Sitting of 16 June 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3° Customs Duties (Sugar); Ecclesiastical Courts.

VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read. House in Committee, Mr. BOUVEME in the Chair.
Postponed clauses brought forward. Clause 2.
MR. W. LOCKHARTsaid, he wished to have some explanation of the numerous Amendments of which the Lord Advocate had given notice—whether they would affect the clauses now to be considered, or what influence they would have upon the general scope of the Bill. This was the third time that the Bill had been in Committee. About 150 Amendments had been proposed before this last batch, which he had taken the trouble to count, and which were no fewer than sixty-two.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he must decline to make any statement with reference to the Amendments generally, until the postponed clauses had been disposed of. It was true, no doubt, that several Amendments had been made—and made very properly—for the measure was one of great practical importance, and dealt with a great many practical matters. The Bill was intended to provide a valuation of the land of the country, and every clause, therefore, ought to be well weighed. He could assure the hon. Member that ample opportunity would be given to consider all the Amendments that were proposed.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 14 (New qualification for Commissioners of Supply).
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he would propose to omit certain words which provided that with reference to the qualification of Commissioners of Supply under the Act, house property should be estimated at only half its annual value. He could see no reason why the house proprietor should not be placed upon the same footing as the proprietor of land, or why a property of 1,000 l. or 100 l. a year in houses should be only equal to 500 l., or to 50 l. a year, in land.
Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 22, to leave out the words—

255
"Provided always, That, with reference only to the qualification of Commissioners of Supply under this Act, the yearly rent or value of houses and other buildings, not being farmhouses, or offices, or other agricultural buildings, shall be estimated at only one-half of their actual yearly rent or value, in terms of this Act."
MR. E. ELLICEsaid, he thought the proviso had reference to a part of the Bill which had been struck out, and therefore the reason for a difference between landed and house property ceased to exist.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, this clause was to extend the qualification by giving it to property never before qualified. It would be scarcely fair to say parties possessing property worth only twelve or fifteen years' purchase should be in the same position as others possessing property worth thirty years' purchase. That house property brought less than real property was a fact, and therefore there could be nothing offensive in the proviso.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the principle of the Reform Bill was that 10 l. rent in towns should be equal to 50 l. rent in the county. If all who were qualified would be Commissioners of Supply, there might be some force in the objection to the introduction of so large a body; but that was not so; and as 100 l. a year rent in a town was taxed as much as 100 l. a year rent in the country, he should divide against the proviso.
MR. DUNCANsaid, he also considered the proviso very unfair towards the owners of house property. if that property was to be taxed to the full amount of its annual value, the privilege should be granted to the full amount, and not limited to one-half.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, that giving the privilege to houses worth 200 l. a year would only let in one or two persons in a county. As houses and lands were taxed equally, the fair and handsome thing was to treat them equally.
MR. ELLIOTTsaid, he should vote for the omission of the proviso. The distinction made between farm-houses and other houses appeared to him inexplicable.
MR. CHRISTOPHERsaid, that all farm buildings formed part of the farm, and were necessary for its cultivation. With regard to the Amendment proposed, he should vote against it, because he thought the whole clause was drawn upon a fair system of representation.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 28: Majority 11.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 29.
MR. SMOLLETTsaid, it was worthy of serious consideration whether the production of title should be dispensed with, and whether provision should not be made that a person ceasing to be on the valuation roll should also cease to appear on the register of voters.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the names of parties appearing on the valuation roll was to be primâ facie proof of title. The result would be to simplify very much the expense of registration, because in nine cases out of ten the proprietorship might be reasonably presumed from the payment of assessment; and if the title were questioned, the opponent would have to show a probable case for the decision of the sheriff. His own inclination was to carry the principle still further, believing the valuation roll was the best means of deciding who was entitled to the franchise.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, he thought it wrong to call upon the objector to disprove ownership. Would it not be better to require that if the title were challenged it should be produced?
Clause agreed to.
Clause 36 (Interpretation clause).
MR. DUNLOPsaid, he wished to move the insertion of the words "feu duties and ground annuals." With the permission of the Committee, he would briefly state the nature of these feudal tenures in Scotland. The person who granted the feu and the person who took it were both proprietors, both being infeoffed in the land, and there were cases in which the proprietors of feu duties, in the neighbourhood of large towns, derived revenues of 2,000 l., 3,000 l., and even 10,000 l. a year from them. In one case, in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, the income from this source was as much as 25,000 l. a year. In point of principle there was no reason whatever why the owner of the land, the superior who owned the land, and who derived what was substantially a rental from it, should not pay upon the rental which he so received his fair proportion of the tax, where there was no contract to the contrary. He would just put a case, by way of illustration. Some proprietors, who could not grant fens, granted building leases. Now, supposing a proprietor to grant building leases, say for ninety-nine years, at a rental of 50 l.

257
per acre; another proprietor granted feus upon the same terms. The fetter and the lessee both build upon the land houses of equal value. Under all the late Statutes, they would be held to be owners of the land with respect to the franchise and the payment of prison rates and poor rates; but if this interpretation clause should pass in its present form, the result would be that the lessee who drew 200 l. a year from his house, out of which he paid 50 l. to the landlord, would be rated only upon the 150 l. which he retained; while the fetter, who received and paid precisely similar amounts, would be rated on the whole 200 l. In the case of the lessee, the over landlord would pay upon the 50 l. which he received; in the case of the fetter, the oven-landlord would not be rated at all to the extent of a single penny. Now he thought there was no justification for making this great distinction between cases which were perfectly analogous—which differed from each other in no respect whatever, except in the mere technical matter of title. Where there was a contract, a stipulation in the feu charter, that the tenant should pay the whole, of course he would not interfere with it; but where there was no contract, he thought that those who were substantially in the same circumstances should be placed upon the same footing. It was objected to this proposal that this was a Valuation Bill, and was not intended to alter the law; but even if it were tree that his Amendment would alter the law, he would remind the Committee that this very clause proposed to rate manse and glebe houses which had been judicially decided to be exempt. The exemption of clergymen upon their stipends had been already done away; and the exemption formerly enjoyed by his (Mr. Dunlop's) own profession, and by Queen's tradesmen, had also been abolished; and certainly the great aristocracy, who generally received these feu dues, ought not to retain an exemption which they were doing away with in every other case. But what he contended was, that this Amendment would not change the law; for it had been judicially decided and acquiesced in, that feu duties were liable to prison rates; and the judgment of Lord Mackenzie, which had been relied upon on the other side, did not go the length of deciding that on legal principles such duties Were not liable to be rated. The clause, as it now stood, would confer upon them an exemption with respect to prison
258
rates, which they did not now enjoy. Then, the question had an important bearing as regarded the franchise. At present, a man claiming in respect of feu duties could be enrolled as a voter, but the Bill would have the effect of disfranchising this very large class; while, on the other hand, if the feu duty was not to be deducted, say from a 10 l. qualification, the effect might be to let in persons with houses of only 8l. rent. That might or might not be a good change, but it ought not certainly to be confined to this class of voters. He contended, therefore, that there should be no exemption of the great over-lords, but that every man should be called on to pay according to the interest he had in the land.
Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 21, after the word "teinds," to insert the words "fen duties, ground annuals."
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the effect of introducing feu duties into the clause would be, that all the public burdens laid on real rents would be proportionately laid on the proprietors of the feu duties. That was the result at which the hon. and learned Member aimed, but he left out of sight that the feu duties were daily dealt with on the ground that they were exempt from public burdens. When parties bought feu duties, they bought them without any deduction on the ground of those burdens; but when parties bought land they bought it with a deduction on that account. Therefore they could not interfere with feu duties without interfering with the general understanding on which they were bought and sold. The public had no interest in the question; the property was already assessed, and the only result would be to place burdens on parties who had stipulated to be relieved from them, and to relieve those who were under obligation to pay them.
MR. FERGUSsaid, he should be sorry to interfere with anything established by law, but it was merely a custom to which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had alluded. He should support the Amendment.
After a brief discussion, in the course of which Mr. COWAN, Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART, Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR, and Mr. DUNCAN supported the Amendment, and Mr. SMOLLETT, Sir GEORGE MONTGOMERY, Mr. CHRISTOPHER, Mr. LOCKHART, and Sir ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL resisted it.
MR. DUNLOP, in reply, said, it was his intention to divide the Committee, because the exemption clauses in some charters

259
implied the general understanding that without such a provision feu duties were liable to assessment, and that without his Amendment feu duties in some parts of Scotland would actually be relieved from the payment of prison rates at present levied on them.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 61: Majority 42.
COLONEL BLAIRsaid, he wished to move to strike out the words "manses and glebes" from the interpretation clause. By the present law the ministers in Scotland were not assessed on their manses and glebes, and he might state, that when the present Poor Law for Scotland came in force, it was attempted to do so, but the Court of Session and House of Lords decided to the contrary. He begged to state, for the information of English Members, that the average stipends of Scotch ministers did not exceed from 200 l. to 250 l. per annum, and he could see no reason why they were to be assessed in the manner proposed. Every one knew in large parishes the claims made on them for charity, and though the rate might not be large, it would be a serious tax on them. At any rate they ought not to be rated as owners, but as tenants, and, as such, only pay one-half. He begged to state that he included in this proposition, not only the ministers of the Establishment, but those of all denominations.
MR. E. ELLICEsaid, as the exemptions in respect to the stipends of clergymen had been abolished, it had been thought only fair that incomes derived from other sources than stipends should be placed on the same footing.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could add but little to the answer made by his hon. Friend. If stipends were to pay, he could not see why a clergyman whose main source of income was a large glebe should be exempt.
MR. FORBESsaid, he was of opinion that, after the vote just come to with respect to feu duties, they ought not to lay a new tax upon the small incomes of the clergy.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, they had just refused to place the great proprietors on the footing of being assessed on their feu duties, and now they had poor clergymen included in the assessment. He thought it was a fair principle to tax them all, yet the Committee had refused to tax the
260
great proprietors, whose case was, to say the least, a doubtful one in point of law, while they included clergymen, whose claim for exemption legal decisions had put beyond doubt.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would be very happy to acquiesce, if the general sense of the Committee should be in favour of continuing the exemption.
MR. E. ELLICEsaid, if the exemption were to be continued, and strict justice to be done, the liability which now existed with respect to stipends ought to be abolished.
THE LORD ADVOCATEpromised to consider the question in the course of the future progress of the Bill.
MR. DUNCANsaid, he wished to strike out, after the word "forests," the words "except where the said shootings and deer forests are actually let." He saw no reason why the proprietors of these shootings, which were valuable properties, if they choose, instead of letting them, to keep them for their own gratification, should escape paying their fair proportion of taxation; at all events, if they were, let the owners of Louse property be placed in the same position.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would take that opportunity of stating what he proposed to do with the Bill. The amendments, though numerous, were, for the most part, merely verbal, and called for no special remark; but he wished hon. Gentlemen to consider, before they took up the Bill again, what was to be done with reference to the Court of Appeal. The provision at present in the Bill was introduced in compliance with the wish of a very large and numerous meeting of the Scotch Members; but he had no strong feeling on the subject; and if there was a general feeling in favour of an alteration, he should put no obstruction in the way. With respect to the shootings he thought the provision in the Bill was a fair one. If they were let, they paid; if they were not let, they paid upon their agricultural value.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, he thought the case might be put even more strongly than the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Duncan) had put it; because, when a house was unlet, the proprietor obtained no benefit from it; but, though a forest should not be let, the proprietor could always enjoy the privilege of shooting over it himself.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
House resumed; Committee report progress.

KINGSTOWN HARBOUR—QUESTION.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Secretary of the Treasury whether he intended to propose the Vote for Kingstown Harbour in its present form, and when the Packet Service Estimates would be laid on the table of the House?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, with respect to Kingstown Harbour it was quite true that he had consented to postpone the Vote, which had been before the House upon a former night; and the reason why he had postponed it was his want of knowledge of the existence of a Report, which had been referred to by his hon. Friend, as having been made by Mr. Rendel to the Treasury with reference to that harbour. It turned out, as he had suspected at the time, that Mr. Rendel had made no Report to the Treasury, and had received no communication from the Treasury upon the subject; but he had been consulted by the Board of Works in Ireland, and he made a Report to them. He admitted that that Report ought to have been communicated to the Treasury, and that it was inconvenient that the Treasury should have been without it; but he had since seen the chairman of the Board of Works, and had had Mr. Rendel's Report, and he was bound to say that, upon reading it, it seemed to him that what they were doing at Kingstown was not that which was best calculated for the ultimate advantage of the harbour. The Report, therefore, had been referred back to Mr. Rendel, with a request that he would reconsider the whole question of the harbour, and with a view to the adoption of the plans suggested in his first Report. It was his intention to propose the Vote in its present form, because it would be equally applicable in that form to any plan which it might be ultimately determined to carry out. With respect to the Packet Service Estimates, he hoped they would be on the table in the course of a few days.

