to a really good administration. My Lords, I might go much further with reference to this subject of rations; but I think I have mentioned enough, and I will only add that I believe during the whole time the Emperor Napoleon was at St. Helena, although we had a considerable garrison there, not a single day's fresh provisions was issued to the troops of which that garrison were composed, except on Christmas-day and upon one or two festivals, and that in consequence of this state of things a high rate of mortality prevailed among the men, while not a single officer died a natural death, the only death of an officer having been that of one who was accidentally drowned. But I have said enough upon this subject, and

619
I will proceed to the question of quarters, a question as regards the health of our troops, not less important than that of food.
My Lords, will your Lordships believe that while this terrible mortality of which I have spoken was going on in Jamaica and in the West Indies, we were allowing to our troops just eighteen inches of space per man for sleeping room; and the soldiers were so crowded in their barracks that there was no room for them in beds, and it was necessary to place them in hammockssuch—was the mismanagement with respect to quarters at that time. After a time, there was an improvement in respect to the space allowed to each soldier, but in other respects, I regret to say, that the lodging of the troops continued to be most unsatisfactorily provided for. Of this it is right that I should give some examples; and I will, in the first place, bring before your Lordships certain facts with respect to the principal barracks in the Island of Trinidad—one of the colonies which has suffered very particularly from the system, the evils of which I am now endeavouring to point out. The Orange-grove Barracks in Trinidad were reported by the medical officers in the year 1822, to be in so bad a condition, that it was ordered that no expense of any magnitude should be incurred in their repair; and in 1823, other medical officers, Drs. Lamont and Blair, reported of the same barracks, that the mortality in them was great, because the men were obliged to reside in barrack-rooms constantly wet, owing to the rain coming in. "If slaves in this island," it was said, "were so badly lodged, the protector of slaves would consider it his duty to prosecute the proprietor of the estate to which they belonged." What do you think, my Lords, of keeping British soldiers barracks so bad that a slave-owner would be liable to prosecution if he kept his slaves in such ruinous places? This was in the year 1823. In the year 1824 there was some slight improvement; but it was certainly not effectual, because in 1825, Dr. Hacket, another medical officer, in his report, called attention to the evils which existed at that time. He says—
"Never was I so astonished or amazed, in truth, so perfectly astounded, as in beholding what is called a barrack or an hospital, such as this country presents."
In 1827 there was a still stronger report
620
from Dr. Hartle, Deputy inspector General of Hospitals, who said—
"These Orange-grove barracks are disgraceful."
In 1832 Surgeon Savery reports:—
"All the barracks occupied by the corps as barracks are old, but are kept air and water tight, except the barrack at Orange-grove, which has been allowed to go unrepaired for some time, and is now in a most disgraceful state."
In 1833 the same officer reports—
"The barracks at Orange-grove were suffered to remain in the most shameful state for some time, until by frequent representations of their insalubrity, they were repaired in July and August last."
That is, my Lords, those barracks having been condemned as unfit to be inhabited by the troops, the only result of that condemnation was, that the Government ceased to repair them, and for eleven years kept the British soldiers, year after year, in a place of which the medical officers had reported that the mortality there was great, because the barracks were so wet that the men could not be kept dry in their beds. Perhaps I may be told that the cause of the evils I have now described is not mismanagement, but the reluctance of Parliament to vote the money required for the proper accommodation of the troops. This I cannot admit—having sat for nearly twenty years in the House of Commons, I can remember no instance in which a Vote shown to be required for the comfort of the troops was rejected, and I find that it has sometimes happened that, even after money has been voted for objects of great urgency for the health of the troops, its application to those objects has been delayed. For instance, in the island of St. Vincent, the military hospital was utterly inadequate for the requirements of the troops. An estimate for building a new hospital was laid before Parliament; the money was voted, but the new hospital was not finished for nine years after the erection had been sanctioned, and for a long time after the foundations of it had been laid, it was allowed to remain without any progress being made with the work, while the troops were suffering most severely from the want of it. Even then the accommodation it was intended to afford was greatly inadequate. In the same manner, at Antigua, while there were the greatest complaints of the inadequacy of the hospital accommodation, obvious and easy means of meeting the difficulty without incurring any serious expense were neglect-

621
ed. The medical officer, in reporting the distressing consequences which must result from the want of accommodation if sickness should break out, adds:—
"The abolition of the general detachment hospital, formerly at English Harbour, is much to be regretted. During the last few days those useful buildings, consisting of two large pavilions, extensive offices, staff-surgeon's house, and attached building, were sold in lots by a positive order of the Board of Ordnance. I understand the total amount arising from the sale was but 300 l., although above 5,000 l. was the sum originally expended."
But, my Lords, I have some other facts which illustrate the working of this system. In the year 1825, between 700 and 800 European soldiers were sent to Sierra Leone. Five years before, it had been reported that there were no barracks there fit for the reception of European troops; yet these men arrived before the new barracks intended to receive them were prepared, and had consequently to await their completion, exposed to all the inclemency of that dreadful climate. My Lords, the result is thus described in the report which was made upon the subject:—
"The scene which ensued baffles all description. The unfortunate men gladly crowded into the rooms as fast as they could be covered in, though the plaster was still wet. Fever of the very worst type was soon generated in such a situation, and before many days had elapsed almost every one was attacked by it. The officers sought refuge in huts, which even the natives had abandoned; the sick, the dead, and the dying were crowded together, and before the end of that year two-thirds of the force were in their graves."
My Lords, that is not all. In order to relieve the great pressure at Sierra Leone, 200 of these unhappy men, for whom no accommodation could be found, were sent to the Gambia. But even at the Gambia accommodation could only be provided for 108 out of the 200, and the rest were kept afloat until room could be found for them. My Lords, they had not long to wait, for in the course of three months eighty-seven, out of the 108 first landed, died, and their places in the barracks were supplied by those who had been kept on board ship. In the course of three months more seventy-three other deaths occurred; so that within six months, 160 soldiers out of this 200, who had been sent from Sierra Leone to Gambia, perished for want of accommodation. The garrison at Sierra Leone being still over-crowded, 200 more men were sent to the Gambia, and before they could be withdrawn, ninety-nine of their number perished. The troops at Sierra Leone
622
afterwards became more healthy, for which the following reason is assigned by the principal medical officer in his report for 1827:—
"I am inclined to attribute much of the exemption of the troops from sickness to their being better quartered and less crowded in their barracks than formerly. In saying they are better quartered, I mean that the barracks are now seasoned and are become from age a more fit place of residence."
[The noble Earl here referred to the mortality which had occurred among the troops, native and English, stationed at Hong Kong]. My Lords, I assure you these are not isolated cases. They are examples, and examples only, of the results of a general system. I do not blame, as I have said before, those who have had the management of the particular departments—on the contrary, I am convinced that if a good selection of persons to manage these departments could have prevented the evil, the evil would not have occured. My Lords, from 1819 to 1827 the Master-General of the Ordnance was the Duke of Wellington, and the Clerk of the Ordnance was the noble Viscount (Viscount Hardinge) who sits on the bench near me. It was during that very time that the troops were kept in the barracks at Trinidad which had been condemned, and had not been repaired. It was during the time that the Duke of Wellington was Master-General of the Ordnance, and my noble and gallant Friend, if he will allow me so to call him, was Clerk of the Ordnance, that between 700 and 800 soldiers were sent out to Sierra Leone, where there were no barracks to receive them. This my Lords, was but the natural consequence of a system which separates the authority which directs where the troops are to go from the authority whose duty it is to see that they are properly lodged when they arrive at their destination. If the Duke of Wellington had had both departments under his control, and had been responsible not only for sending out the troops, but for providing proper barrack accommodation in the places to which they were sent, does any man for a moment believe these horrors would have occurred? My Lords, from the year 1828 to the year 1830 the same things were going on. In Trinidad, and at various other places, condemned barracks were being occupied under a vague notion of repairs which were never executed, and were ultimately abandoned. Let us, see, then, how the various departments were occupied at that time. The Duke of Wellington was first Lord of the

623
Treasury; Lord Beresford, who had given the highest proof of administrative as well as professional ability, was Master General of the Ordnance; Sir George Murray was Secretary for War and the Colonies; the noble Viscount near me (Viscount Hardinge) was Secretary at War; and Colonel Stuart, a most distinguished military officer, was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and was the person who had charge, in that capacity, of all these matters, so far as the Treasury was concerned. Now, my Lords, it can very seldom happen that all these great offices connected with these several departments can be filled at the same time by men not only of the highest character and ability as civilians, but also as soldiers of European reputation. Yet we see that all this combination of talent and experience, under the existing arrangement of military business, could not prevent the abuses and evils which I have described to your Lordships. All those evils continued unchanged under the Government of the Duke of Wellington as they had done under the preceding Government, and as they afterwards did under the Government which followed—for I claim no exemption for a Government in the reputation of which I take a deep interest—under all these Administrations the troops in the West Indies continued to die at the frightful rate I have described, from improper rations and the want of barrack accommodation.
Now, my Lords, the great importance of the facts I have mentioned is even less in the things themselves, than in the indications they give of the nature of the general system of our military administration. From what I have observed myself, I have not the least doubt that, in all that relates to the clothing and equipment of the troops—to their training and discipline, to the training of the officers, and to the general organisation of the service, especially in respect to the description of arms issued to the troops—I have no doubt myself that in all these matters there has been a great absence of that vigour which there ought to be in the management of an army. But in time of peace these evils of the system do not exhibit themselves very obviously. All you can say at such time is, that there is an absence of improvement; and it is impossible to prove a negative in the same way that you can prove positive mismanagement in those matters which admit of being fairly tested. Now, my Lords, I dare say I shall be met by the argument
624
that my view of the subject cannot be correct, and that the evils I have described cannot be so great, because the British army, after all, has been successful. Noble Lords may point to the glory and the triumphs of the last great war in which we were engaged, and may ask, "Is it possible that an army, mismanaged as you have described, can have gained all this glory, and achieved all these triumphs?" I do not think, if your Lordships look into the matter, that that argument will hold good. On the contrary, I believe that an investigation into the history of the war will tend to make out my case, instead of the reverse. Look at all the early years of the war, and see what a melancholy record it is of misdirected effort. Our soldiers were as brave as they have ever been—blood and treasure were spent in reckless profusion—yet how little were the results that were obtained? My Lords, many books have been published lately which throw much light upon this subject, and in my opinion they establish beyond all doubt the fact that the same things were going on in the war which have been going on since, with unfortunately more disastrous consequences than have resulted from them during peace. I would refer your Lordships to the Diary of Sir Harry Calvert, and still more to that most authentic history of the Peninsular War contained in the Duke of Wellington's own Despatches, and I will undertake to say that no unprejudiced man can read these books without the strongest conviction of the magnitude of the evils arising from the present system of military administration; nothing is more striking in the Duke's Despatches than the evidence they afford of the very great degree to which his difficulties were aggravated by mismanagement at home. My Lords, it is a significant fact which I remember to have seen mentioned, if not in the Despatches, undoubtedly in other works, that from this country, so famous for its manufactures, the swords supplied to our cavalry were of so miserable a description, that they were glad to throw them away and to take the swords of the enemy for their own use, wherever they had an opportunity of doing so. My Lords, I know that in the Peninsular War we triumphed; but we triumphed notwithstanding mismanagement at home, and entirely owing to the efforts of that great man to whom the conduct of the war was entrusted. Few persons at the time these great events were in progress were aware how entirely

