Sitting of 12 July 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Russian Government Securities.
Reported—Friendly Societies (No. 2).
3° Commons Inclosure (No. 2).

MEDICAL GRADUATES (UNIVERSITY OF LONDON) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that with regard to Great Britain, certain medical bodies had the exclusive privilege of exercising the medical profession in England. Great exception was taken to this monopoly by learned and competent members of the medical profession who had graduated in Ireland and Scotland. The Bill now before the House proposed to extend the monopoly to those who had taken a medical degree in the University of London, and there was a further proposition to include the University of Durham. If the medical graduates of the London and Durham Universities were to be admitted to the monopoly of practising in England, they would naturally be anxious to perpetuate it, to the exclusion of their Irish and Scotch brethren. He thought the monopoly was a bad one, and that it ought to be got rid of, and he would therefore move that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.
MR. COWANseconded the Amendment. He said he must contend that the University of Edinburgh bad equal claims with any other to the consideration of that House. Its fame as a medical school was well known; in this respect it stood as

95
high as any University in Europe. Its professors had been most successful in training up a band of medical practitioners. The subject was one which the Government ought to have taken up long ago. The existing state of the law was such as to protect the unqualified practitioner. The continuance of this anomaly inflicted a great injury on medical science and the community at large. He therefore hoped the Government would introduce a Bill on the subject early next Session. He objected to the present Bill on the same ground as the hon. Mover of the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that when his attention was first drawn to the Bill, he certainly shared in the opinions which had been expressed by his hon. Friends behind him, and thought that it would be most desirable to postpone the measure until the Government had been able to mature some general arrangement for the consideration of Parliament. But he confessed that the representations which had since been made to him on behalf of the London University had altered the view which at first sight he was disposed to take, and he now thought that, with a change in the wording, which he should propose in Committee, and which would have the effect of merely carrying out the understanding that he conceived had been come to between the supporters and the opposers of the Bill, and the purpose of which would he to exclude the surgical practice and confine the privilege to be given to the London University to medical practice, in the same manner as practically the degrees of Oxford and Cambridge were confined, he might recommend the House to adopt the Bill. When the London University was first established, it was very much for the purpose of opening the channels of professional avocation to persons who did not belong to the Church of England. Degrees at Oxford and Cambridge were incumbered with certain tests and declarations which practically excluded Dissenters; and when the University of London was established there was a distinct understanding between the promoters of the University and the Government that the degrees to be granted by that Univer-
96
sity should for all professional, not ecclesiastical, purposes confer the same privileges and advantages as were conferred by similar corresponding degrees at Oxford and Cambridge. The professional advantages conferred related to law and medicine; and accordingly degrees in medicine had been granted, and he was informed, and he believed correctly informed, that the medical examination at the London University was quite as good as—if not better than—the examinations at either of the two Universities or that of the College of Physicians. In short the public had quite as good a security by means of the degrees conferred by this University as they had by the degrees conferred by any other. As far, then, as the interest of the public was concerned, no objection could arise from continuing the power the University had hitherto enjoyed. And as far as the Dissenters were concerned, it seemed to him that it would be a breach of faith to shut upon them now that channel to professional avocations which by means of this University had been open to them for a considerable period. Now what, then, was the circumstance which rendered any legislation at this moment necessary? The circumstance was this. In the course of last Session a Bill was passed regulating lunatic asylums, and connected with lunatics, which gave the power of granting certificates, and confined that power to persons legally authorised so to do, and doubts had since arisen whether, under the law as it now stood, those graduates of the University of London who had, in the course of their professional practice, given those certificates, might not be subject to penalties for having done so. Now it would be very unfair, he thought, to impose a new penalty upon gentlemen who, having taken degrees after examination, had fully sustained their qualifications to practise, and expose them to this penalty in consequence of the inadvertent legislation of last Session. It did not appear to him that the Bill would at all interfere with any general arrangement which Parliament might think fit to adopt in the course of next Session. It was exceedingly desirable that some general arrangement should be effected. He had been in communication with the Presidents of the two colleges of physicians and surgeons upon the subject; and only that morning one of those gentlemen had suggested to him a mode of coming to some arrangement, which he (Lord Palmerston) thought might possibly