THE LOSS OF THE "EUROPA— QUESTION.
VISCOUNT JOCELYNsaid, seeing the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place, he would take the opportunity of asking whether any information had been received by the Goverment with respect to the loss of the Europa?
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Sir, I grieve
262
to say that I received, this morning, a Report from Captain Carnegie, with reference to the loss of the Europa, which confirms the melancholy fact that that ship has been burnt on her passage to Gibraltar. A statement with respect to it will be sent by the Admiralty to the press, so that it may be communicated to the public in full detail, this evening. I believe the short statement of the facts is this, that, I think on the morning of the 1st of June, Captain Carnegie observed smoke in the offing, which, on further investigation, led him to believe that a ship was on fire. He bore down immediately towards the wreck, and found the vessel deserted, burnt to the water's edge, and not a living person on board. Having endeavoured, by sailing round the wreck, to see if any boats could be discovered, and finding none, he came to the conclusion that the crew had escaped, and had been taken on board some vessel, and he ultimately, not without anxiety, left the wreck. I think it was two days after that time that he was boarded by another ship, which communicated to him the fact that, On the night preceding the morning when he had seen the fire, they had been in the immediate neighbourhood of the Europe—that a portion of the crew had made their escape from the burning wreck to that ship, and that another portion had also made their escape to another ship, which was then in the offing; and on the whole, I think, out of the number of persons on board the Europa, amounting to eighty-seven, of whom fifty were soldiers and thirty-one sailors, the crew and officers of the ship, twenty-one, unhappily lost their lives. The House will be grieved to hear that among the officers who have not survived was Colonel Moore, the commander of the Enniskillens, who refused to leave the burning ship while a single private remained on board. He was, unhappily, too late at last to effect Ids own escape, and his life has consequently been lost. Colonel Moore and the assistant veterinary surgeon are the officers who have been lost, and there are six non-commissioned officers, and I think twelve or fourteen men, who have also unfortunately perished. The circumstances which gave rise to the fire are still doubtful; but a full investigation into the cause of it will take place at Gibraltar. I should be neglecting my duty if I did not also say that there are circumstances with respect to the conduct of the sailors on the occasion which are highly unsatisfactory. The whole of the officers of the

263
transport and all the sailors made their escape immediately after the Commencement of the fire, and had not, in my opinion, used sufficient diligence in their exertions to preserve the vessel. I ought, however, to make an exception in favour of the captain of the transport, who remained until the very last, as did the carpenter and one sailor; but with these exceptions I am sorry to say the conduct of the sailors does not appear to me to have been satisfactory. A strict investigation, however, into the cause of the fire will be made at Gibraltar, and what information the Government may obtain upon the subject will be published.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he had any idea of the cause of the loss of life? Did he suppose it arose from the insufficiency of boats? And, more particularly, he was anxious to ask, whether Sir Baldwin Walker, in the month of March in the present year, had made a Report to the Board of Admiralty of the advantage of supplying troop ships and emigrant ships with a certain class of boats, and whether the right hon. Baronet had any objection to lay that Report on the table of the House?
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: I am not aware, Sir, of the particular Report of Sir Baldwin Walker to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he will give notice of a Motion to lay it on the table of the House, I shall feel it my duty to give my immediate attention to the subject; and if I do do not find it objectionable upon public grounds, which in that case I shall state to the House, I shall be ready to assent to its production. I have great pleasure, however, in stating to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, that the very precautions which he thinks necessary, and which he says Sir Baldwin Walker has recommended, had been taken in the case of the Europa. She had been provided with boats of the description to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. And there were also safety-lamps especially supplied to this transport as a precaution against fire. The vessel, before she sailed, had been examined by Lieutenant General Sir Harry Smith, who thought that the magazine was imperfectly constructed; and in consequence of that the officers of the Board of Ordnance were called in to reconstruct it. The magazine was taken down and rebuilt at Plymouth, and all the precautions which are taken with respect to the
264
magazine of a ship of war were taken with respect to the magazine of this vessel. Every arrangement was made which Sir Harry Smith and the officers of the Board of Ordnance thought necessary.

THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order for Committee read. House in Committee.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he proposed to insert, after the words "it shall be lawful for any College, and for the Trustees, Governors, and Patrons of any University or College emolument," "and for any other person or persons." He also had next an Amendment to propose in line 17. The clause declared that every petition against any objectionable ordinances or regulations on the part of any college, &c., should he referred "for the consideration and advice of five Members of Her Majesty's Privy Council," to be named in the order of reference. Now he proposed to insert after "Members" the words "of the Judicial Committee," and add at the end of the clause, "and may make such orders with respect to the payment of the costs thereof as they shall deem just." Now the object of his second Amendment was, to give the tribunal which would have to decide upon the allegations contained in such petitions something of a judicial character, for, as organised according to the five members of the Privy Council might be selected merely on account of their political bias, and with the view of determinating the point at issue in accordance with the wishes of the Government of the day.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was very sorry he could not assent to the Amendment of his hon. Friend, but he must regard it as embodying a material bearing on the clause for the worse. It was quite a mistake to imagine that Government desired to have all such questions tried according to the rules and principles enforced in a court of equity. The intention was to invest the tribunal with a much larger scope than that of the Court of Chancery.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, his object was to ensure in all cases the selection of five persons of judicial habits.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he hoped the hon. Baronet would press his Amendment. It was most monstrous that the rights and privileges of so large a por-

265
tion of the University should be placed so entirely in the power of the Crown. It was most essential that the persons to adjudicate on such matters should be persons habituated to consider questions of jurisprudence.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must defend the proposed arrangement as being no innovation; but, on the contrary, as being quite in accordance with the constitutional practice.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, the question before the Committee was, whether it was not desirable to have a guarantee that the five members to be selected should not be chosen from mere party considerations. He contended that at least three, if not four, members, should be selected from the Judicial Committee, if not the whole five.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be to exclude from the possibility of being members of the tribunal such members of the Privy Council as the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, as well as the Bishop of London, the very persons of all others whom it was most desirable to see presiding as judges on such occasions. And he would also remind the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Heathcote) that the clause did not exclude the members of the Judicial Committee from being selected; it only enlarged the sphere of election.
MR. HENLEYsaid, when he had to decide between a question of convenience and inconvenience, his choice was determined by a reference to the public interests. Now he confessed he was one of those who had very great confidence in a certain number of those from whom these five gentlemen were appointed to be selected. But as their appointment devolved on the Minister of the day—no matter what might be their fitness—no matter what the justice of their decision, it could never, under such circumstances, have that weight with the public to which an impartial tribunal was entitled; and it should be remembered that the nature of the tribunal from which it emanated would enter as a very large element into the consideration how far weight was to be attached to the decision. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to remember that they were now appointing a tribunal to deal, not with mere accidental questions, but were constituting one, under an Act of Parliament, which would have large and important matters to decide on.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he
266
was sensible of the great advantage to be derived from an infusion of the lay as well as judicial element in such a tribunal; but perhaps he could meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen by consenting, on the part of the Government, that two out of the five members should be members of the Judicial Committee.
MR. G. BUTT: Let there be three.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was unable to determine what the hon. Baronet the Member for the University (Sir W. Heathcote) thought of the suggestion just announced; but for himself he must say it was not altogether to his satisfaction, and his first objection was, that although they had in this right of appeal a check upon the powers of altering the Statutes of the college, yet they had no guarantee that the tribunal to which the appeal was to be made would be all impartial one. Now, he thought that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had no right to quarrel with them if they on that side of the House were a little jealous with regard to the alterations in the Bill. For the noble Lord could not forget the circumstances under which some of these alterations bad been brought forward. He could not forget that the Bill contained important provisions, to the extent of destroying, in many cases, the intentions of founders, and doing away with the preferences to which particular localities were entitled—provisions with respect to which a large party in that House entertained most serious objections. And so objectionable were those provisions held to be, that it was quite clear, by the decision since come to by Her Majesty's Government, that they anticipated the possibility of an adverse vote with respect to at least some of them. Apprehending such results, they had withdrawn some objectionable clauses, and had substituted for a compulsory enactment an authority leaving it open to the colleges to make certain changes for themselves. Still those clauses had been drawn with a degree of ambiguity which seemed most open to their intentions being suspected. Last night they had had a great deal of discussion as to the 31st clause, and the Government rejected a most moderate Amendment brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), still insisting upon a form of words which rendered it a matter of surmise that they intended to effort indirectly what was adjudged by hon. Gentlemen to be so objectionable. Two inquiries were also addressed to the Go-

267
vernment, first, as to whether two-thirds of the whole governing body, or whether only two-thirds of that proportion of it which was present, should be required to reject an ordinance of the Commissioners; and the second was, what was to be the constitution of the governing body? The answer to the first question was, that it was to be two-thirds of the whole body, thereby reducing the number to nearly three-fourths of those present, and proportionately diminishing the value of the check. They were now, however, on the subject of those checks or securities, and it seemed to him that as the Bill stood, it might be completely frittered away if it was open to the Government to appoint men merely from political considerations. If even two members of the Committee were members of the Judicial Committee, that would still leave the appointment of the majority of them in the hands of the Government, which was what was to be avoided. As for the argument that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be excluded from the Committee, it would surely be open to the Government to appoint him as one of the two members whom it would be in their power to appoint.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, he trusted the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Heathcote) would accept the offer of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. It would be most unwise to exclude from the possibility of sitting on the Committee sonic of those parties who would be best able to decide the questions which would arise, and, above all, it would be most unwise to exclude the President of the Council for the time being.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he was of opinion that the tribunal should consist of three members of the Judicial Committee at least.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the clause gave power to the tribunal to alter all the trusts under which property was held. He could not conceive any question more strictly within the province of a judicial tribunal, and was decidedly of opinion that the majority should consist of judicial members.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, considering the nature of the questions likely to arise, he thought it most desirable that the tribunal should contain three members of the Judicial Committee, in order to ensure the attendance of two of the Judges.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he was willing to have the clause altered, so that
268
the tribunal might contain two members of the Judicial Committee, of whom the Lord President should not be one. This would leave it open to Her Majesty to appoint the Lord President, if she thought proper, so that he might act with two members of the Judicial Committee.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he understood that the noble Lord was willing to consent to this arrangement—that of the five members of the tribunal two should be of the Judicial Committee exclusive of the Lord President of the Council; and that of the remaining three the Lord President might or might not be a member according to the convenience of the Government. Should the Lord President serve, there would then be three members of the Judicial Committee. With that arrangement he was content. There was, however, another point that he wished to bring before the Committee. In order to provide against any inconvenience which might arise from letting in persons as appellants, he would propose at the end of the clause to insert the following words—"and may make such orders with respect to the payment of the costs thereof as they shall deem just."
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the words proposed by the hon. Baronet would raise the question as to whether the Commissioners had the power of decreeing costs out of the estates of the colleges. The whole question of costs would be reserved for the present, and he therefore wished the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Amendment.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, the power he had in view was one to be exercised chiefly against the appellants that had been let in. It seemed reasonable, if persons were allowed to raise questions before the Privy Council on a mere allegation of interest, that some penalty by way of costs should be created if they raised those questions without sufficient ground. As, however, the whole question of costs was to stand over, he had no objection to withdraw the Amendment.
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also Clauses 35 and 36.
Clause 37 (Commissioners, in exercising said powers, to have regard to reasonable design of College).
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he wished to propose the insertion of words to prevent the Commissioners appropriating any portion of the durable revenues of any college to the establishment of the

269
professoriate of the University (as contemplated by the clause), unless the same was in accordance with the main objects of the foundation.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would submit that the limitations imposed by this clause were sufficient as they stood, it distinctly directing that the funds of the college should be applied in the first instance to the full satisfaction of its wants, and after that they might be applied to purposes in the benefits of which the University should have a share; and it was unnecessary to say, "in cases where they shall be in accordance with the objects of the foundation," inasmuch as there could be no doubt that lectureships and professorships were in accordance with the foundation, unless it necessitated an abstraction from that sum which the college required for its exclusive purposes.
Amendment withdrawn.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was of opinion that the security referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was insufficient. At the same time he wished to call attention to the fact that this clause contained the words, "science and letters," instead of "religion and learning," which, though at first omitted from the Bill, had, with the consent of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, been inserted in a previous clause.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the words "science and letters" were introduced into that clause in reference to the word "professoriate" in the same clause; but, if it would give satisfaction, there could be no objection to introduce the words suggested by the right hon. Member.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsuggested, after the words "science and letters," there should be introduced, "and for the advancement of religion and learning."
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he must protest against the unlimited power given to the Commissioners by this clause as amounting to one of confiscation.
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as was also Clause 38.
Clause 39 (Statutes made by Commissioners subject to repeal or alteration by University or College).
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he begged to propose the insertion of the word "proceedings," in order to extend this power of alteration not only to the Statutes affecting the power and consti-
270
tution of the Hebdomadal Council and the Congregation, but also to such as affected their proceedings.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would now move, that after the word "Congregation," the words "and respecting great halls and private halls" should be inserted. He conceived that the clause, as it stood, would prevent the Queen in Council from interposing with respect to the constitution of private halls, although the constitution of the Hebdomadal Council and the Congregation would be under Her Majesty's control. The system of private halls was a mere experiment, and he did not see why it should not be subject to alteration at the discretion of the University, with the approval of the Queen in Council.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must object to this proposition. A power was given to repeal or alter all Statutes in regard to private halls, which might be passed by the University, but it would be undesirable to give to the University a power of repealing or altering the clause under which such halls were constituted.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he thought that, as the private halls were an experiment, the University ought to have the power to discontinue them.
SIR. WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, that though he had voted in favour of establishing private halls, he entirely concurred in the view which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) took of the question, namely, that, being introduced as an experiment, he should make that experiment with more satisfaction if he saw there was an opening for reconsidering the matter in case of a failure. An hon. Member had stated that, if Government were to abandon those private halls, they had better abandon the Bill itself. Now, the Government had not been asked to do anything of the sort; but only to preserve to the Universities, subject to the check of the Queen's approval, that power of dealing, with those halls which they would have had before the Act was passed. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) were adopted, it would be impossible for any rash measures taken by the Universities to meet the approbation of the Queen in Council. Should the apprehensions of hon. Members on that side of the House turn out to be Well founded after a series of years, surely it would be