625
everything dependeded on the personal energy of the Duke of Wellington, and I know that some very competent judges have declared that it was not until his Despatches were published, and they were thus enabled to understand not only how it had been supported, but how much his efforts had been thwarted by the mismanagement of the Government at home, that they appreciated the real merit and value of his services. I say, therefore, that the late war, so far from contradicting, proves the truth of my case; and I have a paper in my hand which still further supports my argument. My Lords, when I was Secretary at War, and while Lord Melbourne's Government were considering the propriety of taking some steps on the Report of 1837, my lamented Friend, Sir Willoughby Gordon, furnished we with a confidential Report, drawn up by him in the year 1810. I do not accurately remember what had led to his writing this Report, but I believe it had been prepared for the use of the Government of the day, and finding many years after that another administration, of which I was a member, was occupied in considering the subject to which his report related, Sir W. Gordon furnished me with a copy of it. This was only one out of many instances in which I was indebted to the personal kindness of that excellent man; than whom—as I am sure all those who were acquainted with him will testify—there never was a more able or conscientious public servant. During the greater part of the war he held a position of great responsibility at the Horse Guards; he was entirely in the confidence of the Duke of York, he knew all that was going on, and he had the best means of forming a judgment on the subject. Now, my Lords, in the Report which he handed me, after describing the various offices in which there have been some partial, but no essential changes, he proceeds as follows:—
"Such is the outline of the duties of the several great officers of the State above mentioned in the management of the military affairs of the empire. Each, to a certain extent, is independent of the other; but it is evident that no efficient military measure of any magnitude can be carried into effect without the concurrence and united efforts of all. Hence has arisen that confusion and clashing of office so apparent in all our great operations—that jealousy between the heads of each office—that delay and continual procrastination in our offensive measures—and, above all, that publicity which has ever attended, and must ever attend, our most secret military enterprises as long as the direction of them continues as at
626
present. The Master General, the Commander in Chief, the Secretary at War, the Paymaster General, are all independent of each other. The Secretary of State is paramount of all, and it is only through his office that either of the above four officers can obtain from each other what they may reciprocally require for the despatch of any great military measure. If the foregoing premises are correct—as in substance, if not to the very letter, they will certainly be found to be—it follows as a direct conclusion that these obstructions to the public service can only be removed by the power of all the separate offices being placed under one general and controlling head. The placing of any one of these offices in commission (for instance, that of the Commander in Chief) would not tend to facilitate the public business, or in any manner relieve the difficulties which have been stated, because his office forms but a branch of the administration of military affairs; and, perhaps, by lessening the unity of direction in that single office, isolated from the others, the evil would be rather augmented than diminished. If, however, any advantageous change could be made in the management of this mass of business, the first step towards the attainment of this object would be to place the powers of each of the following officers, namely, the Secretary of State for War, the Commander in Chief, the Secretary at War, the Master General of the Ordnance, and the Paymaster General, into one great office, each officer transacting his own department business like the Ordnance Board, but the whole conferring together and acting under the presiding influence of a Principal Secretary of State. From this arrangement the principal executive offices would undergo little or no change. The business of the undermentioned offices would be exactly the same as at present, namely, the Commander in Chief's Office, the War Office, the Ordnance Office, the Paymaster General, the Adjutant General, the Quartermaster General, the Commissariat, the Medical Board. The whole of the object of this proposition has been to consolidate the business relating exclusively to the military affairs of this country, which is now done by several departments, into one department, where it could best be conducted, with equal power as to skill and information, and with greater accuracy, despatch, and unity of system, and, consequently, at less expense. The principle has only been laid down in the foregoing observations, but if that be well considered, and resolved upon, the details will not be difficult to manage."
My Lords, this opinion, written confidentially for the information, I believe, of the Government of that day, in the very height of that great contest in the Peninsula, by one of the officers who had the best means of forming a judgment on the subject, is a document, I think, entitled to the greatest weight. I can, from my own experience, corroborate Sir Willoughby Gordon's opinion as to the difficulty which arises in all military matters from the present arrangement. It is quite true that while I had the honour to hold the office of Secretary at War I had no very great experience of it, for there was

627
nothing like war to any considerable extent. But I was Secretary at War when it became necessary to send large reinforcements to Canada in 1837 and 1838, and I was Secretary of State during the late and the previous Kafir war, when we had to send reinforcements to the Cape; and I can assure your Lordships that on all these occasions, in the one capacity and in the other, I became painfully sensible of the extreme difficulty and inconvenience which result from the present constitution of those departments. Now we are engaged in a far greater war those difficulties will be increased tenfold. Those of your Lordships who have listened to the statement I have made must feel with me that it is utterly impossible for the Secretary of State, charged with the management of our Colonies, to devote his attention to military affairs in such a manner as to keep the different independent departments, which must concur in every arrangement, in such harmonious co-operation with each other as to give vigour and effect to any measures adopted. And, my Lords, I will say this, that if the noble Duke now at the head of the Colonial Department did not open a single colonial despatch—if he were to put aside altogether, or entrust to other persons the whole of the civil business of the office, even then his office does not contain the information, it does not afford him the assistance, which are indispensable in properly conducting this all-important branch of the service. It is essential, in my opinion, that the details of the expenditure of the Army should be managed and should be considered in the same place, under the same roof, and under the same superintendence, as the general measures relating to the employment of the Army. The separation of the authority which has to prepare the estimates and to control the expense of the Army, from that which has to decide what troops are to be employed on any given service, and in what manner any demands for military force which may arise are to be met, must necessarily be attended with great inconvenience. None but those who are conversant with the financial part of the subject can judge how any required service may be performed both with efficiency and economy; for the expense of sending the same amount of force to a given place may often be increased or diminished by the more or less judicious manner in which it is organised, and the circumstances on which the propriety of adopting one management rather than an-
628
other, are often only fully known in the department to which the control of military expenditure is entrusted. In illustration of this, I may mention what occurred upon an occasion to which I have already referred—I mean the Canadian insurrection. When that insurrection broke out, and reinforcements were called for, the arrangement as to the troops to be sent out having been made between the Secretary of State and the Commander in Chief, was communicated to me, who, as Secretary at War, would have to prepare the estimates. I saw at once that it involved a much larger increase in the estimates than was at all necessary; and that by sending out a brigade of Guards instead of regiments of the line, and adding to the strength of the regiments already in Canada, instead of sending out fresh regiments, the required increase of force where it was wanted might be provided for with much less interference with the regular relief of regiments serving abroad than would otherwise have been inevitable. As at that time the pressure of the Colonial service was such, that it was a question whether an augmentation of the army, which was not otherwise wanted, would not be necessary in order to furnish reliefs for the regiments abroad, it is obvious that the alteration in the mode of furnishing the force for Canada, virtually diminished the demand for an increase of the Army. Of course my suggestion was adopted, but not until there had been a great deal of private and official correspondence. Had the business rested in one department, the matter might have been settled in a quarter of an hour by any capable person. In time of war we have not time for this cumbersome and ineffective mode of conducting the public business—promptitude and dispatch are of the first importance in every operation.
I am told that an additional Under Secretary of State has been appointed to assist the Secretary of State; but whilst I have no reason to doubt that a good selection has been made by Her Majesty's Government, I am sure if the best officer in the service were appointed the measure must be altogether inadequate to meet the difficulty. I have no doubt the appointment of this additional Under Secretary of State may mitigate the evil, but I am quite sure that he cannot remove it. It is my strong conviction that the present arrangement ought not to continue—that it is absolutely necessary to adopt some effectual

629
arrangements for improving the organisation of the departments connected with the administration of the Army—and it is for this reason I have brought the subject before your Lordships. I feel, perhaps, more strongly upon it than most persons, because for more than twelve years, as Secretary or Under Secretary of State, or Secretary at War, I have had opportunities of seeing and lamenting the evils I have described. I can only say it is utterly impossible to describe to your Lordships the painful manner in which these things used to weigh upon my mind as Secretary at War. I entertained the conviction then that reforms and improvements were necessary which it was out of my power to carry, but which could have been accomplished with the greatest ease had it not been that the cumbrous organisation of the departments most effectually defeated all attempts to introduce them. Every little step that was attained was attained at the cost of I know not how much correspondence and delay, and the difficulties to be encountered in endeavouring to correct abuses are so irksome that too often the struggle to introduce improvements has been abandoned in despair, and even zealous reformers have been forced to acquiesce in the opinion that it is better to let things alone. Such is the real excuse to be offered for every different Government, which has allowed the old routine to continue. I say it with sincerity, that the officers of these departments are not to blame. It is the system which is to blame; and while that system continues we shall never get rid of the inconveniences which arise from it. That the evil is capable of remedy—that without any serious delay, an effectual re-organisation of these departments is perfectly practicable, I have not the slightest hesitation in asserting. Various plans have been proposed by which it can be done. I believe any one of these would be a vast improvement on the arrangements which now exist. I care comparatively little which of these you adopt; at the same time I am bound to say I have a decided preference for one. I believe, in the administration of the Army, we ought to take as our model (but with some corrections and improvements) the system now in force for the administration of the Navy. I believe all the various business now entrusted to many different and independent departments of the State, should be placed under one Board presided over by a Cabi-
630
net Minister of the same rank as the First Lord of the Admiralty. I know it has been objected that Boards are very ineffective and cumbrous pieces of machinery for the transaction of business. If the whole business of the department is to be transacted by a Board as a Board, and if the opinion of each member is to have equal weight, I quite agree that that objection is sound; but the First Lord of the Admiralty is always considered practically responsible for the whole conduct of the department, and the junior members are regarded as subordinates, whose duty it is, in all ordinary cases, to defer to his opinion; and if at the same time there is a distribution of business among several members of the Board, in such a manner as to obtain the advantages of division of labour and unity of purpose, combined with the superintendence of one head, I believe great advantages arise from that arrangement:—and this among others—that the professional members of the Board of Admiralty, though it is their duty, and though they do most properly defer in all ordinary cases to the opinion of the First Lord, are yet not bound to concur in anything which they consider detrimental to the service to which they belong. Their presence at the Board is a most valuable security to their brother officers that the interests of the profession shall not be neglected; and thus, without interfering with the necessary vigour and unity of purpose in the conduct of the department, which can only be obtained by its obeying the impulse, and acting under the direction of a single mind, you have an effective responsibility of the Government to Parliament, and, at the same time, that qualified responsibility to the opinion of the service which I believe ought to exist in the management of the Navy. It seems to me in the Army you want precisely the same thing. You want that union of professional and non-professional minds, that responsibility to Parliament which is necessary on behalf of the Government, and also the means of assuring the profession that their interests will not suffer. The scheme of having a fourth Secretary of State to whom the department of the Army is to be entrusted, does not seem to me so proper an arrangement; and I may illustrate my reason for thinking so by reference to the Admiralty. The proper business of the department, whatever it may be, to which the Army may be entrusted, would be to create a useful in-