97
furnish the Government with materials from which to frame a measure for the consideration of Parliament. But if he thought this Bill would throw any difficulty in the way of such a general arrangement, undoubtedly that would constitute an objection to the measure. He could not, however, think that it would. On the contrary, if it confined the power and the privileges granted by the London University to medical practice, and did not extend them to surgical practice—if it simply gave to graduates of the London University those privileges of medical practice which the degrees of Oxford and Cambridge had practically given them—it would have this effect it would merely confirm by law an arrangement which had existed ever since the commencement of the University; which was entered into with it when first its constitution was framed; and he thought it would be an act of injustice to the University, and especially towards the body of Dissenters, who were very much interested in the matter, if that House did not agree to the Bill, subject to the limitation in regard to surgical practice, which he should feel it his duty to propose if it went into Committee.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, it was his intention to support the Bill. He thought the opposition to it was based on the "dog-in-the-manger" principle. Nothing could be more disgraceful than the present state of the law regarding medical practice. The qualified practitioner had literally no protection; for, notwithstanding diplomas and degrees, quacks might practise surgery as largely and successfully as qualified persons, provided they gave up the questionable advantage of being able to sue for their fees. He thought the Bill would effect a desirable improvement as far as it went; and it was no reason for rejecting it that it did not apply to the three kingdoms. The University of Durham stood on the same footing as that of London, and was entitled to the same privileges.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the effect of the Bill would be to increase existing anomalies, and therefore hoped it would not be further proceeded with during the present Session. He entirely agreed with the reasons which had been given for introducing the Bill, if it were not proposed to amend the general state of the law. If the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had the power of granting licences for the practice of medicine, which other Universities, like London and Durham, did not
98
possess, that power ought to be conferred upon the latter Universities, and all the Universities should be placed upon the same footing. Was it advisable, however, he would ask, to introduce more anomalies into the law than existed at present? They must bear in mind that there were twenty-two different bodies in the United Kingdom which had now the power of granting licences of different descriptions. Some of these bodies had the power of conferring certain degrees, and others of granting licences; some of granting licences in particular districts, like two counties, and some in certain parts of the kingdom to the exclusion of others. Now what this Bill proposed to do was, to give the University of London the power of granting licences just in the very district that was already filled up, and not in those districts that were vacant. By the Statute of Henry VIII. power was given to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to grant licences for the practice of medicine in every part of the United Kingdom except within seven miles of the City of London; and the University of London asked by this Bill the advantages which were now possessed by Oxford and Cambridge. In other words, the University of London, which was in the centre of the metropolis, was to have power of granting licences where other licences might be given now, but took no power to grant licences within seven miles of the city of London. Surely, if the University of London was to have the power of granting licences at all, that power ought equally to extend to the metropolis. He understood that the noble Lord proposed to alter the Bill in Committee, and further to amend it with reference to a point that had been amended before—namely, the exclusion of the College of Surgeons from its provisions. He (Mr. Walpole) thought there were special grounds for excluding that college; but if the degree of any University was to be a sufficient licence to a man to practise in surgery, medicine, or physic of any kind—if such a degree was to give the power to the student to practise higher branches of the profession than that of surgery—why should the licence confer privileges in the one case which it did not confer in the other? Was the education in surgery less advantageous or less extensive in the London University than the education in medicine? On the contrary, he believed it was greater, and that it was better and more scientifically conducted than the

99
education even in reference to medicine. That being so, he was anxious not to prevent the members of the London University from having the same privileges which were now enjoyed by the members of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and he wished the House not to interpose another anomaly which would interfere with any effective legislation upon the subject. He would therefore suggest that a new Bill should be brought in next year. Rather than give these twenty-two bodies co-equal and co-ordinate authority to grant licences—instead of enabling them to run against each other so that the public had no guarantee that the qualifications they granted were good—he would recommend a law securing, in the first place, uniformity of education in the different bodies granting licences, and secondly, uniformity of qualification. There was only one way of securing these objects, and that was by letting the Universities have the power, which they now possessed, of conferring degrees in the various branches of medicine on the young men who studied there, so as to give them the opportunity of going into the world with a certificate of merit when they began their practice; and to intrust certain bodies in each of the three kingdoms with the power of saying whether or not the qualifications of these young men were of such a character and their education had been carried to such an extent that the public might have a guarantee in these licences that they might trust their health and their lives to these young men. He concurred in thinking that if the power of granting licences were left with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge it must also be given to the London University.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he wished to say a word in behalf of the University of Dublin, which he had the honour to represent. He held that all colleges which gave a sound and sufficient education, and had not now the power of legally conferring a diploma or degree, ought to have such a power granted to them. The present Bill would, however, extend the limitations contained in the Statute of Henry VIII., and continue to exclude the University of Dublin from this privilege.
MR. STRUTTsaid, that from the original foundation of the London University, the clear understanding had been that its object was to give to those persons who were not members of the Church of Eng-
100
land the same civil privileges as were possessed by the graduates of Oxford and Cambridge. That principle had been generally acted upon from that time to this, and had been recognised by every successive Government, including those of Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, and the Earl of Derby; but during the last Session of Parliament two Acts were passed—one the Lunacy Act, and the other the Vaccination Act—from which the University of London was omitted; and the consequence was, that the graduates, who had passed a more severe test as to their medical knowledge than any that was imposed by either Oxford or Cambridge, were rendered liable to heavy penalties simply for doing that which the exercise of their profession required; and in one instance he understood an action had been brought for the recovery of those penalties. Under these circumstances it had been thought desirable that a short Bill should be passed to restore persons who had graduated at the London University to the position in which they had stood for the last twenty years, and in which they would still have remained but for the passing of the two Acts to which he had alluded. He trusted that the noble Lord the Home Secretary would, in the course of next Session, bring in a Bill for the purpose of placing the medical practitioners of the three kingdoms upon an equal footing; but that was no reason for a breach of the understanding which had existed with the London University for the last twenty years, or for the rejection of the present Bill.
MR. GROGANsaid, he thought that the explanation given of the object of the Bill by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had very much altered the aspect in which this question stood. That object seemed to be to supply an omission occurring in two Acts passed last Session; but he doubted whether the introduction of a short Bill to remove that difficulty would not have been a preferable mode of proceeding.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he would submit that the question before the House was not one of medical reform, but a question of whether that House was to do an act of simple justice to the University of London, which had been constituted by Royal Charter, and intended by that Charter to have all the privileges that were conferred upon the older Universities in the country, but