271
conceded that the whole matter ought then to be reconsidered and revised.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he thought that even if it should at any time be necessary to reconsider the subject of private halls, it was desirable that they should not be done away with without the consent of Parliament. This clause gave to the University and the colleges extensive powers to alter, with the consent of Her Majesty, what had been proposed in this Bill; but he thought it would be highly undesirable to insert in it such a provision that the whole of the Act might be set aside by the political Administration of the day in concert with the University.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the experience of five or six years might show that a different set of rules was necessary, and he objected to leaving the power of framing these rules entirely in the hands of the Commissioners. If some provision were not introduced for amending the rules, great difficulty might be experienced hereafter.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that ample provision was made for permitting the amendment of the Statutes. The powers contained in the 30th clause of the Bill, if exercised at all, might be exercised either by the Commissioners or the University; if by the University, they would make Statutes in pursuance of these powers, and these powers would be liable to alterations under Clause 38; if exercised by the Commissioners, and not by the University, then the scheme of the Commissioners, subsequently taking effect as a Statute, would be liable to alteration under the 39th clause, subject to the approval of the Queen in Council.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, it would be unwise to tie down the University irrevocably to this great experiment, which was, in fact, a revolution of the whole system, from which it could not escape without invoking the aid of Parliament. Let them fix what limit they pleased. Let the University be told that it should not act for twenty or thirty years, or until a new generation had grown up, and all prejudices and feelings connected with the Bill had passed away. But do, after a certain time, restore to the University the power of free action on this most important matter, subject, of course, to the control of the Queen in Council, and not force it to come to Parliament, if it were found that these private halls had operated pre- judicially to the moral or intellectual cul-
272
ture of the youth of the country. He trusted the Government would take the subject into their serious consideration, and if they did not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that they would fix some limited period or other.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, he regarded the question of private halls as the main feature of the measure. It was the principle of an extension of the Universities, and not a question of mere detail.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, he was of opinion that what was enacted by Parliament ought only to be amended by Parliament.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the beginning of the clause, he would see that every Statute made by the Commissioners in pursuance of the provisions of the Bill was to be subject to revision and alteration by the University authorities. The importance of the experiment of private halls was greatly increased by the fact that a very considerable proportion of those who were most competent to form an opinion upon the subject, looked upon it with the gravest doubt, and, indeed, apprehension and alarm. Those who advocated private halls must not rely too implicitly upon the opinion of Mr. Merivale; because that gentleman was opposed to these as proposed to be established by the Bill. And when they found men like Mr. Merivale, and other high authorities at Oxford, regarding the experiment with alarm, surely prudence required that they should provide for the possibility of failure. He would willingly give his assent to any qualifying words that would make it necessary that some specified time should intervene for trying the experiment.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there were two clauses which related to private halls. One, the 27th, was the fundamental clause, which constituted the right, on the part of qualified members of Convocation, to obtain a licence from the Vice Chancellor. The other, the 30th, enabled the University, or, failing the University, the Commissioners, to make regulations for determining who should be qualified, and how they should conduct themselves in the government of these private halls. Provisions were already included in the Bill for revising the law, whatever might be done under the 30th clause. The largest liberty was

273
intended, and he believed was given, by the Bill with respect to improving and amending anything that the University or Commissioners might do in defining the qualifications of members of private halls. But there was no power in the Bill that would enable the University, even with the consent of the Crown, to defeat the 27th clause.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he thought the Government showed a needless amount of jealousy of the University authorities. He did not believe that there was any reason to apprehend that the University would ever think of abolishing the private halls.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that according to the 36th clause, unless they were considered perfect by the Commissioners, the Commissioners had power to set aside the rules established by the University altogether, and to frame new rules for the government of the private halls. Now, with all respect for the Commissioners, he did not think their experience of Oxford was greater than that which the University authorities themselves possessed. Why, he asked, should they retain this clause at all, giving power to alter everything the Bill did besides, but refusing to give the same power to Her Majesty in Council with regard to private halls? By the 36th clause a large and an exceptional power was conferred in constituting these halls, and yet the Government seemed to be jealous even of the Queen in Council, that they would not allow the possibility of her reviewing, not the absolute enactment of Parliament itself, but that which might be done by the Commissioners. For the life of him he could not understand what the reason was which prevented them from giving the same power of alteration to the Queen in Council with reference to these private halls, that they gave by all the other provisions of the Bill to the Commissioners.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, every Statute which might be framed under the 36th clause would be subject to alteration under the 39th clause. Consequently it was not the fact that any Statute for a private hall would be exempt from alteration by the Queen in Council.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he still must contend that there should be the same power with regard to private halls, and their constitution and regulations, whether framed by the University or the Commissioners, that they proposed to extend by
274
this clause to the whole University. He only asked that private halls should be placed on the same footing as the Congregation and the Hebdomadal Council.
Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.
Clause 40 (The Cathedral or House of Christ Church to be deemed a College).
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he begged to ask whether the clause would not enable the Commissioners to dispose of the revenues of the canons of Christ Church?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he presumed that existing appropriations could not be disturbed. As to such of the canonries as had never been appropriated, he apprehended that these formed part of the property of the college, and might be dealt with by the canons or Commissioners. subject to the general revision and the checks provided by the Bill.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he knew that there was a particular provision with respect to some of the canonries.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, he was not in favour of abolishing cathedral endowments; but Christ Church was less cathedral than it was conventual. He would prefer to retain a large number of small emoluments for students to a few larger ones. He did not think the dean and canons, who were the governing body at Christ Church, would agree to any reduction—not in their own emoluments, because of that there was no question, but in the emoluments of their successors. Now, looking at the Report of the Commissioners, in which it was stated that an average of something like 2,000 l. a year (he would not pledge himself to the exact amount) was enjoyed by the canons, he was certainly of opinion that something might fairly be taken from them for the purposes of the college.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Newark, that at present Christ Church was not satisfactorily dealt with by this Act, and he hoped this would be one of the amendments introduced into the measure. He thought that for the purposes of this Act, a certain portion, at least, of the senior students and censors might have been incorporated into the governing body of Christ Church.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 41 (Persons becoming. Members after the passing of this Act not to possess vested interests).
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he was afraid this clause might have a retrospective effect, and operate to the exclusion, for instance, of a scholar elected last November to his own (Lord R. Cecil's) college.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the clause included within the category of vested interests the interests of all persons who at the passing of the Act were either elected or eligible to collegiate emoluments. If the individual was personam designatum, although his inchoate fellowship or scholarship had in that case to be rendered complete, he would still come within the class of those eligible to be elected at the time of the passing of the Act, and his expectant interests would be reserved.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to ask whether the Government ought not to have preserved certain inchoate rights which might exist with reference to particular persons in certain localities, who had brought up their children with the expectation that they would have the benefit of some of the emoluments attaching to particular colleges in regard to those localities? He understood there were a great many cases of this description, and it was rather hard, by that which would operate in their instance as a retrospective law, to take away the rights of such persons. He was not exactly prepared to say how these rights might be guarded. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: We don't take them away.] No, but Government enabled the colleges and Commissioners to take them away. He should have wished, either by a proviso or by words inserted in the clause, to have said that, with reference to the cases he had alluded to, these particular rights should not be taken away for a period of three years from the passing of the Act.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) would further consider the question, he would see that that mode of proceeding was unsatisfactory. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought it was utterly impossible and beyond their power to invent any one set of terms that would apply a strict measure of justice to cases so infinitely varied as all the forms of inchoate and expectant rights and interests as might be thought to subsist with respect to the enjoyment of emoluments in those colleges. They should protect certain interests absolutely, which was done by the 31st clause, and they had next to preclude the absolute
276
title to protection on behalf of persons who should not be in possession of that title at the passing of the Act; but they did not prevent the colleges and Commissioners from extending an equitable consideration to every such case as they might wish to consider. The Bill was an enabling Bill without limit, except the checks on the exercise of the powers that were conferred by it, which checks would either ensure the rational and considerate use of those powers in the first instance, or the correction of the misuse of those powers, if such misuse should unfortunately take place. With regard to the proposition in reference to the three years, such was the difference in the nature and character of those rights that while the three years would be in some cases too much, it would in other cases be too little. The way was, to trust in the first instance to the discretion of the colleges and the Commissioners; and next to the means of protection provided for the purpose through the Privy Council; and finally to the sense of justice which always prevailed in Parliament.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he trusted that the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman would afford an indication to the colleges and to time Commissioners that they were to have regard to those equitable principles in making their arrangements.
In answer to Lord ROBERT CECIL,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that a scholar with inchoate rights to be elected to a fellowship would not be deprived of the expectancy of the fellowship by the operations of the Act; but he did not understand that that fellowship to which that scholar was to be elected was to be exempted from the operations of the Act with regard to certain provisions that might be imposed upon the holding of it.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he thought that this was a confiscating clause, and that the Committee should divide upon it. It was a clause to meet the views of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood), and when that was the case the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman could be of no consequence whatever.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, he was inclined to place considerable faith in the justice of the Commissioners, and the checks that would be imposed upon them. He begged to call the attention of the Committee to the case of a boy who en-

277
tered Westminster School, of course with the hope of being entered subsequently either as a scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge, or the greater hope of being entered as a student in Christ Church; when that boy entered the College of Westminster, was he to be considered as one of those who had an inchoate right? He apprehended that under the Act he would have no right, but only the hope to pass a sufficiently good examination to enable him to become a student of one of those colleges, and if he had not that expectancy in prospect he would probably not enter the Westminster College at all.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he considered that the clause had the double vice of being very indistinct in its meaning, and of employing technical terms on the assumption that they were used in the Act which were not used in the Act at all.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in explanation of the use of the clause, said, he must beg to remind the Committee that hereafter it might be necessary for Parliament to turn to the subject again, and it would not be right that any college or colleges should have the power of bringing up against them a whole crop of existing and vested interests which had grown up in the interval.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he considered the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman to afford the most cogent reason for voting against the clause. Whatever powers they gave by this Act of assent or dissent, they should allow the election of the college to go on; and the status of those elected in the meantime should not be uncertain, and if it were the object of the clause to make them uncertain, he for one would divide against it.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 39: Majority 47.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 42 (The Stamp Duties payable on Matriculations and Degrees to be abolished so soon as provision shall be made by the University to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, in lieu of the moneys heretofore voted annually by Parliament).
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he proposed that, instead of the word "Commissioners," the words "Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury," should be inserted.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTasked if it.
278
would not be desirable to abolish at once the stamp duties.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that a Vote was now annually proposed to Parliament for the maintenance of certain professors, and it was thought strange on the part of a wealthy body like the University to apply for a sum of money for such a purpose to the Commons of England; but the answer of the University was, that a greater sum was taken front it by the tax on degrees than it received from Parliament, and in the opinion of the Government it was thought not desirable to levy the tax. It was accordingly to be got rid of when a provision should be made in lieu of it, and they would thus be enabled to get rid of an invidious subject of annual discussion.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, as this was the last clause, he would beg to call attention to the difficulty that must arise under the new Act from the exercise of the veto possessed by the Vice Chancellor on the acts of Convocation. Hitherto no measure could be introduced into Convocation that had not passed the Hebdomadal Board, made up of heads of houses and proctors, over which the Vice Chancellor exercised a commanding influence. All the persons composing it had the same interest, and therefore there never was any inducement to the Vice Chancellor to extend his veto to a measure when introduced into Convocation after it had passed the Hebdomadal Board. But the Hebdomadal Council, according to the new constitution, would stand in the place of the Hebdomadal Board. The new body would be entirely different in constitution and character from its predecessor, and would be composed of elements which might possibly put the Vice Chancellor and the heads of houses in a minority on that Board. Now it was conceivable that a measure might be passed in the Hebdomadal Council by the votes of professors and masters of arts, and when it came into Convocation, the Vice Chancellor might use his veto to cancel it. It could never be contemplated to leave in the hands of the Vice Chancellor the power to neutralise all the effective legislation that might be introduced by the Hebdomadal Council, and it was very desirable that that power should be taken away from the Vice Chancellor.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he

279
did not agree in the construction put upon the clause to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. It did not appear to him that the veto of the Vice Chancellor could be exercised in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. It was expressly enacted by the 19th clause, that every Statute accepted by Congregation should afterwards be submitted to Convocation for final adoption or rejection, and consequently the decision of the Hebdomadal Council could not be interfered with by any veto of the Vice Chancellor. Supposing the veto of the Vice Chancellor to exist, it would not be in the smallest degree confirmed or strengthened by anything contained in the 43rd clause, but in his opinion the veto would no longer exist.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, he had never stated that the 43rd clause had reference to his objection, but merely availed himself of the opportunity presented by its being proposed to call attention to this defect in the Bill.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was of opinion, that any Statute which it was agreed should be submitted to Congregation, could not be withdrawn by any veto of the Vice Chancellor.
Clause agreed to.
Schedule A was brought up, containing the names of the following persons, who were proposed to form part of Congregation, the names of the other Members having been set forth in the 17th clause of the Bill:—The Deputy Steward, the Public Orator, the Keeper of the Archives, the Assessor of the Vice Chancellor's Court, Registrar of the University, Counsel of the University, Bodley's Librarian, Librarian and Sub-librarian of University Libraries, and Keepers of University Museums and Repositories of Art or Science, if authorised for the purposes of the Schedule by the Statute of the University. It was proposed to insert "Radcliffe Librarian, and Radcliffe Observer" after "Bodley's Librarian."
The proposition agreed to, and the Schedule, as amended, was adopted.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, he begged to move, after Clause 24, to insert clauses to the effect that a register of the names of members of Convocation should be kept by a Bedel or some other officer of the University, and should be freely accessible; and that graduates of the University who should have made all necessary payments previously to their having taken
280
such a degree as should entitle them to be members of Convocation should not be required to make further payment of any sum or sums of money for collegiate or other than University purposes, as a condition of their qualification to be members of and to vote in Convocation; and that all such graduates as had ceased to be members of the University by reason of their names having ceased to be upon the books of a particular college or hall, might, if not otherwise disqualified, claim to be registered as members of Convocation, and, upon payment by them of any arrears of University fees or dues accruing; since such graduates should have ceased to be members of the University, or upon payment by them of such composition as the University might sanction, their names should be inserted upon the register. Everybody knew that now each member of a college or hall, in order to keep his name on the books, must pay certain fees for that purpose, but he considered that every member of the University who had taken the degree of Doctor, or of Master of Arts, although he might have ceased to have his name on the books of his college, ought to be considered so far a part of the University, independently of his college, as not to be deprived of his rights in connection with the University in contradistinction to his collegiate right. He thought, also, the University would do well to allow some means of composition to doctors and masters of arts relative to all University payments on future occasions; and it ought not, certainly, to be a sine quâ non, that, because a man ceased to be a member of his college, therefore he should be looked upon as no longer a member of the University, or entitled to his right of voting in Convocation.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was ready to admit that the clauses might be very proper in themselves, but he thought his hon. Friend would do better to send them down for discussion to the Hebdomadal Council, where he thought they would meet with a favourable reception; but he did not think that the subjects to which they referred were matters with which the Committee would do well to interfere. If the Committee were to go into matters of small detail, there were more flagrant anomalies than the present with which they might deal; but he thought it would be much better, that after they had provided a good government for the University, they should