631
strument to be employed by the Government. With the purposes to which it is to be turned, the department should have nothing to do. In this respect the department having the control of the Army ought to be placed precisely on the same footing as the Admiralty. It is the duty of the Admiralty to provide an efficient Navy for all the services for which it may be required; but that being provided, it is for the Government to prescribe to the Admiralty the service on which it shall be employed; and this is done by one of the Secretaries of State, who, as the organ of the Government, signifies to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, the Queen's commands as to the services to be performed by Her Majesty's ships. if disturbances were threatened in any part of the United Kingdom, as we have sometimes known from strikes among the seamen, or from some similar cause, so that the presence of a ship of war were considered necessary, the Secretary for the Home Department would signify the Queen's commands that one or more of Her Majesty's ships should proceed to the point of danger to assist in preserving the peace. Sometimes it is some foreign Power refusing to make reparation for wrongs done to a British subject, and then the Secretary for Foreign Affairs signifies the necessary orders for instituting a blockade, or adopting some other mode of coercion. Sometimes, one of our colonies has to be defended, and then it is the Secretary for the Colonies who signifies the Queen's commands for the required service. So it now is with regard to the Army, and so it ought to continue to be under any new system of administration. If additional troops are required in the manufacturing districts, the Home Secretary, under the present arrangement, would send the proper orders to the Commander in Chief; if a new Army Department were instituted, he would send the same orders to that department; if troops were required in the colonies, it would be the Colonial Secretary; and if for foreign service, the Foreign Secretary who ought to give the orders; and it seems to me that, as is now the case with regard to the Admiralty and to the Commander in Chief, the three Secretaries of State ought to be able to signify the Queen's commands to the department, whatever it may be, that is entrusted with the general organisation and care of the Army, that department confining its labours to providing
632
an efficient military force for any purpose which may be required, in providing which there will be plenty of work upon its hands. But one Secretary of State can hardly signify the Queen's commands to another Minister of the same rank; therefore, if a board be objectionable, and the department be entrusted to a single Minister, I think it should not be a fourth Secretary of State, but the Secretary at War, with the functions of his office altered and enlarged, with under secretaries whose duties would be very much the same as those of the junior members of a Board, and it seems to me it would be better that they should be called a Board, though I do not think it very material by what name they may be called. I hare stated thus much of my own views, and I have given a very slight sketch of the alterations I should recommend, and the grounds on which I should do so, because I felt it would be scarcely proper, having insisted on the necessity of change, if I had failed to point out some mode by which it might be accomplished. Still, I know this is not the proper time for discussing different plans, and I, therefore, purposely avoid going further into the consideration of the comparative merits of the various measures which have been suggested. All I want to do now is to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that some considerable change is indispensably necessary. It is not improbable that Her Majesty's Government may hit on a far better scheme than I have ever thought of; but that in some way or other this matter ought to be taken in hand without delay I am perfectly convinced, because I am persuaded this war will not last many weeks without our feeling most seriously the ill effects of the present system. My Lords, I cannot help fearing that we are beginning to feel those effects very seriously already. I am not my Lords one of those who listen to the gossip of clubs, or the idle stories which circulate out of doors, and I have no doubt that the tales which have reached my ears of contradictory orders having been given, of instructions being issued one day and recalled the next, of want of firmness and want of some settled purpose apparently in those who are guiding the administration of affairs at the present conjuncture—I have no doubt these tales for the most part are the idle fancies of those who see part only of what is going on, and are ignorant of the reasons. I am anxious to give Her Ma-

633
jesty's Government full credit for having had good reasons for this measure, which I do not at present understand, and I am willing to hope that they have done all that is possible under the circumstances; but still, making all due allowance of this kind, I cannot help believing we are already feeling the effects of the system. One of the mistakes alleged to have been made is not very important in itself, but most important as indicating what is going on. It has reached my ears—and I am afraid I cannot doubt that it is true, that a Highland regiment received instructions to furnish volunteers to the first regiments ordered on duty to the East, and within three weeks of having furnished 100 volunteers in obedience to that order—for there is no difficulty in obtaining volunteers among brave British soldiers where it is a question of fighting—that regiment itself was ordered for the same service, and was ordered to make up those 100 men which it had parted with, besides some additional men. I can only say, if such is the fact, it is impossible to conceive a grosser instance of mismanagement. Every man who has the slightest acquaintance with military transactions must know that 100 men taken from their own regiment and sent into a new one, are of infinitely less use than they would have been if left with their comrades and officers whom they know, and that a regiment, which has so parted with 100 men, is not easily brought to the same state of efficiency as if it had retained its own men. Well, but, my Lords, in three weeks had there been any change of circumstances? I can see none. There may have been a change of plans, I grant, and that is precisely what I fear. I fear that, without any real change of circumstances, under the present arrangements, you will have frequent changes of plans, and if one thing is more fatal than another to efficiency in the conduct of military operations it is unnecessary changes of plans. I will not pursue the matter further, but I will repeat what I have already told your Lordships, that I believe we are already feeling the ill effects of the present system.
There is one more topic on which I think it necessary to make a few remarks before I conclude. There is an objection which applies equally to every one of these proposed modes of alteration—whether it be the creation of a Board, or the appointment of a Fourth Secretary of State—which is urged on such very high autho-
634
rity—such commanding authority I may say—that it is absolutely necessary I should offer a few words upon it. It is the common aim of every one of the plans proposed for improving our military administration to concentrate the powers now divided, and thus give the Government more perfect and complete control over the administration of the Army. But it has been urged as an objection to any plan of this kind, that the effect of giving to the Government more complete control over the management of the Army would be to give control to Parliament, and especially to the house of Commons, and it is alleged that this would be unconstitutional, inasmuch as it would involve an invasion of the Royal prerogative. It is said that the Crown ought to have the sole and exclusive command of the Army, and that anything which should admit of the interference of the House of Commons with that command would be in the highest degree dangerous. I have stated as well as I can the objection I have heard, but that objection seems so unsound, I might almost say so incomprehensible, that I do not feel perfectly confident I have stated it correctly; but such is the manner in which I understand it. Upon this subject I will remark that, it is quite true the Crown ought to have the sole and exclusive command of the Army; but the Crown ought equally to have the full and exclusive command over every other branch of the Executive Government; and if either House of Parliament were to attempt to take any branch of the executive power out of the hands of the responsible servants of the Crown—if Committees were appointed to execute administrative duties, as in the time of the Great Rebellion—that, I say, would be a very dangerous invasion of the Royal prerogative, and a departure from the principles of the constitution. But there is no distinction, that I am aware of, between the military and any other branch of the executive authority of the Crown; and if the rule I have mentioned holds good in all cases, there is also another rule which holds equally good, and that is, that none of the powers of the Crown are to be exercised except by the hands of some responsible Minister, and that Parliament is perfectly free to tender advice to the Crown as to the manner in which any powers vested in the Crown should be exercised. This I hold to be no less undoubtedly consistent with the constitution than that the Crown should have the com-

635
mand of the Army and every other branch of the Executive Government. If there is anything further intended, I wish your Lordships to consider what would be the result. Is it really meant that the Crown should exercise, with regard to the Army, some personal power, different from that which it exercises in any other branch of the Executive Administration? Is this contended for? Then, what follows? Some person must be responsible for the manner in which this power is used; and would it be convenient in a war—possibly, a disastrous war—that the Crown should be held personally responsible, without the shelter of its servants, for any mistakes in the conduct of that war? It seems to me such a proposition cannot be supported for a moment. Shall I be told that it is not the Crown personally whose power is to be maintained, but the power of the Commander in Chief—that the Commander in Chief ought not to be brought into too close connexion with Parliament? If that be so, there seems to me to be an end to the objection of the invasion of the rights of the Crown. The only question is, whether the Crown shall exercise power through one servant or through another; and it certainly appears to me neither convenient for the public service nor very safe for the Commander in Chief himself that he should have the sort of independence which some persons contend for. I say it would not be very convenient for the public service. How can the Government, being responsible to Parliament for the amount of the estimates, and for the economy with which the public service is conducted, be irresponsible for the manner in which the most public money is expended upon the Army? If responsibility to Parliament means anything, it implies a responsibility that the greatest possible amount of efficiency shall be obtained for a given outlay; but if they have no control over the organisation and administration of the Army, how can the Government be held responsible for its efficiency? And, again, with regard to the Commander in Chief, would it be very safe for him, in case of any disasters occurring, that he should be held solely and personally responsible—that he should be supposed to be independent of the Government of the day—that they should not be bound to adopt his proceedings and to defend him from the attacks to which he may be exposed in Parliament? I think, no man, having any experience or knowledge of the world, would consent to hold the office of
636
Commander in Chief upon such terms. But if the Government is to be responsible, it must have the power. Power and responsibility are inseparable—they must go together; and you cannot make the Government responsible for the way in which affairs are managed if you do not give to it the effective power of enforcing the management of these affairs according to its judgment. I can support my opinion on that subject by an authority the weight of which, I am sure, will be acknowledged by every one of your Lordships. Some months ago, in reading over my father's correspondence, I met with a letter addressed to him by Lord Grenville, dated the 12th of January, 1812, written in contemplation of an overture which there was at that time reason to expect would be made to him and my father to conic into office. In this letter, which I must say struck me as being altogether a most admirable one, Lord Grenville states his views upon various points which would require to be considered if he were called upon to form an Administration, and in doing so, on the subject of the Army, he expresses the following opinion:—
"As to the Duke of York's situation, and the management of the Army, delicate as the subject is, I do not see how we can consent that the new reign should, by our advice, be established on the same footing as the former—that of keeping the military administration distinct and independent of the civil government. It is a bad principle, even under an absolute monarchy. It is totally incompatible with the principle of a limited Crown."
Considering Lord Grenville's abilities, his constitutional knowledge, and the high offices he had held during the war, I think that opinion from him is almost conclusive. I wish I could give your Lordships the answer to that letter, but I am not in possession of it. This, however, I may say with perfect certainty—it must have been in entire concurrence with the opinion of Lord Grenville. I hope I have sufficiently disposed of the constitutional objection; and I am sure that the argument cannot be admitted for one moment that Her Majesty's Government for the time being are not to be held responsible for the management of the Army. But this is not a mere matter of opinion—it is a matter of fact; and I ask your Lordships, whenever any difficulty has arisen, when anything has gone wrong in any branch of military arrangements, has not the Government of the day been compelled to hold itself responsible to the country? Was not the

637
Government of the day held responsible for the planning, the officering and conducting of the unfortunate expedition to Walcheren? We all know that they were; and I may refer to many instances of a more trifling nature to show that whenever the smallest difficulty occurs the military authorities must come to the civil Government, and lean on its authority and responsibility; but the inconvenience of the present system is that they do not come at the right time; and when military authorities act independently of the civil Government, it is impossible to administer important affairs with the necessary vigour and energy. When I held the office of Secretary at War there were many things in which I was called on to interfere which, according to the theory which is held as to the distribution of authority between the different departments, were quite out of the circle of my proper duties. We are always told that the Secretary at War has nothing whatever to do with the discipline of the Army, and many gentlemen treat it almost as an impertinence for him to express an opinion on the subject. But when a difficulty arises on a question of discipline, who is the person to whom the military authorities immediately have recourse? The Secretary at War. I may mention several instances. Whilst I held the office there was much discussion as to the practice of the troops wearing side-arms. Several unfortunate cases had occurred of wounds inflicted by soldiers with their bayonets during affrays at public-houses. The subject was discussed more than once in the House of Commons, and at first there was very great reluctance on the part of the military authorities, in which I participated, to make any change in the long practice of the Army. But at length I was satisfied the change ought to take place, and accordingly, with the concurrence of my Colleagues, having made my opinion known to the Commander in Chief, a general order was issued to carry it into effect, the draft of which was previously submitted to my consideration and approval. With regard, again, to the important subject of corporal punishment, all know how much anxiety was felt on the subject. For several years it was very much discussed in Parliament, and Motions were annually made and supported by large minorities on occasion of the introduction of the Mutiny Bill for entirely dispensing with it. It was my duty to look into that question, and I was satis-
638
fied it was not safe altogether to deprive the officers of the Army of the power of inflicting corporal punishment; but I was equally satisfied that the power must be greatly restricted, and that that which was left of it must be exercised in much greater moderation than hitherto. I was convinced this could be accomplished by introducing other modes of punishment, and also by providing what had been hitherto neglected—the means of rewarding the good soldier as well as punishing the bad. I communicated with the Commander in Chief, and a very protracted correspondence took place. The Commander in Chief's opinion was not, in the first instance, by any means favourable to the measures I recommended, but, very wisely and very properly, he ultimately acquiesced. The result was, the good conduct warrant, as it was called, was issued, and the power of military punishment was greatly restricted. That has been carried still further, and the result has proved most advantageous to the Army. All know that the good-conduct warrant has worked extremely well, and the diminution of corporal punishment has been most beneficial, the discipline of the Army having improved under it. There was another case, a very important case, upon which a difficulty arose—as to the reappointment to full-pay of an officer who had been reduced to half-pay, and upon which I was called upon to interfere. Certainly, that did not fall within the natural functions of the Secretary at War, and yet the restoration of that officer could not take place until it had been ascertained from me—after having been pressed upon the subject more than I liked—that the Government was prepared to support it. These instances prove that it is totally impossible to separate, as some persons contend, the military from the civil administration of the country, and that the Government, which is responsible for the general conduct of affairs, must have control over those by whom the authority of the Crown over the Army is exercised. I believe that I have now concluded all the observations necessary to make. If, in doing so, I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time, my apology must be found in the deep conviction I entertain, that the present is a time when the question has risen to an importance which it never attained before. I am persuaded that all that is necessary to insure the accomplishment of the reform I advocate, is to make the country understand the

