Sitting of 7 July 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Highways (Public Health Act); Poor Law Commission Continuance (Ireland); Militia (Scotland); Highway Rates; Heritable Securities (Scotland); Metropolitan Sewers; Turnpike Trusts Arrange-
1366
ments; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.; Public Health Act Amendment.
2o Commons Inclosure (No. 2); Prisoners Removal.
3o Sheriff and Sheriff Clerk of Chancery (Scotland); Married Women; Valuation of Lands (Scotland).

MIDDLESEX INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL —ADJOURNED DEBATE (SECOND NIGHT.)
Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [4th July], "That the Amendments made by the Lords to the Middlesex Industrial Schools Bill be now taken into Consideration."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he rose to move that the Lords' Amendments to this Bill be taken into consideration on that day three mouths. When this Bill came before the House for a second reading, he moved that it be read a second time that day six months, inasmuch as he had serious objections to the measure. He, however, consented to withdraw his Amendment, inasmuch as it was generally agreed that they should go into Committee upon the Bill with a view of remedying the many defects he observed in the measure. This House having agreed to certain amendments in the Bill, it was passed in an improved state. The Lords, however, had struck out all those amendments. He, therefore, thought that he was only acting consistently in moving his present Amendment. He thought that this was a species of special and exceptional legislation, whereas it was his opinion that those matters should be regulated by a general Bill; and a general Bill had been introduced on the subject by the Government, which had been passed last night through Committee. If, therefore, they passed the present Bill, together with the Government Bill, they would have two principles recognised in regard to the same criminal offenders. In one case the criminal offenders would be subject to punishment first, and would be then placed in reformatory schools. That was the Government scheme. In the present measure the punishment would be dispensed with in respect to the same offenders, who would be placed in reformatory institutions. The principal objection which he had to the Lords' Amendments was that in relation to Clause 29, page 13, which would completely neutralise the intentions of that House. The Amendment of that House was to give power to the ministers of other religions, beside that of the State,

1367
to visit juvenile offenders of their own religious persuasion, to afford them every consolation in their power, and to celebrate divine worship in those schools. Those visits were, however, to be made under certain regulations. By the Lords' Amendment no minister could visit those places unless at the special request of the juvenile offenders or of their parents. That was a most important alteration, and one which he considered most objectionable. He thought that one of the most useful functions of a minister of religion was, not to wait for a special request, but to go to those haunts of crime and misery, and to tender to the unfortunate inmates the consolations of religion. He thought it was the height of illiberality to introduce enactments which would practically deprive all unfortunate persons professing other religions than that of the State of receiving the benefits of their own particular clergy. He also objected to another Amendment of the House of Lords, which was to give power to the bishop to appoint or withdraw the chaplains of those institutions at their pleasure. Their Lordships had also struck out the clause relating to the keeping of a register, for which he could conceive no reason, except that if it should appear that there was in any prison a large proportion of children not belonging to the Established Church, the public might complain of the injustice of preventing so large a number of prisoners from receiving the visits of a minister of their own denomination, and having divine service celebrated according to their own faith. He regarded the omission of this clause as a part of the system which had led to the other alteration to which he had referred. He believed that the Government took the same view of the question as he did.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he believed that the Bill, as amended by the House of Lords, was a most desirable measure, and had received the concurrence of the great majority of the magistrates and of the ratepayers. He hoped that the House would not be induced to take a course that would be fatal to the Bill, merely because the House of Lords refused to sanction the in-
1368
troduction of a new principle into our public institutions. According to the practice of our law any prisoner who dissented from the Church of England might claim access for the minister of his own persuasion. That point was freely granted as a concession to the religious opinions of prisoners or of juvenile offenders. Well, that same principle was preserved in this Bill. But the House of Lords had very properly rejected the new principle, that any person who shall declare himself to be a minister of a particular denomination—without being called upon to give any proof of his being really so—shall at once have free access to those schools. Such a power as that would lead to the greatest possible confusion. Before they adopted such a rule as that, they should have a registry of the ministers of the various religious denominations, so as to secure identity. He did not suppose that the House was desirous that Cardinal Wiseman should have a right by law to authorise any clergyman, by the mere virtue of his office, to enter those establishments. To such a principle he hoped the House would never consent in relation to a private Bill. By the Lords' Amendments free access would be allowed to such ministers at the special request of the juvenile offenders or of their parents. The same principle was recognised by our law in respect to all the prisons of the United Kingdom. It would be a most dangerous precedent to allow the introduction of the new principle that was sought for by certain hon. Members. Let the House recollect the marked instance of the Dublin Cemetery Act. He believed it was the conviction of the House that that Act contained the enunciation of no principle that had not been hitherto recognised by the law of the country. Nevertheless, it was subsequently found that there had been surreptitiously introduced into that Bill words which appeared to convey the legality of those titles which had been declared illegal by the Ecclesiastical Titles Act; and that Act was referred to and made use of as a justification for the Papal aggression, and as an argument against the passing of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. In the present case there was a similar attempt made to give an authorised claim to the clergy of the Church of Rome, by virtue of their office, to enter those public establishments, and to instruct all the children therein. All orphans who unfortunately became liable to the penalties of the law became, as it were, the children of the

1369
State; and unless they believed that those children belonged to another faith, they had a full right to instruct them according to the tenets of the Church of England. With respect to the other Amendment, relating to the rights of the bishops in the appointment of chaplains, it should be recollected that the principle there recognised was in accordance with the general practice of our county gaols. He hoped that the House would not depart from the general practice by inserting new principles and inconsistent provisions in a private Bill.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he objected to the Bill altogether, for he thought that its object would be most fitly carried out by the Government measure now before the House.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that though he did not concur in the second reading of the Bill, because he thought that the principle was one which should be dealt with by a general Bill, yet he assented to it because the Home Secretary did not then think that he would be able to introduce a general measure upon the subject. At his suggestion the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and when the Committee were appointed they carefully applied themselves to the consideration of the whole question, and they unanimously adopted a clause with regard to religious worship which authorised the ministers of different religious persuasions to attend the different inmates of the establishment, subject to regulations to be made by the visiting magistrates, in order to prevent any irregularity, or the access of improper persons to the children of the establishment. The clause also provided that liberty should be given to the children of different persuasions to attend divine service on the Sabbath according to their particular religious convictions. This was the clause which had been omitted by the House of Lords; and when it was brought before the House of Commons the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) objected to it, but the House affirmed it by a majority. It was said that this was an entirely new principle, but if hon. Gentlemen would refer to the Irish Prisons' Act, the 7 Geo. IV. —["Oh, oh!"]—he would remind hon. Members that Ireland was a part of the British empire, and was entitled to be treated as such—the Irish Prisons' Act gave to the Roman Catholic clergy as well as to Dissenting ministers, free access to the gaols and prisons in Ireland. He saw
1370
papers circulated amongst hon. Members that day, which denied to the Roman Catholic clergy the right to perform divine service except in their own chapels or in private houses. He would, however, refer the House to an Act in which Parliament had fully recognised the right of the Roman Catholic clergy to perform divine service in the gaols and prisons. [Mr. SPOONER: But that Act does not apply to England.] If it were intended now to declare by a vote of the house that it was illegal for the Roman Catholic clergy to perform divine service to our soldiers or to the prisoners in our gaols, he for one could not be a party to such vote. He was sorry that the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) had moved this Amendment, because, if carried, it would have the effect of rejecting the Bill altogether. He would be willing to vote with the noble Lord if he confined his Amendment to disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments. And in the event of that proposition being carried, he would not despair of settling matters amicably with the House of Lords in a conference. As, however, there was a general Bill upon the subject, applicable to all the country, he thought there was less necessity for this Bill. He should certainly prefer that the Bill were lost than that it should be passed under present circumstances.
MR. MILESsaid, he would be glad to hear how the right hon. Gentleman could contradict the fact that the original clause referred to was not one that would be introducing a new principle into the prison discipline of England.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had just been informed that the practice was at present carried out in Dartmoor and other prisons in England.
MR. MILESsaid, he was not aware of the fact, but, at all events, those prisons were not regulated by Act of Parliament; they were under the authority of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He hoped and trusted that the House would not take as a precedent the practice adopted in some of the prisons in Ireland. If the right hon. Baronet would show him that any Roman Catholic or Presbyterian in prison, if he expressed a wish for a clergyman of his own persuasion, was prevented by the law from receiving the visit of such person, he (Mr. Miles) would then admit the necessity of new legislation upon the subject. He, however, defied the right hon. Gentleman to show

1371
him anything of the kind. Why, then, should they attempt to alter the law as regards prison discipline in one particular case He was sorry that a general law upon the subject was not carried out. We wanted reformatory schools all over the country to be established by a general Government measure. But this was not a Government measure. He hoped that the House would adopt the Amendments of the House of Lords, which only recognised the principle that had been hitherto invariably acted upon, and that hon. Members would not jeopardise a measure which he believed was calculated to confer much advantage on the people.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, that after the appeal made to him by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he would, if the House would permit him, withdraw the Motion he had made, and substitute for it an Amendment to the effect that this House disagrees with the Lords' Amendments.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he hoped the House would permit the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. LUCASsaid, he could not but be struck with the inconsistency of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, in objecting to the withdrawal of the noble Lord's Amendment, and yet professing to be anxious for the passing of the measure. He conceived that their object evidently was not to have an industrial Bill, but a proselytising Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] [The hon. Gentleman then quoted several extracts from the Ragged School Union Magazine of June and July to justify his assertion.] The concession of those hon. Members to the Roman Catholics went to this extent—that in respect to the children of the Established Church, they were to be compelled to attend the divine service of their Church, but in respect to Roman Catholic children, they were to be permitted to attend the service of a Church to which they did not belong. And yet they admitted that the large of juvenile criminals in the United Kingdom were of the Roman Catholic religion. This paper also insisted upon it that the very life-blood of these institutions was to diffuse among the Roman Catholic inmates Protestant teaching, and that every obstruction ought to be placed in the way of their receiving Roman Catholic teaching. That was the meaning of the article, and nothing else. And no man could deny, after reading it, that the
1372
object of the Middlesex magistrates, in introducing into the House of Lords these Amendments, and so endeavouring to reverse the decision of the House of Commons, was to found an establishment which should receive within its walls a majority of Roman Catholic children under the pretence of reforming them, and refuse to them the best means of reformation—the opportunity of worshipping Almighty God according to the religion in which they had been brought up—which should put in play against them all the means of proselytism with the view of perverting them from the religion they professed, and thus do them the greatest possible mischief which human beings could receive at the hands of the Parliament of this empire. It should be borne in mind that the inmates of this establishment would be vagrants, not felons and criminals. The poor boys would have lived in the constant practice of their religion—they would not have broken any law of morality, or any law of mall of any higher character than a police regulation; they would have been punctual in the discharge of their religious duties, and in their attendance on the sacraments of their Church; and the Bill, in its present shape, would have the effect of authorising the police and the bigoted section of the magistrates of Middlesex to take these poor children out of the streets, place them in the hands of Mr. Pownall, and empower him and his fellow magistrates to use all the direct coercion and influence that they could bring to bear in order to pervert them from the religion of their forefathers! It was a gross, a rank injustice. They had now arrived at a time when the Roman Catholics had to consider whether or not they were to be treated like the rest of the people of this country; whether this was a land in which they were to be allowed to live, and to be treated with common fairness and justice; or whether they were to have "aliens" stamped upon their foreheads by such legislation as the House had then before it. For his part he should do everything in his power to defeat this nefarious legislation, and if the Bill passed into a law he should use his utmost endeavours to procure the repeal of the enactment.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR,said that one of the greatest evils which Parliament had experienced during the present Session was the curse of religious differences intervening to prevent useful

1373
legislation. He appealed to the hon. Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) not to oppose the withdrawal of the noble Lord's (Lord Dudley Stuart's) Amendment, but allow the House at once to decide upon the question which was really before them, namely, whether it would or would not agree to the Lords' Amendments, Upon the acceptance or rejection of these Amendments depended the fate of the Bill. The measure had been received with considerable favour by the House, and he was certainly most desirous that it should become law as speedily as possible. He himself had assisted in Committee in framing the clause to which allusion had been made, and he was most anxious to give the Roman Catholics every advantage they could reasonably expect in preparing the Bill. The clause had gone up to the House of Lords. That House had taken exception to it, and sent the Bill down in its present state. What he had to consider then was, whether he should assent to the Lords' Amendments or not; in other words, whether the Bill should pass this Session or not. He believed that if the Amendments were rejected, it would be utterly futile in him to attempt to pass it during the present Session. Under these circumstances he had come to the conclusion, though with much reluctance, to give his support to the Amendments. At the same time he could assure the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) and his co-religionists that he was ready to aid them in any attempt they might make to obtain that measure of justice of which the Amendments introduced by the Lords deprived them. He could not, however, make up his mind, for the sake of that, to postpone for a year, and, perhaps, indefinitely, a Bill which was founded on far different principles to those of any others that had been presented to the House for the establishment of reformatory institutions, and which, considering the immense number of juvenile criminals who were constantly passing through the prisons of Middlesex, he could not too strongly express his desire to see at once passed into a law.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that if the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) withdrew his Amendment, then they would come at once to the question, whether the Lord's Amendments should be agreed to or not. Upon that vote would depend, not alone the clause to which reference had been made, but the fate of the Bill itself; for
1374
the clause which was introduced in Committee, which was passed by that House afterwards, and which had subsequently been rejected by the House of Lords, was notoriously so impracticable a clause that its adoption would be fatal to the working of the Bill. He had the highest authority, the authority of practical men, for saying so. He had no wish whatever to act unjustly towards Roman Catholics. On the contrary, he had been anxious to introduce clauses that would give them the most liberal treatment; but he could not imagine that, with that object in view, the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) would desire to adopt an impracticable clause. The clause they were about to vote upon was to the effect, that the criminal children should not attend a religious worship which was contrary to their religious principles; secondly, that they should be taught in the creed of their parents, which, from his own experience in a majority of cases, was direct infidelity; not the infidelity of carelessness, but of reason; in short, a rational infidelity, and so far the clause insisted upon their being brought up in the creed of infidelity; and, thirdly, that all ministers of every persuasion should have a right to enter at any time, and on Sundays if they thought fit, in order to perform service within these institutions. sow, when the Rev. Sidney Turner, the Governor of Red Hill Reformatory School, the principal institution of the sort in this country, read the debate which led to the insertion of this clause, he said—
"I am astonished that any man in his senses, having a knowledge of the working of these institutions, should have consented to the adoption of such a clause. If it be made to form part of the Bill, it will have the effect of shutting up the institution at Red for it will render the government of the institution altogether impossible."
The Amendments which the Lords had inserted would put the institution on the same footing as a prison. There were, however, some words in the Amendments which were offensive—he alluded to the restrictions they imposed upon the introduction into these institutions of improper persons. These words might seem to connect the ministers of religion with improper persons, and they had better have been omitted.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he could assure the hon. Member for Meath that he was entirely mistaken in supposing that the Middlesex magistrates desired to make this school an instrument of proselytism. He would venture to say for them, and

1375
particularly for Mr. Pownall, to whom the hon. Member had referred, that the thought had never entered into the mind of any of their number. On the contrary, he believed they were actuated by the simple motive of desiring to prevent the commission of crime by bringing under healthy moral influence that portion of the population from whose ranks the class of criminals had been hitherto recruited and supplied. He (Mr. Williams) had voted for the clause rejected by the House of Lords; but rather than lose a measure of such value, he should not hesitate to support the Bill in its present shape.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Amendments agreed to, as far as page 13, line 36.
Page 13, line 36, the next Amendment, (Leave out from "That" to the end of the Clause, and insert "if any juvenile offender shall be of a religious persuasion differing from that of the Established Church, a minister of such persuasion, at the special request of such juvenile offender, or at the special request of his or her parents, shall be allowed to visit him or her at proper and reasonable times, under such restrictions imposed by the Committee of Visitors as shall guard against the introduction of improper persons and shall prevent improper communications,") read a second time.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that having taken part in the discussion of the clause winch the Lords had rejected, and having also voted in favour of that clause, he trusted the House would allow him to explain the course which he deemed it his duty to take on the present occasion. When that clause was discussed, he stated his opinion that, in giving religious instruction to the unfortunate children in these establishments, they must either be considered children of the State and be taught the religion of the State, or if their religious differences were to be respected, legislation should not stop short of the clause they were then considering. Upon that ground he gave his vote in favour of the clause. But, the House of Lords had now suggested another course, and the alternative before the House was either to agree to the Amendments of the Lords or abandon the Bill altogether. He was quite of the same opinion as his noble Friend (Lord R. Grosvenor), and he could not take upon himself to incur the responsibility of endangering the passing of the Bill. He attached the greatest possible
1376
importance to the measure; he was most earnestly desirous of seeing it passed into a law; and, under these circumstances, he must take the same course as his noble Friend, and give his vote for the Lords' Amendments.
LORD DUDLEY STUART: I beg leave to move that this House do disagree with this Amendment of their Lordships.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I am not now going to argue this question, but I wish just to observe that there is another course open to this House beside that pointed out to us by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington), who said that we must either agree to the Lords' Amendments or the Bill would be lost altogether. There is another course which the House of Lords may take, and that is, not to insist upon the adoption of their Amendments. It appeared to me that the Bill as it went up from this House was a very reasonable Bill. I also thought this clause a very fair one; and as the expunging of it seems to imply that whatever number of persons there may be of a different persuasion from the Established Church in any one of these reformatory institutions, they cannot ever be allowed to have divine service performed, or instruction given according to their own religious convictions, I certainly must disagree with this Amendment.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the House of Lords had exercised a very wise discretion in refusing to enact that religious worship should take place in these schools according to every religious creed. At the same time, the omission of such a positive and declaratory enactment did not necessarily carry the effect of an absolute prohibition of such a proceeding.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he should support the proposition to reject the Lords' Amendment. He would not do so in any sectarian spirit, but simply because he wished to see justice done to all classes of his fellow-countrymen.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 124: Majority 27.
The next Amendment agreed to.
The last Amendment, page 15, (Leave out Clause 31,) read a second time.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided:—The numbers re-

1377
ported by the Tellers were, Ayes, 202; Noes 67: Majority 135.
Notice taken, that Mr. Grenville Berkeley, the Member for Evesham, had given his voice with the Noes, and had voted with the Ayes.
Whereupon Mr. Speaker directed his vote to be recorded with the Noes:—Ayes 201; Noes 68: Majority 133.

THE CHARITY COMMISSION—EXPLA NATION.
MR. E. ELLICEsaid, he was sorry to understand that something which had fallen from him on the preceding evening as to the Charity Commission, had been supposed to have reference to the able and excellent gentleman who was at the head of that Commission—Mr. Commissioner Erle. So far from anything disrespectful being intended by him towards Mr. Erle, the House would recollect that he had spoken of Mr. Erle in terms such as he believed him fully entitled to, from the able, energetic, and zealous manner in which he had performed, so far as the powers given to him by Parliament permitted, the duties of his office. His (Mr. Ellice's) complaint had been that sufficient power was not intrusted to Mr. Erle and his brother Commissioners; for certainly it was impossible to place the administration of the department over which he presided in abler, safer, or better hands. Some misapprehension had doubtless arisen from his having, inadvertently, referred to his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) as being still the chief unpaid Commissioner, whereas the duties of his right hon. Friend's new office, requiring the whole of his time, had rendered him unable to remain upon the Charity Commission. What he had wished to express upon this point was the hope that, when it should be found necessary to replace his right hon. Friend on the Commission, it would be in the person of some gentleman having a seat in that House, and to whom the House could appeal on any occasion when it should be found necessary to make observations upon the working of the Commission.