101
which, for want of those privileges, had been placed in a position of undeserved inferiority.
MR. MICHELLsaid, it was rather hard upon the graduates of the University of London that they had, upon the faith of Royal Charters and Acts of Parliament, paid money for degrees which were of no use. The noble Lord the Home Secretary had postponed until next Session any legislation upon the subject of the medical profession, but no Bill would be likely to be so beneficial to the medical profession as that brought in by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady), which the noble Viscount had opposed. He would warn the noble Viscount that, if his Bill should preserve the monopoly of the College of Surgeons and the College of Physicians, they would never satisfy either the profession or the public. There were grave anomalies in the medical profession as at present constituted, and it was requisite that these should be removed for the interest of the public.
MR. BRADYsaid, this Bill had been the means of eliciting opinions in that Rouse which would give great satisfaction to the medical profession at large. There was no question more worthy the consideration of the House than that of medical reform, for he believed that, under the existing law, society was greatly injured by the anomalies which existed in reference to the medical profession. A man who took a medical degree at the University of London was considered equally competent to practise with any practitioner who obtained his diploma in any other part of the United Kingdom; and he held it would be a great hardship to the graduates of that institution if they were to be shut out from the privileges which the degrees they took there ought to confer upon them. The Bill now before the House was one which would do an immense deal of good, therefore he would have much satisfaction in voting for it going into Committee.
MR. BELLsaid, he was quite alive to the necessity of a Medical Reform Bill, but the profession was a very united one, so far as opposing and throwing out all measures for the reform of their calling. if he believed this Bill would tend to protract or postpone medical reform, he would never have promoted and taken charge of it; but he fully believed that it rather tended to advance the cause of medical reform, and he hoped the House would not
102
agree to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock's (Mr. Bouverie's) Amendment.
MR. FORBESsaid, he opposed the Motion on the ground that the Bill, while opening the door to admit one University, would close it against other medical schools, which were just as celebrated as that of the University of London.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, there was a strong opposition to the Bill in Scotland, and as one of the few Members for Scotland who supported it he wished to say that he did so because he believed it was a step in the course of medical reform, and despairing of any great measure on the subject, he would accept any advance in that direction, however small.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, he did not think it was a step towards medical reform to extend the system of allowing the position of medical men to depend upon the diplomas of the Universities.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought that a pressing case for legislation had been made, but when it was shown that honourable and learned men were liable to penalties unless this Bill should pass, were these gentlemen to wait until the profession could agree upon a Bill of medical reform, when every one admitted that the medical profession was the most quarrelsome body in the kingdom—far more quarrelsome than the lawyers themselves?
MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not entertain a very confident hope that legislation upon this subject could take place this Session; but he should vote for going into Committee, believing that the discussion would be instructive, and might help the House on the subject of medical reform.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 26: Majority 64.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
Clause 1 (Graduates in Medicine of the University of London to be entitled to practise Physic in the same manner as Graduates of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge).
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he wished to move to insert certain words in the preamble, the object of the alteration being to confer on the University of Durham the same privileges as by the present Bill were conferred upon the University of London. He saw no reason why medical students of