639
necessity for it, and I believe that, from the accident of my having held different offices in the State for several years, I have had more experience in connection with this question than has fallen to the lot of most men, and better means of judging of the working of this system which I call upon the Government to change. I beg to move an Address for the following papers, to the production of which I conceive there can be no objection:—
"Copies of any correspondence between the different Departments of Her Majesty's Government with respect to any Additions which have been made to the Department of the Secretary of State for War and the Colonies; and also with regard to any Changes which have been made in the Transaction of Business relating to the Administration of the Army."
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, before I proceed to make a few comments on the speech of the noble Earl, I believe it is almost unnecessary for me to say that, on the part of the Government, there is no objection to the production of the papers for which he has moved. I can assure the noble Earl that I am very sincerely sensible of the truth of his last remark—that he possesses greater experience, certainly than any other civilian, of the subjects of which he has treated; and I am equally sensible that I am very incompetent to reply to him, because I am aware that my experience is very slight indeed, and only in one of the departments in which the noble Earl has gathered his knowledge. I am not about to attempt to controvert the statements the noble Earl has made, still less will I attempt to deny that there are faults in the system under which the Army is governed. Faults, I apprehend, may be found in every system and every department of Government. We see daily and yearly changes effected which I believe are improvements in all those departments, and it would be strange, indeed, if the department of the Army was the only one in which changes could not be introduced with advantage. I say, therefore, I am not about, on behalf of the Government, to deny the necessity for any change, or to attempt to establish the fact that the administration of the Army is blameless. But really—I say it with all deference—I do not think the noble Earl has established his case in the multitude of instances he has introduced. The noble Earl has not proved that Government abuses have occurred within a very few years, and that those abuses have not been
640
taken in hand by the department more especially entrusted with its management. He has not shown that those abuses are of recent date. On the contrary, almost all those cases, harrowing in themselves and painful to listen to, of the great mortality of regiments quartered in unhealthy climates, are of remote date, and so far from establishing that the system has been at fault by those instances, he has proved that abuses under the present system can be, and have been, remedied. I am not saying at present whether the system is good or bad; but I wish to point out that these instances, with which the Commander in Chief is more conversant than I am, can no more be considered condemnatory of the administration of the Army than can the instances which my Lord Shaftesbury periodically introduces to this House as illustrations of the sanitary state of the country, be considered to prove the maladministration of the Home Office and the necessity of change in that department. The noble Earl quoted, in the first instance, the frightful mortality for a period of twenty years, ending thirty years ago, in Jamaica. That abuse has been remedied. It should also be borne in mind that that mortality took place at a time when medical science had not advanced to its present state of perfection, and when the medical department of the Army was greatly neglected. Moreover, as far as the instance of Jamaica was concerned, the great mortality occurred when barracks did not exist in the healthy parts of that island, and before the unhealthiness of the former stations had been established. The attention of the Government was immediately directed to that great mortality, and the evil was remedied as soon as possible; so that, as the noble Earl himself acknowledged, the number of deaths was reduced from 130 in 1,000 to something like 30 in 1,000. Surely the noble Earl does not mean to say that that fact is condemnatory of the present system? But, my Lords, I would ask, how is it possible to provide against such disastrous calamities in an unhealthy climate like that of Jamaica? Only last year, in the comparatively healthy island of Bermuda, a far greater mortality took place than that to which the noble Earl has referred as having occurred some forty years ago. Has there been any mismanagement or any want of inquiry into that mortality? Quite the reverse. I can assure the noble Earl that, upon hearing of that distressing

641
calamity, I immediately took measures, in conjunction with the Treasury, for making the most complete and thorough inquiry into that disaster, for remedying it in the present and for correcting it in the future, so far as human power and ingenuity can deal with an epidemic of which medical science at present really knows nothing. Again, the noble Earl has referred to what took place at Hong-Kong; but surely the noble Earl does not mean to assert that, because there has been a great sacrifice of life at Hong-Kong, it could have been obviated by some other system. [Earl GREY: Hear, hear!] That is not my experience. I have now been fifteen months in the office which the noble Earl formerly held, and I can safely say that the greatest possible attention has been paid to that case; but the noble Earl must know perfectly well that when, for a great imperial object, it is considered necessary that a garrison should be established in any particular part of the world, it is inconsistent with the duty of those who are entrusted with the Government of the country to withdraw that garrison without adopting every means in their power for preventing the necessity for its removal. As regards the garrison of Hong-Kong, one of the first steps I took, finding the Cingalese were the most unhealthy of all, was to withdraw them from that place; and to that measure the existing system offers no impediments and the thing was done at once. As regards the English regiments quartered there, I found steps in preparation for sending an hospital-ship to Hong-Kong, in order to assist in restoring the health of the troops, so that we might be enabled to retain a garrison there; and would it, I ask, have been consistent with my duty to withdraw that force until every attempt had been made to reduce the mortality? It was with the deepest regret that I heard, post after post, of the sickness which prevailed in that regiment. We tried the hospital-ship, but unfortunately the experiment has not been successful. What has been the consequence? In conjunction with my noble Friend the Commander in Chief I have decided to bring that regiment home. Have we met with any obstacle, any impediment to that proceeding? None whatever. The moment it was ascertained that the regiment could not remain in Hong-Kong without a great sacrifice of health and life, it was resolved to withdraw it.
642
The noble Earl referred to another case, which I confess I listened to with some pain, because it did appear to me to impute blame to that great man who is gone, and whose memory we must all cherish with reverence and respect, not merely for his great military achievements, but for the concern he ever showed for the health and happiness of the soldiers—I refer to the case of Sierra Leone. Unless I am greatly mistaken, that was a case in which some soldiers were sent out to the unhealthy coast of Africa before barracks had been erected. Now, will the noble Earl say that in any great emergency—in a case in which the honour and dignity of the country are concerned—we are not to run such risks, or to send soldiers to an unhealthy district, even though it may not at the time be provided with barracks for their accommodation? I will not go further into the case, upon which the noble Earl dwelt so long as being connected with the health of the Army, and by which he endeavoured to establish the position that the whole of these evils might have been avoided if some other system had prevailed at the different times to which he has referred. [Earl GREY: Hear, hear!] The noble Earl has alluded to his correspondence with the Treasury in 1836, and he seems to complain that the very judicious and desirable amendments which he suggested were not carried out till one year after he had recommended them. Now, let me ask the noble Earl this question—in the alterations which he now proposes, does he intend to supersede, with respect to the administration of the Army, that control as regards financial matters which the Treasury exercises over all the other departments of the public service? If he has that intention, cadit quœstio—I have no longer a right to argue with him; but if he does not mean to withdraw that control from the Treasury, then, I say, the case which he has brought forward of his correspondence in 1836, has nothing to do with the question. I will admit at once that, as regards those delays to which the noble Earl has referred, the Treasury is a great obstacle, and even that it acts sometimes capriciously, but, generally speaking, from an honest desire to prevent undue expenditure of the public money. It is impossible to deny that great mismanagement prevailed during the last war; and the noble Earl has said that that mismanagement was entirely attributable to

643
the system which then prevailed, and which to a certain extent, though not entirely, prevails at the present moment. To substantiate that position the noble Earl quoted the opinion of Sir Willoughby Gordon, a very eminent military authority, undoubtedly; but I think nobody who has read the history of those times—nobody who has read the despatches of the Duke of Wellington himself—nobody who is acquainted with the affairs of the Army, and with the last war, can doubt that the evil was much more deeply rooted than the system to which the noble Earl has referred, and that any mismanagement which took place was not attributable to that system, but would have been just as likely to have occurred if the system which the noble Earl recommends had been established during the whole of the last war. I readily admit that there are great theoretical objections to the present administration of the Army; but I must say that if we look, not to the theoretical objections, but to the practical working of the system, except in some few isolated instances, I do not think we shall find the abuses so great, or the evils so alarming, as the noble Earl has attempted to represent. The noble Earl, about the close of his speech, combated an argument which he said had been put forward against his proposition, namely, that the proposed change ought to be avoided, because it would be requisite to take the administration of the Army out of the hands of the Crown and to place it in the hands of Parliament; and he contended that, both theoretically and practically, the Government is responsible for the administration of the Army. I apprehend it is perfectly unnecessary to argue that case. I do not think any man can doubt the position of the noble Earl. When objections are raised to placing the administration of the Army in the hands of the Secretary at War, it is not because there is a desire to prevent the Government being responsible for the management of the Army, in the same way as it is responsible for the administration of all the affairs of the country; but it is because the Secretary at War, as at present constituted, is particularly and especially, if I may say so of any man holding an office under the Crown, the servant of the House of Commons. The Secretary at War must always be a Member of the House of Commons. I apprehend the Secretary at War cannot occupy a seat in your Lordships' House.
644
The Secretary at War is particularly an officer of the House of Commons, and it is his business, on behalf of the House of Commons, as the guardians of the public purse, to take care that the expenses of the Army are put under proper control; and I contend that a Minister who has this duty to perform is not the proper officer to be entrusted with the responsibility of the executive of the Army. I think there is a broad distinction between handing over to an officer of the House of Commons the executive duties connected with the administration of the Army, and maintaining that the Government is not responsible for that administration. Whilst upon this subject of the position of the Secretary at War, I must say that I believe the important duty with which he is now entrusted, namely, the economical administration of the Army, would be entirely frustrated if you were to throw upon him executive functions. If you throw upon the War Minister duties which you attach to the Commander in Chief, I apprehend he will be induced to look at no other object but that of the greatest efficiency of the service over which he is placed, unchecked by economical considerations and uncontrolled by the Treasury—a system which could not fail to lead to extravagance. The noble Earl did not dwell at any great length upon a portion of this subject on which great stress was laid on a former occasion, namely, that department which is at present in the hands of my noble Friend Lord Raglan. The noble Earl did not detain your Lordships long upon the measure which has been proposed with regard to that department, although he touched upon it slightly more than once; but as others who are to follow on this occasion—especially my noble Friend behind me (Lord Panmure), who has paid great attention to the subject, and who, next to the noble Earl, has probably had the greatest experience—are likely to refer to it, I would venture to make one or two observations upon that point, feeling, as I do, that the amalgamation, or consolidation, or—as it is called by one person who has written on the subject—"accumulation" advocated by the noble Earl, and which I apprehend would go to the entire abolition of the office of Master General of the Ordnance, would be an impracticable and undesirable measure. There never was a moment at which it was more manifest that the Ord-