THE NEWSPAPER STAMP—QUESTION.
On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply,
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the threatened prosecution of Mr. Novello, the publisher of the Musical Times, for an alleged violation of the Newspaper Stamp
1378
Act; and at the same time to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General, whether proceedings were to be instituted against him. After the Resolution to which the House had come on the 16th of May—
"That it is the opinion of this House that the Laws in reference to the Periodical Press and Newspaper Stamp are ill-defined and unequally enforced, and it appears to this House that the subject demands the early consideration of Parliament,"—
he thought it right to call attention to a case which would show that the law was ill-defined and unequally enforced. The gentleman whose case he was about to advocate was the publisher of a very harmless periodical, called the Musical Times, which contained some articles of news. On the 8th of May Mr. Novello received a letter from the Board of Inland Revenue, stating that he had broken the law, and threatening him with a prosecution. He accordingly wrote to Mr. Timm as follows—
"London, 69, Dean Street, Soho, "May 11, 1854.
"I have to acknowledge your letter of May 8. I have delivered to the Stamp Office stamped and unstamped copies of every number of the Musical Times for the last ten years (as compelled by law to do), and each of these copies has been thoroughly examined by your officers to ascertain how much of it was liable to duty for advertisements, so long as that impost was chargeable; and I suppose that, both before and since, it has been examined to see that it contained no blasphemous and seditious libel, as I am compelled still to deliver a copy for the latter purpose. During these ten years the news contained in the paper has always been of precisely the same kind, and your Office (as I have shown) was thoroughly acquainted with its nature; and, as no objection has been made, I must suppose that the Musical Times has, during ten years, been published with the sanction of your Office. I should be glad, therefore, to be favoured by your pointing out what particular passage of news you now consider as making the paper liable to be all printed upon stamps. The Musical Times has always consisted 'principally' of a piece of music, for which the same price is paid, whether printed alone, or whether accompanied by the matter of temporary interest, which is given away with it only when first published. The music being that for which the money is paid in all instances, you will perceive that, supposing sixteen or more pages of advertisements to be given with the music, the Musical Times would still consist 'principally' of the music, which is what people pay for."
In answer to that he received a letter from Mr. Timm, offering to submit his letter to the Board, to which he replied—
"I am obliged by your offer to submit my representations to the Board, and I feel all the inconvenience of their position, in having to administer a law which the Judges are unable to

1379
define, and which no Government has yet had either the grace to repeal, or the courage equally to enforce. I am not without hope that the present Government will adopt the graceful course and repeal these bad laws; but if in the meantime they are determined to make the existing laws respected, they would be more likely to succeed by prosecuting any of the other fifty or sixty papers placed in precisely the same position as the Musical Times, because ill-natured people will be apt to think the selection more due to its being the property of the treasurer of the active Association for the Repeal of all the Taxes on Knowledge, rather than to any peculiarity in the contents of the Musical Times requiring the enforcement of the law to begin with that paper."
No answer was returned to that, and on the 20th of May Mr. Novello addressed the following letter to the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue—
"On the 8th May, I had a letter from Mr. Timm, solicitor to the Inland Revenue, threatening me, for penalties he says I have incurred by something I have published in the Musical Times. I answered it immediately, requesting to have pointed out what particular passage has subjected me to these threats, after ten years of impunity; but although more than a week is past, I have had no answer, and am left in all the uncertainty of not knowing what I may do in my next number. I have addressed myself to you, as the Chairman of the Board, to point out how much anxiety is caused by these constant threats from a department armed with an Act by which penalties can be inflicted, which would quite ruin a man. Many of my friends are in consternation at the danger they think I run. The Board have probably hardly considered the effect of these proceedings on those threatened, but it would be less cruel were they to make up their minds and only threaten those whom they had determined to prosecute, rather than thus to threaten when in many instances no further steps are intended to be taken. The timid are frightened from their property, and it leaves me not the less anxious and uncertain, that I have made up my mind to defend my paper. I trust I may be favoured as early as possible with the decision of the Board, in order to be relieved from an anxiety I have not deserved, if no prosecution is intended; or, in the other alternative, that I may be prepared for my defence."
In answer to this he received a letter dated May 24, and signed Thomas Keogh, as follows—
"The Board have had before them your letter of the 11th instant, addressed to their solicitor, as also a letter of the 20th, to the Chairman. I am directed to inform you that the Board will act in the matter to which these letters refer according to the advice of the law officers of the Crown."
Upon this Mr. Novello wrote to the Attorney General in the following terms—
"I inclose copies of correspondence which has passed between the Inland Revenue and myself, by which you will see that I ant threatened with prosecution for publishing news in the Musical Times, after having done so with impunity for ten years; and that Mr. Keogh finally refers me
1380
to the law officers of the Crown, to know whether the prosecution is to be proceeded with. I write (after waiting with much patience) to ask if the Musical Times is to be prosecuted or not, and I hope to be favoured with a direct answer, as it is most painful to conduct business under such uncertainty. There is no doubt that if the Statute be strictly enforced against the numerous papers containing similar matter to the Musical Times, every publisher must be ruined by the penalties; but even such severity would be less unjust than the present fast and loose method of threatening a prosecution (involving such heavy pecuniary loss, whether successful or the contrary), but which in many instances has no other meaning than to frighten the timid out of their property; while this uncertain conduct has the bad moral effect of showing the impunity with which reckless persons may set a Statute at defiance, if the law be so unfair and ill-defined as is the Newspaper Stamp Act. I trust you will see the justice of informing me if the prosecution is to be stayed, and whether the Musical Times is to continue its former useful course undisturbed by these threats. It will still have to struggle with the heavy obstruction which the paper duty imposes upon all printed efforts to diffuse information."
To this he received no answer, and on the 26th June he wrote another letter to the Attorney General to this effect—
"I should feel very grateful for a reply to my letter of 9th June, inquiring if the prosecution is to take place against the Musical Times, and whether anything were intended by the threats of the 8th May. I have been trying to relieve my anxiety since your silence by reference to the course pursued towards former alleged offenders. I find the case of the Racing Times, which was said to admit of no delay, and 'which no person could doubt was a newspaper liable to stamp duty' in September, 1851, but since which no prosecution has ensued. I find, on the other hand, the more doubtful case of the Commercial Journal, in Dublin, so late as this year, prosecuted, the proprietor brought to the brink of the Insolvent Court, his paper nearly ruined, and, although the verdict decided he had not violated the law, he had 100 l, to pay for the expense of defending his property from an unjust attack. I find numbers of papers crushed out of existence by the threats of the Inland Revenue, and, on the other hand, the discreditable exhibition of that Office set at defiance by persons whom they have accused of breaking the law. I find the Police Gazette suppressed, and Holt's Army and Navy Despatch selling by thousands, 'stamped and unstamped'—that is with the direct sanction of the Stamp Office, and this last paper has not even been threatened. You perceive that no safe opinion can be gathered from observing this unequal enforcement of the law, and I am, therefore, compelled once more to ask a reply from you by which I may guide my proceedings."
To this he had received no reply. He (Sir J. Shelley) really thought that, after the Resolution to which that House had come, and the proof which had been given that this publication was not one which had broken the law, that it was a matter

1381
worthy of the consideration of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General; and he wished to know whether it was the intention of his hon. and learned Friend to institute any prosecution against Mr. Novello; or whether he proposed to bring in any Bill to set at rest this disputed question with regard to publishers and periodicals?
The ATTORNEY GENERALbegged to say, that the only reason why Mr. Novell had not received an answer to his communications to him was, because a reply to that gentleman involved this consideration—that the same measure dealt out to Mr. Novello must be dealt out to everybody else. The whole matter connected with this stamp duty had been under his anxious consideration since the Resolution of the House upon the subject. With reference to the particular instance brought under the notice of the House by his hon. Friend, the facts were these:—in April last, or early in May, the case of Nr. Novello was submitted to the law officers of the Crown. It appeared that the Musical Times not only contained items of intelligence connected with music, but that Mr. Novello published advertisements very largely. so that very frequently one-half of his paper appeared in the shape of advertisements, which, whatever might be the opinion of the publisher, brought his paper directly within the stamp duty. The fact that Mr. Novello was evading the law in this particular was brought under his attention, and the view he had taken was, that, so long as the Government allowed certain privileges to class publications, Mr. Novello was entitled to indulgence; but that, if he sought to evade the law by publishing advertisements, then he ought not to be treated with the same leniency as others, and it was right that the law should be enforced against him. The law officers of the Crown recommended that, as this evasion of the law might have been an act of oversight, a letter should be written to Mr. Novello on the subject, pointing out that, instead of keeping within the limits of a class publication in the Musical Times, he was publishing advertisements, and so evading the law. Such a letter was written, and there the matter ended. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred it to him to take into consideration what course the Government should pursue upon the subject generally. The question was one of some difficulty. He had, however, quite made
1382
up his mind as to the course which ought to be pursued by the Government, and, but for the unfortunate illness of the right hon. Gentleman, who had been prevented from attending the House during the week, he should have put him in possession of his views. As he had already stated, he had a very clear view indeed of what ought to be done, but, until he had communicated on the subject with the Minister at the head of the financial department, he thought he should not be justified in stating to the House at the present moment what he should be quite prepared to state on another occasion. For the same reason, he had not communicated to Mr. Novello what was to be done in his particular case. At the same time, he might say that be felt quite sure there was no disposition whatever to visit that gentleman with respect to the past. As to what would be done for the future, that, of course, must depend upon the decision come to upon the general question.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would take the liberty of submitting to the Government whether, in the uncertain state of the law, it would not be wise to suspend all pending actions on this question, and that no new ones should be instituted until the Government had decided on the course they intended to take. That would be reasonable course, and one for which there was precedent. He would press on the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to use his influence with his Colleagues to agree that no actions under the Stamp Laws should be instituted till the measure of the Government was decided on. He did not see why the Government should delay to settle this question. It was a simple, and by no means a complicated question, and he believed that the hon. and learned Attorney General and himself, or any other Member of the House, would in three days settle the whole question, so that it should never be heard of again. He knew what the views of the Attorney General were from the votes he had given when he was not connected with any Government; and his private views were always in their favour when he was an independent Member of the House, and on conviction he was with them. The Board of Inland Revenue was now placed in a very awkward position before the public; threatening prosecutions which they did not proceed with, and he thought for the sake of that House, if not for the public, the Government were bound to take an early opportunity of settling.

1383
this question. He should like to know where the obstruction was, and why the matter should be kept in hot water when it could be settled by ceasing to tax news and substituting a postal charge for the transmission of papers—a plan which was pursued in all countries except this. The Post Office could very easily settle the matter, and he could confidently intrust it to Mr. Rowland Hill. He would therefore appeal to the Government to do something in the matter this Session, and if not, in the very beginning of the next.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could only say that his right hon. Friend had paid most anxious attention to this subject, and was very desirous the question should be settled in a manner which should be for the benefit of the community at large. His right hon. Friend, however, was, he believed, very far from thinking, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), that the subject was one of extreme simplicity, and one which might be settled in a few hours. On the contrary, he saw many difficulties in the way which ought to be provided against in any plan proposed. This House had resolved that the law was at present ill-defined and unequally enforced, and what his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) proposed—that everybody who chose to evade the law should be left without prosecution, while those who complied with it should suffer the penalties attending obedience to the law—would certainly not be the best means of equally enforcing the law. If they adopted this course, the Government might well be accused of favouring those who sought to evade the law, and of inflicting hardship and injustice on those who complied with it.
MR. COBDENsaid, that the Government might think that this question was often introduced unnecessarily; and he protested against its continuing as it was, on account of the trouble it gave to the Government. The question was constantly raised with reference to persons who were obstructed in the dissemination of news; but there was another side of the question, and the hon. and learned Attorney General would find difficulties raised by papers which were already established, which were stamped, and which complained against the toleration of unstamped publications. He had received a letter from
1384
the editor of the Warrington Guardian, which stated, "That he wished he would read to the House the inclosed advertisement, and ask why he should be made to pay a penny on all his papers, while Holt paid only when he liked." The advertisement inclosed was of a journal called Holt's Army and Navy Despatch, which professed to give all the events of the war. [The hon. Gentleman read the contents of the paper, which consisted of some most stirring incidents, real and supposed, connected with the war. The table of contents concluded with the words, "and all the news of the war, price 1½d."] His correspondent complained that when people would read about nothing but the war, an unstamped paper should be allowed to give all the news of the war. If the Attorney General carried out his intention with regard to indulgence to unstamped papers he would find difficulties in the way from established papers. If he meant that papers which confined themselves to a particular subject should be exempt from that stamp, numbers of publications would spring up, professing to give only class news, while by means of leaders, and in other ways, would slip in general news, and it would be difficult to define what was class news. He would, therefore, put it to the Government, as every one professed a desire to encourage the instruction and information of the people, whether they should any longer hesitate as to the course they would take on the question. There was no doubt as to what ought to be done. Let all newspapers be unstamped, and when they were sent through the Post Office, let a penny stamp be put upon them. It was no new principle or plan, for it was done already in the case of the Athenœum, Punch, &c., which had stamped and unstamped editions. It was a very simple plan, for you had only to put the whole of the newspapers on the same footing, and let Mr. Rowland Hill and the Chancellor of the Exchequer arrange the rest of the matter, which could be done in less than three days. He hoped that the Government would come to a decision on the subject in a short time.

MORNING SITTINGS—THE COUNT OUT.
MR. BOWYERsaid, he wished to bring under the attention of the Government a circumstance which seemed to affect the constitutional privilege of independent Members of that House. The only day on which independent Members had the op-

1385
portunity of bringing their proposals before the House was Tuesday, and on that day there were always morning sittings, so that the evening sittings were shortened, or indeed in many cases there was no House at all, because Members were tired and fatigued by the morning sitting, and he thought that it would be desirable not to make any arrangement which had a tendency to prevent Motions being brought forward by independent Members. He wished to advert to a circumstance which occurred in that House on Tuesday last. On that day the House was counted out, and he attributed that to the fact of Members being tired by the morning sitting. At the time he was disposed to find fault with the Government for so managing that the House should be counted out, but he had since been informed that the Government had nothing to do with it, but that an hon. Member took the irregular course of locking the door to prevent Members coming in to make a House. He hoped that such an occurrence would not take place again, and he appealed to the Government to make some arrangement by which there would be a possibility for independent Members to exercise their constitutional privilege.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was most unfairly treated on Tuesday evening, and that it was most indecorous in the House to have been counted out during the discussion of a Motion of so much importance. The result of that was, that the elaborate speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Sir W. Molesworth), which laid down principles of policy which were entirely new, went forth to the world without reply. He did think that when consequence was given to a debate by a Cabinet Minister making a speech of such importance, the Government ought to take care that it was not abruptly terminated by a "count out."
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he fully exonerated the Government from having had anything to do with the "count out," but he thought that the opinions contained in the speech to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Milnes) had referred were of such importance that it would, in his opinion, be desirable that some other Member of the Government should state to the House if those principles were shared by the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he
1386
thought that the complaints which had been made with regard to morning sittings were not altogether without foundation, and he agreed that morning sittings interfered with the opportunity afforded to independent Members of bringing forward Motions, for the evening sitting was in consequence shortened by two hours. He begged to call the attention of the Government to the fact that these morning sittings might be an illustration of the proverb, "the more haste the less speed," for, if Members were deprived of the opportunity of bringing on their Motions on Tuesdays, they would take the opportunity of doing so upon going into Committee of Supply. He did not speak quite disinterestedly on this subject, as he had a Motion with regard to the Russo-Dutch loan on the paper for next Tuesday, and if he should be deprived of the opportunity of bringing on the question then, he should most certainly do so on the first night of Supply. A statement had been made to the House by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer), that on Tuesday last, when the House was counted out, means had been adopted to interfere with the free access of Members, and the House ought to know who was in fault. Was it one of the doorkeepers? If it were, he apprehended that there was cause for severe censure. He had, however, been informed that an hon. Member of that House had gone to the door, got the key and locked it, and then, having resumed his place, had called attention to the fact of there not being forty Members present. It was a very ingenious trick for a parcel of schoolboys, but he did not think that it was consistent with the dignity or character of that House.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that inquiry had been made, and it was discovered that the door had not been locked by any of the doorkeepers. The custom had been for the key to be left in the door, but he had given instructions, in order to prevent the repetition of such a circumstance, that for the future the key should remain in charge of the Serjeant at Arms.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, he hoped that the door would not be locked so as to prevent Members from leaving the House.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that looking at the hour to which the House had sat on every Tuesday excepting last Tuesday, since morning sittings on that day had commenced, he could not think that the opportunity to private Members for bring-

1387
ing forward Motions had been much interfered with.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that he had made an effort against the too frequent appointment of morning sittings at this period of the Session, and he believed that every hon. Member who had lamented the loss of an opportunity of beginning or concluding a speech last Tuesday had voted against his Motion.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.
(1.) 7,550 l., Statute Law Commission.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he wished to call attention to the great public convenience which would arise from including Ireland in the labours of the Commission, and thus assimilating the Statutes of the two countries. He had been assured by one of the Commissioners that this might be effected without the least difficulty.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he begged to inquire whether the Government would have any objection to inform the Committee of their intentions with respect to consolidating the Statute laws. He wished to know what the intentions of the Government were with regard to the Commission—if it was appointed with a view of establishing a complete code, a scheme which he had always considered wild; or if for the purpose of framing a Consolidation Bill?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was quite ready to state what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. The Commission which was appointed last year for the purpose of consolidating, as far as possible, the Statutes, was only an experiment. The Government wished to ascertain whether that great work could be accomplished within a reasonable time, and what would be the best way of commencing it. Several gentlemen, therefore, were employed for that purpose under the directions of the Lord Chancellor. They were to deliberate upon the best method of carrying into effect the intentions of the Government with regard to the consolidation of the Statutes. Their labours, he was happy to say, had been very successful. He bad had a communication that day upon the subject with the Lord Chancellor, who stated that he was eminently pleased with the labours of the Commissioners. The Lord Chancellor stated to him that he intended to lay upon the table of the
1388
House of Lords, very shortly, as a specimen of their labours, one of the Consolidation Bills which had been framed by the Commissioners. He (the Attorney General) believed that it was the intention of the Lord Chancellor to propose the appointment of a Commission consisting of the Lord Chancellor, certain law Lords, the law officers in that House, and one or two lay Gentlemen, Members of the House of Commons, who should be unpaid Commissioners, and who would be aided by one paid Commissioner, whose business it should be to attend constantly to matters of detail. It would be competent to that Commission to guide certain draughtsmen in the framing of measures for the consolidation of the Statutes. Under their superintendence measures for reducing to the smallest possible compass the most important Statutes would be proposed in the first instance. That would be a great service to the country. They would propose to expunge from the Statute-book a number of Statutes which now incumbered it. They would then proceed to the framing of one measure which would comprehend, in the smallest possible compass, all the existing Statutes relating to one particular division of the laws. He believed that the proposed consolidation of the Statutes would confer immense advantages upon the country.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he regretted that the hon. and learned Attorney General had held out no hope of this country obtaining a code of laws similar to that which Napoleon gave to France. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General spoke of the English laws as if they were different from, and more difficult and complicated than, those of any other country. But the truth was, that the laws of France were quite as complicated as our own before Napoleon commenced his magnificent work of codification, which would preserve his name when his military conquests were forgotten. Did the Attorney General propose, like Napoleon, to assemble the great jurists of the country for the purpose of producing a code of our laws? On the contrary, he proposed to employ in the consolidation of our laws men who were remarkable for their narrow and shortsighted views on the subject of general jurisprudence—namely, those who were engaged in the administration of justice in this country. The proposed plan could only produce most insignificant results. He wished that the Attorney General,

1389
than whom no one was more fitted for the task, would apply his mind to the codification of our laws. His great abilities would enable him to raise a magnificent monument of legislation, which would be for the benefit of the country, and would carry his name down to the remotest posterity. Mr. Hallam, in his work on the Middle Ages, regretted that England had not produced her Tribonian, under whose hand the unintelligible jargon of our conflicting Statutes might have been compelled to give place to a simple and intelligible code. He (Mr. G. Phillimore) did not wish to offer the slightest opposition to the Vote proposed, for he thought it was better that something should be done than nothing.
MR. EWARTsaid, he hoped that the proposed Commission would propose a measure which, for the conciseness and clearness of its language, would be a model to future Legislatures. He thought that nothing was more disgraceful than the language of the Acts which had been passed in this country in recent times. They were fuller of complication, parentheses, and tautology, than any other documents in the country; whilst it was obvious that those were the very faults that ought to be most specially avoided in our Statutes. The Statutes of Edward I., Edward II., and Edward III., were patterns of brevity and clearness. There was an avoidance in them of those parentheses which confused the modern Statutes. He hoped that the Tribonians who were about to be appointed to revise our laws would produce measures which would have some approximation to those great monuments of jurisprudence which regulated the lives of the ancient Romans.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the present Commission was appointed twelve months ago, and it was high time that a Report of their proceedings should be laid on the table of the House.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that the present unwieldy state of the Statute-book was owing in a great measure to separate Bills being proposed for England, Ireland, and Scotland, instead of proposing one Bill for the three countries. He hoped the Government would direct their attention to that very objectionable mode of legislation.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would attempt to draw a Bill which would apply to all parts of the United Kingdom, he would find it was not so easy a matter as he seemed to suppose.
1390
He (Mr. Craufurd) could not concur in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) as to the works of the Consolidation Commissioners. Before the work of codification could be commenced, it was necessary to sweep away all the absurd, obsolete, and repealed parts of the Statutes. And for that work he believed the Commissioners were eminently qualified. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had complained that no Report from the Commissioners had yet been laid on the table of the House, but the fact was, that they had presented two Reports as long ago as March, and both of them were now upon the table. They had not yet been printed, and of that he (Mr. Craufurd) thought hon. Gentlemen had a right to complain. He hoped that the department upon whom devolved the duty of directing the printing of the Reports would take care that they were printed and delivered to hon. Members without delay.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he considered that there would be no difficulty in assimilating the Statute law of Ireland with that of England. Up to the Union the Irish laws were mostly copies of the English laws, and he regretted to find that it was not the intention of the Government to include Ireland in the proposed measures of consolidation.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman must not infer that that would be the case. He was most anxious to assimilate the laws of the two countries, but there were many instances in which such a course would be impossible. When the measure was proposed, it would be seen how far it could be made applicable to Ireland.
Vote agreed to, as were also—
(2.) 900 l., Brehon Laws Commission (Ireland).
(3.) 23,700 l., Patent Law Amendment Act, Salaries, &c.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he wished to know whether any portion of the 3,050 l., which was down in the Estimate under the head of "compensations," was enjoyed by persons who also received advantage under the new Act?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Vote proposed for expenses of the Patent Office was certainly larger than he had anticipated would be necessary. Under the old system, the fee which the law officers received on each patent which they passed was 8l., which in the year amount-