103
Durham University, which was established by Royal Charter, and which required them to reside some years in the University, and to pass a rigid examination before degrees were conferred on them, should not enjoy the same advantages in this respect as students of the University of London.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he thought the Committee could not but accede to the Motion; the objection to the existing law was, that it created something like a monopoly. No medical school bore a higher character than that of Durham, and it was highly desirable, considering the distance from the metropolis, that medical students in the north of England should have equal privileges conferred on them by going to a University in their own neighbourhood, as by coming to the metropolis.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, that the House, by going into Committee upon the Bill, had affirmed the propriety, as long as any difference had existed, of at least attempting to make the state of the law in each portion of the United Kingdom as perfect as possible, and it could hardly be contended that, because London was situated on the banks of the Thames, and Durham upon those of the Wear, that that was sufficient to justify a difference in principle. The Committee had heard that the degrees of medicine were not conferred until after the amplest opportunities of testing the capabilities of the student; and, indeed, it would be a most cruel thing to the community to send among them persons who were destitute of medical qualifications. He thought the Committee would do well to consent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he did not object to the Amendment, but he must complain that, if they excluded the University of Dublin from the same privileges, they would be drawing a very invidious distinction; and he thought, considering the excellence of its medical school, it would be very unfair to extend the privileges of the London and Durham Universities, and continue the present restrictions of the practice of medical graduates of the Dublin University to Ireland alone.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, the same argument would apply to Scotch Universities. He should vote for the Amendment, on the understanding that he should be at liberty to propose that every person legally qualified to practise in any part of the
104
United Kingdom should be included after the word "London."
THE CHAIRMANintimated that, by the rules of the House, such an Amendment could not be made without notice.
MR. COWANsaid, he had opposed the Bill going into Committee, not from any unfavourable opinion he had of the University of London—quite the contrary—but simply because he thought it unwise to legislate for a single institution alone. Now that the Bill had gone into Committee, he thought it only fair and reasonable that its provisions should be extended so as to embrace all the Universities of Scotland.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought a very good case had been made out for the addition of the University of Durham, but he apprehended that it was not competent for the Committee, at that stage of the Bill, to introduce anything in it with regard to the Scotch Universities or the University of Dublin. He was not in a condition to state to the Committee any deliberate views as to the general subject of medical reform; but he was glad to say, so far as he had been able to consider the matter, it seemed to him that no measure of medical reform would be satisfactory to the country that did not place the medical degrees of England, Ireland, and Scotland upon the same footing, with the view to practising in any part of, the United Kingdom. He thought an arrangement might be made, by which similar tests of qualifications might be applied to each of the three parts of the kingdom, and by which a medical or a surgical man, having submitted to those tests, on going to any part of the kingdom, might be furnished with a licence to practise, which licence should be coextensive to every part of the United Kingdom. If that was so, he thought it would not be desirable to deal with that question piecemeal upon a Bill of this sort. He should endeavour to deal with it when he introduced a general measure, but it seemed to him that it would be sufficient upon the present occasion to act upon the instructions already given by the House. They would only incumber and embarrass their proceedings if they were now to discuss the right of medical men qualified in one part of the kingdom to practise in every other part.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he would beg to ask what in that case was the object of this Bill?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that by the accidental operation of an Act passed last year, persons who had taken medical degrees at the University of London were subjected to penalties which it was never intended they should be liable to, and it was therefore proposed to pass this Bill, to replace them in the position in which they had previously stood.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, nothing more applied to the students of the London University by the measure of last year than applied to them before. He supposed the noble Lord alluded to the interpretation clause of that Act, by which certain persons not qualified by law could not practise, and as long as the law remained what it was, they could not qualify. He thought the anomalies which he had already pointed out would be largely increased by this Bill. It had been said that a monopoly had been enjoyed by Oxford and Cambridge, which was to be taken from them and given to the University of London. He believed that six medical degrees were not conferred by those Universities during the course of the year; but they were going to give privileges to the London and Durham Universities which they denied to Dublin and Scotland. He must say, the more they advanced with this Bill the more he saw the impropriety of proceeding with it, unless those privileges were to be extended to the whole kingdom.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was the interpretation clause to which he alluded, and he apprehended that the present Bill was introduced to relieve medical graduates of the University of London from the penalties under that Act.
MR. NAPIERsaid, the noble Lord was doing more than curing a defect. The noble Lord would put other Universities—Dublin University especially—in an inferior position.
MR. THORNELYsaid, he was prepared to support any measure of general reform which should give to the University of London similar privileges in respect to medical graduates to those conferred on Oxford and Cambridge; but they ought not to confer them on the University of London without doing away with the anomalies in other parts of the kingdom.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he was prepared to put all Universities on the same footing, but not to give privileges to the London University until the anomalous position of other Universities was remedied.
MR. COWANsaid, that the object to which the noble Lord had referred was provided for by the second clause, which exempted the licentiates of the London University from the penalties to which they were supposed to be made liable by recent legislation with respect to lunatics and vaccination. He would now move that the Chairman should report progress, in order that, when the House resumed, he might move an instruction to the Committee to include the Scotch Universities in the operation of this measure.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he considered it was a matter of good faith that the privileges should be extended to the University of London, and he thought it was not fair that hon. Gentlemen should take advantage of the forms of the House to reagitate the whole question.
LORD NAASsaid, he had voted for going into Committee on this Bill under the impression that in Committee the Irish Universities would be included in it. As, however, that could not be done in accordance with the forms of the House, he could not assent to the Bill passing through the Committee in its present form. As it now stood it would enable the graduates of the University of London to practise over the whole of the United Kingdom, while those of the Irish Universities would be confined to Ireland, and those of the Scotch Universities to Scotland. He should, therefore, vote for reporting progress, in order that the Committee might be instructed to include the Scotch and Irish Universities in the Bill.
MR. PIGOTTsaid, that, by the law, as it now stood, a licentiate of the University of Dublin could practise in Ireland, and a licentiate of the Scotch Universities in Scotland; but the licentiates of the University of London could not practise in England. The object of the present Bill was to abolish this injustice.
MR. BELLsaid, medical men who had graduated in Scotch and Irish Universities could practise everywhere in those countries respectively, and the object of the present measure was to enable medical students who had graduated at the London University to practise all over England, which they could not do at present.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the Bill would give a most unjust monopoly to the London University. He thought it was one of the most unfair Bills that had been proposed to the House. The Irish medical and

107
surgical practitioners only asked the same privileges as were enjoyed by their brethren in England. He trusted that this Bill would be withdrawn, in order that a general Bill, applying to all parts of the United Kingdom, might be submitted next Session.
GOULBURNsaid, that what was wanted was some general measure to secure the fitness of medical men. He feared that if, without passing such a measure, they were gradually to extend the permission to practise to the members of one body after another, such a course would very probably lead to a deterioration in the qualifications of the medical profession generally. He did not think it was expedient to extend the coveted privileges to Durham University, which did not furnish the same means of study that were afforded by the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he would suggest that it was possible to limit the operations of this Act to England. That would avoid the objections started by the Irish and Scotch Members with respect to the injustice of giving the graduates of London or Durham the privilege denied to those of the Irish and Scotch Universities, of practising all over the United Kingdom.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that unless they agreed to report progress, they could not, as justice required, extend the operation of the Bill to the Irish and Scotch Universities. No injury was practically inflicted upon Irish medical men by giving the graduates of Oxford and Cambridge the privilege of practising in Ireland, because, as there was no school of medicine in either University, the privilege really amounted to nothing. That, however, was not the case with respect to the University of London, the numerous medical graduates of which would overrun Ireland, without the Irish being able to return the compliment. It was not a bad proof that the Bill was a bad one, that both the Irish and Scotch Members were united in opposing it; for when they hunted in couples there could be little doubt that they were asserting their proper rights and privileges.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that the injustice supposed to be inflicted by this Bill upon the graduates of the Irish and Scotch Universities would be avoided by adding to the clause a proviso, "that nothing herein contained shall authorise or empower the
108
graduates of the University of London or Durham to practise in Ireland or Scotland." No one denied that it was just that the graduates of these Universities should, as far as England went, enjoy the same privileges as those of Oxford and Cambridge. That object would be attained by the addition of this proviso, which would not curtail any privileges which the graduates of the London and Durham Universities already enjoyed by other Acts. It was quite clear that if progress was reported, the measure would be altogether defeated.
MR. COWANsaid, the more they discussed the matter the more complex it became, and he should therefore press the Motion.
MR. STRUTTsaid, that the object of this Bill was simply to fulfil a pledge which was given twenty years ago to the Dissenters of England, that the graduates of the London University should be placed on the same footing as those of Oxford and Cambridge. They had been placed in a less advantageous position by the accidental operation of an Act which was passed last year, and under this grievance some 230 graduates, who bad passed a far severer examination than was imposed at the older Universities, were now labouring. The question for the Committee was, whether they would now reimpose the stigma and the exclusion which, twenty years ago, that House resolved to abolish? If they were to attempt to insert the Irish and Scotch Universities in the present Bill, it would be defeated for the present Session, at all events, for it was clear that that question could only be dealt with in a general measure.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that a great many English Dissenters went to the University of Dublin, and took degrees. Why exclude them?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, no one could feel more strongly than he did the importance of putting the medical profession upon a proper footing, that should be consistent not only with the interests of the medical profession, but also with the interests of those who were to be the subjects of those members. He thought the last consideration as fully deserving the attention of the Committee as the former; but he thought that any attempt to make this Bill effect a general reform must inevitably fail, because no one could for a moment suppose that if they were to report progress for the purpose of moving