281
leave that government to deal with all questions of detail. He was the more anxious on this point, as he observed that the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) had given notice of a whole host of clauses relating to details, but he hoped that that House would at once take its stand upon this principle, that, having provided a government for the University, they would not interfere with the free working of that government.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOFEthought the matters referred to in the clause well worthy of consideration.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, that, though he denied that this was a question of detail, he would not press his clauses.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he would now beg to move the following clause—
"If', in the execution of the powers of this Act, it shall be proposed by any College, or by the Commissioners, to make any regulation or ordinance for the abolition of any privilege, or right of preference in elections to any emolument within any College, now lawfully belonging to any School or other place of education beyond the precincts of the University, notice thereof shall be given in writing to the Governing Body of such School or place of education, and also to the Commissions appointed under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, at least two calendar months before any final resolution for that purpose shall be adopted by such College, or by the Commissioners; and no such regulation or ordinance shall be made, if, within two calendar months after receiving such notice, two-thirds of the said Governing Body, or the said Commissioners appointed under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, shall, by writing, under their hands and scals, declare their opinion that such regulation or ordinance would be prejudicial to such school or place of education: Provided always, nevertheless, That every such privilege or right of preference, when retained, shall be subject to all such regulations and ordinances as may be made by any College, or by the Commissioners, under the powers given by this Act, for the purpose of making such emolument more conducive to the mutual benefit of such College and such School or place of education as aforesaid."
The powers which this Bill gave the Commissioners referred to all sorts of endowments and emoluments of an educational character, whether they were paid out of the revenues and provisions belonging to the colleges themselves, or whether they belonged to institutions external to the colleges and connected with the different schools throughout the country; the consequence was that there were two distinct classes of endowments which were interfered with in the Bill—the endowments which were provided out of the college re-
282
venues, and next, the scholarships and exhibitions paid out of revenues provided by other institutions. Hence, the Commissioners had power not only to deprive the schools of the exhibitions which were provided for them out of funds which the colleges provided, but they had power also to confiscate revenues which the colleges had not provided at all. It was true this power was guarded in the case of the Commissioners by being subject to the dissent of two-thirds of the governing body of the colleges. But, notwithstanding this provision, it was most objectionable, and he was sure all would concur in that view, and in the desirableness of altering the law so as to prevent the Commissioners front making regulations in the case of schools which might destroy their value. Now, he proposed by his clause to give to all those external bodies to whom was now confided the care of these endowments, the same liberty of dissent on cause shown which was proposed to be given to the colleges themselves. Now, what he proposed was to provide that the colleges and the Commissioners, before taking away the existing endowments, should give the Charity Commissioners, who were appointed, by the Bill passed last year, the guardians of all these endowments, two months' notice of their intention to alter the existing arrangements; and if they thought that that alteration would be prejudicial, then they should have the same power of dissent as the present Bill allowed to the governing body of the colleges. He might be asked why lie did not go further, and allow the Commissioners and the colleges to make regulations and ordinances for the mutual benefit of the schools? It was necessary such a power should reside somewhere. It did not, however, appear necessary to extend what he would term the consultation principle inconveniently. He did not think that consultation should be resorted to on every small question of regulation or modification of privileges of students. The clause had been considered carefully, and he was not afraid of criticism. He would, in explanation, say he conceived it was the duty of the Committee to pay regard to the different schools throughout the country connected with the Universities. They were all educational branches, and the small schools in their place and degree were not less important than the larger schools. He demurred to the principle which appeared to be laid down in this measure, that the importance of a

283
school was to be measured by the accident of the particular numbers that were attending it at any given time. It was in the knowledge of most Members that all their great schools had fluctuations at different times. The Charter House, Rugby, Harrow, and other schools had at different times been as low in point of numbers as to be near the limits, if they did not pass the limits, fixed by this Bill; but it seemed to him most unreasonable that, when a school was in a low or declining state, they were to take away what was its great stimulus to improvement—its connection with one or other of the colleges. It might be said that it was of no importance to keep up a particular school, for if the scholars were not at the Charter House they would be at Rugby, or if not at Winchester they would be at Harrow. He totally dissented from that mode of reasoning. It was of great importance, in his opinion, that they should have good schools in different parts of the country, that they should keep them in a high degree of efficiency, and that they should make them better if possible. Besides, he thought it was not at all unworthy of them to indulge feeling, or even imagination, in this case. The monuments of great men were universally respected, and there was no monument that more deserved respect than those foundations of their ancestors of which every year taught them more and more the value. The question, then, was, did these exhibitions tend to the prosperity of the schools? Manifestly they did. Merchant Taylors' School had thirty-seven fellowships in St. John's College, Oxford, to which they had a right, and six more in which they had a contingent interest, and these fellowships were the real endowment of the school. He quoted the opinion of Dr. Plessey, the head master of Merchant Taylors' School, who stated that the school had many disadvantages from its position in the heart of London and otherwise, which were only counterbalanced in the minds of parents by the knowledge that a buy of abilities and diligence might obtain a fellowship at Oxford. A similar opinion had been given by Mr. Collis, head master of Bromsgrove School, Worcestershire, of the connection between his school and Worcester College. The largest and most important case of the kind was Winchester School, in connection with New College, Oxford. The connection between that school and the college had been made to bear the whole brunt of the controversy,
284
and on the same principle that people became tired of hearing Aristides called the Just, he had even seen attacks made in the newspapers upon the memory of William of Wykeham. That great man had founded the two institutions to be in mutual connection with each other—he had made the governors of each take an oath to observe the Statutes of the other, as it was his wish that Winchester should become the nursery of wholesome roots for New College. The number of scholars at Winchester had never been great—its greatest limit he believed was 200. Now if they destroyed the connection between the school and the college, he could not doubt that the result would be the destruction of Winchester School altogether, and he thought they might as well confiscate the revenues of New College in order to found some new school in the neighbourhood of London, as take away the privileges which the Winchester students enjoyed in that college. The exhibitions of Tiverton School and the Snell exhibitions, both connected with Balliol College, were examples of a different sort. These were not college funds at all, but they were trust funds, altogether external to the college. Mr. Blundell, the founder of the Tiverton School, gave 2,000 l. for the establishment of scholarships. By a deed of composition between his trustees and the college, the latter received the money, and undertook to receive the scholars. Was it fair now to say that Balliol College might keep the money and refuse the scholars with the consent of the trustees? Another case was that of the Snell bequest, and the connection it established between Glasgow University and Oxford. After some litigation as to the terms of the bequest, it was decided by the Court of Chancery that the University of Glasgow was entitled to the benefit of the endowment, and exhibitions accordingly had been established at Oxford with the most beneficial effect. The doctrine now was that the exhibitions were college emoluments, and that the college might alter or abolish them. The importance to West-minster School of its connection with Christ Church was so well known to many present that he need not dwell upon it. To show what gross injustice might be done if they passed this Bill without some safeguard for protecting the designs of founders, he would refer them to the case of the Free Grammar School at Abingdon, in connection with Pembroke College.

285
Abingdon School was the fountain head of Pembroke College; Pembroke College existed on account of Abingdon School, and not Abingdon School on account of Pembroke College. The college was founded for the purpose of supplying fellowships which the founder of Abingdon School desired to establish. It was possible, perhaps, to give better effect to the existing regulations by introducing others; but to say that a power should be created to alienate the fellowships from the school, foundations which had existed from the beginning, so long as any person interested remained, appeared to him subversive of every principle of justice. Abingdon School was another example of the impropriety of the numerical qualification contained in the Bill as originally introduced. He had, however, by no means exhausted the instances which might be produced; he had only mentioned some of the most prominent examples, and having heard them, he hoped the Committee would accede to the principle of his clause, and see the justice of giving to the governing bodies of these different places of education the right of being consulted, and of a veto, if the interests of their schools should be prejudicially affected by any proposal, either from the colleges or from the Commissioners, for their destruction. If such a clause were not adopted, the Committee would be legislating on this part of the subject wholly without inquiry. The House of Commons had made no inquiry whether the interests of the schools would be affected, nor had the University Commissioners entered into the question. No doubt the Commissioners stated that a connection existed between different colleges and schools; but how such interests might be affected by the alteration or removal of existing rights the Commissioners had not inquired, for they had not the power, and they had given no information on the subject. The clause remitted the parties to those who were acquainted with the subject, for the governing bodies must know how their schools would be affected by any proposed change, while they were a more disinterested and impartial body than the colleges themselves. He had also provided in the clause that the Charity Commissioners should be consulted before any final resolution was adopted by any college or by the Commissioners, because to them had been committed the general care of all charities, and it would be inex-
286
pedient not to consult them, even if the governing bodies and trustees of local schools were not negligent.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must draw a distinction between the speech and the clause of his hon. and learned Friend. As far as regarded the speech, it contained much very well worthy the consideration of the Hebdomadal Council, when that body came to deal with the matters which this Bill proposed to confide to their discretion; and as far as regarded the clause, it was unnecessary, because the Bill already provided means which would accomplish the main object in view. The observations of his hon. and learned Friend might very well be addressed to the body appointed under the Bill to consider the class of cases to which allusion had been made; and provision was already made that the persons interested in any endowment proposed to be dealt with might have a full and impartial hearing before a tribunal of great authority and responsibility—namely, the Committee, of Privy Council, which must in every case comprise at least two judicial persons. It was provided in the 34th clause that when the Commissioners should have laid any of their ordinances or schemes before Her Majesty in Council, they should be published in the London Gazette; that no Order in Council should be made until after the expiration of one calendar month from the date of the application; and that, in that interval, it should be lawful for any trustee, governor, or patron of any University or college emolument, or for any other person directly affected, to petition Her Majesty in Council to be heard, and to be heard by counsel learned in the law at such hearing. The House had made this provision for the protection of this class of interests, and he submitted it was a satisfactory protection; first, because the parties who had such interests would be the best judges whether they were unjustly dealt with by any proposed scheme of the Commissioners, and next, whether the interests of the school or place of education that might be affected were such as ought to be defended before the Privy Council. It seemed to him, further, that his hon. and learned Friend's clause would involve the whole operation of the Bill, so far as concerned colleges connected with schools, in inextricable confusion and absurdity; so much so that he could hardly think his hon. and learned

287
Friend had considered the scope and tendency of the alterations he proposed, either as regarded their principle or their practicability. As regarded the practicability of the proposal, without having regard to the Charitable Trust Commissioners, and taking only the main part of the clause into view, he thought it would lead to confusion. The main part of the clause required this—that in the case of any school or place of education which had any privilege or right of preference in the University, when the Commissioners proposed any scheme or ordinance that would abolish any right or preference, it should be their duty to give two months' notice in writing; and that the governing body of such school or place of education should be invested with an absolute veto upon the scheme or ordinance, when they thought such scheme or ordinance would be prejudicial to the school as a place of learning and education. In his opinion the Committee had very justifiably gone great lengths in giving an absolute power of dissent to the governing bodies of colleges; but why? Because, when we Spoke of colleges, we knew with whom we were dealing; we knew they were bodies who had a deep and real interest in the welfare of the colleges; that they were made the subjects of Parliamentary cognisance and regulation, and that, if they refused to allow the intervention of the Commissioners, they might be again made the subjects of Parliamentary intervention. But not one of these considerations applied to the governing bodies of these schools. What were they? Were they corporations known to the law, consisting of a fixed number of members, acting in the face of day, and responsible to the opinions of society? On the contrary, they were private individuals, they were often self-elected, and they were bodies that might be packed, if need be, for the purpose of obtaining a majority of two-thirds, for instance, if such were necessary. On the other hand, when we spoke of a college in which a majority of two-thirds was necessary to carry a measure, we knew that no additions could be made to the governing body. But in the case of these schools, where there were twenty-one trustees, and eleven were for a particular plan and ten were not, the eleven might appoint ten others, and so make the number of trustees thirty-one, and do what they pleased. [Mr. R. PALMER said, that trustees had no such power.] He must beg to say that trustees of schools with which
288
he was acquainted had such a power, and that trustees continued to be self-elected from time to time. [Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER: I dissent entirely from that statement.] That might be; but he begged to repeat distinctly that the number of trustees of grammar schools, in the instances that he was acquainted with, was not limited. The trustees had the power of appointing themselves, and of adding to their number without limitation. He happened himself to be a trustee of one grammar school where this was the case. But he wished the Committee to consider upon what principle they should give the veto to the trustees of these schools. Why was this particular of interests to have protection over and above that which was granted to other interests? Was it less easy for them to defend themselves? With the exception of that interest which was affected by the Attorney's Certificate Duty, he knew no interest which rallied so easily and appealed so powerfully to so great a mass of laudable but strong prepossessions as the interest with which this clause dealt. He knew of no interest which would be so able to avail themselves of the protection which the Bill afforded them of a full hearing before the Privy Council, as the school interest. In the case of the people of Guernsey and Jersey who had endowments in Oxford, how did the Bill proceed? They were not protected by saying that the Governors and Councils of Guernsey and Jersey should have two months' notice before anything was proposed which might affect their emoluments, that they should have the power of putting an end to the scheme. They were left subject to the general operation of the Bill, which gave them the right of an appeal to the Privy Council should they think fit. The case was the same, if not stronger, with regard to the people of Wales. Wales, at present, had the absolute and exclusive right to the entire emoluments of a particular college. But, if they asked how they were to be protected, the answer was, that means had been provided them of becoming acquainted with the schemes in which they might be interested by their being published in the London Gazette, and they could then petition the Queen in Council, and obtain a fair hearing in reference to those schemes. The case was exactly the same with regard to founders' kin and the sons of the clergy; and he contended that the protection which was