1391
ed, on an average, to about 3,000 l. for each of the law officers, and, as they had no salaries, this was considered as a sort of compensation for their services. Under the new system, by which the expenses of obtaining a patent were reduced from 300 l., to 25 l., the fee payable to the particular law officer who passed the patent was reduced by Lord St. Leopards, who was then Lord Chancellor, from 8l. to 6l., but the increase in the number of patents consequent on the diminution of the expense was so large that the average amount of the law officers' fees was greater than before. When the present Government came into office, the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls took the matter into their consideration, and exercising the power given to them by the Act, they reduced the law officers' fees to one-half—2l. for the provisional specification, and another 1l. for granting the warrant for the patent. Under the old system, all the law officers had to do was, to sign his name to the warrant; but now, he had to consider the provisional specification, and to see whether it stated properly the nature of the invention and the mode in which it was to be carried out; so that not only had the amount of the fee been reduced, but the duty to be performed had been increased. With regard to the average amount of the fees received, he would at once frankly state, that last year they amounted to 4,000 l. for each of the law officers, instead of 3,000 l., as before. He could not help thinking, however, that that increase was the result of the great influx of patents consequent upon the facilities given to inventions by the new system, and which had been dammed up, as it were, under the old law. That great influx could scarcely be expected to continue every year in future, so that ere long the fees would probably be reduced in the aggregate to about the same amount as before the new law came into operation.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he considered the sum of 10,500 l. for fees payable to the law officers of the Crown a very extraordinary amount, and it appeared from the explanation of the hon. and learned Attorney General that the total sum was a mere guess. He hoped the Vote would be delayed until the Secretary of the Treasury could furnish satisfactory information as to the sum which would be required. There was also an item of 4,700 l. for incidental expenses, upon which he should like to receive some explanation.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he considered that the Committee, so far from seeing any good reason to object to the Vote, or to the general arrangements connected with the law of patents, ought to regard them with much satisfaction. The cost of patents had been reduced from 300 l. to 25 l., but to such an extent had the public availed themselves of the various improvements which were daily taking place in the several departments of industry and science, that a sum of no less than 64,000 l. had been paid into the Exchequer in the shape of stamps last year, in connection with patents; a source from which not one single farthing had ever been placed to the public credit before. With respect to the 10,500 l., it was impossible to say how many patents would come in next year, and consequently what the charges of the Patent Office, for fees, would be. The amount was the nearest which could be arrived at by an estimate. With respect to the sum of 4,700 l., it was almost impossible to furnish the particulars. It was the sum required to defray the whole expenses of the office. He should, however, add, that no matter what the amount of the Vote might be, that amount of money only which would be required would be expended.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwas of opinion, that if the fees of the law officers of the Crown were paid in the shape of a regular fixed salary, then there would be no necessity for guessing with respect to what would be the probable expenditure.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he believed the number of patents would be very much increased within the next two years, as he understood the proprietors of the Crystal Palace intended to give every facility for exhibiting patents in that building. He did not think there was any limit to mechanical invention in the present day. Within the last day or two he had heard of a gentleman in Lancashire who had invented a machine for excavating coal by steam power.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know if this was the only and the usual mode of paying the legal officers of the Crown, or whether it was mixed up with other payments. The mode of paying by fees he considered to be quite contrary to the system of legislation which was at present in vogue, and he could not understand why there should be these exceptions. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble Lord the President of the Coun-

1393
cil, whether the question of paying the legal officers of the Crown by direct salaries had been under the consideration of the Government.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there was no doubt that this sum did not constitute the whole amount which was paid by fees to the legal advisers of the Crown for professional work. It was well known that no legal practitioners were so ill paid for the amount and importance of the work done by them as the law officers of the Crown. The fees paid to them were so small that no other practitioners would be willing to take such arduous and important questions for so small a remuneration. When compared with the fees paid to other professional men in private practice, the fees received by the legal officers of the Crown were ludicrously small. The work of drawing out patents was occasionally arduous and important, requiring a great deal of research. He was, however, bound to state that the fees embraced by the present Vote were not the sole payments made to the law officers of the Crown.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the Committee on Salaries had recommended that the law officers of the Crown should be paid by salary, and this matter had been under the decision of the Cabinet; but after careful deliberation, they had come to the opinion that it was not advisable to change the present system. He was of opinion that neither of the courses which could be pursued was so good as the one which was adopted at present. If salaries were given, they would be inferior to the amount which many eminent men in the profession might make by private practice; the consequence of which would be, that the offices of Attorney and Solicitor General would be refused by men of the highest authority, and that Government and the public interest would also be sufferers, inasmuch as Government would be obliged to have recourse to any man of high reputation in the law, who was enjoying a large practice, and they would have to pay him the fees which he usually received for his other business. The result of this would be that Government would have more to pay than they had under the present system, which he, for his own part, believed had worked beneficially for the public interest.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he considered the explanation of the noble Lord not satisfactory. Why not pay the law offi-
1394
cers of the Crown a salary as well as the Lord Chancellor, and all the other officers of the State? No one would complain of paying them a liberal salary. He quite agreed with the noble Lord, that the Government should have the services of the most eminent men in their profession. The offices of Attorney and Solicitor General were always considered as stepping stones to the bench.
Vote agreed to; as was also the next Vote—
(4.) 78,815 l., Merchant Seamen's Fund.
(5.) 25,500 l., Battersea Park.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he did not intend to oppose the present Vote, but he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a question of deep interest to the constituents of every metropolitan Member—namely, that of metropolitan improvement. Up to the present time it had been the custom of the First Commissioner of Works to undertake what were called "metropolitan improvements," and the source from which the expenses of those improvements were paid was sometimes by borrowing money from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, sometimes by advancing it from the Consolidated Fund, and at other times it was provided from resources which it was not necessary to particularise. Latterly it had been his lot to bring several metropolitan improvements under the notice of Government, and in 1850 he called upon the Chief Commissioner of Works, under the Government of his noble Friend the President of the Council, for the purpose of inducing him to undertake the formation of a park at Finsbury. The proposal was favourably entertained, but had not been carried into effect. In the present year the Government decided that, although the improvement might be necessary, it would be inexpedient for them to bring the subject of the Finsbury Park before the House. His right hon. Friend (Sir W. Molesworth) stated to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was of opinion that it was not fair to carry out metropolitan improvements by means of the money levied from the general taxes of the United Kingdom. Now, in that opinion he fully concurred; but the Government declined either to undertake these improvements at all, or to give the metropolis the necessary powers to undertake them. The right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) said that the matter was in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; that he was

1395
ready to undertake the matter if it were sanctioned by the Government, but that he declined to take the initiative. Now, what he (Lord R. Grosvenor) complained of was, that, while the Government thus refused to undertake metropolitan improvements, the hands of the metropolis were entirely tied. Hitherto the Government had considered itself the trustee of the execution of all metropolitan improvements; but now that the Government had abrogated its function, all metropolitan improvement was at a complete stand. Owing to the conduct of the Corporation of the City of London, the public had lost the pleasant and healthful promenade which they ought to have had on the banks of the Thames, and now, for a space of five miles in a direct line northwards from the Thames, the whole of the sites were encased in brick and mortar. There used to be gardens in the New Road, the houses having been built at a distance of thirty or forty feet from the road; but, one after another, these gardens were being built over, and were becoming shops and residences, or both. Then, there were the White Conduit Gardens, and other tea-gardens in Pentonville and the district adjacent, but they were one by one being sold, and the open spaces were rapidly becoming covered with buildings. For five miles northwards from the banks of the, Thames there were now no open spaces of any description. This state of things was extremely deleterious and dangerous to the health of the inhabitants, especially to those who lived in the more densely populated portion of this district, and who were for the most part tied to the district, and unable to go in search of country air. There was a Vote of 27,500 l. for land at Kensington Gore, and another item of 140,000 l/ for the purchase of Burlington House. He concurred in the propriety of that purchase by the Government, but both these Votes were to come out of the general taxation. He wished his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) would tell the Committee how the metropolis was to go on if the Government would neither interfere in a matter affecting the health of the metropolis, nor allow any one else to interfere? If the Government threw off the responsibility, they were bound to state who was to assume it, and how these improvements were to be carried on. The Commissioners to inquire into the municipal government of the City of London had, in their Report, given a sketch of
1396
some boards of works to which all these great undertakings were to be referred; but not only were parks and pleasure grounds wanted, but many other things besides. There was the great question of the sewers, and another great question of the supply of water. The present Board of Sewers were in the act of dissolution, and no authority had yet been appointed to succeed them. He wished to impress upon the Government that, whatever project they might determine upon for obviating these most enormous evils, not a day should be lost in putting it in such a state of forwardness that it might be submitted to the metropolis and to Parliament.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, he thought that the refusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to defray the expense of a park for the people of Finsbury out of the general taxation would meet with the approval of the country at large, although it might not be satisfactory to the noble Lord. Why should the great anti wealthy City of London put its hands into the pockets of the public for the purpose of forming parks and pleasure grounds, when other large towns had subscribed considerable sums for similar objects? In Glasgow the sum of 90,000 l. had been subscribed last year for public parks. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works had much better devote the money towards the improvement of the Government offices in the country, such as the Glasgow Post Office, which was in a most disgraceful state. He should, therefore, move that this Vote be rejected.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he hoped that the Committee would not agree to the Motion. He would state the circumstances of this Vote. The formation of a park at Battersea had been recommended in 1845 by the Metropolitan Improvement Commissioners, and in 1846 all Act of Parliament was passed for the formation of the park. The estimated expenditure upon the purchase of property and the works necessary to the formation of a park at Battersea was 308,000 l., while the amount applicable to this expenditure up to March, 1854, was 236,000 l., leaving a balance of 72,262 l. to be provided for the completion of the park. Of this sum it was proposed to vote 25,000 l. this year, leaving 47,262 l. to be provided for in the years 1855, 1856, and 1857. Although he did not expect to get back all this money, principal as well as interest, yet it was anticipated that by means of ground-rents a very considerable

1397
portion of the whole money advanced for the formation of the park would be returned. It had been estimated that within a few years after the park was completed 326,000 l. would be realised from ground rents. If the park should now be stopped a positive loss in a pecuniary point of view would be sustained by the country. The park was now nearly completed, and the Government had engaged to pay for some land lately purchased 23,000 l., of which 17,000 l. would be defrayed out of the present Vote. The Government would, therefore, be compelled to break engagements made under the sanction of Parliament if Glasgow the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow was carried. The whole area of the park was now purchased except a very small part, and by Michaelmas Day the area of the park would be open to the public. He had shown that the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the public not only from enjoying the benefit of the park, but also from realising a. considerable sum of money which would go far to pay for the park. It was not true, as some hon. Members seemed to suppose, that the whole of the metropolitan improvements were paid for out of the general taxation of the country. On the contrary, a great portion was defrayed out of the coal duty, which was raised by the whole of the metropolis. He had last year stated that if the people of Finsbury would raise a considerable portion of the expense of a new park, the Government might be inclined to ask the House for a Vote in furtherance of the design. His noble Friend (Lord R. Grosvenor) had referred to the Finsbury Park. Now he had inquired the amount necessary, and was told that the Finsbury Park could be completed for about 250,000 l. He then stated, with the sanction of the Government, that if the people of Finsbury raised 200,000 l the Government would be prepared to apply to Parliament to Vote the balance. That proposal was not accepted by those who wished for the new park, and he had, accordingly, refused to give the notices for its formation. The Government had made this offer, because they considered, that as a park was to be made at Battersea, the people of Finsbury ought to receive some benefit from a public undertaking of the same kind.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he was under the impression that the statement made last year was, that the sum to be received in
1398
ground-rents, &c., from Battersea Park, would cover the outlay.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHhad stated that the receipts would pay off the capital, but he doubted whether they would cover the interest of the sums advanced by the Government as well.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the question of the formation of Finsbury Park assumed a different aspect at the present moment, because a great portion of the ground had, since the park was first. proposed, been purchased by speculators for building purposes. The present Government said that, if the district would raise a portion of the money, they would be ready to assist, but that they must have some proof of the desire of the district to have a park before they engaged the public funds for this purpose. There was a difficulty, he admitted, relative to the execution of metropolitan improvements, for which it would be desirable to have some remedy.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he would remind the noble Lord that what he had complained of was, that there were no means of raising money by the inhabitants of the metropolis for the purpose of metropolitan improvements; and he had asked whether, in the present state of the metropolis. the Government intended to leave this subject to be dealt with haphazard, or whether they would not introduce some large measure by which the inhabitants of the metropolis might make such improvements as they might deem desirable? As the Government appeared to have given up the execution of metropolitan improvements, he asked that some other means might be devised for promoting the health and comfort of this city.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that when the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Corporation of the City of London came to be considered next Session there might be some plan suggested of meeting the difficulty. At all events it would be necessary to deal with the subject of metropolitan improvements in the Bill which would be introduced founded upon that Report.
MR. SPOONERsaid, if large sums of money were to be constantly expended in forming public parks in the metropolis and Making other improvements, he should certainly put in a claim for his eon neighbourhood, and he would at once caution the noble Lord against making any promises, because if he once laid down the

1399
principle he might depend upon it that he would be required to carry it out in other places.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the proposed park at Battersea would confer great benefit upon a large number of human beings, there being about 500,000 persons in the metropolis on the Southwark side of the river who had no means whatever of resorting to a place where they could inhale the fresh air. Battersea Park was remarkably well situated on the banks of the Thames, and a large portion of the land had been already purchased for it. He did not support this Vote because he had the honour to represent persons in the neighbourhood, but upon public grounds. A large quantity of land was purchased for Battersea Park, and he had no doubt the land which the Government would have the power to dispose of would turn out most remunerative. No loss whatever would accrue to the public from this undertaking, and he (Mr. Williams) would raise no objection whatever to a vote for Finsbury or any other park, if it could be shown that such investments would be equally remunerative and useful. A great amount of money was spent to buy Holyrood Park for the citizens of Edinburgh, and money for the same purpose had since then been expended. As much as forty-five years' purchase was given for ground there. He hoped the hon. Member for Glasgow would not persevere with his Amendment. Why did not the hon. Member object to 15,000 l. for Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and the Green Park, which might be said to be entirely for the gratification of the aristocracy. He hoped the Government would turn their attention to the whole question during the recess, but, in the meantime, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. DUNCANthought his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Hastie) had some grounds for his objection, considering that the large sum of 90,000 l. for a park had been subscribed in that city, and nothing whatever was granted by Government; at the same time he would not advise his hon. Friend to divide the Committee on the Vote, although he was perfectly right in calling the attention of the Committee to the question.
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) did not put the matter quite fairly. In his opinion the real question should be, who
1400
were the proper parties that ought to provide the money for a public park for the recreation of people in the neighbourhood of Battersea? When the people of Manchester proposed to raise the large sum of 390,000 l. for a similar purpose, only 3,000 l. was granted by Sir Robert Peel towards the object. He thought it was high time for hon. Gentlemen who represented large constituencies to set themselves against such Votes as the present, which had reference only to the metropolis or its neighbourhood.
MR. JAMES M'GREGORsaid, that the hon. Member for Lambeth had recommended to the Government for its consideration the general wants of the metropolis in this respect; but he did not call attention to a special improvement which was much required. He believed the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works could tell them that already a large sum of money was set aside for the construction of a new road between London and Westminster Bridges on the Southwark side of the river, and no steps had yet been taken to carry out that undertaking, which was most urgently needed. He was afraid that, if something was not done soon, the opportunity would be lost altogether, as he belived that there were some conditions as to its completion within a certain time annexed to the grant. He should be glad to hear if the Government had any explanation to give upon that subject.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, it was perfectly true that a sum of 80,000 l. had been set aside for the purpose of making improvements in Southwark, although those improvements were not of the precise character mentioned by the hon. Member. It was true that the propriety of making a new road between London and Westminster Bridges was brought under his notice, but that would cost more than five times 80,000 l., and it was impossible, with the amount in hand, to attempt anything like such a work.
MR. BRADYsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that, since the Crystal Palace had been opened, there had been a considerable increase of traffic in the borough of Southwark; the inhabitants felt great inconvenience, and he knew to a certainty that trade had been much injured from the circumstance of the proposed road not having been carried out. They were now about to advance a large sum of money

1401
for the improvement of Chelsea, Battersea, and the neighbourhood. He wished to know who lived there? It had been urged by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) that the improvement which would be introduced into Battersea would be a justification for this grant, but it was a singular fact, and one which was deserving the attention of the Committee, that, while all other portions of land in the metropolitan suburbs were daily improving and being built upon, that neighbourhood had not advanced for the last twenty-five years. From the railway station at Vauxhall Bridge up to Battersea and Chelsea scarcely any improvement had taken place during that period. The hon. Member for Lambeth said 500,000 people in Southwark had no place of recreation, but he (Mr. Brady) would call attention to the fact that they had Clapham Park, and the new park that was being made at Kennington, besides which, by crossing Westminster Bridge, they could go into St. James's and Hyde Parks. He thought it right to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that speculative people in London had wholly neglected this particular neighbourhood, and he was convinced that if it had been a situation likely to be improved, some of the capital spent in different portions of London would have found its way there long since. The fact was, it was a perfect swamp. He thought great caution ought to be observed in advancing the public moneys in such a manner as might improve private property without conferring a corresponding benefit on the public.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that, while the hon. Member for Lambeth was quite willing to spend the public money on the improvement of the metropolis in his neighbourhood, he was prepared to cheesepare and cut down the sums voted for such improvements in Ireland. If he (Mr. V. Scully) did not oppose the present Vote, he should expect equal generosity for the Irish Votes. He thought there was great inconsistency in metropolitan Members constantly attacking recipients of public money in Ireland in the most opprobrious language, and stigmatising them as a parcel of beggars. There appeared to be so much inclination to centralise Irish establishments in the metropolis that he should not be surprised at a serious proposition to amalgamate and centralise Phœmix Park in Hyde Park.
(6.) 35,000 l.., Chelsea Embankment and Public Roadway.
MR. MICHELLsaid, he considered this a mere job for the benefit of Mr. Cubitt and the Marquess of Westminster, and he should like to know what contribution these personages were going to make towards the expense? He entirely objected to the Vote.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that though it might be expedient to complete these works, as they were begun, yet he hoped the Government would not enter upon any more such undertakings, which might be better left to that private spirit and enterprise which were found quite sufficient for such improvements in other towns.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Michell) would divide the Committee against the Vote. The laxity with which the national money was expended by the Government for metropolitan jobs was monstrous.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he felt it his duty to vindicate the Vote, the purposes of which had been in the most decided manner, and repeatedly, sanctioned by Parliament, as purposes of public utility. As to Mr. Cubitt, he had made a portion of the embankment at his own expense in the most admirable manner, and the Marquess of Westminster had undertaken to contribute as much towards the expenditure as should be deemed by the Government a fair contribution on his part.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that, when he was in office in 1850, he had been disposed to think that the expenditure upon Battersea Park would be so extravagant that Parliament had better consent to pay the forfeits upon the contracts made and give up the plan; but he had found upon further inquiry, that the Government was so involved in all sorts of engagements, under Acts of Parliament, that it would he cheaper to go on than to stop. Certainly, as the matter now stood, the more economical course would be to complete the park and the works connected with it as soon as possible, so as the earlier to realise the returns to which his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Molesworth) had adverted.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) 3,393 l., British Ambassador's House, Paris.
MR. AYSIIFORD WISEsaid, he had called attention to a similar Vote of last year, amounting to 9,234 l., which had led to the very singular Report of Mr, Albano,

1403
the architect of the Public Works Commissioners, a document that contained some astonishing and disgusting details with respect to the state of the house and furniture. It was the duty of the Board of Works to see that the house was in a state of proper repair, as a large sum was annually voted for keeping it up; but Mr. Albano said that the furniture was infested with vermin, the floors tumbling in, and the whole place full of rats. This palace cost 30,000 l. in 1815, and the nation had since expended 40,000 l. upon it, and considering that some 700 l. or 800 l. were voted every year for repairs, he must say he thought there was great negligence at the office of Works. He (Mr. Wise) wished to know how much of the furniture belonged to the nation, and also what was the object of fitting up the drawing-room as a chapel, at an expense of nearly 400 l., and the spending more than 300 l. in converting the dining-room into a place of worship for the ambassador and the fashionables who frequented Paris. He certainly thought that such expenditure ought to be checked. He wished also to know what had been done with respect to a scheme which had been concocted by a few individuals calling themselves "the English in Paris," but who in reality were three individuals who composed a public meeting, a committee, and a deputation to the Government. A proposal was submitted to build an English church in Paris, founded on the assumption that there was not sufficient accommodation for the English who visited that capital. Now, it was notorious that there were three large churches in Paris for English Episcopalians, which, except for a short season, were never more than half full, and he would ask, therefore, if Her Majesty's Government had given any encouragement to such a scheme? He saw a great increase in the annual Vote for these chapels abroad, and thought these charges worthy the attention of the Committee. Besides 3,000 l. for a church at Constantinople, he found in other parts of the Estimates a Vote for 7,500 l. for the support of chapels in foreign countries, and a further sum of 1,300 l. for chaplains attached to embassies. In 1844 the Vote was 4,000 l.; in 1849, 5,000 l.; in 1850, 5,500 l.; in 1832, 6,000 l.; and in 1853, 6,500 l. He thought it his duty to call the attention of the Committee to this gradual increase, and to protest against the system of making Parliament a more registry court of foregone conclusion, and of voting
1404
money to pay for the past instead of asking money for the future. He saw an item for building a cemetery wall at Madrid of 1,400 l.; but he happened to know that the work was doing—that Mr. Albano, the architect, was at Madrid superintending the work, and that thus the House was called on to pay for what it had never sanctioned. He must say that he thought it was very inexpedient that the Government should first incur large expenses, make purchases, and direct the expenditure of large sums of money all over the world, and afterwards come to Parliament to sanction the outlay. Such a system of voting away the nation's money was unsatisfactory, and certainly was not agreeable to the notion that hon. Members were the guardians of the public purse.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, an estimate had been submitted to the House last Session for repairing and furnishing the Ambassador's house at Paris, which amounted to 9,213 l. and which had been prepared by direction of the former Government. Of this sum 5,820 l. was voted in 1853, and a balance of 3,393 l. remained to be voted this year. Every ten years or so it was necessary to do up a building, but he hoped the house would not again fall into that bad state in which it certainly was last year.
MR. J. WILSON,in answer to the inquire made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Wise) about the building of a chapel in Paris, said, that a proposal to this effect had been made to the Government; the answer given was, that if the residents in Paris were prepared to raise among themselves—according to the usual practice in the case of such grants—half the amount asked for, the Government would take into consideration the propriety of making an advance. The Government, however, were told that was not likely to be the case, and there the matter dropped, no sum of money being granted.
Vote agreed to, as were the following—
(8.) 10,900 l., Lighthouses Abroad.
(9.) 2,500 l., Royal Dublin Society Building.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
(10.) "That a sum not exceeding 27,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty, for the year ending the 31st day of March 1850, towards the purchase by the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851, of certain additional Lands at Kensington Gore, necessary for the purpose of the New National Gallery and other Institutions connected with Science and the Arts,"
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to