109
an instruction to the Committee to extend the privileges to the other Universities, that such a Bill would pass into law. It would be going headlong to a conclusion without properly sounding their ground. He quite agreed that a medical degree given in one part of the kingdom ought to give the right to practise in all parts of the kingdom; but then they must establish in all places where they give degrees a uniform test, and that required some consideration. In the meantime he did not see why they should expose the graduates of the University of London to penalties. As to the notion that these graduates would invade Ireland and overrun Scotland, he thought there was sufficient nationality in those countries to protect them.
MR. COGANsaid, he hoped that the same course which bad been pursued towards most of the other measures of the Session—postponement—would be applied to this measure.
MR. BRADYsaid, he thought it was quite absurd to suppose that the graduates of London or Durham would "overrun" either Ireland or Scotland. Instead of Englishmen going to Ireland and Scotland, the fact was that Irishmen and Scotchmen came to practise in England.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that, if it was once established that the London University had a right to the privileges conferred upon its graduates by this Bill, it would be impossible, in a general measure, to refuse to extend similar privileges to the Universities of Ireland and Scotland. He believed, therefore, that the representatives of those countries were not really promoting the interests of their constituents by opposing this Bill. The only real objection to this measure would be perfectly obviated by agreeing to the proviso suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam).
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, the proviso which the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle had announced his intention of proposing had removed his objection, and he should now vote against reporting progress.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, that the Scotch and Irish Members could not gain their object under this Bill, and if the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) would undertake to bring in a measure next Session, he thought it would be better to allow this Bill to pass.
MR. MICHELLsaid, there was no school of medicine connected with the University
110
of London. The mistake into which some hon. Members had fallen on this point had arisen from the idea that the school belonging to the University College belonged in fact to the University. Another strange error had also been committed with regard to Cambridge, where it had been stated that there was no school of medicine, although in point of fact there was no better medical school in the world. And the reason was plain. On the one side of the town there was a fen, and on the other a chalk district, so that you got all the diseases there that you would meet with in your life. He had been in the profession twenty-eight years, and he had visited the schools at Vienna, Paris, Dublin, and London, but he had nowhere seen a better educational hospital than that at Cambridge. He felt bound to say this, although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had not seen fit to rise and contradict the assertion, that there was no school of medicine attached to his University.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 109: Majority 59.
The Amendment to insert after "London" the words "or Durham" was then agreed to.
MR. MICHELLmoved the insertion of words giving to the graduates the power of practising in London in the same manner as "any Fellow of the College of Physicians of London or." While this monopoly of the College of Physicians with regard. to practising in the metropolis existed no good would be done in the work of medical reform.
MR. BELLopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would open up the whole subject of medical reform in a far larger degree than the question with regard to the Scotch and Irish Universities.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 147: Majority 142.
Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining clauses.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he understood the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) to support a system of uniform education and uniform qualification in reference to the medical profession, and to say, in addition, that this uniform education and uniform qualification should be obtained through

111
the different collegiate institutions of the country, What he (Mr. Walpole) was afraid of was, that if they proceeded in that way they would get neither uniform education nor uniform qualification. The Colleges of Physicians in Dublin, London, and Edinburgh should be put upon a good footing, so that they would be respected through the country, and would be responsible for that uniformity of qualification which would constitute the test to which persons should be subjected before they were allowed to practise in different parts of the country.
The House resumed; Bill reported, as amended.