645
nance is as essential as a naval as it is as a military department.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I believe it is even more essential as a naval department.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: The noble Earl says, he believes it is even more essential as a naval department. I am not sure that he is not right; and although this office is looked upon as a military office, a sort of adjunct to the Horse Guards, so far is that from being the case, that if the military functions of the Master General of the Ordnance were to be devolved on the Commander in Chief, it would be absolutely necessary to annex to the department of the Admiralty an office which should have the control of the ordnance of the Navy. On referring back, so far as I could find time to do so, since the noble Earl gave notice of this Motion, to the various Reports and suggestions which have been made upon this subject, I have been very much surprised at the conflicting nature of all those recommendations. In 1834, a Committee of the House of Commons sat upon this subject. In 1837, the Commission to which the noble Earl has referred was appointed. In 1849, a Committee of the House of Commons was again appointed, and was presided over, most ably and beneficially to the public, by a noble friend of mine, Lord Seymour. Every one of those Committees and Commissions have made recommendations not only not similar the one to the other, but in many respects entirely opposite to one another. I gather from these and other sources four definite and distinct plans which have been proposed in regard to the Ordnance Department. One is, that the Ordnance Department should be entirely abolished and incorporated with the Commandership in Chief at the Horse Guards. The second is to divide the civil and military duties of the department, leaving to the Master General of the Ordnance the military duties, and transferring the civil duties to the Secretary at War. The third plan that has been proposed is that what I may call the personnel and matériel of the Ordnance should be divided—that the whole of the men of the artillery force should be united under the administration of the Horse Guards, and that the management of the great guns and the arms should still be retained in the hands of a separate department, whether you may call it the Ordnance Department or not. The fourth plan, which certainly is one affecting very
646
little alteration, but which I believe to be more likely to be beneficial than any of the others, is that the Ordnance Department should be kept as it stands, with the exception of placing it on the same footing as the Army, so far as the supervision and checking the accounts is concerned. Now, my Lords, I was struck with the significant cheer which proceeded from my noble friend behind me (Lord Panmure) when the noble Earl touched upon the subject of the Commissariat. I have already observed that the peculiar duty appertaining to the Secretary at War is a valid reason why executive duties should not be put upon him. I think, in justice to that argument, I must admit that it is hardly proper to entrust the Commissariat to the Treasury. The Treasury, undoubtedly, is a department which has a control over the expenditure of every branch of the public service; but this, I believe, is the only instance in which executive duties devolve upon it. Well, I say at once, that that is a fair question to raise, and that it is worthy of consideration whether any more effective arrangement could be adopted; but at the same time I am sure my noble Friend behind me is not ignorant of the fact that this is a subject upon which the Duke of Wellington—and to his opinions we ought to bow in such matters—felt very strongly, and I have myself seen in the handwriting of the Duke of Wellington the strongest possible assertion of his conviction that it was most desirable that the Commissariat should remain in the hands of the Treasury. But I believe my noble Friend, and the noble Earl also, would wish the Commissariat to be abolished altogether. That, at any rate, I understand to be the opinion of my noble Friend. I cannot concur in that view. I must say, however much a Commissariat may be wanted in a time of peace, in a time of war it is absolutely essential, if wars are to be conducted by this country upon that honourable principle upon which we have hitherto conducted them—namely, not to live upon the country in which we are waging war, but to pay for everything we take. ["Hear, hear!"] My noble Friend seems to agree with me that a Commissariat is necessary in a time of war. Will he maintain that upon war suddenly breaking out, and it being necessary to send a large force to a foreign country, you could establish that force, and organise a Commissariat, so as to enable it to execute great operations, if you had not the requi-

647
site machinery constantly in operation? I say it is not possible; and although I am not prepared to show or to assert that there may not have been some abuses in the Commissariat, or that greater reductions might not have been made in the expenses of that department, yet I think it is of the utmost importance that a Commissariat should be maintained. Let me also remind your Lordships that whatever we may think of war, this country is really very seldom free from some military undertaking or other. We are in possession of between forty and fifty colonies; there is a war in one or another of these colonies in the course almost of every year, and for these wars a Commissariat has been found to be absolutely necessary. Will my noble Friend, or the noble Earl, maintain that in the last years of the Kafir war, heavy though the expenses were, our operations could have been carried on so economically as they were if we had not had an organised and efficient commissariat? I can only speak from the experience of the last fifteen months, but I say most sincerely that I should look with much less confidence than I do to the departure of that force which is about to be despatched to the East if it were not possible to send with that army, I believe, as capable, as intelligent, and as able a body of Commissariat officers as ever accompanied an army into the field. And here let me make this remark, One of the very first steps which I felt it my duty to take, upon the determination of the Government to send a force to the East, was to send for the officers of the Commissariat Department, feeling that one of the first essentials was to put that department on the best possible footing. They were told that their services would be required abroad. A large number of them have already repaired to the scene of operations, and are now engaged in making the necessary arrangements for the troops. Now, I have no hesitation in saying that if we had had to run about the town and to search for gentlemen capable and willing to undertake this duty, many days, probably many weeks, would have elapsed; and, after all, we should not have had the certainty which we now have, from past experience, of the efficiency of the officers who have gone to the East. The noble Earl has spoken of the want of promptitude and harmony which prevails in the administration of the Army. As regards promptitude, I must again repeat that all the instances
648
he has given of delay are attributable to that which attaches to all the departments of the Government, namely, the control of the Treasury, and that unless you abolish the control of the Treasury you cannot get rid of that which causes delay. As regards harmony, I will only say that the noble Earl has been unfortunate in his experience; I cannot, from my own, corroborate the statement of the noble Earl. With respect to promptitude, I may mention that, in the evidence which was given by my noble Friend behind me before the Commission of 1849, he stated, in answer to questions put to him by Sir James Graham, that all matters touching the arrangement and distribution of troops are rapidly and easily disposed of by means of communications between the Home Secretary and the Commander in Chief, and that, in fact, the business could not be done more promptly. Well, these are occasions on which the Treasury does not interfere, and my noble Friend testifies to the promptitude and readiness with which the affair is managed. With regard to harmony, again, I repeat that my experience, short as it may be—though at the present moment it is acquired under very trying circumstances for all departments—does not corroborate the views of the noble Earl. I can only say, and I say it with the greatest sincerity, that having for the last two months been engaged with the whole of the military and naval departments—having had daily, almost hourly communications, verbally in the first instance, and subsequently in writing, with my noble Friend the Commander in Chief, with my noble Friend the Master General of the Ordnance, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary at War, with the heads of the Commissariat Department, and, as an important element in the matter, with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, and those of his department who are more immediately connected with transports—there never has been the slightest want of harmony amongst us—there never has been the slightest difference of opinion—and there never has been the slightest hesitation, after the instructions to carry out the directions of the Government have been received. I agree with the noble Earl that one of the best tests of the working of any system is a time of pressure like the present; and, however, under circumstances such as the noble Earl has referred to, there may have been delays and differences as to the neces-

649
sity of expenditure under certain heads, or as to the mode of expenditure—however much these complaints may have existed in more favourable circumstances as regards the peace of the country, I hold that a time of pressure like the present is the best test of a system in point of vigour and efficiency; and I say the experience of the last two or three months does not lead to the belief that any very great evil is to be apprehended in consequence of the present system. I admit that there may be improvements, but what I want to prove is, that the existing system is not so radically and essentially vicious as the noble Earl wished to represent. I can refer to high authority upon this point, for it was stated by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) not long ago, that the expedition to Turkey was one of the greatest undertakings, in a military point of view, in which this country has ever been engaged; and even he, with his experience in India of the large scale upon which military operations are conducted there, seemed to shrink from its magnitude, and to apprehend its failure on that account. I hope the anticipations of the noble Earl will not be in any respect realised; but, assuming his estimate of the magnitude of the operations to be correct, I have a right to say that, under these circumstances, and at this time, the fact of having sent a large body of men to the East in better condition, in more admirable order, and with greater expedition than we had formerly any idea of, either in this or in any other country, does reflect the highest credit upon the efficiency of every department engaged in the undertaking. Have the wants of that force failed to be supplied? Certainly not. Watchful eyes are upon every department, and the slightest mistake would be communicated to the press. Has such been the case? It is quite the contrary. I believe that such careful preparations never were made before, whether I look to the food which has been provided for the men, to the arrangements for their comfort and convenience, or even to the indulgences, in the shape of beverages and matters of minor importance, which have been supplied to them. Every one of these matters has been not merely under the consideration of the particular departments to which it respectively belonged, but when the noble Earl says there is not sufficient supervision and central control, all I can say is, that I have myself personally interfered in many of these arrangements in a
650
way which some of the departments might possibly consider to be interfering with their rights and prerogatives, but I am bound to add, that up to the present time there has not been any punctilio raised whatever—on the contrary, that every order has been executed with no desire but to do that which was best for the public service. When the noble Earl says that, without listening to the gossip of the clubs, he has heard stories of contradictory orders which would have been obviated by a different system of administration, I can assure him that in this instance, as in many others, the gossip of the clubs is in error. No contradictory orders have been issued, and if any slight mistakes have been made, they are of such a nature as might have been committed by the most aristocratic head of the Army in any country and under any form of administration. I do not mean to maintain that the system may not be amended, but I do maintain that any such dislocation of the system as that advocated by the noble Earl would be most dangerous. It is impossible not to feel that the existing experience and routine of all the offices would be completely upset, and that for weeks, probably for months, at the most critical moment of our preparations for war, you would have each department uncertain what were its peculiar functions; you would have the head of each department uncertain in what position he stood; and instead of giving increased efficiency to one department or system, I believe you would entirely destroy the efficiency of all. The noble Earl has said that his experience of what occurred in 1846, when troops had to be sent to Canada, and in 1850, when there was a war at the Cape, led him equally to the same conclusion, because he asserted there was always a lengthened correspondence to be carried on between the departments before anything could be done. There, again, I am sorry to be obliged to say that my own experience does not corroborate that of the noble Earl. We are now engaged in a much more important contest than that at the Cape, and yet there is no lengthened correspondence between the departments. Every important matter is generally settled in a conference between myself and the different departments concerned in it, and when we have arrived at conclusions, they are committed to writing, and a proper record is kept of every order, so that due responsibility may be maintained. I be-