1405
know whether a National Gallery was to be erected in this place.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it was absolutely necessary that the Committee should know something about what the ultimate expense would be. Unless they had some distinct and clear statement as to the object for which this money was wanted, the Committee ought to make a stand against this Vote.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that 150,000 l. had already been voted on account of this land at Kensington, and as far as he could ascertain, they had no statement of what was the quantity of land for which they were paying this large amount, or even of its exact locality. He considered Kensington a very inconvenient place for an institution of art, both as regarded the public and the artists who wished to avail themselves of the institution for the purposes of study.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that in 1852 the Government obtained a Vote of 150,000 l., which together with another 150,000 l., the surplus funds from the Great Exhibition, were applied to the purchase of a magnificent and very eligible plot of land, about ninety acres in extent, at Kensington Gore. The bargain was an exceedingly profitable one, and many private individuals would like to take it off their hands at the terms they gave for it. But there was a small wedge-shaped piece of ground running from the Hammersmith Road to the centre of the property, and upon which a very bad description of tenements were situated, which greatly diminished the value of the whole of the land. An Act had therefore been obtained by the Commissioners to buy this small piece of land, and these miserable tenements, and appropriate a sum as compensation to the owners. A Committee of that House last year decided that the National Gallery should be removed to this spot, and he hoped that decision would be inflexibly adhered to; but, at all events, it was manifest that this small additional outlay of 27,500 l. would be more than counter-balanced by the enhanced value it would give to the whole of the rest of the property.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he hoped the Committee would require from Government a statement of its intentions before they voted this money, and also whether Government intended to carry out the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commissioners of 1851. With re-
1406
gard to the block of land which was originally to serve for the erection of a building for scientific societies, that project was opposed by the societies themselves, who said the site was inconvenient, and if their societies were removed there it would prove their destruction. He believed the plan was then entertained of erecting a new National Gallery on the land, but he thought the distance was so great, persons would not go so far to see the pictures. He would only say that he hoped Government would not attempt the expensive and impracticable plan of fostering scientific objects by large grants of public money. With regard to the Committee relative to the new National Gallery, he must say he thought the appointment of the members was conducted on an unfair principle. He thought on a subject of such magnitude, there ought to be a special Committee appointed to take the whole question into consideration. He also objected to the employment of police in the interior of public institutions. If the police were so numerous as to require to be employed in such labours, he thought they ought to be reduced forthwith. He had asked Government to lay on the table the plan of Sir Charles Barry, as that plan did not propose to remove all the societies to Kensington Gore, but only to have some of them in that locality, and to concentrate the scientific departments at the British Museum. All he wanted was, that Government would give an assurance that they would enter upon no career of change and expenditure, without due deliberation and the consent of Parliament. He thought that such an institution as that contemplated at Kensington Gore would injure and interfere with the interests of the Crystal Palace at Sydenham. If no one else made the Motion, he should move that the Vote be rejected.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was not at all consistent with his argument. The hon. Member said, he had no objection to complete the purchase, and what he did object to was, that the Committee should be pledged to apply this ground to the erection of a National Gallery; but the Committee would not be at all pledged by this Vote to do any such thing. According to the views of the Government the ground should be bought and the National Gallery should be erected on the ground; but all the Government now asked was, that the purchase made by the late Government

1407
should be improved, by the additional purchase of a piece of land which would make what had been already bought far more valuable. By next year the Government would consider the subject very maturely, and if they should continue of the opinion that the National Gallery should be built on the ground, the matter would be submitted to the House. But the Government certainly agreed with the Commission appointed three years ago, and with the Committee that sat last year, that there are reasons against maintaining the National Gallery in its present position. In the first place, it was very difficult to obtain space for additional pictures that might be expected to arrive from time to time; and in the next place, the pictures were exposed there to great injury; but if they were removed to Kensington Gore, and to a more spacious building erected there, they would not be thus liable to injury. The hon. Gentleman also said it would be impossible to expect people to go so far as Kensington Gore to see the pictures, but it was well known that persons went a great deal further than that for a similar object. As many as 11,000 persons attended on one day at Sydenham, which was a greater distance from London than Kensington Gore. There were other proposals made by the Royal Commissioners with respect to the disposal of this ground, one for the benefit of learned societies who might or might not be inclined to adopt any proposal of the kind, and another for education and arts connected with manufactures, which he thought would be of very essential use to this country. There was also at present a large collection at Marlborough House, and that was another reason why the ground should be devoted to the purpose proposed. At all events, the purchase was not an unwise purchase, for the ground in itself was very valuable, and provided the House of Commons was of opinion that the land was unfit for any of the purposes to which the Government proposed to devote it, the ground might sold at probably a much advanced price. They could then repay the 150,000 l. contributed by the Royal Commissioners, and they would be able to apply that 150,000 l. to any other purpose they might think conducive to the ends of the Exhibition of 1851. The hon. Gentleman would see that by refusing this grant he would not at all attain his object. All he would attain was, that the inconvenient piece of ground
1408
running into the land already purchased would be kept out of the purchase, and that thereby the land that was bought would be made less valuable than otherwise it would be. Whatever might be the ultimate decision, it was desirable to make the purchase of this ground; and he begged to state at the same time that it was the opinion of the Government that a plan should be proposed to the House for the erection of a National Gallery on that site. But no plan was yet settled, the House of Commons was not called upon to vote a single shilling for it, and the wish of the hon. Gentleman, that that question should be deferred to next year, was therefore completely fulfilled.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he must complain that they were asked to vote a sum of money for a purpose that could not be realised, the societies connected with science having unanimously declared that they would not go to Kensington Gore.
MR. CROSSLEYsaid, that if the public, as stated by the noble Lord, went to a greater distance than Kensington Gore, they went for a very different purpose besides that of seeing pictures; and the present site of the National Gallery, he considered, was more convenient. Manufacturers were better able to get artists than Government were able to get them for them; and if they were to take Marlborough House as an example, he might remark that though a pattern had been declared there to be an incorrect specimen of art, there had been sold of that very pattern 40,000 l. to 50,000 l. worth. He did not believe, therefore, that the gentlemen sitting in judgment upon those things were such very good judges of what the public required.
MR. PETOsaid, the land which had been purchased by Government, if it were sold to-morrow, would bring a profit of at least 100,000 l. He hoped the Vote would be agreed to, as the bargain was a good speculation.
MR. SPOONERsaid, though we were not bound by the preamble of the Vote, yet when the question of the new National Gallery came before the House they would be told, "How can you object to a Vote for the new gallery, when you have agreed to this Vote?" If the hon. Member (Mr. D. Seymour) persevered in his Amendment, he should support it. He thought that there must be some peculiar pressure outside the House to induce the Government, at a time like the present, to carry

1409
out a plan which, in a time of affluence and with a prospect of peace, they would not be justified in doing. It was the duty of that House to stand between the Minister and that pressure. He believed if they had been independent of that pressure that they would not have proposed this Vote.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) that there was some pressure out of doors that did not act upon the Government, and he hoped they would be bound by that action, and that was—the generally diffused idea that they should elevate the taste of the people of this country; and this was one of the first steps to attain that important object. This was really an addition to the Vote which he had the honour to recommend to the House when the sum of 150,000 l., contributed by the shillings of the people of the country, was proposed by the Royal Commissioners to be devoted to the advancement of the arts and sciences; they having applied at the same time to the Government to know whether they would recommend to Parliament to contribute an equal sum in order to accomplish that object. It was generally believed that that object would be best accomplished by buying a considerable piece of ground, which would be the future theatre of their operations; and when he had the honour of proposing that the House should vote an equal sum to that which was contributed by the Royal Commissioners as the residue of the accumulation of the receipts received from the Exhibition of 1851, it was at that time well known, both to himself and to all those acquainted with the circumstances, that there would be a future necessity for asking for a Supplementary Vote of this description. It was not concealed; and if they did not dwell upon it, it was only because they were of opinion that if it was stated that there was this small segment of laud which they were desirous of obtaining, those in possession would be ready to take advantage of their anxiety to get it. If they dwelt upon the necessity of obtaining that small segment or wedge of land, of course the price would be increased, and that was the only reason why they had not placed the point ostentatiously before the public. He begged to call the attention of the Committee to the evidence of the secretary of the Royal Commission, Mr. Edgar Bowring, who was examined on the subject, and who stated that it was scarcely advisable to ender into particulars with reference to this piece of
1410
ground. If they had entered into great detail as to the extreme necessity and advantage of obtaining this wedge of ground, or entered into any narrative of that kind, there was no doubt if it could be obtained at all, it would be only obtained at a greater cost, and that was the only reason why the Supplementary Vote had been postponed. The Government were asking the Committee to sanction an arrangement to which a year and a half ago they had given their assent without a division, and so far as this Vote was concerned the Committee should feel they were acting on a pledge previously made, and in a prudent manner by giving their assent to it. By doing so they would not pledge themselves to erect the National Gallery at Kensington Gore. The plan for doing so must be offered in detail to the House of Commons, and the House would have an opportunity of discussing the propriety of the proposition when brought forward for their consideration. They might have great difficulties to encounter before all the objects which they contemplated were achieved, but he should be quite satisfied if the Committee would then agree to a Vote to which they must see there was no fair objection.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he had been of opinion that they could not agree to the Vote without pledging themselves to the erection of the National Gallery at Kensington Gore, but from what had been said by the noble Lord he did not then think that question would be decided by their voting that 27,000 l.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman intended to withdraw his Amendment, but if so, he (Mr. Spooner) would not consent to its withdrawal, because he was resolved to have his vote recorded against the cornmencement of a plan that would involve the country in a most expensive undertaking.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he thought, after the experience they had of the building of the Houses of Parliament, they should not heedlessly embark in another great work, because they might have to regret that they had ever entered into it. He felt quite sure that the institution for whose benefit they were about to erect this great building would not take advantage of it when it was erected. The House of Commons should insist that a specific plan, with die expense, should be laid before theta before they embarked in a project of which

1411
they could neither know the expense nor limit. By that Vote to-night they would be laying the foundation of other Votes, which would lead to the same result as had been experienced with respect to the building of the Houses of Parliament, and he would, therefore, most willingly vote for the rejection of the Vote, unless they received an explanation with respect to the ultimate object and expense of this undertaking.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, if the Vote were carried, the course the Government would adopt would be to consider the different plans which might be offered for the erection of the proposed building, and to choose that which seemed best adapted for the objects in view. The Estimates for the purpose would then be proposed next year, and at that time all explanations required would be given. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, he must remind him that before the Houses of Parliament were commenced estimates and plans were made, and that it was not so much the doing of the Government of the day that Sir Charles Barry's plans were adopted as of the Members of the two Houses generally. For his own part, he should have been better satisfied with a plainer and cheaper building, but noble Lords and hon. Members would not have it so.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that it was stated in the Vote that it was necessary for the purpose of the National Gallery, but it was now universally admitted that it was not necessary for that purpose; and he suggested, therefore, that those words should be omitted, or that the Vote should be withdrawn for the present, and again proposed in an unobjectionable form.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he wished to know whether, if the Committee assented to this grant, the noble Lord the Lord President would give an assurance that before any further Vote was taken in order to carry out the scheme for the removal of the various institutions, which had been referred to, to Kensington Gore, a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the necessity of such removal?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he must decline to give such a pledge.
Question put; the Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 48: Majority 121.
Vote agreed to; as was also the next Vote—
(11.) 5,000 l., Australia Expedition.
(12.) 2,800 l., Cholera in Jamaica.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, he would take that occasion to ask whether Her Majesty's Ministers were aware that cholera had broken out in the island of Jamaica, and whether any steps had been taken to furnish additional medical assistance to the inhabitants of that island?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was very sorry to say that the cholera had broken out both at Jamaica and Barbadoes, but the Government had received no information that there was any want of medical assistance in either of these islands. He regretted, however, to have to inform the Committee that the House of Assembly at Jamaica had declined to provide the funds for sending the requisite medical and other assistance.
SIR JOHN PARINGTONsaid, he did not consider the answer of the right hon. Gentleman at all satisfactory. This was not solely a West Indian question; but it was one in which our own sailors and soldiers stationed in those islands were concerned. Frightful ravages had been made by this disease in those Colonies; further medical assistance ought to be rendered; and the only reason it was not was, that the Government were afraid to apply to the Committee for a Vote to enable them to take the necessary precautions against visitations of this disease.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that when the cholera broke out before, three medical inspectors were sent out from this country. One of them died, but another had made a most useful Report with reference to the best course to be taken, either as to precautions against future visitations, or for the actual treatment of the disease. That information had been placed at the disposal of the Colonial Governments. But if the Government were not only to provide a medical staff for the treatment of the disease when it actually existed in the West Indies, but also to take measures in anticipation of its visitations, there was no saying what expense might be thrown upon this country.
MR. MILESsaid, he must express his deep regret at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and his strong sense of disapprobation of the course which the Government were pursuing.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the right hon. the Secretary for the Colonies had not correctly stated the purport of his remarks. All that he wished was, that

1413
the Government should again send out medical inspectors, in the same manner as was done by Earl Grey when this epidemic last visited the West Indies.
Vote agreed to.
(13.) Register, High Court of Admiralty.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he wished to make a short explanation with respect to the nature of the Vote and the reasons why it had been placed upon the Estimates. The Committee were aware that the High Court of Admiralty was an independent Court, and that its Registrar was, neither with respect to his acts nor the management of his accounts, placed under the control of that House. Now, the late Registrar had, of his own free motion, admitted the existence of a large defalcation in his accounts, that defalcation never having been suspected by either the Judge or any of the other officers of the Court. A Committee had been appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the case, and the fraud having been fully established, it became the duty of the Government to lay bands upon all the property of the Registrar; and the Committee were of opinion that that property would be found sufficient to cover the whole of the amount of the defalcation. Now, it had been found that certain sums of money which were due to the suitors of the Court of Chancery, and which had been placed by order of the Judge in the hands of the late Registrar of the Court of Admiralty, had been included in the defalcation, and upon consultation with the Board of Admiralty Her Majesty's Ministers had deemed it would be unfair—although they possessed no control over the Registrar, yet, as he was a public officer, and the suitors in question laboured under the conviction that their interests would be protected by the general supervision of the Government—to allow those suitors to suffer any pecuniary loss. Under these circumstances it was that the Vote now under their notice had been placed upon the Estimates.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, the hon. Gentleman was correct in stating that this was an extraordinary case, but he was not so correct in stating that no blame attached to any one. It was quite true that the Registrar was appointed by Act of Parliament, and not by the Government, but it did not follow that the Government should not have exacted from him what was exacted in the case of any other officer, namely, some surety for the money which
1414
passed through his hands. There must have been some negligence on the part of the superintending officers that some security was not taken for the good behaviour of the Registrar, for he found that, by an Act of Parliament passed in 1813, it was expressly enacted that the Registrar of the Court of Admiralty should not have more than 10,000 l. in hand at any one time, and that the surplus should be paid into the Bank. If that Act had been enforced, how could the Registrar have been a defaulter for 25,000 l.? In November, 1853, a Treasury Minute appointed three gentlemen to inquire how these defalcations had occurred. Their Report had only been delivered that morning, and until the House had had an opportunity of considering it the Vote ought to be postponed.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, by the Act of Parliament in question, there was no Member of the Government, nor any department of the Government that had the slightest control over that Court or any of its officers. As, however, the Report of the Committee was only asked for last night, and was not yet distributed, he was ready to consent to the postponement of the Vote until Members had had an opportunity of perusing it.
MR. OTWAYasked whether security had been taken from the new Registrar of the Court of Admiralty?
MR. J. WILSONreplied, that security had been taken from the new Registrar, and, moreover, that the office would be brought under the annual control of Parliament by a Vote.
Vote postponed.
House resumed.

MILITIA (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read,
MR. MILESsaid, he was willing to admit that this Bill was a great Amendment upon the Bill of last year, but he objected to its being proceeded with at so late an hour (a quarter past twelve o'clock). The Bill of last Session had passed without any discussion upon the immense imposition then placed upon the county rate. In former days the counties had to afford storehouses for the militia arms, but that never used to cost more than 50 l. for one regiment, or 100 l. for two. But, by the Bill of last Session, the counties had to find not only storehouses, but what he might call a barrack, which was to contain rooms for the sergeant-major and the permanent staff. Ground, also, had to be

1415
provided to enable the whole militia regiment to be assembled, and to deliver their arms at any time. This was an immense expense to counties. The militia were now a national force, and if storehouses were required, the nation ought to pay for them. Some day ought to be appointed for the discussion of this Bill, when it could be carefully considered.
MR. IRTONsaid, he also must protest against the Bill. The tendency of the legislation of recent years had been to give the ratepayers some control over the rates; but this measure proceeded in a directly opposite course, for it not only took all power out of the hands of the magistrates, but transferred it to the deputy lieutenants alone. Now that was a principle totally at variance with the principle by which that House professed to be guided, and contrary also to the principle of the measure which the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had promised to introduce with regard to county rates, but which measure, like so many others that were promised, had never yet seen the light.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would not press the second reading of the Bill at that late hour of the night, if hon. Gentlemen wished to have the opportunity of expressing their opinions with regard to it. He must be allowed to say, however, after what had passed, that the obligation to find storehouses was not a new obligation on the counties. It was imposed by the old militia laws, especially by the Act 42 Geo. III.; and the objection taken by the hon. Member who last spoke—namely, that it was the deputy lieutenants who had to determine—was not a new enactment. That also was the standing law provided in the same Act of 42 Geo. III. It was quite a misnomer to call these storehouses barracks, because all that was required was lodging for a small portion of the staff, amounting to a very few men; and if, on the one hand, any additional accommodation was required, on the other hand the expense was thrown over a long period of time. Therefore, the real annual charge to the county was much less than it otherwise would have been. It was also said that this was a national force, and that the burden ought to be borne by the country; but let it be recollected if the Government, or the Government of Gentlemen opposite, who had the merit of setting on foot the militia, had had recourse to the provisions of the 42 Geo. III., and enforced the ballot, that
1416
would have entailed on counties a great deal more expense, trouble, and inconvenience than had arisen from the system of voluntary enlistment, and the public had taken upon themselves the expense of that voluntary enlistment. If country gentlemen would consider the two sides of the account, they would find that the counties were the gainers by the arrangement which had been adopted. He would not then, however, go further into the subject, but postpone the order until Monday, with the view of taking some early day after that for reading the Bill a second time.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he must express a hope that the House would be afforded sufficient time for considering the measure; and that the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) would endeavour to devise some convenient machinery for dividing the burdens between the towns and the counties.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

METROPOLITAN SEWERS BILL.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had intended to bring in a Bill to reorganise the Sewers Commission, but it was suggested to him that as the Corporation Inquiry Commissioners were likely to make some suggestions with regard to the whole metropolis, he had better wait for their Report. It had now been presented, but too late to act on it this Session; he had, therefore, to propose a Bill to continue the existing Commission for twelve months, giving them power to raise money for such works as might be necessary during that period; but none of the great works were to be commenced till the reorganisation of the Commission.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he hoped that in the meantime something, would be done to improve the sewerage of the district of Belgravia, which was in a most disgraceful state.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the Commission would be able to undertake any work of absolute necessity. He hoped that when it was reorganised it would contain some elective members, the representatives of the boards of guardians and corporation of the metropolis.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, he wished to know exactly what amount the present Commission would be authorised to raise.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the amount asked for was 300,000 l., but he would cause a detailed statement of

1417
the proposed works to be laid before the House.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount Palmerston and Mr. Fitzroy.
Bill read 1o.

PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL.
VISCOUNT PALMER STUNthen moved for leave to introduce a Bill for the continuance of the Board of Health, the object of which was to amend the Public Health Act of 1848. The alteration which he proposed to effect by this Bill was that the Board should be continued for two years; its members would be appointed by, and removal at the pleasure of, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, from whom it should receive orders and directions. It appeared to him that the care of the public health was properly a part of the duties of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and he hoped, by the power proposed to be vested in the Secretary of State, to remove the evils which had resulted from differences between local communities and the Board of Health. At present that Board was in the anomalous position of being subject to no official control and of not being represented in that House, so that there was really no one who was answerable for anything which might be urged against it. The alterations which he proposed to make by this Bill would place it under the control of an official and responsible department, and would present to Parliament a public officer answerable for any of the proceedings of the Board which might be called in question.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he should not object to any Bill to deal with the Board of Health, as he thought it impossible that even the ingenuity of the noble Lord could place it in a worse position than it was. At the same time, he did not think that the scheme of the noble Lord was likely to improve matters much.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he hoped that a sufficient time would be allowed to elapse between the first and second reading of the Bill for its provisions to be considered by the country. He did not approve of the scheme proposed, and thought it would be better to constitute this Board like the Poor Law Board.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount Palmerston and Mr. Fitzroy.
Bill read 1o.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Sat first in Parliament—The Marquess of Anglesea, after the death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Dublin Carriage; Linen, &c., Manufactures (Ireland).
Reported — Indemnity; Insurance on Lives (Abatement of Income Tax) Continuance; Poor Law Board Continuance; Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland); Union Charges Continuance; Court of Chancery, County Palatine of Lancaster; Holyhead Harbours.
3a Court of Chancery, County Palatine of Lancaster.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
House in Committee accordingly.
Preamble postponed.
Clause 1 (Appointment of Commissioners.)
On Motion of the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, the name of the Earl of Harrowby was placed (in order of his precedence as a Peer) before that of the Earl of Ellesmere.
Clauses 2 and 3 were agreed to.
Clause 4 (Empowering Commissioners to require the production of Documents from the Officers of the University, &c.).
LORD BERNERSmoved the omission of the concluding words—
"And no oath which may have been taken by any such officer shall be pleadable in bar of any authority of the said Commissioners."
VISCOUNT CANNINGopposed the Amendment, contending that the State had full power to interpose in the way provided by the clause.
On the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Content 77; Not Content 64: Majority 13.
Clause 5 (Providing that on the fourteenth day of Michaelmas Term, 1854, the powers of the Hebdomadal Board shall be transferred to the Hebdomadal Council).
THE EARL OF DERBYproposed to substitute "the fourteenth day of December" for "the fourteenth day of Michaelmas Term." He trusted that his noble Friend would not object to this Amendment, which would involve only a short postponement, when he called his attention to the

1313
fact that the day named in the Bill as that upon which the constitution of the University was to undergo so complete a change, and the transfer of the authority to the new governing body was to take place, was not only in the middle term, but was the very day of the public examinations. It would be very inconvenient that so great a Change should take place at that precise time, and the inconvenience would be aggravated by the fact that at this time the annual accounts of the University and of the several colleges were in the course of being made up, and the attention of the authorities would consequently be fully occupied. On the Contrary, the day which he proposed to substitute would be liable to no such objections, and would have this further advantage, that the members of the new Board would have leisure, during the Christmas recess, to make themselves familiar with their duties, and with the principles upon which they were to act. He wished, further, to call his noble Friend's attention to the manner in which the Bill, as it at present stood, proposed to bring the new Board into operation. The transfer of authority to the Hebdomadal Council was to take place, as he had said, on the "fourteenth" day of Michaelmas Term. By a subsequent clause, the Hebdomadal Council was to be elected on or before the fifteenth day of Michaelmas Term; and although it might be said that an election which was to take place on or before the fifteenth might well be had before the fourteenth, there was another clause (the 17th) which disposed at once of this reply, because by that clause it was enacted that the Congregation, which was the elective body by which the Hebdomadal Council was, in part at least, to be chosen, was only to be constituted "on" and "after" the fifteenth day of Michaelmas Term. So that the elective body was to he formed "after" the fifteenth day of Michaelmas Term, to elect a body which was to he formed "upon" the fifteenth, and which was to exercise certain powers that were to be transferred to it upon the fourteenth. Such a jumble of dates it was impossible to reconcile; and, if his noble Friend would do him the favour to follow him through his Amendments, he would see that he proposed, with reference to this part of the Bill, so to alter the wording of the 5th clause, and the collocation of several others, as to bring the provisions of the Bill into harmony with each other. It would be ob-
1314
served that in the 7th, 8th, and 9th clauses there was mention made of triennial elections, but it was not till they came to the 12th clause that one word was given sanctioning the triennial election. He proposed in Clause 5, to omit "the fourteenth day of Michaelmas Term," and insert "on or before the fourteenth day of December;" and by the insertion of certain other words which he proposed, the clause would read thus:— "Upon or before the fourteenth day of December, 1854, there shall be elected in manner hereinafter mentioned a Council, which shall be called 'the Hebdomadal Council,' to which shall be transferred, immediately upon the election thereof, all powers, privileges, and functions now possessed or exercised by the Hebdomadal board of the said University." His proposal then was to make Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14 follow Clause 6, and, in that case Clause 10 might be omitted altogether, as the first part of that clause would be provided for in the 5th. He should not give the House the trouble of dividing upon merely technical questions like these—he merely submitted them for his noble Friend's consideration.
VISCOUNT CANNINGreadily concurred in the proposed rearrangement of the words of the clause, which he admitted would be an improvement; and with respect to the collocation of clauses, he was also willing to accept the suggestion which had been made. But with respect to the postponement of the day upon which the new constitution should come into operation, he was sorry to say that he was unable, upon the part of the Government, to assent to it, because he thought it desirable that when a measure of this great importance had been deliberately sanctioned by Parliament, there should be no unnecessary delay in carrying its provisions into effect, and that the existing governing body, which was certainly in some degree condemned by the more fact of the passing of the Bill, should not continue in power longer than was absolutely necessary. He did not think that the examinations, or the college accounts, to which his noble Friend had referred, would absorb so much of the attention of those whose duty it would be to bring the provisions of the Bill into operation, as to justify his giving his consent to so long a postponement as six weeks.
Amendment put and negatived.
Clause 1, with the several Amendments, agreed to.
On Clause 6 (Composition of the Hebdomadal Council),
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, there were one or two matters connected with this clause to which he wished to call the attention of the House before the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) moved his Amendments. It was usual in Bills to find the interpretation clause either before or after the enacting clauses, but in this case it was placed in the very middle of the Bill, and he had found it with some difficulty. He saw that the word "professor" was declared to include "public readers, prælectors, and assistant or deputy professors." Now, he understood that public renders and prælectors were gentlemen who performed the same duties as professors, and therefore with respect to them he had no objection to make; but he understood that assistant and deputy professors were appointed by the professors themselves. Now, under the 6th clause, all professors (including therein, of course, assistant and deputy professors) were to have votes in the election of members of the Hebdomadal Council; and as a professor might have fifty "assistants," although he could only have one "deputy," a gentleman might multiply himself by fifty, by creating as many votes, which would, of course, all be given to his own friends. He thought this ought to be attended to, and security taken in the Bill against the possibility of any such abuse. But, besides this, there was an inaccuracy of language in the clause, which might be very inconvenient. It was provided, for instance, that the Hebdomadal Council should include "six heads of colleges or halls," who should be elected from among themselves, not by "the," but by "such, heads of colleges or halls," the only heads of colleges or halls previously named in the clause being the six who were to be so elected. Therefore, any six of these gentlemen might elect themselves. It was the same with regard to the professors. What followed? "One other such professor separately elected by the professors," was perfectly unintelligible. He believed the explanation to be, that the words "of divinity," or "of theology," had originally stood in the clause, but, being objected to in the House of Commons, had been struck out, leaving the other words untouched, and so involving the absurdity which he had pointed out; in one part of the clause the word "select-
1316
ed" was used, and in another "elected;" he recommended that verbal alterations should be made, so that the same word might appear throughout the clause.
The EARL OF DERBYmoved to insert "the Chancellor," before "the Vice Chancellor," as a member of the Hebdomadal Council. The Government, in framing the clause, appeared to have forgotten the very existence of the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, and had proceeded to constitute the Council, and afterwards the Congregation, making the Vice Chancellor a member of both, but omitting the Chancellor altogether. It then appeared to have occurred to them that there was such an officer, and, moreover, that he had a right, by virtue of his office, to preside over the meetings both of the heads of houses and of Congregation. Having however, framed these clauses without mentioning the Chancellor at all, they had not thought proper to alter them, and had therefore introduced a new clause, by which they proposed to provide that the Chancellor should be a member both of the Hebdomadal Council and of Congregation, and have a right to preside over both. He thought that the omission should be supplied in the clause which was now under consideration, and it was with this view that he proposed his Amendment to the House.
VISCOUNT CANNINGassented to the Amendment, but as a proof that the Chancellor of the University had not been forgotten by the Government, reminded his noble Friend that the Bill as originally framed gave power to the Chancellor to appoint two nominees of his own, one a professor, and the other the head of a house, as members of the Hebdomadal Council. His noble Friend was better acquainted than he was with the reasons which had led to the removal of that particular provision. With respect to the suggestion made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) in reference to the professors, he thought the difficulty would be met by the introduction of a few words, either into this clause or into the interpretation clause. In the noble Earl's criticism on the grammar of the clause, he must say he entirely concurred.
LORD WARDmoved to omit the 6th clause altogether, and to substitute the following in lieu of it—
"The Hebdomadal Council shall consist of the Vice Chancellor, the proctors, six heads of col-

1317
leges or halls, six professors of the University, together with six members of the Convocation of not less than five years' standing to be elected by the Congregation hereinafter mentioned of the said University, and the Vice Chancellor or his deputy shall be president of such Hebdomadal Council."
The noble Lord said, that, in asking their Lordships to accede to this Motion, it was not necessary that he should refer to the existing state of Oxford, because it was admitted on all hands — although not to the same extent—that some great change was necessary in the present constitution of the University. It was proposed that that change should be carried out by giving her a free representation, by which her governing body should be elected; and, if that were the case, he could only say that, instead of interfering with constituted authority, they would be giving her full scope in the exercise of her freedom for the first time. If the result of following out her constitution, as it had hitherto existed, had been a very narrow governing body, and very little confidence and co-operation between them and the resident members of the University, attention would very properly be given to anything that would bring about, that co-operation and restore that confidence. It was proposed by the clause which now stood in the that six heads of houses should be elected by heads of houses, and six professors by professors; and that six independent members of the University should be elected to the Hebdomadal Council by the Congregation. He would leave their Lordships to judge whether the meetings of such elements as these would be likely to bring about the confidence that was desired. He could bring no stronger argument in support of his opposition to the clause than the fact that the heads of houses felt that it would be so invidious a task to select six from their whole number, that they were understood to have agreed that their quota should be furnished by seniority. If this were the case, and if the professors should take the same view, was there likely to be that unity of action on which the prosperity of the University depended? It was proposed that Congregation should constantly have a veto on what the Hebdomadal Council might put forward for the amendment of the Statutes of the University; and it really came to this, that if the heads of houses elected by themselves, and the professors elected by themselves, should pass anything which was unfavourably regarded by the members chosen by the Congregation, or
1318
by any other constituency upon which Parliament might eventually decide, Congregation, with its veto, would support its own members, and there would be nothing like the unity of action or the confidence and mutual co-operation which they were anxious on all hands to bring about. He thought the action of the governing body would be very much impaired by the principle of sectional election which had been introduced into the Bill. He was anxious that the great principle of representation should be granted as freely and as fully as possible; and he had therefore come forward to propose that the original proposition in the Bill should be restored, and Congregation have the choice of all the members of the Council. He should be still better pleased to see no restriction placed upon the proportions in which they should be chosen from each class; he believed that full confidence might be placed in an educated constituency, such as the proposed Congregation would be; he was sure that no narrow jealousies would interfere with their selection, and he had no doubt that, if their choice were perfectly free, they would see that among the heads of houses were to be found the men most qualified, by position and character, and leisure and ability, to take part in the government of the University. This, however, was his individual opinion; it did not appear to come Within the scope of the Bill; and, although he thought that such a plan would better carry out the principle of representation, he should confine himself at present to a proposal to place the matter on the footing contemplated by the Government, being assured that the effect of it would be to make the elective system more complete, and the governing principle more strong than the clause which now stood in the Bill.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREunderstood that the object of the noble Lord was to alter the mode of election to the Hebdomadal Council, and not the composition of that body. Now it should be borne in mind by the House that they had, he would not say conflicting interests, but conflicting opinions to consider. The heads of houses might be supposed to represent the colleges; the professors the professorial, as opposed to the tutorial plan of education; and the six independent members the general interests and opinions of the University. It appeared to him, therefore, most just that each of these separate bodies should choose its own representa-

1319
tives. If the noble Lord had proposed that the whole governing body should be elected by the Congregation, without any restriction as to the classes from which they should be chosen, he could have understood, although he should not have agreed with him; but he admitted that the several elements should be represented in the governing body in certain proportions, although he would not consent that each element should choose its own representatives. He rejoiced that the original scheme had been altered, and if the Amendment were pressed to a division he should vote against it. The noble Lord had had some experience of the University of Oxford; he believed he had resided there for some time; and he could not help feeling that there had appeared throughout his speech a feeling of hostility towards the heads of houses. He did not know what the cause of that hostility might be, but he did hope that, whatever opinions the noble Lord had formed of the heads of houses while at the University, they would not induce him to vote on the present occasion against their having their fair and just share in the government of the University.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEinterposed for the simple purpose of entreating their Lordships that anything like personality might be avoided in the present discussion. The noble Earl, the leader of the party opposite and the Chancellor of the University, warmly as he felt upon this measure, had set a most admirable example both last night and to-day, and he trusted that on both sides of the House that example would be implicitly followed. If the noble Earl who had just sat down had belonged to the University of Oxford, he would have avoided the observations he had made, and to which he hoped his noble Friend would not reply. However long he had remained at Oxford, he was sure that the Motion he had made had been made with a sincere desire to benefit the University to which he and all her members were attached, and not from any feeling of hostility to any class whatever. As regarded the Amendment itself, he apprehended the argument of his noble Friend was conclusive on the point, and he should certainly support it. The noble Earl the Chancellor of the University said it was most desirable that the body best able to judge of the merits of individuals should be the elective body, and if the Amendment the noble Earl was about to move, to insert "Convocation" instead of "Congregation,"
1320
were adopted, there would be something in the objection. But as he hoped the House would insist on retaining Congregation as the elective body, the argument of the noble Earl would fall to the ground, because Congregation, consisting of the residents of the University, would be better able to form an opinion of the merits of individuals than Convocation, and quite as competent to form that opinion as the beads of houses and professors themselves. Nothing could be so invidious as to call on the heads of houses to elect six members from their own body. To make a selection implied a slight on those not selected, and the ordinary course would, therefore, be to elect the six senior heads of houses. He hoped the Amendment of the noble Earl the Chancellor of the University, to substitute Convocation for Congregation, would not be agreed to: and he was prepared to say, on behalf of the Government, they would support the Amendment of his noble Friend (Lord Ward).
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he should oppose the Amendment, for he thought that a third interest ought not to have the power of electing the representatives of the two other interests.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDobjected to the words as they stood in the Bill, because the effect would be to send into the Hebdomadal Council three bodies of men under the impression that they were representing different class interests, instead of the common interests of the University. He thought it of extreme importance that this Amendment should be adopted, for the introduction of men who believed themselves pledged to the electors to support their particular interests must introduce elements of dissension into the comparatively small body of which the Hebdomadal Council would be composed. In his opinion that was the vital objection to the clause as it stood; but there were several subsidiary objections. He was not at all certain, for instance, that the heads of houses would necessarily exercise the best discretion in the selection of their own body. They knew, that where men constantly met on social and other occasions, as the heads of houses did, that other grounds of estimation came into operation, besides business habits and enlarged views of the interests of the University. Men with no such qualification for the Hebdomadal Council, but with other qualifications giving them a good standing in the narrow circle of the heads of houses,

1321
would be elected, and thus influences of the wrong kind would operate, if the members of this small body were to elect out of themselves their own representatives; whereas the body of Congregation, as public men, would have opportunities of testing the powers of the heads of houses as men of business; and seeing how far they were men of good sound practical judgment in the common questions which they discussed together, apart from these social prejudices. Congregation was much more likely to exercise a dispassionate, and therefore right judgment, than those who were constantly meeting together in other relations than those of business. Another reason why the Amendment should be adopted was, that they would not give the heads of houses proper weight in the common body, it they put them in as their own nominees, instead of as representatives of the University. They knew perfectly well that it was quite impossible for nominees of the Crown, or of any other particular party, to contend upon on equality with the nominees of the people chosen by free suffrage; and that observation applied pre-eminently when those elected were their own representatives. All propositions coming from the heads of houses so elected would come with exceeding disadvantage on the common body;—they would not be considered on their own merits, but as heads of houses questions. They would therefore, unless this Amendment were adopted, weaken the legitimate influence of the heads of houses in the common body, as well as introduce elements of disscusion. One other consideration was, that, unless they adopted the Amendment, they would take away from the heads of houses a legitimate right to interfere in the election of professors and other representatives of Congregation; it would be said the heads of houses had exhausted their proper powers when they had elected from their own body their own representatives, and that interference by them in the elections of professors was similar in kind to interference by their Lordships in the elections of members to the other House of Parliament. If Congregation elected, the heads of houses would have that legitimate influence in the common election which depended on their standing, their acquaintance with business, and their pre-eminence in the University. He thought, therefore, that unless they adopted this resolution, they would necessarily introduce elements of
1322
dissension; they would centralise temporary antagonism, and would start with a certain jealousy between different classes. If they elected the governing body properly, in a very short time it would represent the common University; but if they sent to the Hebdomadal Council the exponents of several class interests, they would fix and perpetuate in the University these temporary dissensions, which otherwise he hoped would in a short time die out of themselves.
THE EARL OF POWISconsidered that whether elected by Convocation or Congregation, the dominant party in the University would prevail, and leave the minority of resident members no weight or representation in the governing body. If they wished to secure due weight to each of the different elements in the University, they must adhere to the clause as it stood, The governing body was an executive body for the discipline of the University. and he should be sorry to see that discipline handed over to the majority, and so involved in the party politics which might temporarily prevail.
THE EARL OF DERBYobserved, that the University of Cambridge, when it had taken the question of the constitution of its governing body under its consideration, had come to the determination, not that the Senate should be composed of different classes, in the manner now proposed with regard to Oxford, but that it would be for the benefit and advantage of the University that each of those classes should be represented by members themselves. Therefore, in favour of the proposition as it came from the other House, they had the deliberate opinion of the University of Cambridge.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Content 103; Not Content 87: Majority 16.
Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DERBYdesired explanation of the meaning of the words "six professors and one other professor separately elected."
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEexplained, that it originally stood "and one Professor of Theology." The words "of theology" having been struck out in the other House, he would insert "seven" instead of "six," and omit the words "and one other professor separately elected."
THE EARL OF DERBYmoved the omis-

1323
sion, at line 37, of the word "Congregation," in order to substitute for it the word "Convocation." The noble Earl said the Government professed a desire to introduce the representative system into the governing body of the University, and they objected to legislative and administrative functions being intrusted to a single body of the heads of houses. He hoped the alteration would work more advantageously for the University than the system which had hitherto prevailed; but he confessed he thought the loss of men of great experience and knowledge accustomed to the government of their own college, and constantly engaged in transacting the business of the University, would be a great loss to the Hebdomadal Council. He was sorry the suggestion both of the Commissioners and of the University had not been adopted—to have two Boards, one constituted of the present Hebdomadal Board, comprising representations of every body in the University, and the other of the members and professors acting separately. The Government, however, had decided that there should be but one legislative and governing body; and then the question arose, by whom should that body be elected? They professed a desire to get rid of the control of the comparatively small number of which the Hebdomadal Board was composed, because they said the principle of representation was not fully carried out in the original constitution of the Hebdomadal Board; and yet by this Bill they proposed to exclude from all control, all supervision, all check over the different classes of which the governing body was to be composed, something like nine-tenths of the whole members of the University. He could not but think that was a dangerous principle to introduce, and one that would work injuriously to the University. He did not mean to say that with regard to a great portion of the questions which would arise, the residents in the University, as a body, would not carry with them, as they ought, from their superior knowledge of the affairs of the University, considerable weight; but to deprive Convocation of those functions which properly belonged to it, of representing its own feelings and opinions, and to hand over the whole government, and the selection of the body that was to administer it, to a comparatively small number of residents—of 250 or 260 persons—looked to him very much like a scheme for putting
1324
the whole control and management of the University—for placing the paramount power—in the hands of one particular party. Those 250 or 260 persons might easily be controllable by any party who obtained influence with a majority; but no such influence, no such predominant power, could be exercised over such a body as Convocation, consisting of 2,000 or 2,500 members. Therefore, while professing to support the representative principle, it was proposed practically to disfranchise nine-tenths of the members of the University, and to confine all legislative and executive power to the remaining one-tenth. Having stated his views yesterday at considerable length, he should be sorry now to abuse the indulgence of their Lordships; but he must say he entertained a strong opinion that they were now proceeding on the principle they condemned, of handing over Oxford to be governed, not by fair representation, but by a comparatively limited oligarchy, by men (without speaking disrespectfully of them) whose habits of life, views, and ideas, were encentred in the University, who had had little experience or converse with the world, and whose views consequently were of a more contracted character than those of members spread over the whole country. He thought they were vesting in that body—not the best for the management of a great University—all the power to the exclusion of men who had conferred high distinction upon the University, who had done honour to it and to themselves during their career, and who, from having mixed with the world, were able to take a more enlightened and comprehensive view of what was for the advantage of the University than those who were confined within its walls—he should move the substitution of "Convocation" for "Congregation," for the purpose of vesting the elective power in what was properly the constituency of the University, to which the election of its Parliamentary representatives was confided, and to which, therefore, they ought also to confide the choice of those who were to exercise the governing power of the University.
VISCOUNT CANNINGwould state as shortly as he could, why it was impossible the Government could accede to the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl. It was charged against the Government that they had receded from the principle of representation—that, having professed to get rid of a small body, they had con-

1325
fided the interests of tie University to what the noble Earl called a comparatively limited oligarchy. In the first place, it was not the profession or wish of Her Majesty's Government so much to get rid of a small body as the governing body of the University, as to get rid of a body, small, he admitted, but worse than small, inasmuch as it was composed of persons whose previous career and position disqualified them from having or obtaining the necessary knowledge of the feelings and requirements of the University over which they were called on to preside. The noble Earl spoke of Convocation being disfranchised by this clause; but it should be remembered that Convocation had not, at present, any power at all analogous with that which the Government were condemned for placing in the hands of Congregation. If the noble Earl argued that they were untrue to the principle of representation in not giving the elective power to Convocation, he did not see very well how the noble Earl could refrain from urging on Parliament and the country the adoption of universal suffrage. What body could be so fit to decide on questions of teaching and discipline as the great body of tutors, professors, private tutors, and residents, who, being constantly at Oxford, had seen, felt, and heard what was wanted in the University; whilst, on the other hand, what body could be more unfit than a number of persons summoned from all parts of the kingdom, and almost entirely ignorant of those requirements? He thought everybody would admit that it was a great disqualification for a person, however intimate his connection with the University might at one time have been, or however distinguished his academical career, to feel, when called upon to vote either upon questions of a general nature, or for the election of members to sit in the Hebdomadal Council, that his connection with the University had been, if not severed, at all events very much loosened, and that several years had elapsed since he had taken an interest in the internal affairs of the University. Perhaps, when he visited the University for the purpose of giving his vote, he would find that such a change had come over the scene that it would be difficult for him to discover among the residents of the University any of whom he had personal knowledge; and probably the noble Earl himself would admit, that if he had been summoned to Oxford before he was elected to the high and distinguished office which he at present held in the
1326
University, and had been asked to vote for members of the Hebdomadal Council, he would in all likelihood have given his vote rather according to the advice of those in whom he could confide than from his own judgment. It was impossible that men living in London, or buried in country vicarages, could know the merits and qualifications of all the different residents in the University, and if they were invested with the power of voting for members of the Hebdomadal Council, they would either vote in entire ignorance of the merits of the candidates, or be compelled to place their votes in the hands of those who possessed that kind of local information which they wanted themselves. The noble Earl had spoken of Congregation as a body which would obstruct, rather than facilitate the legislation of the University. He demurred entirely to that definition of the mode in which Congregation would discharge its functions. If the present scheme worked well, the result, in all probability, would be that, as soon as Congregation had proved itself capable of maintaining the internal affairs of the University, there would be very little disposition on the part of members of Convocation to take the trouble of presenting themselves at Oxford again and again, for the purpose of giving their votes upon matters which they would find managed to their satisfaction by those resident on the spot. On the other hand, if the scheme worked ill, and if Congregation in performing its duties did not give satisfaction to the University at large, the result would be the substitution for the mode of proceeding indicated in the Bill, of something like the organisation which existed in Parliament, where one party espoused one cause and another party espoused another cause, and where each made an appeal for the votes of its friends, not for the purpose of giving countenance to any particular men or interests, but because it was thought that one side of the question was on public grounds more deserving of support than another. In short, he thought that in the event supposed, the members of Convocation, instead of being appealed to solely for the purpose of supporting particular candidates and particular local advantages, would be brought together on what he might call questions of public principle. For these reasons, he thought that the scheme embodied in the Bill was far better than that proposed by the noble Earl, not only with reference to the election of the