289
deemed sufficient in all these cases was quite adequate in regard to schools. But he wished to know how the clause was to operate, because on this point he conceived it would lead to confusion, not to say absurdity. Take Worcester College—
"The fellows were to be elected from the scholars; the scholars from the schools of Bromsgrove or Feckenham, or, in delimit of fit and able candidates (apti, habilcs et idoncei), from the Cathedral School of Worcester, from the schools of Hartlebury or Kidderminister, or, these failing, from any school in Worcestershire."
Now he put it to the Committee whether it would not be absurd to require to send and discover the governing bodies of every endowed school. Many of these schools might be endowed with only 10 l. a year, and had sunk out of notice; yet the Committee were asked to enact that, unless the Commissioners found out these schools, their schemes should be liable to be declared illegal. Then there was the case of St. John's College, particularly with respect to Merchant Taylors' School—
"Of the fifty fellowships, constituted by the founder, seven were allotted to the schools of Bristol, Coventry, Reading, and Tonbridge. The three first-named schools were to send two scholars to the college, and Tonbridge one. The scholars sent from these schools arc chosen, in the first instance, by the municipal authorities of the respective towns; except in the case of Tonbridge, where, there being no corporation, the vicar and principal inhabitants appoint. The remaining forty-three fellows were to be chosen from the boys educated in the City of London, but with a strong preference to those educated at Merchant Taylors School. If no duly qualified persons are found in Merchant Taylors' School, the electors are to look for scholars from Christ's Hospital; if none can be found there, they are then to elect from any school in London or its suburbs; and if none can be found within these limits, then scholars may be chosen from any part of England."
He hoped the Committee would decline to adopt a clause which would involve them in such confusion and absurdity, and besides, he did not think it would be right or just in principle to commit to each of the little schools which came within the scope of the clause the decision of questions of great public interest. The governors of those schools were only bound to look to the narrowest view of the interests of their own seminaries, and he would remind them that, in proportion as the schools were bad, the withdrawal of the preferences they enjoyed would be prejudicial to them, and, therefore, the protection they were called upon to give was not to good, but to bad schools. It would be futile, he thought, to endeavour to apply to schools the same rules as they had applied to the governing
290
bodies of colleges, and, considering the immense scope of these founders' wills in many instances, and the way in which they had endeavoured to provide for wide and scattered districts, the effect of the hon. and learned Member's clause would be to reduce the Bill to a state of impotence, and to disappoint very much the expectations of those who had been labouring for the improvement of Oxford institutions.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had objected to the clause; but a great deal of what he had said against it might be dismissed as mere verbal criticism. It must be clear to the Committee that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Palmer) had no intention whatever, from the language of the clause, of reserving the distant and remote rights of schools. He had merely spoken of the schools themselves in the first instance, and had no intention whatever of going into remote cases. With regard to the main point, why indulgence should be given to schools rather than to any other form of protection, the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked two circumstances to which it was necessary to recall the Committee. He had first forgotten that the language of the clause related especially to total abolition, and not to regulations that might be made to meet many of the objections to the clause, and put the emoluments upon a very different footing from that which they now occupied. The question was one of complete abrogation, and not whether they were to shut out the advantageous operation of the powers which the Commissioners might possess. The next point he wished the Committee to remember was, that this was a question relating to another branch than the colleges of the educational establishments of the country. It was not merely as to local preferences, but whether the keeping up of these endowments of colleges was not a cheap and efficacious manner of keeping up in all parts of the country schools which there was no power of preserving without such extraneous aid. Merchant Taylors' School was a remarkable instance. It was a school which could not long exist without the association with St. John's; and in the more remote parts of the country it would be continually found that schools existed only upon the strength of those very emoluments which the Committee was asked to take away with so rigorous a hand. These schools appeared to him to be the best mode of assisting local preferences. Two or three scholarships in a

291
county produced nothing sensibly, but if those two or three scholarships kept up a school of 100 boys, they promoted education throughout a much larger sphere than the scholarships themselves. Such considerations as these he thought should induce the Committee to put aside the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman against the clause.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, that it was with the most unfeigned reluctance that he found himself compelled to differ from the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this point, and to give his vote for the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford (Sir W. Neathcote) in thinking that the important matter to be considered was not the particular scholarships, but the general advantages which these schools derived from their exhibitions. All the great schools in London had immense difficulties to struggle with, and to do away with these exhibitions would be to sign their death-warrants. It was not correct to say that these exhibitions had been the means of fostering a bad system of education. Out of 166 students sent from Westminster School to Oxford since 1807, no fewer than ninety had obtained honours; and he trusted that nothing would be done to injure an educational institution which had produced three such distinguished members of the Cabinet as the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Marquess of Lansdowne, and the noble Lord the President of the Council. For his own part, if he gave his sanction to any such proposal he would be guilty of parricide, and would deserve to be tied in a sack and thrown into the Thames.
MR. W. LOCKHARTsaid, that he had drawn the attention of the Committee on a former occasion to the unjust manner in which this Bill might affect certain exhibitions from Glasgow College to the University of Oxford. The subject had been referred to in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), and the Chancellor of the Exchequer well knew that it had caused great excitement in Scotland, yet he had studiously evaded all notice of it. Neither had any answer been given to a memorial from the Senate of the University of Glasgow, which brought the case under the consideration of Government. He must, therefore, ask leave of the Committee to explain it. Upwards of two hundred years
292
ago an accomplished gentleman (Mr. Snell), who had commenced his studies at the University of Glasgow, removed to Oxford, where he completed them. He experienced eventually so much benefit from this combined course of education, that he formed the benevolent design of providing the same advantages for a certain number of distinguished students of the Scotch universities, who were not in affluent circumstances. With this view he devised an estate to trustees, the rents of which he directed to be applied to the establishment of exhibitions to Oxford, the conditions being that the candidate should have studied a certain number of years at a Scotch university, one, at the least, of which he must have spent at Glasgow College—and the nomination was vested in the Principal and Professors thereof. It is not pretended that this patronage has been abused, or that the right of Baliol College to reject unqualified students has in any one instance been exercised. On the contrary, but for these exhibitions many great and distinguished men—Adam Smith amongst others—might have lived and died unhonoured and unknown. Nothing could have been more praiseworthy or patriotic than such a bequest, and it is manifest that its advantages have not been confined to Scotland. It has been, however, unfortunately the cause of much litigation. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, in his able speech, quoted a remarkable decision which was pronounced by the Court of Chancery a century and a half ago; but he did not mention that the question had been again brought before the courts of law so lately as 1848. An attempt was then made to wrest these exhibitions from the ancient Universities, and to transfer them to a recently established Episcopalian College in Scotland. This was no proceeding of the Episcopalian body in that part of the kingdom. It was not sanctioned by their bishops, and it was not only disapproved of, but denounced by many of its most influential members. The action was raised by a few private individuals, but an unhesitating decision was pronounced by the House of Lords in favour of Glasgow College, with costs against their opponents. It is to be regretted that a report should have gained currency in Scotland that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a trustee of the institution in question, had identified himself with proceedings which have thus been declared to

293
be contrary to law and justice. He has distinctly denied that he had any connection with them, or that he had assisted by a subscription to defray the costs; but this has really nothing to do with the question. The simple fact is, that this Bill may effect the object they aimed at. As originally framed, and even as now altered, it leaves it to a Board of Commissioners in England to deal with these exhibitions without the consent of Glasgow College, or perhaps even without their knowledge. Thereby it violates the treaty of Union, which distinctly guaranteed to the people of Scotland, "that their private rights should not be interfered with, except for their evident utility." It has, indeed, been too much the custom of late to disregard ancient treaties, but the day, it is to be hoped, is distant when private rights shall be so dealt with. One of these Glasgow exhibitioners has just gained the Arnold Prize for a historical essay on the advantages of the Union, but he would have had some difficulty in proving this to be one of them. The people of Scotland were filled with indignation when they discovered that, in a Bill for the better government of an English University, clauses were introduced to rob Scottish students of rights which have existed for nearly two centuries. This clause will save the Snell bequest from confiscation, and it is to be hoped hon. Members connected with Scotland will, on that account, give it their warmest support.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the argument addressed to the Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth did not convey a correct idea of the question before them. One might suppose that it was proposed by the Bill that the privileges and preferences of the various schools, such as Westminster, Merchant Taylors', and the Snell exhibitions, should be abolished by this Bill. But that was not the question, and there was not the slightest possibility that any really good school, which promoted the interest of learning by sending scholars to the University, would be at all affected by the Bill. In the first place, it was not at all likely that any Statute would be framed, either by the Commissioners or by the University, affecting or abolishing the privileges of such schools. But if any such proposals were made, before such privileges were taken away the matter would come under the decision of five members of the Privy Council, two of whom must be legal members of the Judicial Com-
294
mittee. If the proposed alterations were approved by them, and if they were also agreed to by Her Majesty in Council, then they would be laid before Parliament; but either House of Parliament might present an Address to Her Majesty, the effect of which would be to render the proposed Statutes null and void. The question was, whether by a clause of this kind Parliament would preserve the privileges of very bad and inferior schools, which, by the founders' wills, had obtained these privileges. There was a school of this kind in the University of Cambridge, which had gone to decay, which was attended by very few pupils, and by which the interests of learning were very little promoted. The effect of this clause was to preserve from improvement all these bad schools which, originally founded for the benefit of learning, now no longer promoted that object. If further securities besides those he had mentioned were wanted to prevent ill-considered alterations in the management of these schools, and to protect them against a wanton abuse of power, let such securities be considered, but he could not agree to a clause the effect of which would be to preserve all the privileges of the inferior, the bad, and the decayed schools.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he could not allow tins discussion to pass without entering his solemn and earnest protest against the principle announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord the President of the Council. Two arguments had been urged on the part of the Government against the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth—one a matter of form, and the other a matter of principle. The hon. and learned Member was not anxious about the matter of form, if the House supported the principle. Now, what was that principle? It was that of preserving the rights of others, which were to be taken away by those who were not entitled to interfere. The noble Lord the President of the Council said that the effect of the clause would be to keep on foot bad schools and prevent improvement. But, under the plea of improving the colleges, the promoters of the Bill were subverting rights which were independent of those colleges. Many of these schools were founded, not for the benefit of the colleges, but in most instances the colleges were founded for the benefit of the schools. What right had they, then, under the plea of reforming the colleges, to take away the rights of the

295
schools? Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the President of the Council had mentioned a single bad school, while, on the other hand, many good schools had been brought forward which had produced distinguished and useful members of society, and conferred the blessings of a sound education upon thousands of persons. His hon. and learned Friend had said, and nobody had answered him, that they should look at this question partly as a matter of reason and partly as a matter of feeling. Nations were, in truth, as much governed by feelings and even by prejudices as they were by reason; and he would respectfully advise the Government to act upon that consideration in the present instance. But it was said that the promoters of the Bill had a general object in view—the promotion of University education—and some appeared to imagine that a special object was inconsistent with the general one. The fact was not so; it was possible to have both a general and a special intention, and it was for that reason that we had local institutions in this country. Again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Council had proceeded upon the assumption that they had given by a clause in the Bill the power of rectifying a wrong if the colleges or the Commissioners should do that wrong. None of their legislation ought to proceed upon that principle. Where there was a particular right it was their duty to preserve it, even although the right in some respects be contrary to or inconsistent with the general provisions of their measure; and the argument urged from the Treasury bench amounted to this, that they were at liberty to give to particular individuals the power of assailing the rights of others, trusting to some tribunal to maintain and defend them. He apprehended, however, that the proper principle to proceed upon was, not to allow those rights to be assailed by others in the first instance. If the Government had agreed to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heatheote), that the main designs of the founders and donors should be preserved, there would have been a ground for the Judicial Committee to determine whether those designs were preserved or not; but by refusing to insert that clause they left the whole matter ambiguous, and merely addressed to the Committee the plausible argument that equitable considerations would be taken into account when
296
the question came to be decided before the Judicial Committee, when they knew that there could be no such thing as equitable considerations to be interpreted by law, unless those considerations were to be decided with reference to certain principles which would enable the Court to act upon them. The tribunal of appeal would have no means by which it could be guided, and it would therefore be apt to usurp the place of the Legislature, and determine, not what ought to be done, but what it considered might with propriety be done. He thought this Bill ought not to be parted with before they knew distinctly from the Government whether, for the first time in the history of this country, the main designs and intentions of the benevolent founders were to be deliberately set aside, not by a case made against them—for case they bad made none—but because they wished by some latitudinarian privilege to give power to a Court which would have no means of guiding its judgment to regulate the colleges of Oxford in such a manner as would take away the rights of schools, though those schools had never abused their trust, but, on the contrary, had exercised it in a way to confer great and inestimable benefits upon the country.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he should be sorry if the address of his right hon. Friend who had last addressed the Committee was merited by the provisions of the Bill. He begged of the Committee to understand that nothing could be more incorrect, nothing more unjust, than the representation just given with such warmth and ability of the principles of the Bill. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that it would not be in the power of any one, acting either upon the wording or according to the spirit of the Bill, to touch any of those institutions that really did advance the interests of learning and religion. The first power given by the Bill was a power to ensure the emoluments enjoyed by the colleges being conferred according to personal merit. If young men were to be sent up to the University to attain its emoluments and benefits, care ought to be taken that they were selected upon grounds that would enable them to be a credit to the place from whence they came, and that a spirit of competition was preserved at time institution that sent them up. He regretted very much, however, to see such great talent and ability applied to the substituting before the Committee something else in lieu of the real