PROPERTY DISPOSAL BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE—(THIRD NIGHT).
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he had been in possession of the House when the adjournment of the discussion upon the measure had last taken place. He should not, however, avail himself of his privilege for the purpose of stating at any length the grounds upon which his opposition to that measure was based, inasmuch as he understood that it was the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) to withdraw it. He might, however, be permitted to say, that the Bill was one whose principle was in direct antagonism to the feelings and wishes of almost every Roman Catholic in Ireland, and in a declaration signed by nearly 250,000 persons it had been characterised as a mere cloak for sectarian bigotry, and as an insult to the Roman Catholic community. He was exceedingly glad that the shortness of the Session, and the discretion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, had put a stop to any further progress of this Bill.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, be wished to obtain the indulgence of the House while he stated the reasons why it was that he had come to the determination to withdraw the Bill under their notice. It would not, of course, be becoming in him to call into question a rule which had been framed by the House of Commons in its wisdom, and by which the minority were enabled to control the voice of the majority of its Members. He was of opinion, however, that it was due, as well to himself as to
112
the House, that he should state the reasons which had induced him to give up a measure which he had ventured to introduce. He could only say that he gave up that measure from necessity—from the impossibility of being enabled to carry it during the present Session, and not from any belief on his part that the question relating to the disposition of property, as embodied in the Bill, was not one with which Parliament and the country could legitimately deal. What the Bill proposed to effect had already been done in France and in other Roman Catholic countries, and he could not, therefore, justly be held liable to the charge of intolerance because he had endeavoured to place the law of England upon the same footing as that which in those countries prevailed. He had brought forward the Bill in conjunction with a proposition which had been made by an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. T. Chambers), but he thought it right to state that he had never had the honour of exchanging a word with that Gentleman until after his Motion had been made. In abandoning the Bill, he should take occasion to protest against the doctrine which was maintained by some hon. a Members in that House—that subjects such as that with which the Bill proposed to deal were subjects into which individual Members of Parliament, or even Parliament itself, must not venture to inquire. No institution in this country could escape the ordeal of submitting to investigation if the Legislature should think it expedient that that investigation should take place; and, he should add, that facts fully justified a resort to inquiry, in order that it might be ascertained whether monastic and conventual establishments were institutions in conformity with, or antagonistic to, the interests of England. The reason why he had not pressed his Bill of late was because he had entertained a hope that a case which was pending in the other House of Parliament would have relieved the House from the necessity of deciding upon the principle of his Bill, by rendering it clear whether the law with relation to the civil death of individuals was still the law of England. The case to which he referred had, however, been compromised by the payment of a sum of money, and no judicial opinion upon its merits would, of course, be pronounced. The law relating to monastic institutions was in a most unsatisfactory state, and he was, indeed, but a short-sighted politician

113
who was not aware that the question of placing it upon a sound footing was that which was uppermost in the minds of the people of England, and was a question which required, and which should receive, a speedy solution. In conclusion, he would beg to move for leave to withdraw his Bill.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he was glad the hon. and learned Gentleman had consented to withdraw a measure which could only give rise to religious squabbles, and serve to display the intolerant spirit by which hon. Members on the other side of the House were actuated. [Cries of"Order !"]
MR. NEWDEGATErose to order, on the ground that the hon. Member had already spoken on the Bill, and was proceeding to address the House, but was interrupted by
MR. F. SCULLYwho said, he begged to submit to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire having been himself already heard on the Bill, was not in order in now speaking upon it.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member for Sheffield was out of order, because he had previously spoken on the Bill, but he was not aware that the bon. Member for North Warwickshire had spoken on the question.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he must regard the objection which hon. Members opposite appeared to entertain to his being heard in the light of a compliment. He could assure those hon. Gentlemen, however, that he should not be deterred by their opposition from giving expression to his sentiments with reference to the subject under their consideration; and that even though he were to consent to be silent with respect to it, the feeling which existed in connection with it throughout the country was such as would give Parliament no rest until the question relating to monastic and conventual establishments was fairly solved, and those institutions were brought within the purview of the law of England. But to return for a moment to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield). That hon. Gentleman had ventured to accuse those who sat upon his (Mr. Newdegate's) side of the House of manifesting a spirit of intolerance, but no person, he believed, who had heard the speech which the hon. Gentleman had delivered a few nights before with respect to the Regium Donum, could fail to be of opinion that the charge of intolerance came from him with a very bad grace in-
114
deed. A more bigoted speech than that of the hon. Member on that occasion—one breathing a more intolerant spirit with reference to members of the Presbyterian religion—he had never heard. He believed, and he hoped the country would perceive, that no course could be adopted more calculated to be fatal to the interests of Protestantism, or to the maintenance of religious freedom, than that which the hon. Member for Sheffield, and those other hon. Members who were equally indiscriminate and unjust in their attacks upon their brother Protestants, upon the ground that they received State endowments, had pursued. Those hon. Members were perpetually assailing the Established Church in this country, which was the great bulwark of Protestant freedom, and they thus rendered themselves nothing more nor less than agents in the hands of those who were the advocates of the supremacy of the Church of Rome. With respect to the Bill under their notice, he wished to make a very few observations. He for one felt deeply indebted to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) for having brought his great legal ability to bear upon the question with which that Bill proposed to deal. Under the operation of the law as it at present stood in reference to that question, convents were permitted to exist; but, at the same time, the conditions upon which their existence was based—so far as those conditions related to the possession or disposition of property upon the part of their inmates—were by the law totally ignored. The law presumed that a nun was a free agent, quite as unfettered as any unmarried woman at large throughout the country. Now, the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen had upon a former occasion explained to the House in the fullest manner that the vows which were taken by a nun extended to the question of the disposal, not only of such property as she might possess at the time of her entrance into the convent, but also of all property which might subsequently accrue to her either by gift, by will, or inheritance; that this was a state of things which rendered the position of a nun wholly different from that of any other member of the community, and which made it perfectly clear that the law proceeded upon a false assumption in dealing with the nun as a free agent in the disposal of her property. Now, the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend proposed to deal with the subject as it stood, and to