1327
Hebdomadal Council, but also with respect to all matters in which Congregation would be called upon to act.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that parties in the House appeared to have changed sides, for the speech which the noble Viscount had just made would have been in place if it had been delivered in that House a quarter of a century ago in opposition to a measure of Parliamentary reform. He understood that one of the chief complaints against the University was, that it was not liberal and enlightened enough—that the sun of modern times did not shine upon it—that it was in the hands of men of monkish manners, who were buried within its walls in a sort of Cimmerian darkness. Well, the proposition of the noble Earl beside him was, that the voice of between 2,000 and 3,000 persons should be heard in the government of the University, and that those gentlemen should be invited to interfere in its internal arrangements. To that proposal the noble Viscount and the Government objected, upon the ground that it was analogous to universal suffrage. He thought that few of their Lordships would oppose the principle of universal suffrage in the election of Members of the House of Commons, if they could be assured that all the male adults throughout the country were as well educated as the members, of Convocation. The noble Viscount was afraid of men educated in the same University as himself, and put them in the same category with that unfortunate class of persons who were so much abused the other night—the drivers of dog-carts. The noble Viscount said that the members of Convocation lived without the walls of the University, and therefore could have no personal knowledge of the merits and qualifications of those who were best fitted to manage its internal affairs. Because, however, a member of Convocation might have left the University for several years, that was no reason why he should not know the merits and qualifications of the resident members. He was sure that there were many persons now residing at Oxford, and who had lived there ever since he took his degree, whose qualifications he thought he was perfectly justified in saying were such and such; and even in that House, he had been happy to recognise among the right rev. Prelates men whom he highly esteemed at Oxford, and upon whose capability to discharge such duties as would devolve upon the members of the Heb-
1328
domadal Council he was perfectly able to pronounce. If the Government were sincerely desirous to make such a reform in the University as would be entitled to the name of liberal, and to admit within its walls a little sunlight from that world to which the great mass of the residents were comparative strangers, they would not hesitate to adopt the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, to which he, for one, would give his cordial assent.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that the noble Earl who had just sat down appeared very much to misunderstand both the effect of the clause under discussion, and the grounds upon which it was supported. In the first place, the clause did not give the government of the University to Congregation, but simply the power of electing the members of the Hebdomadal Council, which itself was after all very little more than the executive body of the University, because everything most ultimately come before Convocation, and Convocation might say "aye" or "no" upon it. The power of electing the members of the Hebdomadal Commit was given to Convocation, not because, as had been stated by the noble Earl, Convocation was not thought fit to exercise it, but because, of the two bodies, Convocation was the less fit. What the Hebdomadal Council would have to attend to, was the daily business of the University; and who, therefore, were more likely to make a proper selection than those who, being resident in the University, knew its wants, and the men best qualified to manage its internal affairs? He believed, moreover, they would find that the men who were most subject to sudden changes of feeling, were not the resident members of the University, but those who resided in distant parts of the country, and who were, therefore, compelled to form their opinions upon the representations of other parties, and to take upon trust that which they ought to have of their own knowledge. The noble Earl who spoke last said, that if the power of election was confined to Congregation, they would by that means shut out all that modern illumination which he would like to see introduced into the University. Now, it was erroneous and unjust to assert that the great body of the resident members of the University had any want of what the noble Earl called the sun of modern times. Everything that was going on around us would contradict altogether such an imputation. He be-

1329
lieved that if they looked to the organs of public opinion in this metropolis, they would find that those organs had recourse, for all their ablest productions, to the resident members or the University of Oxford. That was a very remarkable fact, and it showed that, as a class, the resident members of the University were not in that state of monkish ignorance of the world which had been attributed to them. On the other hand, the great bulk of those who formed Convocation were clergymen residing in distant parishes, who, just because they attended to their proper duties, had no leisure to look abroad and keep themselves abreast of current opinion. He thought, therefore, that they might safely leave to Congregation the power of electing the members of the Hebdomadal Council.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the statement of the right rev. Prelate, to the effect that all Statutes must come before Convocation at last, was not altogether accurate; because it was expressly provided in the Bill, that Congregation should have the power of putting its veto upon the transmission of any Statute from the Hebdomadal Council to Convocation however acceptable it night be to the University at large. The Bill, in fact, placed the whole management of the University in the hands of the 250 persons who were to form Congregation, thus constituting a resident oligarchy of a very undesirable and injurious description, and completely setting aside the declaration of the Government that they desired to extend as widely as possible the representative system in Oxford. The right rev. Prelate argued that Congregation was the fittest body to elect the Hebdomadal Council, because the resident members of the University in consequence of their constant and familiar intercourse with each other, knew who were best qualified to manage the internal affairs of the University, while the right rev. Prelate used the same argument against the proposal to confer the power upon the heads of houses.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDbegged the House to remember that, when he spoke of the heads of houses, he referred to the dangers arising from the social intercourse of twenty-five gentlemen separated from the rest of the University by their position, and probably meeting with each other many times in the week. There was no analogy between such a body and 250 gentlemen who probably never met in social intercourse.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the right rev. Prelate seemed to suppose that there was some virtue in the number 250. He objected to the heads of houses because they were too few, and to the members of Convocation because they were too many, but he thought that the 250 persons forming Congregation constituted precisely that body to which their Lordships might safely intrust the management of the University.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDremarked, that if the 2,500 members of Convocation were all resident, he would allow them to vote for the Hebdomadal Council; but what he objected to was, that every year a host of persons residing in distant parts of the country should be brought up to outvote the resident members of the University.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Content 72; Not Content 99: Majority 27.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to, with verbal Amendments, and ordered to follow Clause 6.
On Clause 15, which enacts that the Vice Chancellor shall make a register of the Congregation, and also regulations respecting the Hebdomadal Council,
THE EARL OF DERBYobjected to the latter words of the clause, which were—
"And if the Vice Chancellor fails to comply with the provisions of this section to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, the Commissioners shall thereupon carry the same into effect, and thereupon make such regulations in respect of the matters aforesaid as they may think fit."
He would put it to Her Majesty's Government, whether it would not be more seemly to omit those words? It was provided by the clause, that certain duties should be performed by a certain officer, and if he did not perform them somebody else should perform them. He objected to the phraseology of the clause, which he thought unseemly, and such as Parliament would not apply to a parish overseer.
VISCOUNT CANNINGhad no objection to expunge the words "to the satisfaction of the Commissioners;" but considered the enacting, as part of the clause which gave the Commissioners power to carry out the provisions of the section, in the event of the Vice Chancellor failing to do so, necessary to the efficient working of the Act.
The words were accordingly struck out; clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 22 agreed to.
On Clause 23, regulating the election of the Hebdomadal Council.
THE EARL OF DERBYwished to call the attention of their Lordships to this clause, the effect of which was to introduce a new principle, that of the representation of minorities. This was a principle that had been introduced for the first time into a Bill which was laid before the other house of Parliament (the Reform Bill), and which he believed was generally condemned at the time, though the Bill was withdrawn before any formal opinion could be taken with regard to it. His own opinion was, that in all bodies whatever, the minority ought to he subjected the majority; otherwise he thought that those noble Lords who agreed with him, and who formed a considerable body in this House, ought to have at least one of their propositions carried for every two that were carried by the Government. He admitted, however, that there was some reason in the adoption of this principle in the other Bill he had referred to, because there it was assumed that the elective body consisted of two parties, and that the object of the one party was to subdue all expression of opinion on the part of the other. But that argument could net apply here, for there could be no such organisation or division of parties in the body of Congregation which they sought to establish, so as to render it necessary that they should deprive the members of Congregation of their right to give their votes for the full number of the members of the Hebdomadal Council. He did not mean to move any Amendment, but he thought it was his duty to call their Lordships' attention to the introduction of this new principle.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEthought the noble Earl could not have paid attention to the discussions on previous parts of this Bill, or he never would have made those objections. They had been told that the great danger was, that the Congregation would elect the Hebdomadal Council entirely from one party in the University, which would thus obtain an unfair preponderance. He did not himself think there was any danger of such a result; but the provisions of this clause, by which each member of Congregation could only vote for four out of six members of the Hebdomadal Council, would effectually obviate the danger which was apprehended, however improbable that danger might be. The noble Earl had compared this provi-
1332
sion with a proposition he had suggested, that the minority in that House should carry one measure for two carried by the majority. But surely there was no parity between the two cases. In the one case they were required to discuss provisions of a legislative nature, where the decision of the majority must be final; in the other, they were providing for the composition of the governing body, where it was desirable that various opinions might be heard. It was precisely the same case in that Bill, which the noble Earl said—he believed very erroneously—was generally condemned in the other House of Parliament. He believed it was at first misunderstood, but when it came to be understood it was very generally appreciated, and would, he believed, have been still more highly appreciated, if it had ever come on for discussion. So far from the principle being condemned in the other House of Parliament, he might state that the principle, as embodied in this clause, had never had a single objection raised to it.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, it was clear that the noble Earl did not understand the operation of this principle, for it was never intended to convert the minority into a majority. The consequence of adopting this principle, both in the present Bill and in that which had been referred to, was to take care that the minority should be fairly represented. That was the sole effect of the clause; and surely nothing could be fairer than the principle that the minority, though it did not govern, should at least be heard.
A NOBLE LORDsuggested that, as the clause stood, a member of congregation might give his four votes in cumulo to one candidate.
VISCOUNT CANNINGsaid, that that might be obviated by adding a proviso, that no member should give more than one vote to one candidate.
Amendment made accordingly; Clause agreed to.
On Clause 24.
THE EARL OF POWISmoved an Amendment to the effect, that it should be lawful for the Convocation of the University to provide, if it should think fit, that votes might be given either personally or by proxies, being members of Convocation, authorised by writing, according to the form to be annexed to the Act, or in a form to the like effect, under the hand of the member of Convocation nominating such proxy, at any election of a Chancellor

1333
of the University or of a burgess to serve in Parliament. It was agreed on all hands, that the members of Convocation should have the fullest liberty to express their opinions upon the questions that came before them, and there were few questions that were of more consequence than the election of these three great officers, who might be said to represent the University in the two Houses of Parliament. It might even be said that these officers, represented the interests of the Church, and were the organs of the Church; for the Convocation had for the last 150 years been silenced, while by express enactment the clergy were forbidden to sit in the House of Commons. If, then, it Was desirable that the members of Convocation should express their opinions at all with respect to these three great officers, every facility should be given for the expression or that opinion. without calling upon the members to travel up from Northumberland or Cornwall for the purpose. In the East India Company the proprietors were allowed to vote for directors by power of attorney, and in the various other public bodies voting by proxy was allowed. There would, therefore, he apprehended, be no difficulty in giving the same permissive power in the present instance, especially as the selection was not to be made out of a crowd, but from among two or three individuals who were known long beforehand. It might be said that this was interfering with the right of voting for Members of the other House of Parliament. All he could say was, that if their Lordships adopted his Amendment, the other House would still have the power of saying aye or no to it.
VISCOUNT CANNINGconcurred in the general principles which the noble Earl had expressed, and to a certain extent the views of the Government were the same as the noble Earl's—namely, as to the power of using proxies in the election of the Chancellor of the University. As to this power being extended, however, to the election of the two burgesses of the University to serve in Parliament, he did not think their Lordships would act wisely to deal in an arbitrary manner with such a great electoral innovation—one which might involve questions of vast magnitude and raise consideration for grave discussions, not only in their Lordships' House, but in the other House.
LORD CAMPBELLwould enter the strongest protest against the Amendment
1334
of the noble Earl, as far as related to the voting for the two burgesses, as highly unconstitutional. It was always supposed that the electors attended at the hustings to give their judgment as to the gentleman who was the fittest person at the moment to represent them. There might be a change in the aspect of affairs between the vote and the giving of the proxy, which might render the first vote highly improper. He should, therefore, oppose the Amendment as a great constitutional innovation.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONalso opposed the clause, because, though he did not doubt that the University of Oxford was of all constituencies the most deserving of this privilege of voting by proxy, yet he could not see bow, if the privilege were once accorded to them, it could be refused to others.
After a short discussion, which was not audible, Earl POWIS withdrew that part of his Amendment which related to voting for burgesses to serve in Parliament. The Amendment was then agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 27, which empowers any member of Convocation, of standing and qualification to be hereafter fixed by University Statute, to obtain a licence from the Vice Chancellor to open his residence, if within one mile and a half of Carfax as a private hall for the reception of students.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that this was a most important portion of the Bill; and without troubling their Lordships with a repetition of what he had said last night in reference to this clause, he would briefly recapitulate the objections which he entertained to the introduction of private Balls within the University. With regard to the poorer class of students, for whose benefit they were professed to be intended, he believed that, so far from being attended with benefit, they would prove positively injurious; and their tendency would not be to give poor students an economical education compared with what they would receive at the colleges. And here he must say that he found, with respect to the cost of education in the colleges, that he had greatly exaggerated it in his observations last night. He repeated, however, his conviction that the tendency of private balls would be to increase the expenses of board, maintenance, and education, compared with the rich colleges, those which had considerable

1335
endowments, and those which were frequented by the wealthier class of students, because their contributions went in aid of the education of the poorer students. Now, if this clause came into operation, it would certainly tend to the opening of private halls for the benefit of the rich and thus inflict injury upon the poor. Besides, it would be impossible for the poorer students at private halls to receive so good an education as in the colleges, inasmuch as all they could receive must come from the head or the master of the establishment, who could not he competent to give them instruction in every branch of learning. But the great and principal objection which he felt to private halls, independent of their failure to effect the object of a good and cheap education to the poorer classes of students, was the fact that they would absolutely destroy the discipline or the University, and supersede the control to which students were now subjected. These and some other views he had already stated at considerable length; and as he did not wish to repeat them, he would not trouble their Lordships further than to say that as this clause was regarded unanimously by the whole University, resident and non-resident, as a most dangerous and pernicious innovation upon its constitution and government, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEadmitted that the subject was one which involved the most important results, and therefore deserved the most grave and serious consideration. He was of opinion that their Lordships should adopt it, mainly, because its scope and policy was to extend the benefits of the University. At the same time, he could not bring himself to concur in the apprehensions felt by the noble Earl as to its injurious effect upon the discipline of the University. On a former occasion the noble Earl connected it, in degree, with an equally important clause in the Bill, to which, however, he was disposed to give his assent—that which would have the effect of admitting Dissenters to matriculation and to obtain all the distinctions and benefits which the University had to bestow. But the great apprehension of the noble Earl was that these halls would have the effect of altering the general tone of the University injuriously, instead of promoting its efficiency. Now, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had looked carefully into the
1336
subject since he had heard the expression of these apprehensions; and after the best attention he had been able to give to it, he was totally unable to conceive upon what grounds it could be pretended that, either in point of new and heterodox opinions to be taught, or of irregularities to be committed, these apprehensions were supported. There was not, in the slightest degree, any greater probability of noxious novelties being introduced under the cover and protection of these halls than there was under the wing and shelter of the smaller colleges as they now existed. He contended that these halls were more carefully provided for by the Bill, both as to the maintenance of discipline, conduct, and learning, than the existing colleges. The clause had but to be looked at to support this view; but before adverting to is, he begged their Lordships to remember that the origin of the University of Oxford was intimately connected with the entire spontaneous creation of halls for the extension and benefit of learning, and that they were placed under the direction of such masters as the halls themselves elected. Then there was the Congregation. This received several organisations one after another, ending in that which took place under Archbishop Land; but he believed that that constitution never would have existed had it not been preceded by those voluntary efforts —efforts which had done more for the cause of learning in England, and laid a deeper and a broader foundation for the future progress of science, and art, and religion, than any institution in any country. He was most ready to admit that the progress of learning, science, art, and religion was provided for in the University by a system of discipline which, historically and by its relations to the State and its affinity to the country, was entitled to the highest degree of reverence. But when it was admitted that this establishment, great, and venerable, and holy as it was, and much to be respected in the eyes of every man in the country, had partaken of the infirmities which attached to all institutions from the lapse of ages, that it had become subject to abuses which required correction, and that it had become contracted in its energies, and incapable of extending to all the benefits which ought unquestionably to be within the reach of all, what mode was there more natural, what system more safe, than to have recourse to that very practice in which the

1337
University originated, and from which it derived its early vigour, for the purpose of renewing that vigour when it was found to Le impaired? Could it be supposed, as be had heard it alleged, that by means of these halls all sorts of doctrine and every class of opinions were to be introduced into the University? Could it be supposed that they would become so fire-ships sent abroad to demolish whatever they might come in contact with of the system now prevailing at Oxford? If their Lordships were under that impression, he only asked them to look carefully at the provisions of the Bill—provisions which he contended, contained every safeguard that any public institution could possess, and safeguards particularly connected with the authority, power, privileges, and securities possessed by the University itself. Before, however, alluding to these safeguards he would venture to ask their Lordships by whom could these attacks be made? Who were the conspirators whom the noble Earl apprehended would carry on their machinations for the purpose of undermining the older colleges, and destroying the authority and system of the whole University? Well, he turned to the clause which the Committee were now discussing, and who were the persons that stood at the very head of the mischievous and noxious party about whom so many apprehensions were felt? Why, they most be members of Convocation. That was to say, this system of concealed warfare against the discipline of the University and colleges, and the orthodoxy of the Church, was to be carried on by members of Convocation—by men who could only be such by virtue of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, and of the open profession of themselves as members of the Church of England. But, more than this, the head of one of these private halls must obtain, before he could open his establishment, a licence from the Vice Chancellor. Here was conspirator the second. The Vice Chancellor of Oxford was a party to the conspiracy apprehended by the noble Earl. The Vice Chancellor of Oxford was to concur in the establishment of these formidable institutions, which were to be so noxious and injurious to the State and the University. Nor was this all; for the clause said that no such licence shall be granted by the Vice Chancellor until such regulations as should hereafter be agreed upon by the University should have come into operation. The licence, then, could
1338
neither he granted by the Vice Chancellor nor enjoyed by the party until certain regulations had been formally adopted by means of which these halls were to be governed. And who were to make these regulations? Why, the University itself. Their Lordships had, therefore, a very pretty picture of the conspirators; for first there were the heads of the hall Conspiring against the institutions of the University; then there was the Vice Chancellor sanctioning their conspiracy and enabling it to he carried on; and, finally, there was the University itself devising such regulations, and preparing such devices, as would provide for the admission of the halls, but of course taking core to provide all proper security against their interference with the existence, the character, and the functions of the greater colleges. He told the House, again, that he saw not the least reason for apprehension; that these halls, which had been held up as a sort of spectre to frighten people, when they came to he carefully looked into, when they were made to take a local name and habitation, when they became sensible to the touch, resolved themselves into the most innocent bodies for the mischief they could do, but into the most powerful for the advantages they might accomplish. Then it was asked, who had required these halls? He contended that there was a necessity for them. The great colleges were full to overflowing, and numbers were obliged to have recourse to the smaller colleges. Now, ho submitted that these halls would effect a very important object, even if they effected no other, by stimulating the smaller colleges to greater efforts and exertions. The noble Earl said they would neither be better than the colleges, nor so cheap. Then they would nut exist. It was only by such titans that competition could be stimulated; and the halls could be viewed in no other light than that of an useful and safe addition to the aggregate of the University. The University, by these means, would he enabled to accommodate itself to the wants of the times. As he bad already observed, the noble Earl had attempted to persuade their Lordships that these halls would not be cheap, and that they would fail to attract. It was not correct, however, to assume that they would not he cheap. He had recently had an opportunity of making inquiries as to the expenses in the University of Durham and the halls there, and he found that the ex-