651
lieve that system, of settling all important questions by means of personal communication, will be found, under all circumstances, to be the only mode of obtaining expedition, under whatever administration the military force may exist. The noble Earl has said that it is perfectly impossible for the Minister for the Colonies to carry on the functions of the Secretary of War. I say, unfeignedly, I am deeply sensible of my own unfitness for either department, more especially for the war department—a deficiency which must attach, to a great extent, to almost all civilians. At the same time, I believe it is of material importance that a civilian should exercise the functions which the Secretary of War now exercises; and, therefore, I do not think I am arrogating to myself any personal merit—quite the reverse—when I say that I cannot concur in the view expressed by the noble Earl. Nor did the noble Earl himself entertain that opinion four short years ago; for I find that when he was under examination before the Commission of the House of Commons, on the 9th July, 1850, he stated, in answer to a question by Mr. Vernon Smith, that he believed the evil would be remedied in a time of war in the way in which it was practically remedied during the last war, namely, by the civil business being little thought of, and by the Secretary of War devoting his whole attention to the military portion of his duties; which, the noble Earl added, would virtually have the effect of uniting all these departments under one head, which was the state of things in the last war. The noble Earl, with his great knowledge and foresight, exactly anticipated the very event which has occurred, except that undoubtedly, as yet, I have not discovered any diminution of the colonial work. The noble Earl may find that the opinions which he has this night expressed are at variance with his former opinions, to which I have alluded. But these opinions are so distinct that I think I have a perfect right to quote them, as the noble Earl could not have given them without due consideration and a conviction of the accuracy of his statements. I cannot concur with the opinion of the noble Earl in the great and radical change which he proposes in a department connected with the carrying on of the war; and as to placing the administration of the Army under a Board, and taking it out of the hands of the Commander in Chief and the Master General of the Ordnance, I, for one, should be
652
very sorry to be in any way responsible for the consequences of such an arrangement. My Lords, I speak without having any experience of these changes, some of which I do not mean to say are not necessary, but I am arguing against the extent of the changes proposed, and the time at which they are to be made. Having, as I say, no experience in these changes, let me look to the Board of Admiralty. Twenty years ago was this Board reformed, and, I believe, most ably and efficiently were those measures of reform introduced by the right hon. Baronet now again at the head of that department. But for this reform such efficiency would never have been seen as we have lately witnessed in the preparation of our fleets; but I speak not without knowledge when I state that the alterations in the Board of Admiralty could not have been effected in a time of war without the entire derangement of the service. I have heard those engaged in that service say that for two years after these measures had been introduced everything was disorganised, for neither men nor things had fallen into their right places; and it was very generally believed that if any great emergency had then arisen, great difficulties would have been felt in meeting it. It is such an arrangement as this that is contemplated by the noble Earl; and, even had he proved it to be necessary, which I utterly deny, still, I say, it could not be effected under present circumstances. I will now, my Lords, refer to the three heads under which the noble Earl has classed his suggestions. The first proposal is, that there shall be a fourth Secretary of State. As the noble Earl has not gone into this at any length, I do not know that it is necessary for me now to enlarge upon it. The noble Earl's second proposal is to throw upon the Secretary at War functions which attach to the Secretary of State for the Colonies with reference to the military department. This, again, the noble Earl has not advocated at any length, and I have endeavoured to show the grave objections—the noble Earl will forgive the expression, though I do not wish to invite the spectre which he conjured up, when I say—to this unconstitutional arrangement. The third proposal is the constitution of a Board, which the noble Earl says he would have similar to the Board of Admiralty. He then proceeded to discuss the objections to, and advantages of such a Board. Although, my Lords, I am fully sensible of the ob-

653
jections, I cannot say that I am so certain as to the advantages that would result from such a Board. I believe that a Board, properly so called, would, without mitigating the evils complained of, merely be the means of cloaking and avoiding the responsibility which should attach to the head of a department. This I consider an inherent vice of such an arrangement, and no modification can get rid of it. We have obtained, by general consent, and the noble Earl consented to it by his cheers, that a civilian ought to be responsible for the administration of the Army. He must therefore be at the head of his Board. And the noble Earl says, following the example of the Board of Admiralty, he would have professional men occupying a junior position under this head. In what position should we then be? Are we to have a civilian at the head of the Board, and, instead of having such men as the Duke of Wellington at the Horse Guards and Sir G. Murray at the Board of Ordnance, are we to have lieutenant-colonels and captains of the army to sit as junior lords at the Horse Guards and to perform all functions and to be the sole military advisers of the civil head of the Board? No person who has maturely considered the subject would think, however reprehensible some of the present arrangements may be, that such a proposal could be any improvement on the existing system. The noble Earl forgot one portion of his case in advocating, and rightly, the responsibility of the person who occupies my office; he did not touch upon the question of patronage. What would he do with the patronage of the Army? Does he propose that it shall devolve on the civil head of this Board, who is a political officer? I, for one, must resist such a proposal; and I believe that if a mode could be adopted by which the honourable feeling of the Army could be corrupted—if it be corruptible—it would be by the introduction of such a system. Would the patronage devolve on the junior lords? That would be impossible. I say, my Lords, you ought to watch this question of patronage, and to introduce, if possible, safeguards for its integrity, instead of placing it in jeopardy—instead of placing it in the hands of the civil head of such a Board. I would not, under any consideration, have the patronage of the Army devolve upon me; for even were the appointments made under the best professional advice, with due regard to the rights of individuals and the
654
interests of the service, still I say it is reasonable to believe that disappointed candidates, their friends and the world at large, would imagine that I was actuated by political and party feelings. I therefore consider that to introduce such an element of discord as this into the administration of the Army would be more detrimental than the system which now prevails, and I should deprecate any steps being taken towards such a measure. My Lords, however inefficiently I have replied to the very elaborate speech of one, on these matters, of the most experienced Members of this House—I am bound to say, on behalf of the Government, that though not repudiating alterations, much less improvements, we do deprecate any attempt to make, at this juncture, extensive changes in the existing system, and still more do I deprecate an attempt to dislocate the important joints of a machinery which, if put out of gear, cannot readily be replaced, and may lead, at the present time of war, to most disastrous consequences.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, he wished to take the earliest opportunity of denying that the disastrous consequences referred to by the noble Earl in connection with inefficient barrack accommodation at Trinidad and Sierra Leone took place at the time when the barracks were under the management of the late Duke of Wellington. The English and Irish barracks were transferred about the time referred to by the noble Earl to the Ordnance Department with most beneficial results; but it was not until two years afterwards that the colonial barracks were brought under the management of the Duke of Wellington, who was then the Master General of the Ordnance. They were prior to that time under the Treasury and Colonial Departments; and as the Legislative Assemblies paid towards their maintenance, they were frequently in an inefficient state. Even had the colonial barracks been brought under the control of the Board of Ordnance at the same time as the English and Irish barracks, it would have been impossible for any department immediately to have remedied all the existing abuses in connection with their management. One of the first improvements introduced by the late Duke was that of giving to every soldier a single iron bedstead, instead of compelling them, as before, to sleep together two in each bed. No man, indeed, ever took greater pains than did the late Duke of Wellington to make the accom-

655
modation and comforts of the soldiers as perfect as possible. If the noble Earl had communicated with him on this matter, he would have explained it to him; but as it was now thirty years since these transactions took place, and the noble Earl had made an accusation, he deemed it right to take this the earliest opportunity of correcting his statement. As regards the general question of the present discussion, it would not become him to advocate the privileges and functions of the Commander in Chief as against any civil officer whom the Government might please to appoint. He did not pretend to discuss this matter; but, as far as his experience went, in recent years he had never felt any of the inconveniences mentioned by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) when he was Secretary at War, and he could only say that last year, when he was Master General of the Ordnance, he felt that there were certain wants in the artillery department, and he applied to his noble Friend, then in office, explained to him the deficiency of the service, and this met with an immediate response. When the Ordnance Estimates were prepared, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department felt, as he believed every Secretary of State for the Home Department feels, that the charge of the security of the country devolves upon him, and the security of the Colonies upon the noble Duke who held the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the whole question of the estimates and the defence of the country was discussed at the Home Office, with the right hon. the Secretary at War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies, and himself (Viscount Hardinge). They met three or four times, and discussed the whole subject, and a better or more perfect mode of doing so could scarcely be devised. The same course was adopted last year. There was no novelty in such a step, for it was one adopted in the time of Lord Liverpool. He should certainly be sorry to see any Secretary at War entrusted with the discharge of those duties now performed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. As for the practical working of the present system, he had seen, when unlawful meetings were taking place in this country, the Commander in Chief go to the office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and after a
656
consultation of a few minutes return and give the necessary order for the troops to march; and by the next morning, owing to the facilities of the railway and telegraph, the troops had been enabled to reach the town where their services were wanted. Their Lordships might remember the time of the Chartists attempting to march through London, and how upon that occasion every arrangement was made which could possibly secure the public tranquillity. These arrangements were made with a precision and quietness which struck everybody as most remarkable. He would ask their Lordships if they thought that the then Home Secretary of State (Sir George Grey), whom every one must treat with respect and confidence, or any Secretary at War, or fourth Secretary of State interposing at the head of the Army, would have been of any use under such circumstances? If they stripped the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the power he now had over the security and safety of this country, they would in his (Viscount Hardinge's) opinion, weaken instead of strengthen the Executive? During the last two months he had transacted business with his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, of a most important nature, in connection with the movements and preparations of the troops, and he had never met with the slightest difficulty, or experienced any of those "squabbles" with the noble Duke which the noble Earl had referred to as of frequent occurrence. Everything had been transacted in the utmost harmony and union. With respect to the Ordnance Department, there were, no doubt, many things which called for alteration and improvement; but the result of the lengthened inquiry of the Committee of the House of Commons was to show that the utmost care and attention were necessary in any attempt to effect improvements in that department. He should always feel it a pleasure to be present at discussions of this nature, and to state his opinion of the practical working of any system which might be adopted; but he could not pretend to enter into any constitutional questions as to the rights or wishes of the Commander in Chief. He would, however, most confidently state that if they attempted to limit too much the authority and power of the Commander in Chief as regarded the management of the troops, they would shake his authority in such a manner as to produce great difficulties in the event

657
of his having to carry on a war. In conclusion, the noble Viscount stated that he never saw a finer body of men than those who were last year encamped at Chobham, remarkable in every good quality which could form the soldier. These troops, under the instructions of his noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle, had been sent to Turkey, and in his (Viscount Hardinge's) opinion, the whole of the forces sent out had embarked with an alacrity, a readiness, and a discipline which did them the greatest possible honour. So far as regarded his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he felt it a pleasure to state that he had never known less alterations made in the orders when once issued, than had been made during the last two months; and it also afforded him great satisfaction to state that from no Secretary of State had he ever received more satisfactory assistance than from the noble Duke who now filled the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: It is very irksome to me, my Lords, to say much on the present subject, but I do not think I should be acting rightly unless I expressed my obligations to the noble Earl (Earl Grey) for having brought this question under your Lordships' notice. It is with the deepest concern I see the state of your Lordships' House, both now and from the commencement of this discussion, because it shows how very little your Lordships as yet appreciate the extreme difficulty of the position in which we are placed, and the necessity of devising all the means which our best consideration may suggest to us of carrying the war in which we are engaged to a fortunate conclusion. The question which has been brought before your Lordships by the noble Earl involves the lives of thousands, the efficiency of the Army, the greatest interests of the State, and the honour of the country; and I must say that, if your Lordships have not upon this occasion been prepared to come to its consideration in such numbers as those in which you usually assemble for the consideration of other less important matters, it will be necessary, at a very early period after the recess, that the whole question of the naval and military preparations of the country, of the position in which we now stand at the commencement of this great war, and of the means by which our military and naval forces are to be directed, should be brought directly under the consideration of your Lordships. I think it
658
right to express my entire concurrence with the noble Earl in the opinion which he declared, that the military should be entirely subordinate to the civil authority. I believe that to be perfectly constitutional in principle and essential to the good conduct of all public affairs; and I must say, that while I join with others in rejoicing that what is called the patronage of the Army is separated from the Government, and in nourishing the wish that, to a very great extent, what is called the patronage of the Navy were likewise separated from the Government; yet, looking to the circumstances which have been brought under my consideration, I do think that there is a very great distinction between what is called technically the "patronage of the Horse Guards"—that is, the appointment to regiments, beginning with the first commissions—matters which are altogether things of patronage—and the appointment to divisional and brigade commands and situations in the Quartermaster General and Adjutant General's departments. These are matters which affect the efficiency of the Army in the field for which my noble Friend opposite is at present responsible; and I say that he ought to have—I know not whether he have, but he ought to have—every one of those recommendations of the Horse Guards brought to him for his consideration and approval, before they are submitted to Her Majesty. Agreeing, however, with the noble Earl in the opinion that the military should be entirely subordinate to the civil authority, I must, at the same time, confess that I do not agree in the suggestion which he has offered for particular alterations in the management of military affairs, which he thinks would be most conducive to the public service. I confess, my Lords, that I am adverse to all Boards. They appear to me to be but an excuse for the want of responsibility. The only real security for good conduct on the part of a public officer is the sense of sole and entire responsibility for everything that is done; but if you impose upon him—as I think you should for the public benefit—that feeling of sole and entire responsibility, it is but just that you should give him also full and complete power to carry his wishes into effect; otherwise you treat him ill, and place him in a position in which he cannot carry out what he believes to be necessary for the benefit and welfare of the country. My experience of the Admiralty was extremely short, and it was experience