115
throw upon the superioress and the other inmates of the convent the onus of proving that the nun had not been coerced with respect to the mode in which her property should be disposed of. The Bill of his hon. and learned Friend must, however, he supposed, share the fate of another attempt which had been made during the course of the present Session to deal with the anomalies of the existing law, and must be withdrawn, in deference to that persevering abuse of the forms of the House which had been put into practice by some of its Members. He should warn those hon. Members, however, that their attempt to coerce the voice of the House of Commons upon the subject—that every instance in which the Government had either tacitly or otherwise aided them in making that attempt—would merely serve the purpose of strengthening the determination of the Protestants of England that the hands of the Legislature should be set free, and that the laws of this country should be adapted to the altered relations which notoriously had subsisted between the Roman Catholic body and the State ever since the occurrence of that Papal aggression which the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill had been framed to suppress. He could tell the Roman Catholics that, if they hoped to exempt themselves from the control of the laws by resorting to the practice of coercing the voice of the House of Commons, they would fail in the attempt, for the members of the Church of England would never submit to the renewal of that ancient principle of abuse—the privilegium clericale. They were, on the contrary, determined that all religious institutions in this free country should be subject, and equally subject, to the jurisdiction of the law. In conclusion, he had merely to express his thanks to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Enniskillen for the ability and industry which he had brought to bear upon the subject with which his Bill proposed to deal.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he never would be a party to originate any religious discussion calculated to wound the feelings of any Members of that House; and, were he to use strong expressions, they would only be directed against one or two individuals who were perpetually treating the Catholic Members with insulting language. He wished the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen had simply withdrawn the Bill, without observing that he was yielding to a factious opposition. That was not
116
the fact, for the Bill had been allowed to stand over on a former occasion because the hon. and learned Member was absent from the House, being more profitably employed elsewhere. However, he congratulated the hon. and learned Gentleman that on this day, the 12th of July, the hon. and learned Gentleman was doing an act of charity.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.

JURORS AND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) who had introduced the Bill would consent to its being withdrawn for the present Session. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had taken the subject of the constitution of juries in Ireland into his consideration, and had already almost fully prepared a Bill upon that subject. If the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would consent to withdraw his Bill, the Attorney General would bring in the measure to which he (Sir J. Young) had just referred at the commencement of next Session.
MR. WHITE SIDEsaid, that the course which the right hon. Baronet proposed for his adoption was one of an extraordinary—perhaps, with the example of the Government before him, he should rather say of an ordinary—character. The right hon. Baronet and himself had been Members of a Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the prevalence of crime and outrage in Ireland, and before whom a great deal of very valuable testimony had been laid. That Committee had agreed to a Resolution to the effect that they had ascertained from the evidence which had been adduced that the present system of preparing the jury list in Ireland was radically wrong, and that the jurors' book should be made up of a list of all persons rated under the Poor Law valuation at a sum afterwards to be fixed. A second Resolution, to the effect that one and the same jury panel should answer in civil as well as criminal cases, had also been agreed to by the Committee. Now, that being the case, he could not understand why the right hon. Baronet, a Member of the Committee by whom these Resolutions had been framed, should en

117
deavour to impede the progress of a Bill which aimed at the reform of a system which he knew to be radically defective. He could account for the course which the right hon. Baronet deemed it advisable to take only upon the supposition that the Government, having made no attempt themselves to remedy the evils of that system, were determined to obstruct the efforts of those who sought to amend the existing law. If the Attorney General had informed him before he introduced his Bill that it was the intention of the Government to deal with the question of the constitution of juries in Ireland he certainly should not have ventured to meddle with the subject. No such announcement, however, had been made upon the part of Her Majesty's Ministers, nor did he believe that they had at the time the slightest intention of taking the matter into consideration with a view to immediate legislation. Under those circumstances he had endeavoured to frame a measure, against whose provisions he had heard no valid objection urged, but which the right hon. Baronet now asked him to withdraw. In that measure he proposed to make the qualification for a juror dependent—not upon the choice of the sub-sheriff or the sub-sheriff's clerk—but upon the intelligence of the individual himself, and the amount of property which he possessed. The Attorney General for Ireland—of whom he should not speak as approving of the Bill—had told him that in his opinion a man possessed of a freehold to the value of from 20 l. to 50 l. ought to be eligible to serve on a jury; and he (Mr. Whiteside) had proposed that a man who was rated under the Poor Law at 30 l. should be competent to act as a juryman in all cases, whether civil or criminal. Those who at present were selected to act as jurors in criminal cases were of a class inferior to those who served in civil cases, and he had deemed it to be advisable that the qualification should in both instances be the same. Such were some of the principal improvements which the Bill was intended to effect. It was extremely desirable that some alteration in the mode of empannelling juries in Ireland should speedily be made, and he must confess that he did not feel that confidence in the promise which the right hon. Baronet had made which would induce him to entertain any very sanguine expectation that Her Majesty's Ministers would deal immediately and effectively with that subject.
118
He feared that the contemplated measure would be, like so many of its predecessors, an abortion. For his own part he could only say that he had done his duty, and it would rest with Her Majesty's Government to cast aside the Bill upon their own responsibility.
MR. KEOGHsaid, his right hon. Friend near him bad informed the House that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill next Session for the purpose of amending the law relating to the qualifications of jurors in Ireland. To that intimation upon the part of his right hon. Friend the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had replied in a tone which—when he considered the quarter from which it came—he felt to be in accordance with the hon. and learned Gentleman's ordinary mode of proceeding. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the Report of the Committee upon crime and outrage in Ireland, and had called the attention of the House to a Resolution which bad been adopted by that Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman had gone further, and had stated that he had framed his Bill in accordance with the terms of that Resolution. Now he (Mr. Keogh), too, had had the honour of sitting upon the Committee in question, and he felt himself compelled to state that the provisions of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill were drawn up in direct contradiction to the Resolution of that Committee. That Resolution was to the effect that the names of the jurors should be taken from the rate list as kept under the operation of the Poor Law, and not, as the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed, from the list of Parliamentary voters. The hon. and learned Gentleman was well aware that there existed the greatest distinction between the two lists, and that the number upon the Parliamentary voters' list bore only the proportion of one to seven to the number upon the list of rated occupiers. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be also aware that, under the operation of his Bill, any man might disqualify himself from serving upon a jury by not paying his rates within a particular day, and thus disqualifying himself from being placed upon the list of Parliamentary voters. He was perfectly ready to admit that the law required amendment, but he felt persuaded that the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not one by which that object could be effected. Such was the opinion