1339
pense of education in Durham was lower than at Oxford and that the halls of Durham were cheaper than the colleges in the University. Judging from this analogy, he conceived that the halls in Oxford would be cheaper than the colleges. Under these circumstances, he thought that this clause would lead to, and confer many advantages upon the students, and he considered that to endeavour to give every extension in every possible way to the benefits to be conferred by the University was a duty which the Legislature owed, not only to the interests of the University, but also to the interests of learning and of the country at large. Therefore he earnestly called upon their Lordships not to reject it.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYthought that the noble Marquess was somewhat too sanguine as to the effect of the checks which would be imposed upon those who established private halls, for if he (the Earl of Malmesbury) read the clause rightly the Vice Chancellor would, under the regulations required, have no choice in giving a member of Convocation a licence. They had already seen the University convulsed by the disputes and conflicting opinions as to religious doctrines; but these had hitherto been materially neutralised by the constitution of the colleges as they now stand; but under the present clause persons would have it in their power to invite and tempt young men, perhaps too much disposed to agree with them, to join these private halls and would there form nests of disputants and so encourage dissensions and divisions. Under this clause, applicants for halls were to be allowed to establish them within one mile and a half of Carfax, and this was open to grave objections. He saw a right rev. Prelate present who had ably and pleasantly fulfilled the functions of a proctor when he (the Earl of Malmesbury) had the honour of being an undergraduate, and he would ask that right rev. Prelate how he would like a nocturnal walk of the distance of a mile and a half for the purpose of looking after delinquents and of keeping order in the halls? There were, in his opinion, moral objections to this clause, and he should, therefore, give his vote against it.
THE EARL OF CARLISLEsaid, that in giving his assent to this clause, he desired briefly to state his reasons for so doing. The noble Viscount who moved the second reading of the Bill in a full and able
1340
speech had made it his business to show the essential connection between the present clause and one in a subsequent part of the Bill, the object and virtual effect of which was to provide for the admission of Dissenters to the University. He thought the noble Viscount had fully and logically established this connection, and it was the view so taken and the inferences drawn from it, that had induced him (the Earl of Carlisle) to think that it was a most incumbent duty that he should adhere to this clause as it now stood, however he otherwise might have been inclined to view it with indifference, or even doubt. Without going into discussion at present as to the admission of Dissenters, he must say that he did not look upon that admission as a question to be fenced with; for he thought such a measure was god in itself, good for the University, good for the Dissenters, and good for the Established Church, and he should be willing to maintain these converging views of the clause, should any serious opposition hereafter be shown to it. When he had said how heartily he assented to the propriety of admitting Dissenters to the University, he felt scarcely called upon to add that he did not think this admission should be a mere nominal and colourable one, or should be offered to them so as to be regarded by them as offensive, and he must own that he did think that it sounded ominous when the noble Earl the Chancellor of the University observed the other night that, if Dissenters were admitted to the University, they could not expect any exemption from attendance on the services of the respective colleges. As to attending on chapels, he concurred in the observations made by the noble Earl respecting the declaration on mysterious articles of faith required from youths, not to say boys, on their first admission to the University. He had often looked back with something of shame and compunction to the want of consideration shown when he himself at that age was called upon to adopt—if the term were not an irreverent one he would say to swallow down at one gulp—such a comprehensive system of doctrine. When he said that he fully concurred in dispensing with the necessity of this subscription at so tender an age, he must also add that he should be equally 10th to impose the still greater mockery of compulsory worship. He greatly doubted whether in their great schools and colleges they had not now too much of compulsory worship, even as related exclusively to those of the same

1341
communion; but if they imposed it on those another communion, not only would it be vexatious, annoying, and degrading, but most disparaging to the services themselves. If they were to collect their indications of the probable disposition of the authorities in the colleges and halls of Oxford from the lips of the Chancellor, not slighting the other arguments which had been so ably and forcibly advanced in favour of the establishment of these private halls by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne), but from the view as to what they might apprehend from the disposition of existing authorities, as they had heard it interpreted by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), he felt bound on that account alone to retain these private halls as the last, and, possibly, the only retreats in which Dissenters, to whom they affected to give admission for the purpose of reaping the benefits of University education, would be able to enjoy that privilege with due regard to their own ease, comfort, and dignity, and in which that liberty of conscience to which they professed to do homage, would not be a mere pretence, but a reality, and to which he hoped they might look for precious and enduring fruits. It was on these grounds that he should give his hearty assent to the clause as it now stood.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON,with all due deference to the able speech of the noble Earl the Chancellor of the University, felt that the plan now under consideration combined many of the advantages, and was free from many of the objections, which attached themselves to similar plans which had been propounded with similar views. The colleges would remain precisely upon the Same footing, with the same privileges, the same associations, the same sympathies, heightened and increased rather than diminished by rivalry. He had no doubt there would be found many residents in the private halls who world retain their connection with some of the colleges. It had been said that the system would lead to immorality and want of discipline; but if there should be any immorality or want of discipline, it must originate with the masters of the private halls. He believed that public opinion would counteract any danger in that respect, and, if that should not be thought sufficient, a provision might be inserted making the licences granted to the masters renewable every two, three, or four years, or under certain conditions. The plan was distinguished by
1342
remarkable elasticity and comprehensiveness, and by adapting itself to the condition and varying circumstances of the rich and the poor. If it failed, its failure would attach to itself, but if it succeeded, its success could not fail to be very great.
LORD LYTTELTON: My Lords, I do not consider that those who, like myself, belong to the University of Cambridge, are very good judges of most parts of this Bill; the two Universities are se different. There is only one part of the provision of the Bill on which I would presume to intrude on the House, and that is what relates to the admission of Dissenters. I am prepared to agree to those provisions, as far as they give admission to Dissenters to the Universities as distinct from the existing colleges of which they are composed. I agree to them because they seem to me to be a wise and expedient concession to the Dissenters on the part of the University. I do not agree to the absolute claim of right which is set up on their part to the advantages Of the University. That claim seems founded on the statement that the Universities are national institutions, and that therefore the Dissenters, as an integral part of the nation, have a right to be admitted to them. Now, in what sense are they national institutions? In what sense are they so other than that in which the Established Church is so? It seems held that they are so, because their influence is so large and overreaching over the whole of the country. But so is that of the Established Church. And so it would follow from this argument that Dissenters should be admitted to the privileges of the Established Church. Nor is this such a mere contradiction in terms as it appears at first sight. Some persons do contend that such ought to be the position of the Church of this country—of the national Church of any country—that it should be so framed as to enlarge and relax itself from time to time, according to the public religious opinion of the country, whatever it may be. But this is net very generally held, nor is it needful to dwell upon it, as it does not seem to be the usual ground upon which the claim of die Dissenters is based. This seems to be the fact, that at the time when the Universities were founded, the Church was coextensive with the nation; and that, as it has long ceased to be so, the Universities should no longer lie exclusively connected with the Church. But this view rests on a mere assumption. It is a claim

1343
of strict right, as belonging to the essential constitution of the University, and, therefore, must depend on something, either in the will of the founders of the University, or of the supreme authority of the nation, or of the nation itself. Now, it can never be proved that in any of these quarters the main intention was that the University should be coextensive with the nation, except as the nation held to a definite religious system. It is just as allowable, and I consider it more reasonable, to suppose that they held rather to the religious system, and that, if called on to elect, they would have restricted the University to it. But then it is said that this view can no longer be maintained, because that definite religious system no longer exists. This belongs to the old question of the identity of the Church of England before and after the Reformation. But the view that it is not the same Church, because so great a change was made at that time in its doctrines, is evidently a question of degree and of opinion, which can never be distinctly solved. For the Church of England is a corporate body with a definite power of regulation, and no one will deny that some alteration in its doctrines might be made or received, and yet the identity of the body preserved. And where the line Should be drawn is clearly a matter of opinion. Surely the only satisfactory way is to look at what the Church is in the eye of the law, and on that there can be no doubt. Every Statute and every document of the times of the Reformation would show that the Church continued the same in the eye of the law, and this is the material point when the claim is one of strict legal right. So of the intentions of founders; it is a more assumption that at the time of the Reformation they would have refused to accept on behalf of their endowments the altered doctrines, rather than have followed them with the majority of the nation. The Universities, therefore, followed the Church. Those who left the Church left the endowments connected with it, and they knew that they left them, for this claim as of right on the part of the Dissenters is of recent date. Nor can I admit that the exclusion of Dissenters is any great grievance to them. They have their own University; nothing hinders their having as many Universities and colleges as they please; we are constantly told that they are as good, as numerous, as wealthy, as powerful, as the Church, and
1344
there is a good deal of truth in this; but if so their exclusion is no great hardship. But still, no doubt it would be some advantage to the Dissenters that they should be admitted; and if it be the least advantage to them, I am wiling to concede it, as I do not see that it would be at all injurious to the University. The University would confer the honour of a degree, indicating a specific amount of attainments. No doubt some of the present pre-requisites of a degree would be omitted; there could be no theological examination. But to that I see no serious objection. The University, as such, need not profess to require a complete education on the part of those on whom it confers a degree. No doubt it is an educating body, but it educates through its colleges. It is not proposed to divide education into religions and secular, to which I object; but instruction may, no doubt, be so divided. It is the colleges which educate, in the true sense that they give moral training and discipline. This refers to the well known question which belongs even to elementary schools, much more to colleges. Elementary schools give a moral training; and colleges are domestic institutions—homes for young men during part of the year at a critical time of their lives. Indeed, no one doubts that they profess to give moral training; and what I deny is, that moral training can be given without a definite creed. I am sure there is not one of the right rev. Prelates who will not confirm what I say—that moral training is based upon certain theological truths, and, moreover, controverted truths, but to which we, in the Church of England, attach great importance. I therefore take the exactly contrary view to that of the noble Earl opposite (Lord Derby), who seemed to have no objection to the admission of Dissenters, provided they were admitted into our colleges; certainly on the rather singular view that they should be thus subjected to influences antagonistic to those they receive at home. The noble Earl seemed to expect that such Dissenters would be a few very moderate ones, who would learn at college how slight their differences with the Church were. That might sometimes be; but I have no doubt the Dissenting body which would the most avail themselves of suit admission would be just the most unlike these. They would be the Unitarians; because that is the body which the least cares for definite systems of belief. I therefore hold that those who enter

1345
the colleges should be such as can be submitted, not in a loose way, but really, to moral training under a system of Church discipline and Church ordinances. And if so submitted, then such young men are, in fact, whatever their parents be, not Dissenters at all. Now, a leading point in such a system is united worship—not necessarily daily worship, though I think it should be so, nor necessarily compulsorily so; but united worship should be an essential part of a collegiate system. I quite admit that what I have said is inconsistent with the Cambridge system. I have myself seen there, not only Roman Catholics, but Jews, apparently joining in the chapel service. I say that is a mockery both of our religion and of theirs. It is easy to say, "Then give up the service:" but that I have urged to be fundamentally inconsistent with the idea of collegiate life. This certainly involves some test on admission, for without any test at all it is the Cambridge system. I do not go into that question, as I wish to deal only with principles: but I can have no doubt that some test could be devised in accordance with the views I have stated. One thing I will say, that whatever test is right, that of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles is certainly wrong. The test ought surely to coincide simply with whatever are the proper terms of communion for the English laity, and that the laity of the age of those who are admitted to the University. I again appeal to the right rev. Prelates, who, I am sure, will none of them say that adhesion to the Articles would be such terms of communion. No doubt it would be so, if the Articles were, as I have lately seen them described, the "rudiments of the Christian faith:" which I apprehend to be a singular misdescription. So far from that, they are very advanced and mysterious doctrines, often expressed in very scholastic and difficult language. But that in some way the colleges might attain the object I cannot doubt. So of the University admitting Dissenters while the present colleges remain as they are, that in some safe way it may be done, whether through these private halls or in some other way, I have no doubt. We must remember what scents generally admitted, that the University, if she is determined to baffle and evade these provisions, can undoubtedly do so; but if she cheerfully applies herself to obey the intentions of Parliament, I can have no doubt it may be
1346
done. But of our existing Church colleges, I say that I trust they will resist, even unto annihilation, any attempt to deprive them of their distinctive religious character.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the observation of the two noble Earls who had taken part in the discussion imparted a new character to the clause under discussion. He was prepared to rest his opposition to the establishment of private halls on the grounds which he had stated on a former occasion—namely, that they would not effect the object in view, and that they would be inconsistent with the maintenance of discipline. Some of the noble Lords who supported the Bill put their opinion on precisely opposite grounds to that taken by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne). The noble Marquess supported the clause on the ground that nothing was to be apprehended from the establishment of these halls, and contemned the idea that there would be any danger to the doctrines of religion prevailing at the University. Now be (the Earl of Derby) was very far from thinking that all members of Convocation were the persons best qualified to have the control of these halls. It had been asserted that they would be under the control of the Vice Chancellor, because his licence was required for their establishment. Now the functions of the Vice Chancellor were purely ministerial, for it was provided—not that it should be lawful for the Vice Chancellor, if he thought fit—but that any master of arts should obtain from the Vice Chancellor a licence for that purpose. It was true that the licence was not to be valid until the University should have made certain regulations, or, failing the University, the Commissioners. He did not envy the Commissioners the duty of framing such regulations. He was quite certain there would be the greatest difficulty in carrying out regulations, more especially for private halls, "the instruction and discipline of the students therein, and their attendance on divine worship." But the noble Lords who followed the noble Marquess in support of the Bill were of opinion that the Dissenters had a fair claim, as a part of the nation, to admission to the University.
LORD LYTTELTONstated that he had said quite the reverse.
THE EARL OF DERBYbelieved that the noble Earl opposite had argued the question on that ground.
THE EARL OF CARLISLEsaid, he did not argue it, but he was prepared to argue it.
THE EARL OF DERBY: His noble Friend did not argue, but he was prepared to argue. His noble Friend argued in favour of expediency and necessity, but he (the Earl of Derby) was not going to argue in favour of either; but he was going to call the attention of their Lordships, and of the right rev. Bench especially, that they now had it avowed, and distinctly declared, that the object of those private halls was to provide places where Dissenters might congregate. Now, that declaration was made by two noble Lords who took a prominent part in the debate. By the admissions made in the other House, and now more fully in this House, they now saw what was the necessary and natural consequence of the establishment of those halls—they were about to force upon the University that which upon other grounds they objected to, and to introduce into the heart of the University those Dissenting bodies, free from all University control as regarded the doctrines and religious principles of the Church of England. That being the object of the Bill, he should not waste another word, but ask the right rev. Bench if they were going to support a clause which should have such effects?
THE EARL OF CARLISLEexplained. What he said was, that he thought it would be equally advantageous to the Dissenters themselves, to the University and the Church of England, if the Dissenters were freely admitted; and he only argued that he hoped anybody frequenting those halls should be free from compulsory attendance upon the services of the colleges and halls.
LORD LYTTELTONalso explained. What he had said was, that he had no doubt if the University thought fit to give admission to Dissenters it would do so, either by private halls or in some other way, and he was therefore prepared to vote for the Bill on those general grounds.
THE EARL OF DERBYwas sorry if he had misrepresented his noble Friend (the Earl of Carlisle), but he understood him to say that the inmates of those halls should not be subject to the discipline of the Church of England, and his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) said Dissenters had a right to a full participation of the University honours and privileges, to which they were now unable to obtain admission.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, the noble Earl opposite had misrepresented both his noble Friends. He was perfectly content to leave the explanations of his noble Friends in their own hands; but the noble Earl, after misrepresenting them, had misrepresented the Bill and the authors of the Bill, and those who were responsible for it. [The Earl of DERBY: Who are they?] Why, the Government. The noble Earl might laugh, but the Bill was introduced by the Government, and they were responsible for it. When introduced into the House of Commons, it had on its back the names of three of the Ministers of the Cabinet. The noble Earl said it had been distinctly avowed that the object and intention of this provision was the introduction into the heart of the University of a nest of Dissenters who would be at variance with the colleges around them. Now, he entirely denied that such was the object or intention of the framers of the Bill. But he did not deny that this clause might give some validity to two clauses at the end of the Bill which had been introduced in the other House by an independent Member, and which the noble Earl not only did not resist, but of which to a great extent he had expressed his approval. The noble Earl said he should have objected to them if there had been any provision attached to them by which any compulsory action might be given to compel the colleges to waive any portion of their regulations or Statutes with a view to the admission of Dissenters without a violation of their consciences. He (the Duke of Newcastle) did not deny that these halls might give facilities for the introduction of Dissenters without a violation of their consciences. The licence, however, was only to be obtained by a member of Convocation, and a member of Convocation must be originally a member of the Established Church. It was true he might depart from the Church of England after he had obtained a licence, but the University would have the power of framing regulations by which these private halls would be governed; and in case the master ceased to be a member of the Church of England, his licence might be withdrawn, provided he exercised his powers in a manner injurious or dangerous to the interests of the University. But the intention with which these clauses had been framed was not that which had been suggested by noble Lords upon the other side. The intention

1349
was that which had been avowed to facilitate and extend education; and to destroy any monopoly now existing on the part of the colleges, which might be considered injurious to the progress of education. The noble Earl had stated to-night, as he had stated last night, that he thought he should be able to show that so far from introducing a poorer class of students into the University, the establishment of private halls would have a directly contrary effect. He had instanced, last evening, and he had repeated this evening, that the servitors at Christ Church were supported at a cost of no more than a guinea a week. That was no argument at all. The servitors at Christ Church were supported by eleemosynary assistance, and to quote them as an illustration of the cost of education at the University, was to estimate the expenses of a labouring man by the fact that in the case of a charity school he paid nothing at all. But, then, it was said that the endowments which the colleges possessed enabled them to educate young men within their halls at a cheaper rate than private halls could do. Now, first of all, he denied the fact; and secondly, he said that if it were the fact the result would be that the halls would not be established. It might be perfectly true that a large number of persons might be provided for at a less cost to the individual than could be done where the number was small; but it must not be forgotten that it was the social habits of the young men that created the expense. It was not the more cost of living so much as the fact that young men living together in society were obliged in a manner to live up to the standard of those about them; and if they wished to redress the evil, without having recourse to sumptuary laws, they must provide some institution in which these incentives to expense would not exist. But it was said that the discipline of these halls would be so lax as to render them unfit places for the reception and education of youth. But, as compared with the existing colleges, he anticipated that the discipline of these halls would be very superior. At all events it ought to be; for what was the discipline of the colleges? The young men were obliged to attend certain lectures, and to be within the walls at twelve o'clock at night; but as to discipline of a domestic character, as to any inspection, or what went on within their rooms, the authorities of the colleges would no more think of going into the rooms of
1350
their young men than they would of entering the rooms of any of their Lordships. In point of fact, nothing like domestic discipline existed. But the discipline in these halls would be of a different character. The masters would have an opportunity of placing themselves in the position of parents to the young men, and of exercising a control and influence over them in that way. It was said that the proctors would exercise no jurisdiction over the halls; but the proctors were University officers, they had no authority in the colleges, they exercised no inspection with respect to the colleges at present; but they might, with respect to the halls, if the University should make rules to that effect. He could not understand how those who advocated, as some did, the system of private lodgings which existed at Cambridge, could possibly object on the ground of discipline to the introduction of private halls at Oxford. The discipline and superintendence exercised in the one case might be made of a most domestic and complete character; in the other case it amounted to nothing at all. In the University of Oxford, at this very moment, the student who had completed his twelfth term was compelled to leave his college and to go into private lodgings, where he had to complete the remainder of his term of education without being subject to any superintendence or any system of discipline at all. The noble Earl had stated last night that he should be perfectly content to allow the University to enact that the fathers of families might reside in the University, and their sons reside with them attached to the different colleges. He confessed he was unable to see how, if that system was admissible, the other could be objectionable. If the objections put forward to these clauses, the expense of education and the want of discipline and parental control—were the real reasons why they were opposed—it appeared to him that the house of a parent presented no advantage over the house of a tutor, resident and established at Oxford, to whose care a parent could with confidence intrust his son. On the contrary, the house of the tutor, who would be placed in the position of the parent with respect to moral control, and who would combine with that control the capacity to teach, would present, in his opinion, very superior advantages to the other. He would not detain their Lordships further; for he had only risen to reply to the observation made

1351
by the noble Earl in the course of his last speech, that the avowed object of these clauses was to place in the bosom of the University nests of Dissenters, who would act antagonistically to her interests, and to introduce within the precincts of that noble institution those whose sole object would be her eventual destruction.
LORD CAMPBELLexpressed his dissent from the construction which had been put upon the 27th clause, and stated that that clause imposed no legal obligations on the Vice Chancellor to grant the licence when applied for; and that if an application were made to him (Lord Campbell) for a mandamus to compel him to grant it, he should refuse it.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Content 109; Not Content 76: Majority 33.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Shaftesbury

DUKES.

Somers

Argyll

Spencer

Atholl

Suffolk

Leeds

Shrewsbury

Newcastle

Waldegrave

Roxburgh

Yarborough

Wellington

Zetland

MARQUESSES.

VISCOUNTS.

Abercorn

Canning

Anglesey

Enfield

Breadalbane

Falmouth

Camden

Falkland

Clanricarde

Massareene

Donegal

Sydney

Headfort

Torrington

Lansdowne

BISHOPS.

Ormonde

Chester

EARLS.

Cork

Aberdeen

Down

Airlie

London

Albemarle

Manchester

Bessborough

Oxford

Bruce

Ripon

Burlington

St. David's

Carlisle

St. Asaph

Chichester

BARONS.

Clarendon

Auckland

Cottenham

Beaumont

Cowper

Belhaven

Craven

Blantyre

Denbigh

Broughton

Ducie

Byron

Effingham

Camoys

Fingall

Campbell

Fitzhardinge

Carew

Fortescue

Churchill

Glasgow

Cremorne

Granville

Crewe

Harrowby

Congleton

Haddington

De Tabley

Ilchester

Dacre

Morley

Dufferin

Nelson

Foley

Portsmouth

Godolphin

Rosse

Hatherton

Scarborough

Howard de Walden

1352

Howden

Portman

Kinnaird

Rivers

Leigh

Saye and Sele

Lilford

Stafford

Lyttelton

Stanley of Alderley

Manners

Suffield

Methuen

Vivian

Monson

Ward

Mostyn

Wodehouse

Overstone

Wrottesley

Petro

List of the NOT CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Selkirk

Buccleuch

Sheffield

Cleveland

Stradbroke

Montrose

Verulam

Richmond

Vane

MARQUESSES.

Warwick

Bath

Wilton

Drogheda

Winchilsea.

Exeter

VISCOUNTS.

Salisbury

Bolingbroke

EARLS.

Canterbury

Abergavenny

Midleton

Beauchamp

BISHOPS.

Bathurst

Chichester

Bradford

Gloucester

Courtown

Winchester

Cadogan

BARONS.