297
question, which appealed to their feelings, their prejudices, and their passions, and which was capable of being accepted by those who were led away from the real point at issue. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had clearly shown that the clause now proposed would give to those who were interested in preventing improvement power to obstruct beneficial arrangements recommended by the Commissioners. The reason why the Government objected to the introduction of the words, "the main designs of the founders," when they were proposed by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford was, that their introduction would have hampered the Commissioners in carrying out the principle of the measure, which was the advancement of the interests of learning, religion, and education, by making the enjoyment of all emoluments and rewards dependent on personal merit. If the principle of the right hon. Gentleman was carried into effect, instead of a spirit of competition being introduced into these foundations, they would remain a prey to the same state of inactivity to which many of them were now reduced. The designs of the donors of these charities could not be expressed in words more proper for the occasion, or in words more conclusively directed to the enunciation of what ought to be the rules under which they should exist, than the words that bad been employed—namely, "in the interests of religion and learning, and for the advancement of education;" for to promote such was the main design of the Bill. The fact was, that in the case of many of these grammar schools the particular localities for which they were founded not being able of themselves to supply a sufficient number of scholars, individuals from other places were received into them, and they became mere proprietary schools. It resulted from this state of things that instead of there being competition amongst those that were sent up to the University, only one or two came up to contend for the emoluments attached to the foundation. Now, that was an evil which would be repressed by the Bill. Of course in the case of Westminster School and Merchant Taylors' School, there would be no interference whatever, for there the evil was not felt.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he wished to make a few observations on what had fallen from the hon. and learned Solicitor General. It might be perfectly
298
true that the great object of the Bill was to promote the interests of religion and learning to the greatest possible extent which the resources of the University could attain; but he would say, in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that in this particular instance, at all events, Ministers were endeavouring to bring about that object at the cost of parties who did not deserve such treatment at their hands—of parties who had not been heard in their defence. There were three classes of persons affected by the Bill: first, there was that portion of the public that desired the improvement of the University, and to share more largely in the emoluments of the University—those incentives to diligence and study—than they had hitherto done, for fame was not the only inducement to men to lead laborious days. But if to do this they would interfere with these charitable institutions, he would warn them such charities must be dealt with with the utmost tenderness, and that they could not be touched rashly or with impunity. They might depend upon it that the principles which had influenced the establishment of those foundations were principles adapted to all times; that they were deeply rooted in the affections of the people, and they could never be put out of sight even upon such grounds as had been that night proclaimed. The next party affected by the Bill were the colleges of the University; but their interests had been amply provided for, and they obtained a strong voice in the administration of their affairs, and every inducement to improve the system. Why, then, should not these foundations also be placed in a position to meet the Commissioners upon equal terms? But what did they propose to do for the third party—namely, for those persons whose money they were about to take and apply to other purposes? Why, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the Committee, forsooth, that they were provided with an appeal to the Privy Council. That was to say, after the colleges and Commissioners had agreed, in consultation, upon some means of applying the resources of these parties, whose all was at stake, some half-dozen trustees were told they might go before the Privy Council and argue their case on appeal. They would have him believe that the interests of these schools would be taken care of. He believed that the interests of the colleges, and the interests

299
of those whom the Commissioners wished to advance, would be taken care of; but he very much doubted that there would be any identity between their interests and the interests of the schools. He would tell them that the interests of the schools would be set aside, because their money was wanted. He contended, therefore, that not only should the representatives of these foundations be allowed a hearing before their interests were disposed of, but that they should be allowed to share in all consultations between the colleges and the Commissioners where arrangements affecting them were to be concerted. Holding such views, then, he could not do otherwise than give his strongest support to the clause moved by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, that, speaking on behalf of the University of Glasgow, he was ready to reject this clause. The object of the Bill was to adapt the purposes of these institutions to the circumstances of the times. Many of the designs of the founders, owing to the change of time and circumstances, had become great nuisances, as witness the case of Dulwich College, and hence the necessity for legislative interference. The clause of the hon. and learned Member contained much that was ingenious, but it went much further than he could consent to, and he should therefore vote against it.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMER, in reply, said, he would not detain the Committee with any lengthened observations, for in reality there was little or nothing to reply to. There had been a good deal of vehement, and, as was always the case with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ingenious and effective criticism on some defect which his quick eyes discovered in the wording of this clause, and that defect he had great satisfaction in saying he would certainly remove, should the clause be adopted by the Committee. Nothing was easier than to insert the words of qualification—specially naming the foundations and endowments, and thus there was an end of the argument about all those undiscovered schools in Worcestershire and in London, supported nobody knew how, and situated no one knew where, which his right hon. Friend threw in their faces. There would be no difficulty in carrying the clause into effect clearly and intelligibly, and it was not by that sort of criticism that either himself, or, he trusted, the Committee would be
300
deterred from doing so. It showed how little the Government really knew how they were proceeding in this matter, when they heard right hon. Gentlemen stating that the trustees might increase their number ad libitum, for the sake of creating a fictitious majority. Now, as a general rule, the governing bodies of those schools were either corporations—as in the case of Winchester—or trustees appointed in a definite manner and number, under deeds of charter. All that could happen was, that they might proceed to fill up any existing vacancies before they exercised their functions. But they knew what cases they were dealing with, and, after all, it was really nothing to the purpose and had no bearing whatever on the question. But what was to the purpose was that they were told, "To supply the place of this protection you can appeal to the Privy Council." What was the Privy Council to which they were to appeal? Was it a judicial body at all? No. It was true they had added two judicial members, but it was clearly no effective appeal for purposes of protection. It might be a good body to exercise a political judgment. No doubt, they might be found good men to exercise a judgment in the spirit of the Act, but they would exercise it, not as a judicial, but a political function. If people were to have confidence in the exercise of that political function, on what principle must they act? The Bill was to make further provision for the good government and extension of the University of Oxford and the colleges thereof. There was not a word about schools. They had not to think of the interests of schools, except so far as they could view them through the medium of the University of Oxford and its colleges. The Act furnished them with no principle or locus standi to frame a scheme for any school whatever. His object, which he did not wish to disguise, was to preserve the schools—to make it a general rule that they should be preserved, and that means should be given to effect that object. In so far, therefore, as a scheme was beneficial to a school, the trustees would consent to it, but in every other case he hoped they would reject it. He, therefore, took his stand upon the principle, that they should not and ought not to be deprived of their present rights, without the intervention of their natural protectors and in the absence of all inquiry.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUERsaid he wished to know how the clause would work with regard to the right of preference? He would refer to one particular case, that of Worcester College, founded by Sir Thomas Coolies, in which there was a right of preference to the schools of Bromsgrove, Feckenham, Worcester, Hartlebury, and Kidderminster, in succession. He wished to know this:—Suppose the Commissioners sent down a scheme to do away with the rights of preference of these five schools, and the first four agree to make the sacrifice, but fifth—Kidderminster, for instance—refused to do so—what would be the effect of that refusal with respect to the scheme itself?
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that in that case the Commissioners might do what they pleased with the four assenting schools, leaving the school which dissented in the same position as before—that was to say, the rights of the four schools might be modified or consolidated in any way the Commissioners might think fit, and the other school would have no right to come in until the other four schools were provided for. However, the question of the right hon. Gentleman did not at all touch the principle of the clause.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he also wished to know whether the effect of the fifth school dissenting from the scheme of the Commissioners would not be to intercept entirely the plan of the Commissioners, although the other four schools, having prior rights, were willing to sacrifice their rights of preference?
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he could really give no other answer than what he had just stated. There would be no power to place the school dissenting from the scheme in a worse situation than before, but anything might be done by the Commissioners which would not place that school in a worse situation. If, however, it was thought there would be any difficulty in this respect, the clause might be hereafter amended.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, if the principle of the clause should be adopted, he would propose an Amendment to meet the difficulty which had been suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by inserting in the clause the words "or two-thirds of the aggregate body, composed of the several governing bodies of such schools."
ADMIRAL WALCOTTobserved, that being deeply attached to Winchester Col-
302
lege from many associations, and perfectly conversant with its history, he could not do otherwise than lament any measures likely to impair its efficiency. He had left to others the honourable task of vindicating its union with New College, Oxford, and its eminence as a school for learned men. For his own part, he could not but remember that many of the most distinguished officers in the sister services had been reared within its walls. To the Army it had given Generals Sir Charles Dalbiac, Sir William Myers, Sir Alexander Woodford, Sir Robert Wilson, Sir Andrew Barnard, and Lord Seaton; to that profession of which he was proud to be a member, it gave Admirals Raper, Sir Thomas Laire, Sir John Borlase Warren, and Sir Richard Keates. He should be failing in justice, also, if he did not add that many other illustrious officers had been brought up in the great public schools; a circumstance, the honour of which was due to Wykeham, who had formed their model, when he built the College at Winchester. St. Paul's had produced the Duke of Marlborough; Merchant Taylors', Lord Clive; Rugby, Sir Ralph Abercombie; Newcastle, Lord Collingwood; Norwich, Lord Nelson; Harrow can boast Lord Rodney; Westminster, Lord Koppel, Lord Harris, the Marquess of Anglesea, the Duke of Richmond, and Lord Raglan; and Eton, Lord Howe, the Marquess Cornwallis, and the Duke of Wellington. In every public school the boys retain in unfading memory those who, once members of the same community, have in the past distinguished themselves, wherever raised by ability or urged by lawful ambition, in professional life, in this House, or the highest business of the State. True as the needle—round which the compass card traverses, ever points to the pole, and ensures the safety of the ship—on their old common home the eyes of the public schoolboy are ever fixed, and his heart rallies round those inspiring recollections; thence he draws incentives of action, and examples of success which he desires to emulate, as at once honourable to himself and of service to his country. Need he add, then, how heartily he supported this Amendment?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had a question to put to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Wigram), who proposed an Amendment to meet the difficulty he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had just stated. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that the

303
governing bodies of the several schools should be consolidated for the purpose of expressing their assent to, or dissent from, any scheme that might be proposed by the Commissioner. Now, he would mention the case of St. John's College. The founder gave a preference, in the first instance, to the Merchant Taylors' school, which was under the control of the Merchant Taylors' Company. That was a corporation. The next preference was given to Christ's Hospital, which was also a corporation. Consequently, the Amendment intended to be proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman would require that two-thirds of these two corporations should give their assent to, or dissent from, any scheme that might affect the rights of those schools. The question he had to put was, how would the hon. and learned Gentleman arrive at a knowledge of the two-thirds and one-third of these two corporations?
Motion made, and Qustion put, "That the Clause be now read a Second Time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 103: Majority 52.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he would now propose as an Amendment to insert in the clause words providing that in cases in which several schools are interested in a privilege or preference, two-thirds of the aggregate body, composed of the governing bodies of such schools, should, for the purposes of this clause, stand in the place of the single governing body referred to in it.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he wished to propose to substitute the word "and" for the word "or" in one portion of the clause, in order that it might read—
"And no such regulation or ordinance shall be made if, within two calendar months after receiving such notice, two-thirds of the said governing body, and (instead of or) the said Commissioners appointed under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, shall, by uniting under their hands and seals, declare their opinion that such regulation or ordinance would be prejudicial to such school or place of education."
That would give the concurrence of the governing body and the Commissioners to prevent the making of such an ordinance, and would prevent evil arising from the act of any governing body who might be disposed to hold out too much for the rights of their school.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he entirely objected to this Amendment, and he hoped that those who constituted the
304
majority on the last division would support him in doing so. The effect of the Amendment would be to accede to the principle that the presumption was in favour of the abolition of the right of preference. His view was that the presumption was against it. He thought that the governing body of a school would know much better than the Charity Commissioners what would and what would not be prejudicial to the interests of the school, and he should not consider that the opinion of those Commissioners in favour of a change was a sufficient reason for adopting it, if the local governors or trustees of a school thought that the change would be prejudicial to it.
Amendment negatived.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he wished to move to add at the end of the clause the words—
"Provided always that where the governing body aforesaid shall be a corporate body, the governing body of the corporation shall be the governing body of the school."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
The House resumed; Committee report progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—MORNING SITTINGS.
LORD JOAN RUSSELLthen moved the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to make a few remarks both to the House and the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell), with regard to the present system of morning sittings. The noble Lord and the House, he thought, must feel that that system was not satisfactory, and that it ought to be regulated in some way which would prevent hon. Members being subject to that inconvenience, if not surprise, which was expressed by Scotch Members last night. He entertained the opinion that, in order to expedite business, and avoid the discredit as well as annoyance of sitting into August, as they had done, they must have recourse to morning sittings occasionally. But, at the same time, he was strongly of opinion that they ought to be adopted with the concurrence of the House, subject to certain rules which might be generally intelligible, as in the case of the Wednesday sittings. He would suggest to the noble Lord whether, when the period of the Session arrived when the Government deemed it desirable to have morning sittings, they ought not to be regulated by a Resolution of the House in

305
the same manner as the House had resolved this Session, and invariably did, that on Thursday Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motion. He would further propose that a morning sitting should only be adopted on due notice being given of the day. In consequence of Members getting up at one or two o'clock in the morning and moving that Bills should be taken at twelve o'clock sittings, it was quite impossible Members could know whether or not there would be a morning sitting on any given day. Perhaps the House was hardly aware that, according to the existing rules, it was competent for any Member who had charge of a Bill to rise at any hour, and to propose that it be taken at twelve o'clock in the day, and of this privilege Members frequently availed themselves. He likewise would recommend that not only the day, but the hour of a morning sitting should be fixed, and that they should limit themselves as nearly as possible at such sitting to taking Bills in Committee. He hoped also the noble Lord would agree that no fresh business should be taken after twelve o'clock at night.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he hoped the House would not fetter itself too much by Resolutions. It appeared to him that the days of morning sittings should be fixed rather according to the quantity of business before the House, and the desire of the House to get through it speedily. It seemed to him that at this time of the Session to have morning sittings on Tuesdays and Thursdays only was quite sufficient, though towards the end of the Session it had been usual to have them on Fridays also, and sometimes on Mondays. The arrangement now made as to the hours of sitting was adopted in 1851 or 1852, and was deemed much more convenient than the former one, under which the House rose sometimes at two, three, four, or even five o'clock, and Members did not know when they would reassemble for the evening sitting, whereas at present it was now fixed that they should resume business at five or six o'clock. He did not give a positive opinion as to the necessity of maintaining the present arrangement; and if any improvement on it could be made, he should not be unwilling to consent to the alteration. He thought it was desirable that, when there was a morning sitting, the private business should be taken at twelve o'clock, in order that
306
when the House met in the afternoon, it might at once proceed to public business.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he fully concurred with the noble Lord that they would go on as well or better without a formal Resolution with respect to the days on which morning sittings should be held. He thought, however, that some arrangement should be made by which Members might know at what time the House would resume in the evening.
In reply to a question from Mr. BASS,
LORD JOAN RUSSELLsaid, he thought it was very desirable that when there was a morning sitting, no fresh business should be taken after twelve o'clock at night; but he did not think it desirable to pass a formal Resolution on the point.
Committee of Supply deferred till Monday next.
The House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Customs Duties.
Reported—Excise Duties.
3a High Treason (Ireland).
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000) (No. 2): Exchequer Bonds (£6,000,000); income Tax (No. 2); Industrial and Provident Societies.