119
of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, Baron Lefroy, an able and impartial judge, and one who could not be supposed to have any political bias in favour of the present Administration. That learned Judge had, in a letter to his right hon. Friend near him (Sir J. Young), protested, in the most distinct terms, against the enactment of the measure under the notice of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also stated that he had had some communication with the Attorney General for Ireland upon the subject of his Bill, and he (Mr. Keogh) could not understand why his learned friend's name had been introduced, unless it were for the purpose of showing that he entertained opinions favourable to the measure.
MR. WHITE SIDEsaid, he had not at all meant to lead the House to suppose that the Attorney General for Ireland approved of the Bill.
MR. KEOGHsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to a communication which he had received from his learned friend upon the subject. In that communication his learned friend stated, that in his opinion cases would frequently arise for which there was no clause whatever in the Bill to provide. He also added that there was at the moment at which he wrote a cause pending in the Court of Queen's Bench, which it was supposed the 43rd section of the Bill would meet, but he could only say that that section was a disgrace to our legislation, and could only lead to eternal litigation. On referring to Hansard, he found that a similar provision had been strenuously opposed by the Duke of Wellington. But the members of the legal profession in Ireland were not the only persons opposed to the passing of the Bill under their consideration. He had received a communication from the secretary of the Chamber of Commerce in Dublin, conveying a Resolution which had been passed by that body, and which was to the effect that, if the Bill were to pass into law, it would be productive of great public inconvenience. It had also been condemned by the Corporation of the city of Dublin, and by the sheriffs of the counties of Leitrim and Kilkenny. When the hon. and learned Gentleman introduced his Bill, he (Mr. Keogh) had stated that in his opinion no measure could with safety be passed upon the subject with which it proposed to deal until the necessary returns had been obtained from the Poor Law Board. Those returns had not yet been
120
published, but they were in progress, and would, he hoped, soon be laid upon the table of the House. If the hon. and learned Gentleman should then withdraw his Bill, he would only be acting in conformity with the opinions expressed on the matter to which it related by the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin, by the Corporation of Dublin, and by the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and by the Attorney General for Ireland; and when the Government recommended the adoption of the same course, the hon. and learned Gentleman had no right to charge them with any unfair or factious opposition to this measure, and still less had he any right to say that, although they had stated that it had been their intention to have introduced a Bill upon that subject, they, in reality, had entertained no such intention.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he must express his decided disapproval of the Bill. It would reduce to a most unreasonable and inconvenient extent the number of persons liable to be placed on the jury lists in Ireland.
MR.VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that considering there was not sufficient time to discuss the measure in the present Session, he should move an Amendment to postpone the second reading to that day three months. The whole machinery of drawing juries in Ireland required remodelling, in order to assimilate it to the system that prevailed in this country.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
M'MAHONsaid, he wished that a measure should be introduced upon the subject, which would extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) was rather hardly dealt with in the matter. On the occasion of the second reading of the Bill, the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Attorney General for England and the Solicitor General for Ireland had expressed their approval of its object and of its main provisions, and yet the Government turned round upon his hon. and learned Friend in the course of the progress of the measure, for the purpose of preventing him from proceeding with it. It appeared to him (Mr.

121
Napier) that his hon. and learned Friend ought to be allowed to complete the work which he had so honourably and successfully begun, and that it ought not to be taken out of his hands by the Government.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he must beg to state that, on the second reading of the Bill, he told the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was not his intention to support the measure, and since that time he had received several communications from parties, assigning reasons why the Bill should not pass in its present shape.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he had no recollection of any such statements having been made on the second reading as the right hon. Gentleman bad just mentioned.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he thought that sufficient reason for the withdrawal of the Bill was to be found in the fact that the country had not had an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. He thought that this was a question which ought to be left to the Government, and that the public had a right to complain that neither the present nor the late Government had taken any step to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on this subject.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he would suggest that, in any measure to be brought in by Government for the reformation of the jury system in Ireland, its provisions should not be confined to mere nisi prius juries, but should be extended to grand juries, the grand jury system in Ireland requiring as much reformation as the other branch.
LORD NAASsaid, that the late Government had made considerable progress in the preparation of a Bill to deal with that subject. They could not have brought forward a measure founded on the Report of the Committee which had inquired into the question during the Session in which they had been in office, as that Report had not been produced until the beginning of the mouth of June, and as the Session had been brought to a close in the beginning of the month of July.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
Words added:—Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill put off for three months.
The House adjourned at two minutes before Six o'clock.