Chesterfield

Bateman

Clancarty

Berners

Cawdor

Calthorpe

Dartmouth

Clinton

Derby

Colville of Culross

Delawarr

Crofton

Devon

Clarina

Donoughmore

Colchester

Ellenborough

De Lisle

Eglintoun

Dunsandle

Egmont

Dynevor

Hardwicke

Forester

Harewood

Feversham

Huntingdon

Grantley

Jersey

Monteagle

Longford

Plunkett

Lonsdale

Redesdale

Malmesbury

Rayleigh

Mansfield

Sandys

Mornington

Seaton

Powis

Sondes

Pomfret

Tenterden

Romney

Willoughby de Broke

Roden

Wynford

Clause agreed to.
Clauses 28, 29, and 30 agreed to, with verbal amendments.
Clause 31 provides that colleges may amend Statutes with respect to eligibility to headships, &c.
LORD WYNFORDmoved the omission of the words, "and in the case of some of the colleges for rendering portions of their property or income available to purposes for the benefit of the University at large." The preamble of the clause declared it was expedient to enable colleges to make ordinances for promoting the main designs of the founders. It could never be the

1353
design of the founders that the emoluments should be estranged from the colleges and given to professors whose existence they never contemplated. He, therefore, moved the Amendment to make the enacting consistent with the declaratory part of the clause.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that he certainly had no great encouragement to propose any Amendment on the Bill, because it appeared very clear, whatever was the case elsewhere, here, at all events, the Government could do with the Bill whatever they thought fit. Instead of proposing, as the noble Lord had done, to make the preamble suit the enacting part of the clause, he proposed to make the enacting part suit the preamble. He begged to remind the noble Viscount who had charge of the Bill, that last night he referred to this clause as one which would enable colleges to make new regulations, "of course with the consent of the visitors." In order to carry out the noble Viscount's views, he proposed, at the 28th line, to insert, after the word "colleges," "with the consent of the visitors." In the 31st line he proposed a verbal amendment, to which, perhaps, the noble Viscount would have no objection—to substitute, "with due regard to," for "according to" personal merits and fitness. As it now stood, personal merits appeared to be the sole qualification. He proposed also, in order to make the clause accord with the preamble, to add, after the word "College," in the 44th line, "but with the consent of the visitors aforesaid," and in the next line but one, after the word "purposes," "so that the same be not inconsistent with the main designs of the founders or donors." At the close of the clause he would submit to their Lordships a proviso, the object of which was this:—the jurisdiction of the Commissioners was exceptional, and it must be the desire of every one to terminate it at the earliest possible moment consistent with carrying this Bill into effect. It could not be the wish of the Government that the Commissioners should be perpetually altering the various regulations of the colleges. The object was to induce the colleges, under the authority of the Commissioners, to introduce a good scheme of government and a good system; and having done so, it was extremely desirable, when the scheme had been approved by the Commissioners, that their power of interference should cease and determine. The proviso he proposed to add was in these words—
1354
"Provided also, that when any such regulations and ordinances shall have been so approved of by the Commissioners in regard to any college, and shall have been further approved of by Her Majesty's Council, and allowed by Parliament, as hereinafter provided, all the powers given by this Act to the Commissioners, to remit the same for further consideration or revision by such college, or to frame regulations and ordinances for such college, shall cease and determine."
VISCOUNT CANNINGsaid, with regard to the consent of the visitors being made necessary, the functions of the visitors were to superintend the observance of the college Statutes, and in three at least of the colleges at Oxford the visitors were positively prohibited from consenting to any alteration whatever. The adoption, therefore, of the Amendment of the noble Earl would be productive of mischief. In the case of Exeter College the right rev. Prelate who presided over that diocese was the visitor, and he had altogether refused to countenance or sanction any change in the Statutes. He believed, too, the noble Earl himself, who, in his capacity of Chancellor of the University, was visitor of Pembroke College, had taken a somewhat similar resolution. If the clause were amended, as proposed, these colleges would be compelled to place themselves under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners; and for these reasons he did not think the alteration desirable. With regard to the proposal to change the words, "with due regard to," for "according to," he preferred the latter, as much more distinct, and could not acquiesce in the suggestion of the noble Earl. As to the insertion of the words, "so that the same be not inconsistent with the main designs of the founders," in many cases the designs of the founders were inexpedient to be carried out, and the limitation would operate as a check upon the praiseworthy desire of some of the colleges to reform themselves. He had an Amendment of his own to propose on this clause, but it was necessary that he should first refer to the 34th clause regarding schools. It was originally intended to deal with the emoluments attached to colleges—not to overlook or override the interests of the schools—but to provide more effectually for the promotion of education. There were many schools to which fellowships and exhibitions or scholarships were attached, which not only carried with them the advantages of the scholarships, but, by course of time, led to fellowships. The effect of that had been to operate as

1355
a positive discouragement to learning, because a boy who had been industrious enough to obtain a scholarship was not likely to follow up his studies when he knew a fellowship would follow independent of any merits of his own. It was originally proposed that whenever a fellowship of this kind was made open, a close exhibition should be given to the school in exchange. That intention did not meet the approval of the House of Commons, and the result was that Clause 34 was introduced, guarding schools, and the emoluments attached to them, by requiring the assent of the governing body of the schools. The Government felt this would be inflicting on the school great disadvantages as it would be practically placing in the hands of the governing body the right of naming the boys in the school who would become masters and fellows of the college, and thereby the governors of Oxford. The Government, therefore, intended in the 4th line of the 34th clause, after the words "any emolument," to insert the words "other than a fellowship or studentship;" and at the end of the clause to add—
"And if in any college where fellowships or studentships are tenable by undergraduates, either the college, or the Commissioners acting in respect thereof, shall divide its fellowships or studentships into elder and younger, the elder only shall be taken to be fellowships or studentships within the meaning of the section."
He also proposed, in the 36th line of the 31st clause, to insert after the words "University at large," the words "for the consolidation of fellowships, and for the conversion of fellowships attached to schools into scholarships."
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, whatever the Government proposed they were able to carry, and he had no wish to waste their Lordships' time in useless discussions; but as his noble Friend, in his speech the other night, appeared to consider that the principal design of the founders was to benefit the colleges, and not the schools, he could not refrain from expressing his belief that that was a total perversion of the real state of the case. He believed that in respect to almost every endowment, the main design of the founder was not to benefit the University or college at all, but the school and the locality. There were many cases to prove this, and among others might be mentioned that of Abingdon School, and the scholarships connected with it and attach-
1356
ed to Pembroke College. No one could deny that in this instance the object of the founder was to benefit the school, and not any particular college, the naming of which, in many cases, was purely a collateral, and oftentimes an accidental occurrence. There were, doubtless, cases where the founder might have wished to benefit both a particular school and a particular college at one and the same time; but he put it to any one who understood the question, whether such cases were not exceptions, which probably, would prove the rule. He was perfectly convinced that the Amendment proposed to be introduced by the Government in this clause would operate most unjustly, and tell most injuriously upon many of our great schools, inasmuch as he believed that many of these schools were selected soley for the sake of the afterwards-to-be-acquired fellowships that were attached to them, rather than out of any inducement which their particular exhibitions and scholarships held out. It was also to be remembered that the Amendment was in direct opposition to the twice-expressed opinion of the House of Commons, and he could not help thinking that Government made use of very little discretion in pressing it at the present time on the attention of their Lordships.
THE EARL OF WINCHELSEAsaid, that the present Bill proposed to effect the most dreadful confiscation of property that ever took place in an enlightened country, and was the grossest violation of justice that ever characterised the Legislature of England. It diverted the property of private individuals into channels quite different from the original intentions of the testators, and from that moment never would there be one farthing left by private benevolence to endow any object of public charity in this country. After the passing of this Bill, what security would any man have that, before he was cold in his grave, his property would not be used differently from what he intended? There never was a measure so fraught with evil, so unjust in principle, so iniquitous in its details, as this accursed Bill. He deeply regretted the course which the right rev. Prelate opposite (the Bishop of Oxford), had thought proper to adopt with respect to this measure. Just twenty-six years ago, when he first came into their Lordships' House, he declared that whenever that bench of right rev. Prelates opposite was characterised by party or political motives the day would

1357
not be far off when a separation would take place of that right rev. Bench from their Lordships' House, and that the right rev. Prelates who sat upon that bench would be constrained to retire to their separate and respective dioceses. The day was not far distant for them to do so, and he believed a very strong feeling existed out of doors as to the propriety of their making as much haste about it as possible; and as to its being more to the interest of the Church if these right rev. Prelates would bestow somewhat more of their time upon their religious and spiritual duties, and not mix themselves up so much in political questions as they did. He firmly believed that this Bill was the first step to separate the Church from the State, and he must confess that he thought on such a question that those whose duty it was to protect the Church ought not to be the men to press forward into the foremost rank, to desert the standard under which it ought to be their pride, as it was their duty, to serve. Such a course of policy would do them no good when the time came for the measure to be proposed for their exclusion from that House; and he could tell the right rev. Prelates that when such a measure was proposed the table before them would groan under and not be sufficient to support the weight of the petitions that would be presented in favour of such relief.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he did not intend to trouble their Lordships with any remarks in reply to those in which the noble Earl who had last spoken had thought proper to indulge, for he had too great an appreciation of the piety and sincerity of the noble Earl to be inclined to treat the remarks which he had just now made in the spirit which they might, under other circumstances, seem to justify, and certainly tended to excite. His right rev. Brethren, and he himself, were, however, by this time somewhat inured to the reproofs of the noble Earl, who kept these kind of remarks always ready to be discharged whenever the bench, whose conduct he seemed to consider so much under his special charge, took the liberty of not agreeing with him upon any subject. The noble Earl had characterised the present Bill as the first step towards separating the Church from the State; but he could not hear those words from the noble Earl without remembering on how many previous occasions this same ever-recurring first step had, in the judgment of the noble Earl, been already taken. He could only
1358
say that on that evening the Members of the bench on which he sat had given no vote to countenance in any way the separation of either the University of Oxford or the State from the Church of England; and he felt assured that every one who sat with him there would sooner incur such penalties and privations as the noble Earl had threatened would be imposed upon them, than lend themselves, by word or implication, to foster or encourage any attempts to bring on so great a national calamity. For he believed that, if the Church of England were to lose all its present social position and worldly wealth, it would be little in comparison with the loss it would suffer if ever it were deprived of the power which, under God, it possessed of influencing this mighty people for good, through the sway which it exercised over the University of Oxford, and, through that University, over the whole mind of the country. The purport of his rising to speak to the question now before the House was to say a few words as to the powers contained in those clauses of this Act which enabled the University to deal with the close fellowships; and, in speaking upon this subject, he must certainly say that he could not in any way bring himself to agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) in supposing that the proposed Amendment would cause any damage to our great endowed schools. He could not agree, either that the main object of the founders of these fellowships was to benefit solely the schools, or the towns in which such schools were situated; and, as a proof that such was not the case, he could cite many instances, but would content himself by referring to the school of Winchester, about which there had been so much discussion, and from the language of the founder of which it appeared that it was established merely as a nursery for youth, to be therein educated until such time as they could be transplanted to the University. He did not deny that there were many cases in which the object of the founder was solely the benefit of the particular school he was founding; but that this was not generally the case he thought might be shown in the great majority of instances. The noble Earl had referred to Pembroke College and its connection with Abingdon School; but, although there was no doubt that the object of the connection with the college which its founder had provided was the strengthening of the school, yet he considered that the condition of the school

1359
for many years with these advantages, proved the necessity for the present or a similar amendment, inasmuch as it was necessary, without doubt or dispute, for some power to step in and carry out the intention of the founder, namely, the good of the school and of the town in connection with such school. The intention of the founder, under the existing restrictions, had for many years undoubtedly failed. In such cases, he held it was their duty to interfere, and in a spirit of fair legislation, suggested by the advanced intelligence of the age, to see whether the charitable intentions of the founders of some of our noblest scholastic institutions could not by new regulations be more fully and efficiently carried out. He considered that it would be much better to found scholarships in colleges than to adhere to this system of occasional fellowships, which was, at best, but a costly and cumbersome way of doing a little good to the schools at a great sacrifice in every other respect. In his opinion, the argument that it was our duty to regard the founders' wishes was the very one which justified the adoption of the Amendment proposed; because, if the founders really looked to the good of the town they wished to benefit, and to the service of God, whom they wished to honour by their charity and the after-blessings which it would bestow on posterity, it was clearly their duty, as legislators, to see that such wise and beneficent intentions were not frustrated by circumstances, or abused by neglect. It was their duty, first of all, to ascertain clearly what was the intention of the founder, and, having discovered what it really was, to adopt, at all hazards, every means fully to carry out such intention according to the intelligence and in the spirit of improvement which so happily characterised the present day. If we did this, we need entertain no fear that we were doing anything wrong by taking upon ourselves the responsibility of interpreting, and the duty of enforcing, the wish and intention of the founders of these schools.
Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32, empowering the Commissioners to frame ordinances.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the clause certainly did impose a certain amount of restriction upon the powers of the Commissioners, inasmuch as any ordinances or regulations which they might prepare could not be enforced, provided that, within a
1360
specified time, two-thirds of the governing body of the college should declare, under their hand and seal, that in their opinion such ordinances or regulation would be prejudicial to the college as a place of learning and education. But it was possible that there might be regulations framed by the Commissioners which might be prejudicial to the college and open to grave objections, and yet the college would not have the slightest voice in the rejection of them, unless two-thirds of the governing body could declare that they would be prejudicial to the college as a place of learning and education. He suggested the insertion of some words which would have the effect of giving to the Commissioners power to act upon the report of the visitor, in all cases where it might be reported that the effect of the proposed alteration would be injurious to the interests of the colleges and the intention of the founder.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEfelt bound to object to such an alteration in the clause. The duty of the visitor was to interpret the Statutes of the college, and not to exercise legislative functions. It would be as anomalous to give the proposed power to the visitors of colleges as it would be to give the Court of Queen's Bench a veto upon an Act of Parliament.
Clause agreed to. Clauses 33 to 39 agreed to.
Clause 40.
THE EARL OF POWISmoved the addition of a proviso, that no professorships established or aided under the Act should be tenable with the headship of any college or hall.
VISCOUNT CANNINGopposed the Amendment, on the ground that the duties connected with the headship of some of the halls were very light, and would not interfere with their duties as professors. He believed there was no fear that any undue attempt would be made to accumulate incompatible duties on one person.
Clause agreed to. Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42.
THE EARL OF DERBYmoved an Amendment, to the effect that the private halls should be subject to the regulations and Statutes of the Hebdomadal Council.
VISCOUNT CANNINGassented.
Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 (Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles).
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that last night he had expressed his opinions at

1361
some length in favour of admitting the Dissenters to the University, and he had come down to-night prepared to give that measure his support; but the language that had been held to-night with respect to private halls, the intentions that had been avowed, and the comments that had been made with respect to that clause, had since caused him to view the question in a very different light. Though, as a matter of grace and favour, he was willing to sanction the admission of Dissenters to the Universities, in conformity with the teaching and authority of the colleges, yet he was not prepared to say, especially after what had passed, that he was now willing to take any steps which might have the effect of establishing bodies of Dissenters not amenable to the discipline of the colleges within the University. He should, therefore, oppose the removal of the existing restrictions.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, if he could bring himself to view this matter in the same light with the noble Earl, he also would oppose the clause. But he could not see that anything had passed in the House to-night—to all of which he had attended most carefully—that altered his opinions. The noble Earl said that statements had been made which implied that Dissenters were to be admitted to the University of Oxford without being subject to the discipline, rules, or laws of the University. He would only say, that if such statements had been made—it was not said by whom—they had altogether escaped his notice. He would not affect to say that he did not regret the insertion of those clauses. He regretted to find them in the Bill, not because he differed from the object which they were intended to answer, for he entirely agreed with the noble Earl in thinking that it was, on the whole, better, as a matter of grace and favour, to facilitate the admission of Dissenters to partake in the advantages and benefits of a University education than to exclude them altogether. But then he desired that this step should have been taken by the authorities of the University themselves, as Her Majesty's Government had intended; and he regretted that this clause had been put into the Bill, not because he objected to the admission of Dissenters, under such regulations as the University might have adopted for preserving the Church of England character of its religious teaching unaltered, but because he thought a different impression was given to the question from
1362
what it would have worn if they had been admitted, as he firmly believed they would have been admitted, by the spontaneous act of the University itself. If, indeed, he thought that this clause bound the University, either directly or indirectly, to swerve one inch from her affiance to the Church of England, from teaching the truth as the Church of Christ reformed in this land held and taught it, then there was no penalty which he would not suffer rather than give his assent to it. But admitting with the noble Earl that it would now be impossible to prevent the adoption of these provisions, he was entirely unable to enter into his objection that the proposed private halls would be unfavourable to the Church of England. He thought that the foundation of private halls might, if properly conducted, have precisely the opposite effect. He would be much obliged to the noble Earl if he would state explicitly what he meant, or how much he was prepared to concede, when he talked of admitting Dissenters. Did he mean that he would grant them admission to the ear, but would deny it in fact; or did he mean that he would admit Dissenters to existing colleges, as if their admission to the colleges would be safer to the Church than their admission to private halls? The noble Earl stated that, though the principal of these halls might be a member of Convocation, it did not follow that he would be a member of the Church of England—that he might have been at some former time—but that even if he had quitted it, he would still have the power to open a hall. He (the Bishop of Oxford) would remind the House that that was not the case, for before a single member of the University could undertake the office of teaching, he was liable to be called upon by the Vice Chancellor to repeat his signature to the Thirty-nine Articles, and therefore perverts from the Church of England could not assume the office of teachers. And it did seem to him that the argument used at a former period of the evening with respect to these halls was unanswerable. Did the noble Earl really think that the religion of young men at Oxford—their real belief in what they were taught—would be strengthened by seeing seated by their side in the same chapel a Jew, who they knew denied altogether that Christianity whose highest rites they might be engaged in celebrating? Yet this was the alternative which the noble Earl must have in view, if he

1363
admitted Dissenters in statu pupillari to the colleges, where they must attend the prayers and services of the Church of England, while he would bar them from the halls. He did not see how it was possible to escape from this conclusion. The noble Earl said he was in favour of admitting Dissenters; but then it was to be under such restrictions that their entrance would be either an act of hypocrisy or altogether impracticable. For his part, he was prepared to give, not a glad assent —for, as he had said, he wished this matter had been left to the University—but he must confess it a grudging and unworthy assent to the clause, feeling that of two evils this was the least, and feeling that the strict affiance of the colleges of Oxford to the truth which they were bound to maintain, as it was held and taught in this Reformed Church, was not affected thereby, and that it was far better and safer for the Church that they should agree to this than, by seeking at this moment fruitlessly to occupy an exterior position which they could not defend, and invite an aggression which at last might reach the citadel.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, as the right rev. Prelate had asked him to explain how far he would go, which he thought he had already made sufficiently clear, he would trouble their Lordships with one or two words. He had always held the opinion that Dissenters might, in accordance with the discipline and rules of the University, be admitted to the advantages of her teaching, and therefore he desired there should not be interposed by the authority of the University, or still more by the authority of Parliament, anything in the way of subscription which could by possibility prevent their obtaining admission. But he had also held, and till that evening he thought it was also the principle of Her Majesty's Government and of the majority of the right rev. Bench, that the admission of Dissenters to partake of the benefits of the University did not entitle them to call upon the University or the colleges to change their system, or to give up their connection with the Church of England. If the Dissenters claimed to be admitted to the benefits of the University without being subjected to the discipline of the University, then he could not consent to their admission, because he was satisfied that this change of system with regard to Dissenters would lead to a fatal breach in the discipline of the University, and to a seve-
1364
rance of her connection with the Church. He would place the University of Oxford on the same footing with the University of Cambridge, and he was not aware that the University of Cambridge had ever been charged with opening her doors in profession while in reality they were closed to Dissenters. The very different principles which had been avowed that night convinced him that this would prove a heavy blow to the religious and to the Church of England character of the University; and with that view, much as he desired to see Dissenters admitted, he could not vote for this clause.
THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHsaid, he had no sympathy with those who wanted to give the Dissenters a governing power in the University; but he was, and for the last thirty years he had been, in favour of admitting them to matriculate. At the same time, he wished that this concession had emanated from the University itself. He should like very much that subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles were omitted at the entrance of students; and this not so much from regard to Dissenters, but because, when he had occasion to matriculate young men at Oxford, he explained to them before he took them to the Vice Chancellor—"You are now going to declare yourself a member of the Church of England. You are not going to declare that you understand or assent to the Thirty-nine Articles, but simply that you do not object to them." [Laughter.] Noble Lords might laugh; but if they had the same thing to do, they would give the same explanation.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLexpressed his strong conviction of the immense advantage derived by every religious body from the adoption of a liberal rule with regard to the admission of Dissenters from their own creed, so long as the government of the particular school or college remained in its own hands. In the schools connected with the Established Church in Scotland, the rule had long been in practice that Dissenters' children should be admitted and exempted from catechetical teaching; and the Established Church had not been weakened, but rather strengthened by it. A similar rule prevailed in the other Churches of that country. All held the rule that the children of those who dissented from their doctrines might be admitted to the secular teaching of the school. It appeared to him that in this clause the entire governing and teaching powers of

1365
the University of Oxford were carefully preserved; and, so long as that was the case he had the most thorough and sincere conviction that these extensions would tend to strengthen the bonds of the Church of England. If the University did propose to admit Dissenters, it ought to be allowed to make the necessary regulations.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYobserved that the clause did no more than place the University of Oxford in the present position of the University of Cambridge with regard to the admission of Dissenters. Any step taken in Oxford beyond that would be the work of the University itself; and, under these circumstances, he could see no reason why the clause should not be adopted.
THE BISHOP OF RIPONconfessed that it was with sorrow and regret he saw the introduction of these clauses, not because he had the slightest objection to the admission of Dissenters, or that he imagined no advantage would result from it, but because he foresaw that it would materially discourage the supporters of the Bill in its future stages. He wished that more time had been given for the consideration of a measure so wholly affecting the interests of the University.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHhad no objection to Dissenters entering the University; but the University itself could by Statute make the alterations necessary to effect that purpose, and no doubt it would after the expression of the opinion of both Houses of Parliament. Under these circumstances he wished the clause to be omitted.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 46, which enacts that it shall not be necessary to take any oath on taking a degree, save the oath of allegiance,
Their Lordships divided:—Content 73; Not Content 47: Majority 26.
Clause agreed to.
The remaining Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next.
House adjourned to Monday next.