659
obtained under the most adverse circumstances, for I only entered upon the administration of that department as the representative of an expiring Government—a position in which no one who has had the misfortune to be placed would ever desire to stand again. But, I must say, from the short experience which I did have, that it is, without exception, the most inefficient, and the most utterly incapable of doing good service to the public which at any time has come under my notice. I do not think that I could by possibility, even if I bad received—as I did not receive—the full support of the head of the Government, have effected that which I felt it right to do for the public service, trammelled as I was by the arrangements of that department; and I recollect very well when the Act to which the noble Earl alluded, which was passed at the suggestion of the present First Lord of the Admiralty, was carried through Parliament, bearing the opinion of persons who were then thoroughly acquainted with the practical administration of the Admiralty, that it might do very well in time of peace, but that it would be found to break down in time of war. Our experience as yet has not been sufficient to enable us to come to any judgment upon that subject. My noble Friend has mentioned—what I can perfectly understand—the unwillingness of the Duke of Wellington to separate the Commissariat from the Treasury, under the impression that it was necessary that that department should be placed under the direction of the Treasury, which held the public purse. That was only in conformity with all the opinions of the noble Duke, who, military man as be was, was more constitutional in the general bent of his mind and in all his opinions, and more desirous of placing the civil over the military authority here and everywhere, than perhaps any public man with whom I have acted. And really, when I consider this matter in all its bearings, I cannot but feel that, in point of fact, by far the most convenient arrangement for the public would be that the general direction of the war should rest with the First Lord of the Treasury himself. There may be circumstances which may render it inconvenient at the present time for my noble Friend now at the head of the Treasury to undertake that duty; for knowing as I do that no man does well the thing he hates, I cannot but apprehend, whatever may be his general abilities, directed as they would be, un-
660
doubtedly, for the first time, to the consideration of anything relating to war, that it is just possible that that war would not be successfully conducted to a speedy issue. But if that be our unfortunate position—I think it unfortunate, because I know from history that the only occasion on which great successes were achieved suddenly after sustaining great reverses, was an occasion on which the Prime Minister was himself the War Minister, and carried the country to victory in every part of the globe—if that be our unfortunate position, I firmly believe that there is no other arrangement which will give real security to us that all the departments will cordially co-operate with that department which directs the military operations. I believe, also, that there are no other arrangements which will secure that despatch which is absolutely essential to the success of military operations; and more than that, I believe that there is no other arrangement which with the same effect secures secrecy, which, above all things, is necessary to the success of such operations. Undoubtedly, if we consider what we see day after day in the public newspapers, and believe that what we read there is true, we must come to the conclusion that secrecy there is not in any department of the Government, and that the enemy knows as much as we do ourselves of everything that we have done or intended to do in this affair. I venture to suggest to my noble Friend, if, as Secretary of State, he is to conduct this war, that secrecy is one of the most important securities which he can give us for victory; and I will also venture to suggest to him, as we have been talking of the Admiralty—and really we have been talking of these departments almost as if they were independent States, and not under the general direction, as they should be, of the Prime Minister—that of all the departments, that in which, unfortunately, secrecy appears least to exist is the department of the Admiralty. I certainly should have directed my attention to that subject had I remained longer in that office than I did; but I felt that my time was very short, and that I had no means of effecting the alterations and reforms which I desired, and felt it absolutely essential should be effected. It would be idle to go further at the present time into the condition of this question. I will only, in a few words, say that I entertain a very strong opinion—perhaps a stronger one than is generally entertained by noble Lords—of the great-

661
ness of the struggle in which we are engaged, and of its probable duration. I think that the people of this country will be called on to make very great sacrifices. I think that at the present moment they are carried forward by a very unanimous and a very generous feeling in favour of a weak State oppressed by a powerful neighbour. We cannot trust, however, that under the pressure of great public suffering that generous feeling will continue to induce the people of this country to concur in the prosecution of the war with the vigour with which it ought to be carried on. It is a war of far-sighted policy—it is a statesman's war—but that is not a war which the people of this country will generally understand; and the Government must surely see, that unless it be well conducted, unless it present from time to time, and very rapidly, examples of success, of great achievements effected, and of a decided progress towards the prostration of the enemy, it will be perfectly impossible for any Government or for any Parliament reasonably to hope to carry the people with them in the prolonged prosecution of the war. I do, therefore, most earnestly recommend to the consideration of the Government that that is the manner in which this war ought to be conducted. I am perfectly convinced that it is impossible to conduct it with success, with departments, at present, perhaps, co-operating, but which may soon conflict, under circumstances such as have been described by the noble Earl. I am convinced that there is no mode by which it can be conducted except upon the principle of undivided responsibility and almost undivided power; and that, without that power pervading all departments, and compelling all to co-operate in the views which are held by the Government, for the prosecution of the war, it is perfectly impossible that in a war—remembering that in this war there is no royal road to victory—a war of which no man can venture to predict the termination, which has many chances in favour of the enemy, and but few, perhaps, in favour of ourselves—in which I think we can succeed, but in which we can succeed only by great sacrifices, by great exertions, by directing all our efforts to the same uniform end, and by looking forward, not merely to the end of the campaign, or to the end of the Session, but from year to year, until the enemy is beaten down—I say that, unless we take that view of the war, and unless we now (not waiting, as my noble
662
Friend supposes, for some distant period when all these calamities may have been incurred) look at the whole extent of our perils, difficulties, and necessities, and prepare our means for the purpose of effecting a success which is to be effected by giving a right direction to the war, as much as by providing the means for carrying it on—I feel satisfied that whatever may be the abilities of the Government for conducting the Administration in peace—abilities which were possessed to the greatest extent by their predecessor, Mr. Pitt, who, with all his administrative talents in time of peace, failed most lamentably as a War Minister (for nothing can be more unlikely, perhaps, than that a man who is great in peace should therefore, and of necessity, be great in war)—I feel convinced, I say, unless they do that, whatever may be their present strength in Parliament and in the country, that the country will not bear defeat, that it will not bear mismanagement, and that a Government which mismanages a war will be put out by the indignation of the naval and military services, and by the general disappointment and dissatisfaction of the people.
LORD PANMUREsaid, he had long been of opinion that the administration of the affairs of the Army, whatever they might think of the matter in that House, would be taken by the public into their own hands, and that, sooner or later, we should see a Minister responsible for the military affairs of the country, and all the pecuniary charges of the department defrayed in one vote by the House of Commons. He had no desire to arrive at such changes as these by any sudden and inconvenient step; but he thought that the time had arrived when it behoved the Government to consider—and they did not seem indifferent to it—how the change might be effected, gradually, safely, and at the proper time, before it was effected suddenly and with a rough hand. He thought that the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) had talked somewhat lightly of the character of such a Board as the noble Earl (Earl Grey) had proposed; and he saw no reason why it should not be composed of officers of high standing and valour, and be placed upon the some footing as the Board of Amiralty. Be that as it might, however, and whether they established a Board or a Minister of War, he agreed with his noble Friend below him (the Earl of Ellenborough), that under no circumstances of administration should the

663
patronage of the Army be taken out of the hands of the Commander in Chief. He was not aware whence the noble Duke had derived his authority when he stated that he (Lord Panmure) had proposed utterly and entirely to abolish the department of the Commissariat. Such a scheme had never entered into his head; and all that he had ever urged upon that point was, that the Commissariat ought to be under the direction of the Secretary at War—that it was wrong to have separated the management of the Commissariat from that department—and that it would be beneficial to the Army to restore it to the control of the Secretary at War. His opinion was that the Commissariat in times of peace was not necessary to train a Commissariat for times of war. Further, he distinctly contended that the duties which the officers of the Commissariat had to perform during a period of war were not only different from those which he had to discharge in a time of peace, but absolutely those duties were not to be learned during a time of peace. He was of that opinion still. He had heard, however, that the Commissariat was not to be restricted to the simple duty of providing for the Army abroad, but that it was intended also to establish one for this country. Such an attempt had been made in Ireland a few years ago, when he was Secretary at War, and he never rested until he had put it down, for he found that the Ordnance contractors for the Army supplied them as economically and far better than they could be supplied by any Commissariat. He, therefore, wished to ask his noble Friend below him whether such a proposal had the sanction and concurrence of the Master General of the Ordnance?—for he believed that the Master General of the Ordnance and himself were of the same opinion—that if the troops in this country were to be supplied by contract, they could not be better supplied than by the Ordnance contracts; but that if they were not to be supplied by contract, the plan which had been tried, of allowing them to supply themselves, had succeeded admirably, both in Ireland and in the case of the Guards in London; and, some two hours before his noble Friend (Lord Raglan) had left the House, he told him (Lord Panmure) that the Duke of Wellington himself had made propositions to Mr. Huskisson, in which, so far from advocating the necessity of keeping up a Commissariat for the Colonies, or even for
664
the military stations in the Mediterranean, he suggested that the troops should be permitted to purchase their provisions for themselves. The Duke of Wellington's faith in the utility of a Commissariat was not so firm and strong as to enable any one to quote his authority for the maintenance of that department. But he (Lord Panmure) had no objection to maintain that department as a sort of nucleus to which they could refer in time of war, in order to get persons who, if they had not been accustomed to gather in great supplies for large bodies of men, had been accustomed to manage business of that description on a smaller scale; but whenever a Commissariat did exist, it was his unhesitating opinion that it was essential it should be under the direction of the Secretary at War. What was the result of the Treasury managing this matter? Under the present circumstances the ordinary expenditure was made by an officer of the Commissariat, and the Treasury was obliged to send both to the Secretary at War and the Commissariat Office to have that expenditure explained. If they inquired into the work done at the Treasury, he believed they would find there was quite enough to do in that department, without their being burdened with the control of a large and increasing department like the Commissariat. The Treasury had lately taken upon themselves a duty which would prove somewhat onerous, and which, in his opinion, would demand more time and attention on the part of the Treasury than they would be able to give. Some years ago a proposition was made in the House of Commons that the whole gross revenue of the country should be paid into the Treasury, without any deduction being made for the administration of the different departments and the collection of the revenue. The Government had proceeded to carry that recommendation into effect; and one of the first results was that they were obliged to take from the Paymaster General's office one of the very best men in that department, and give him another appointment in the Treasury, in order to carry the new system into effect. He was quite sure that the department, of which his noble Friend below him (the Earl of Aberdeen) was the head, would find that they had quite enough to do, without burdening themselves with the increasing department of the Commissariat, which properly belonged to another branch of the Administration. Whatever system