THE MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH, in moving for returns relating to the Miscellaneous Estimates from 1838 to 1853, said: I believe that there is no objection to the return which I propose to move for, inasmuch as it would not occupy a clerk more than a day to make it out. It is merely a return of the total sums voted under each head in each different class of Miscellaneous Estimates during the period over which the return runs—namely, from 1838 to 1853, which has been on your Lordships' table for a considerable number of weeks. But in moving for that return, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention as shortly as I can to some of the details of the charges in these Miscellaneous Estimates. I think it not undesirable, at the commencement of a war which will require that we should exercise great economy, that we should look back a little at the expenditure under the head of Miscellaneous Estimates in former years, that we should see wherein and how we have exceeded former charges, and that we should consider, also, wherein and how we can diminish as much as possible the charges which have recently been voted. If an individual does not practise this system, he will most infallibly be ruined; and it certainly would be convenient that the State should proceed upon the same principle, should act with the same prudence, and from time to time should look back at former charges, and should consider whether there has not been an unnecessary expense, which for the future can be avoided. I find that the sum voted under various heads as the Miscellaneous Estimates in 1838 was 2,545,000 l., and that in 1853 it amounted to 4,802,000 l.; so that at first it would appear that the excess of charge last year, over the charge in 1838, was no loss than 2,237,000 l.; but, no doubt, that excess is open to various adjustments, and is subject to diminution by the rejection of certain charges from the Estimates of 1853 which did not exist in 1838. Since 1838 the charge for Royal parks and gardens has been thrown upon the Miscellaneous Estimates, having formerly been paid out of the land revenue. The expenses of the Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings and of Woods and Forests were also paid, previous to 1852, out of the land revenue, but are now included in the Miscellaneous Estimates; while the expenses of the auditors of unions and of schoolmasters, as well as

233
those of prosecutions and the maintenance of prisoners, are now transferred from the county rate. There is another charge which should likewise be excluded from our consideration in comparing the expenditure of 1853 with that of 1838—I mean that for harbours of refuge and other harbours; and of the expediency of that expenditure there can be no doubt. There is also a charge for winding up the Merchant Seamen's Fund, which falls on the year 1853, and which it would not be fair to compare with the charges in 1838. All these charges taken together—I will not trouble your Lordships with the details of all of them—amount to 775,925 l., which is to be deducted from the sum I stated, 2,256,000 l.; so that the total net excess, after discharging from the account all those items to which I have referred, of 1853 over 1838, is 1,480,000 l. Now, I do think that the amount of that sum is such as to make it well deserving of your Lordships' consideration, and that it is important that we should see of what this great excess is composed. I find that there is a difference under the head of public works and buildings, after deducting the charge for the Royal parks and gardens, and harbours, of 198,000 l., and under the head of salaries of public departments, after deducting those for the Commissioners of Works and for the poor law unions, there is an increase of 179,000 l. There is another charge in which the increase since 1838 is very great indeed, and that is the charge for education, the increase in which amounts to 362,000 l. Those who are desirous of having the public money expended in the education of the people have held out hopes that the moral condition of the people would by that expenditure be materially improved. I confess that I have always entertained very great doubts upon that subject, and upon this ground, that, as long as we remain under that dispensation of Providence which requires that man should earn his bread by the labour of his hands, it is essential that the children of the poor should, at a very early age, leave their schools and proceed to work for their daily bread. In point of fact, the son of the labourer leaves school in order to maintain himself and his family at about the age at which the son of the gentleman goes to school, and at a somewhat later period the daughter of the labourer leaves school for the purpose of going into service; and I believe it is utterly impossible, during the short time
234
that they can attend school, to give them that moral tuition which can alone be the foundation of any great improvement in their character. Further than that, I cannot but apprehend that we are mistaken in supposing that all the education which is provided through the administration of public funds is in addition to the education that previously existed. I believe, on the contrary, that that education has to a very great extent supplanted the education which was before afforded in private establishments and given through the private charity of individuals, who maintained schools and looked after the condition and the progress of the children taught in those schools; and I cannot but apprehend that, in point of fact, the public establishments so created, in which education is given at the public expense, although the education may be better than that which was before given in private establishments and by private charity, are not accompanied by those great social advantages which resulted under the former system, from the constant presence of those by whom those schools were maintained, and their constant supervision over the conduct and progress of the children. But, whether my apprehensions are well founded or not, it is at least certain that the result which was anticipated has not been accomplished; and I regret to have to state to your Lordships that, while we expended in the last year 362,000 l. more than in 1838, for the purpose of making the people better, we have been obliged to expend 629,000 l. more for the purpose of coercing them—I mean in defraying the expenses of prisons and transportation. The increase of the expenses of prisons in 1853 over 1838 is not less than 585,000 l., and a further increase will be required for this year of not less than 126,000 l., so that the total charge on account of the control that is exercised over criminals in prison, and by means of transportation, is greater now by 711,000 l. than it was in 1838. Now, I think that this is a subject which deserves the vary serious consideration of the Government and of Parliament. If the state of the law is such that it has led to this enormous increase of expenditure for the purpose of punishing the criminal portion of the population, it surely becomes worth our while to consider whether we have correctly administered the law, and whether we have been successful in our selection of the secondary punishments by which crime is to be punished, and, if pos-

235
sible, repressed. It appears to me that it might be worth our while to consider whether it might not be expedient to make it less desirable, than it appears to have been considered in many cases, to commit offences for the purpose of obtaining in a prison advantages and conveniences which cannot be obtained by the honest man in his own dwelling; but, above all, I should think it would be worth the while of Parliament to consider whether it is not desirable to establish, under the direct management of the Government throughout the country, from one end of it to the other, a uniform and efficient system of police, for the purpose of preventing and deterring from crime by the certainty of punishment. I understand that a measure has been introduced into the other House of Parliament which has, to a certain extent, that object. I have not read the Bill, but I have seen some statement of its provisions, and if that statement be correct—if it be intended to place the police in each county under the management of a committee of magistrates—I fear that the measure will be absolutely inadequate for the object for which it is intended, and that it will lead to no valuable results. What I would venture to suggest is, that, as at different periods various charges have been withdrawn from the county rates in order to afford some illusory advantage or other to the agriculturists, who imagined themselves to be particularly pressed by those rates, that those charges should be thrown back upon the county rates, to which they properly belong, and that, on the other hand, the whole expense of the rural police should be borne, as it ought to be borne, by the public. It is a public object, that there should be throughout the country one uniform system of police, and I think it would be most highly desirable, and that it is quite essential with a view to the efficiency of that police, that the number to be established in each county should be regulated by the opinion of the Secretary of State who is charged with the care of the internal peace of the country, and that it should not be left to the occasional liberality, or, what I fear would be more usual, the parsimony of the magistrates at quarter sessions, to determine what should be the number of police appropriated to their own particular district. I am certain that by this means only will efficiency be obtained. Having offered this suggestion, I will now call your Lordships' attention to another
236
and an almost entirely new charge since 1838, which begins in 1840 with a very small sum, and which has been growing of late years, and more especially within the last two years, to an enormous amount; I allude to the charges for what are called the Museum of Economic Geology and the Department of Practical Art, under the head of the Board of Trade. These two items of charge appeared for the first time in 1839, when the expenses of the Department of Practical Art amounted to 1,300 l. and those of the Museum of Economic Geology in the following year amounted to 2,800 l. After that Sir Robert Peel came into office. There was never any Minister of this country who more loved art, or had a better taste for it, than Sir Robert Peel; he liked the society of scientific men and of men of art, and, had he not been bound by those just principles of public economy by which he was governed in all things, I am sure there could have been no one more willing to grant public money for the encouragement of arts and sciences; but I apprehend that he was controlled by views of public policy and public duty, and did not therefore, during the whole period of his Government, materially increase the amount of the grant originally proposed. These two establishments were united in 1853, the expense of the school of Practical Art having risen in 1852 to upwards of 17,000 l. from 1,300 l., and that of the Geological Establishment very nearly to 15,000 l. from its original amount of 2,800 l. When the two departments were united, the charge for them, instead of amounting, as might have been expected, to 32,000 l. or 33,000 l., was increased to 44,476 l., and in this year, 1854, when it was above all things most essential to practise economy—when there were such large demands for matters actually required for the public safety, an addition of 29,000 l. has been made to this charge; so that in the present year we are to pay 73,000 l, for that which amounted to only 4,100 l. in 1840. This is a subject that really ought to have received the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers. When we talk about it being desirable to encourage art and science, I should like to know whether it is possible for any one, by any administration whatever of public funds, to create genius. You cannot create genius. You can create a large amount of educated mediocrity; you can cover the country with large buildings in bad taste, you can produce had pictures and bad statues; but you

237
cannot have genius for your money. That is a thing which cannot be obtained in such a manner, and you are, therefore, really throwing away a large amount of public money for a purpose which money cannot obtain. The noble Earl the late President of the Council is not present, and I will not, therefore, go into any further details as to what has taken place with regard to these items; but there is one item to which I do think that it is necessary to call the attention of the Government, and that is the enormous increase in the expense of persons employed under the Poor Law Commission. In 1838 the expense of the Commission amounted to 54,000 l., while in the last year, although it was then certainly larger than it had been in the other years, it amounted to no less than 88,000 l. Now, however desirable it may be that there should be a constant supervision over the action of poor law guardians, it is a matter worthy the consideration of the Government whether that inspection could not be afforded at a somewhat smaller expense than that of 88,000 l., which is an increase of 44,000 l. on the charge in 1839. With regard to the House in which the House of Commons and ourselves transact public business, I have to state to your Lordships that the sum which has been expended upon this House in the period now under review, from 1838 to 1853, is 1,690,000 l., and that expense still continues. The very last portion of the building, and the most beautiful one, which is now in progress of erection near the entrance to the House, is the most expensive one that has yet been erected; more than that, it is so covered with elaborate workmanship that its beauty will remain only for a very short period, probably not more than two or three years after its completion. I confess that I should greatly have preferred a severer and more solid style of architecture—one more in keeping with the purpose for which we meet in this place, and which should have stamped upon it the appearance of that eternity which we desire that our institutions should possess. I cannot quit the subject of the House without calling your Lordships' attention to the last curiosity with which we have been presented—that window which is now before you [namely, a window on the right of the Throne]. We are, it appears, to have ninety-six such panes fitted into the windows of this house. What they may have cost I know not; but I heartily wish, for the credit of art in
238
this country, that no Museum of Practical Art had ever existed to cover us with such deformities; and now we have a specimen before us of a new invention, which I suppose is to be substituted in all the windows for what we have now the misfortune to look upon. But where is the estimate for the expense of the alteration? Who is responsible for it? Who are the authors of its adoption? I really cannot venture to calculate the expense which the public may be called upon to pay, but I really do not think that any individual could alter the windows of the House in the manner proposed for less than 30,000 l., and 1 feel satisfied that the expense to the public would undoubtedly be more. I want to know under whose responsibility it was that such heavy and unnecessary expense has been incurred? Where are the estimates for the alteration? Who gave the order for the adoption of the deformity? I trust that the public will thoroughly understand that it is not by the desire of the individuals who sit in this House that these alterations are made; that we do not desire to transact our business in a room disfigured by gilding or ornaments in bad taste and at enormous cost, but that we were satisfied with the plain House in which our ancestors transacted business, and desired nothing more, and, therefore, that we are not responsible for this enormous expenditure and waste of the public money. Who may be responsible I know not. I must also call your Lordships' attention to an item of expenditure which appears very harmless, but, in the course of the period to which I have referred, the expenditure upon the British Museum and the buildings has not been less than 595,000 l.; and whereas in former years the expense of management amounted only to 27,469 l., it now amounts to 55,840 l., so that the expense of the establishment at the present moment exceeds, I believe, the expense of the departments of all but one of the Secretaries of State. I will now pass to another head of expenditure. The expenditure for the repression and punishment of crime presents some curious results. We are told that education is to produce morality—of course, moral people will not commit offences, and we have reason to believe that, of all the portions of the British empire, that in which education has made the greatest progress, and which ought, therefore, to be the most moral country, is that to which the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) belongs. But,