665
might be adopted, he hoped and trusted that steps would be taken to avoid those complaints which were made in the last war by the Duke of Wellington, who, while conducting the war abroad, constantly complained that his hands were paralysed by the conduct of the departments at home. He believed that if there had been one responsible Minister for carrying on the military administration in this country, such complaints never would have occurred. The Duke of Wellington was a very energetic man, and could act in the face of all difficulties. He had the heart to face anything, and a courage that would conduct him through what would have baffled other men. They were not likely soon to have such another man as the Duke of Wellington at the head of our Army; and he was quite sure that nothing could be more injurious, or tend more to destroy the self-reliance of a commander on foreign service, so much as the knowledge that there were half a dozen departments at home controlling his operations abroad, when he ought to be looking to one responsible Minister invested with authority to advise him, and who would stand by him in carrying that advice into execution. That was his firm opinion, and he believed the further they discussed this question the more convinced they would be that it was a sound one.
EARL GREY, in reply, said, the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) had thought fit to read a portion of his (Earl Grey's) evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1850 in reference to this question, and to quote certain of his answers which seemed to imply that he did not consider the change he now proposed as at all necessary at that time. He must say, in answer to that statement, that he was sorry the noble Duke had not thought fit to read a few lines more of his evidence on that occasion, and one or two more of the answers he returned to the questions addressed to him, for, had he done so, it would have been made perfectly clear to their Lordships that the opinion he then stated to the Committee was precisely the same which he had that night expressed, that he was then as much convinced of the necessity of this change as he was now; but at that time there were professional objections to it so strong, that he felt, until public opinion was aroused upon the subject, that those objections could not be overruled. Nor did he see that, in a time of peace, it was one of those questions
666
which could be expected to exercise much pressure on public opinion; but he always foresaw that when a time of war arrived, the subject would be, in some way or other, forced upon the consideration of the Government. With respect to a remark which fell from the noble Lord near him (Viscount Hardinge), which seemed to infer that he (Earl Grey) had imputed blame to him—so far from intending anything disrespectful towards him or the Duke of Wellington, he (Earl Grey) expressly said he did not blame individuals in reference to the existing arrangements, for that the exertions of the best public servants must miscarry under such a system. He confessed all that he had heard in the course of this debate had given him very great satisfaction, because he was persuaded that, after the objections they had heard to the proposed alteration, the country would not be long satisfied with the present state of things. The noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) did not attempt to deal with the question of principle, but merely touched upon five or six unimportant points of detail. The noble Duke argued that all the particular evils and cases of mismanagement which he (Earl Grey) had pointed out had been corrected, and, therefore, that no change of system was necessary. No doubt the errors that had attracted attention had been corrected, but his objection to the existing system was that the abuses under it went on from year to year, without being detected, and because they were not detected, they were not corrected. What was the case with respect to the barracks in the Bahamas? It was not that the thing was unknown, for the medical officer had been reporting year after year in reference to the greatness of the evil; but year after year those reports had been put by, because they related to matters which belonged to another department; and until he (Earl Grey) had them dug out of the old rubbish, not one single step had been taken to redress the evils which they so undeniably pointed out. What he asserted was that we were continually detecting and remedying abuses, but allowed the system to continue the same, and that therefore the source of all these evils continued in existence. He thought, too, that in answering him on the particular cases of abuse to which he had adverted, the noble Duke had incidentally given rather a curious proof that under the existing system the Secretary of State for War and Colonies could not pos-

667
sibly give sufficient attention to all his duties. With reference to his (Earl Grey's) observations on the calamitous results of sending troops to Sierra Leone in 1825, when there were no barracks ready to receive them, the noble Duke had remarked that he believed that was the year in which Sir C. Macarthy was defeated and killed, and had asked whether he (Earl Grey) would contend that when such an emergency arose troops ought not to be sent until barracks could be provided for them? If the noble Duke's attention had not been absorbed by his duties as Minister for war, he would hardly have fallen into the mistake of supposing that the defeat of Sir C. Macarthy had anything to do with sending troops to Sierra Leone, for Sir C. Macarthy was defeated by the Ashantees, in the vicinity of Cape Coast Castle, at some hundreds of miles from Sierra Leone, and from the prevailing winds the communication between the two places, before steam navigation was introduced, was so slow and so difficult that there was scarcely any intercourse between them. The noble Duke boasted of the harmony which prevailed in the department over which he presided, and of the admirable manner in which all the arrangements for sending out the expeditionary force to the East had been conducted, he (Earl Grey) hoped that everything had been as well managed as the noble Duke had stated, and that this would be shown by the result; but the noble Duke should remember that the time for boasting was not when the harness was put on, but when it was taken off.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: I made no boast whatever of anything in which I was personally engaged. What I spoke of was the zealous co-operation that had always been shown by the different departments for the public service.
EARL GREY: The noble Duke may not call it boasting, but at all events he talked very much of the efficient and expeditious manner in which the arrangements for equipping and sending out the force ordered to the East had been completed, owing to the harmony which prevailed in the different departments. [The Duke of NEWCASTLE: Hear, hear!] Now, with regard to the statement that the present constitution of the Army departments had led to no difficulty or delay in making the recent military arrangements, he confessed that it would have been more satisfactory to him if, in eulogising generally all that has
668
been done, the noble Duke had been able to say that he (Earl Grey) had been misinformed) as to the only specific instance of reported mismanagement in this business to which he had adverted. He alluded to the great error which had been committed in crippling one of the Highland regiments by calling upon it to furnish volunteers for another, and then three weeks afterwards ordering the regiment of which the efficiency had thus been impaired to join the expeditionary force. The noble Duke had not denied that this blunder had been committed, and it was impossible for the House to feel sure that there might not have been others of the same kind. Then, again, with regard to the somewhat invidious manner in which the noble Duke had insisted on the harmony which now prevailed among the departments as if this had not been the case formerly, he must remind the noble Duke that he (Earl Grey) did not say himself one word with regard to differences of opinion and jealousies in the different departments, though he had quoted the report of Sir W. Gordon, made in 1810, from which it appeared that they were at that time complained of. At the same time he (Earl Grey) could not avoid observing that he regretted to hear the noble Duke say so much of the absence of all discussions between the departments, for he was quite sure, from his own experience, that the absence of such discussions implied the absence of attempts to introduce improvements into the public service, that there was nothing more easy than to avoid controversy if you were content to allow things in the departments to follow the beaten track. If their Lordships were content to do that—if they were content to go on year after year precisely in the way in which they had gone before, not attempting to discover errors or to suggest improvements which were necessary or desirable—he had not the slightest doubt that the public business might be conducted with that extreme harmony to which reference had been made by the noble Duke. At the same time he (Earl Grey) thought it right to say, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Duke that in his own experience, far from having any complaint to make, he had uniformly found, among the heads of departments particularly, the most extreme desire to promote the public service, and to cooperate with each other in the most friendly spirit. But while this had always been the case, it was not the less true that

669
when improvements were proposed and changes in the existing practice, though the different departments were all co-operating in the most friendly spirit, they were necessarily compelled to consult those under them. That led to references and to re-references, and trifling differences of opinion, sometimes on matters of mere detail, which occasioned delay and difficulty in carrying on the public service. With respect to the question that had arisen in regard to the Commissariat, their Lordships must recollect that, although the Treasury might manage the Commissariat Department during a time of peace, the circumstances would be widely different in war. The noble Duke had admitted that there was no constitutional objection to the change of system which he (Earl Grey) had recommended; but he said there might be some difficulty in increasing the authority of the Secretary at War, because he was necessarily a Member of the House of Commons, and could not sit in their Lordship's House. This was no doubt true at present, when the principal duty of the Secretary at War was to move the Army Estimates in the House of Commons; but, if that department were re-constituted, care should be taken that the Minister should be capable of taking a seat in that House, and he might of course be represented in the other house in the same way in which the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies was now represented there. There could, however, be no doubt that the interference of the House of Commons with regard to the army had been productive of the greatest advantage, and they all knew how very much the condition of the soldier had been improved within the last half century. All the great improvements of the army had originated with the civil servants of the Crown, and those civil servants had generally been put in motion by the House of Commons. He could quote a hundred instances of great and necessary reforms which were due to the manner in which abuses had been brought forward in the House of Commons, and to which the civil Government had been obliged to attend. Instead, therefore, of believing that the House of Commons had interfered too much with the administration of the army, he only regretted that the attention of that House, as well as of their Lordships, had not been more constantly and more systematically directed to the subject.
On Question, agreed to.

TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION BILL.
Order of the day for the third reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he should not have proposed to give this Bill a third reading in the present state of the House, if he did not regard the attendance of so few of their Lordships as only indicating that their minds had been made up on the subject of this Bill. Objections had been made to the transfer of testamentary jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, but he thought the arguments upon that subject had been satisfactorily answered. What was the use of constructing another court, if the Court of Chancery could discharge the functions? The Court of Chancery never was a slow court in giving a decision; when a petition took place, and there were accounts and inquiries to be gone into, delays had occurred. But the adjudication of a right had always been obtained quietly, and could now be obtained from the Court of Chancery more quickly than from any court in the country. The noble and learned Lord concluded by—
Moving, that the Bill be now read 3a
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he could hardly suppose that a Bill of this kind could be delayed by any remarks of his; but he must take this opportunity of expressing the strong feelings with which he regarded the probable operation of this Bill on a large body of professional men with whom he was officially connected, and who would suffer grievous loss by the provisions of the Bill. The proctors of the ecclesiastical courts had been from time immemorial appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Lord Chancellor had justly said, upon a former occasion, that there could not now be supposed to be any necessary connexion between the see of Canterbury and the jurisdiction with regard to wills. But he thought the object in view might have been obtained without depriving a body of men of their means of existence as professional men, which he feared after a short period would be the effect of this Bill. He had not taken a part in the discussions on this Bill, because it might be thought he was personally interested in the matter. He could not deny that all the judicial authority in their Lordships' House seemed to be in favour of the reform, but he could not allow the Bill to pass a third reading without expressing his sympathy with a body

671
of men with whom he was officially connected.
LORD WYNFORD, after presenting petitions against the Bill, said he doubted very much whether the public believed that this Bill would be for their advantage. He had presented various petitions against the Bill, signed by bankers, merchants, and other influential persons. The Bill was opposed by several of the Judges of the Court of Chancery, and he had proposed in the Committee upstairs to call these learned persons before them, and ask them to state upon what grounds they had come to the conclusion that testamentary jurisdiction had better be given to a Court of Probate and not to the Court of Chancery. He moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and insert "this day six months."
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid that the objection to examine these learned personages before the Committee was made by Lord St. Leonards. Eight of the thirteen Commissioners were in favour of transferring testamentary jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery; four were favourable to the course proposed to be taken by this Bill, and four wished to preserve a Probate Court as a distinct branch. No one had a greater respect for the learned personages who expressed the last-cited opinion than himself; but if they had been called before the Committee they would have said that the evidence upon which the opinions of the Commissioners was founded was printed, and that their Lordships could form their own opinions upon it. No one could sympathise more than he did with the sufferings that any reform might cause among any class of persons affected by it; but these sufferings were in the present instance absolutely irremediable, because it never could be pretended that the practitioners under an unimproved system had a claim to be compensated when that system came to be improved because their profits were not so great as they had been. Who was to estimate such an injury? By continuing their monopoly for a long period of time, which ten years undoubtedly was, these practitioners would have ample opportunities in the interval to form other connexions, which would make the shock less felt. With exertion on their part during the interval, the change, he did not doubt, would turn out less injurious than these parties supposed.
On Question that "now" stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Content 7; Not Content 5: Majority 2:
Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned to Monday next.