239
in fact, the cost of correcting bad Scotchmen has increased 100 per cent; for whereas in 1838 it was 53,000 l., it now amounts to 107,000 l. We were also told that on the other side of the Channel crime was a matter of indifference, and yet people there have been improving almost as fast as the Scotch have been deteriorating; for, whereas as the expenses of criminals in Ireland were formerly 68,000 l., they are now reduced to 56,000 l.—so that the Irish have improved 18 per cent, while the Scotch have deteriorated 100 per cent. I must now call your Lordships' attention to the enormous charge to which I have already adverted, for prisons and transportation. In 1853 that charge amounted to 898,000 l.; in this year there is an addition of 126,000 l.—so that in the present year, 1854, the charge for the maintenance of prisoners and transportation amounts to as much as 1,024,000 l. The total amount of charge under the same head in 1838 was 313,000 l., so that the increase under this head amounted to as much as 711,000 l. I think it necessary to call attention to the enormous charges connected with the last Census. In 1841 the charge on this account was 23,500 l., and then all the information that any reasonable man could desire was given. The charge for the last Census amounted to 170,000 l., being an increase of not less than 146,500 l. This enormous increase was made in order to gratify the curiosity of about twenty persons, who are desirous of obtaining a mass of statistical information which is of no use to anybody. This is a charge which ought never to have been incurred, and I trust it will not be repeated. I have now gone through the comparison of the years 1838 and 1853, and I will now draw attention to the charges proposed by Ministers for 1854. The present head of the Government was brought up in the school of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, two remarkably economical Ministers. Before him is a great war, of which we have seen the commencement, but may not live to see the end. Under these circumstances, one would have supposed that the noble Earl would have looked with the greatest anxiety at the Estimates in all departments, with the view of reducing the public expenditure wherever he could. This is the result of the examination which, I must presume, the noble Earl prosecuted. I find, under the head of public works and building, an increase of 104,432 l.; under the head of salaries in the
240
public departments an increase of 61,371 l.; under the head of law and justice an increase of 97,423 l.; under the head of education, science, and art, an increase of 124,389 l.; under the head of superannuations and charities an increase of 3,351 l.; under the head of special and temporary services an increase of 215,626 l. These sums amount to 506,000 l.; from which I deduct a decrease in the Colonial Department of 13,861 l., leaving the total excess 492,731 l. From this I also deduct certain sums of the same kind as those which I deducted from the excess of 1853; these sums amount to 110,000 l., and then there still remains an increase of 382,000 l. on the Miscellaneous Estimates of this first year of war, and a total increase this year, as compared with 1838—after making all the deductions I have before alluded to—of 1,862,000 l. I must call attention to some more of the items on which an increase is apparent. Under the head of printing and stationery there is an increase of 29,000 l.; under the head of science and art there is an increase, as I have already stated, of 29,000 l.; there is an increase of 126,000 l. for prisons and transportation; there is an increase on the British Museum which is altogether unnecessary, because it might have been postponed, of 78,442 l.; there is 140,000 l. for the purchase of Burlington House, and 87,000 l. for the purchase of land at Kensington Gore. These charges for the British Museum, Burlington House land at Kensington Gore, and the increase in the department of science and art, which are either utterly unnecessary or might have been postponed, amount to 274,471 l. I have made a calculation by which I find that the Government have thus thrown away this year a sum which would have purchased ninety-eight steam gunboats, every one drawing four feet of water, and carrying a 68-pounder, by which, if sent to the carrying Sea, we might have commanded the Sea of Azof, and, if sent to the Baltic, might have taken Sweaborg and destroyed Cronstadt. Economical considerations prevented you from buying or building vessels of this description, by which alone the work of the war can be done, and yet you have, on the items which I have read, thrown away money on trifling or ornamental articles enough to have covered all the expense. The war on which we have entered is one which promises no decisive success at an early period. No man could be more willing

241
than myself that we should embark in the war, because I believe it to be just, necessary, and politic; but its objects are more obvious to statesmen than to the people generally. We have engaged in the war for the purpose of preventing Russia from possessing the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, and in order to redress the changes in the balance of power in Europe which have taken place during the last forty years. These are our statesmen's objects in the war, but they are not objects visible to the people—they are not the objects which have induced the people to coincide and co-operate with the Government in the war. What the people see is a great wrong done by a powerful State to its unoffending neighbour, and they are willing to assist the Government in carrying on the war for the purpose of redressing the wrong, in the same spirit in which they would endeavour to redress a similar wrong done to an individual. But if the expenditure should increase—as it must, because our present establishments are insufficient to terminate the war with success—if the pressure of taxation should be more severely felt—as it must if the war should last for many years, as it may—and if the contest should not be characterised by brilliant and decisive successes from time to time to animate the people, can we expect that their constancy will be maintained? Is it reasonable to suppose that throughout the war you will have the same support from the people as you have now? I cannot believe it, and for that reason I would impress on the Government the necessity of economy. You must show the people that you do not engage in unnecessary expense—that you are doing everything in your power to promote the efficiency of the public service—and that you save all the money in your power by rejecting matters which are not absolutely necessary, and postponing those which arc not immediately required. Show the people that you call upon them to pay taxes for the sole purpose of enabling the Government to carry on the war with energy and success. Depend upon it the people of this country must be changed indeed if they can see, at the seine time, inefficiency in military operations and waist of economy in the disposal of the public money. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
"That there be laid before this House. Return of the Total Sum granted for Miscellaneous Services, under each of the following Heads in each
242
Class, from 1838 to 1853, both inclusive:—1. Public Works and Buildings; 2. Salaries, &c., Public Departments; 3. Law and Justice; 4. Education, Science, and Art; 5. Colonial and Consular Services; 6. Superannuations and Charities; 7. Special and Temporary Objects."
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he regretted that his noble Friend at the head of the Government and his noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who generally attended to financial business in this House, were unavoidably absent on this occasion, since they would have been able to answer more fully than he could do the statements of the noble Earl; although, looking to the notice which the noble Earl placed upon the paper—which was merely for returns—no one could have anticipated that he meant this evening to make an attack on the Miscellaneous Estimates of successive Governments during the last twenty years. When he saw the noble Earl's notice, he supposed that he was about to move for some returns to complete those which he moved for about seven weeks ago, and that he would enter into no discussion until he had obtained all the information he desired. Even if his noble Friends were present, it would have been utterly impossible for them to give a proper answer to the noble Earl's statement, and he thought, therefore, he had a right to complain of the course adopted by the noble Earl, as calculated to take, not only the Government, but the country, by surprise. Whether the Government would suffer any discredit thereby, he knew not; but he must confess his inability to answer off-hand statements which it had taken the noble Earl six weeks to get up, and they must of necessity remain unanswered; indeed so many alterations had been made since 1838 in the mode of keeping the public accounts, that nothing but the labours of a Select Committee would suffice to place the matter clearly and distinctly before their Lordships. Some of the items of which the noble Earl composed his sum total have been introduced into the Estimates since 1838, and ought not, therefore, to have entered into a comparison with the Estimates of this year. One of these was the charge for the new Houses of Parliament; there was no charge under that head in the Estimates of 1838.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, there was; the sum charged in the Estimates of 1838 was 100,000 l.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: The apparent increase in the Estimates could,

243
in some instances, be accounted for by the changes which had taken place in the mode of keeping the public accounts. That was the case as regarded the Royal parks.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had struck that item out of his calculation altogether.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEwished the noble Earl would not interrupt. His task in replying to the noble Earl was sufficiently difficult, even if allowed to make his observations without interruption. One of the items of increase to which special objection had been taken by the noble Earl was that for education, and he did not think that their Lordships would agree with the noble Earl in the disparaging remarks which he made on the propriety of extending education throughout the country.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had not disparaged the spread of education.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEappealed to their Lordships whether he was not correct, and whether they ever heard any noble Lord make a more studied attack upon education than the noble Earl had done. He not only objected to the increase of the sums expended, but expressed himself as actually adverse to the progress of education. It might be true that the children of persons employed in labour, particularly in the agricultural districts, were removed at an early age from school; he (the Duke of Newcastle) thought that it was far better that they should be educated even up to fourteen years of age, rather than that they should not be educated at all. With respect to the conclusion which the noble Earl had drawn from the sums expended on education and crime respectively, he believed that if they had been fairly dealt with, the result shown would have been just the reverse. There was no doubt that concurrently with the increase of education there had gone on an improvement in the management of our prisons, which had led to a largely increased expenditure. The whole system with respect to prisons and transportation had been greatly improved, and those improvements could certainly not have been effected without considerable increase in the expenditure. He believed that the returns, correctly stated, would show that the increase of crime had nut been in proportion to the increase of population, and the number of offences were not so high as they would money been had they nut expended the money they bad done for the purposes of
244
education. He agreed with the noble Earl that the police of the country was not in a satisfactory state, and that the whole system of the county constabulary required revision. Referring to the expenditure under the head of art and science, the noble Earl said correctly that they could not promote art, properly so called, to any material extent, by a large expenditure of public money. He (the Duke of Newcastle) would never attempt to foster art by any such means. But the institutions to which the noble Earl referred were not for the promotion of art, so called, the object of which was more to please the eye and elevate the mind; but they were institutions of a practical character. The Museum of Practical Geology was one by means of which, he had no hesitation in saying, through the information which it had diffused, the wealth of the country had been greatly increased, and a very large and foolish expenditure of money had been averted. It was known that whilst in other countries industry had been fostered, and good taste promoted, we had been deficient, and our fabrics had failed, because we had neglected to avail ourselves of the advantages within our reach. His noble Friend denied that he meant to cast any reflection as to the construction of the two Houses of Parliament; but he, at any rate, referred to the character of these buildings, and to the large expenditure that had been made upon them. There was no doubt with regard to that fact; but let him ask him whether he might not deduce from that circumstance that those who indulge in the lavish expenditure of the public money of this country are not always Chancellors of the Exchequer or First Lords of the Treasury, but are sometimes the Members of the two Houses of Parliament themselves? These buildings were a most flagrant instance of that truth. Condemn the buildings if you will,—admire them if you like; but, whatever you do, bear in mind that, from the first year up to the present day, the management and control as well as the expenditure connected with the new Houses of Parliament had been taken out of the ordinary channel, and had been assumed by Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. His noble Friend had made some amusing remarks respecting the changes which had taken place in the windows of their Lordships' House, and pointed out the enormities that had been substituted for what was before plain and

245
suitable for the purpose of giving light. He was not inclined to disagree with his noble Friend in that matter, but really he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the person who ought to be called to the bar to answer for the expenditure of the public money on account of those windows; but rather, the person who should be answerable was a noble Marquess who was not at present in the House (the Marquess of Clanricarde). For, what did the noble Marquess do last Session? He moved for a Committee last Session to inquire into the lighting and ventilating of the House, in order to see how a little more money could be spent on those objects; and what did he do the other day? Finding, last year, that they would not act upon his suggestion, but were desirous of letting well alone, believing, as they did upon the whole, that the House was a tolerably comfortable one, although there might be ground for some small complaint with regard to ventilation, but not with respect to light—the noble Marquess at the beginning of the present Session moved for the appointment of another Committee upon the subject, and insisted that fresh experiments should be made. When, therefore, his noble Friend complained of the large amount of expenditure, he asked how he could say that the Government or anybody was responsible, except the two Houses of Parliament themselves, by whose Committee that expenditure had been incurred? He admitted that the expenditure upon these Houses had been very enormous, but, if it was made a question of taste, he had no hesitation in saying that, when the present generation of their Lordships had passed away, the name of Sir Charles Barry as a man of genius and as an architect would be classed with those of the greatest ornaments of our country in the kindred branches of art. He confessed he did not like to hear a man of eminence and high character like Sir Charles Barry condemned for what certainly had not been his fault, but for which their Lordships and the House of Commons were alone responsible. The noble Earl then went to another branch of public expenditure, namely, that on account of prisons in Scotland and Ireland, and observed that vice in Scotland must have greatly increased, while in Ireland it must have diminished, seeing that the expenditure for taking care of prisoners in Scotland was greater, by 100 per cent, than at a former period, while less had been expended for a similar purpose in
246
Ireland. But if his noble Friend would deal with this question fairly, he believed he would find that he was in no way justified in drawing such a conclusion, for it was a fact, that, within a few years nearly the whole of the prisons in Scotland had been rebuilt, and large sums expended in the improvement of those that were bad and defective. It was, therefore, most unfair to infer that this expenditure had been caused by an increase of crime. Upon that ground he thought the country had a right to complain of his noble Friend in not giving the Government an opportunity of coming prepared to answer all these questions, instead of creating impressions of a most unfavourable and ungrounded character, without any means being afforded to remove them. But, as regarded this very question of the expense of prisons, his noble Friend had entirely lost sight of and forgotten—for he was sure he would not unfairly suppress the fact—that a very large proportion indeed of the sum of 711,000 l., which he stated to be the difference between the expenditure in 1838 and 1854 on account of prisons, had not arisen on account of any increase of crime, but was an apparent increase only by reason of a change in the mode of making out the Estimates—because a great many of the charges which now appear under the head of prisons were previously included in other Estimates. Unless he was greatly mistaken, the Navy Estimates formerly bore the charge, under the head of transportation, which were now placed under the Miscellaneous Estimates. He said, therefore, that it was exceedingly unfair, without stating that fact, to put the whole of this charge down as an additional burden on the country, when the truth was, that one branch of expenditure is relieved while another is increased. But he would not pretend to go into these complicated Estimates in detail. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself were a Member of your Lordships' House, it would be impossible for him to defend the Estimates in a satisfactory manner through the mere medium of a speech, in consequence of the many changes that have been made in them;—for those changes have so far produced a complication in this sheet of paper as to render it perfectly impossible for his noble Friend to deal with it fairly and justly without going into a full investigation of the whole Estimates. The last topic referred to by his noble Friend was the Census of 1851.

247
He said that the Census of 1841 cost 23,000 l., whereas the Census of 1851 had enormously increased. But was it not an undeniable fact that the Census of 1851 had furnished considerably more information than the Census of 1841? And yet he believed that so anxious was the public for still further statistical information, that before the year 1861 comes round, the Government would be called upon to make very extended investigations, even though at a considerably increased expenditure. Very possibly it may be my noble Friend's individual opinion that the additional information given by the Census of 1851 was not worth having, and that the expenditure ought not to have been increased; but he (the Duke of Newcastle) was certain that the country would soon say that we ought to have more information than we had yet acquired. He had thus replied to those points of his noble Friend's speech regarding which he happened at the moment to be acquainted, it being impossible for him to go in succession through all the topics, having little anticipated that his noble Friend was about to bring this bill of indictment against the financial policy, not only of the present Government, but of all the Governments that have existed since the year 1838. As regarded the Motion of his noble Friend, of course the Government would not have the slightest objection to give the information he desired, though he believed he had moved for it more as a pivot on which to turn his speech than for the purpose of obtaining information, since it would afford him very little more information than he had already obtained. But, while he protested against the course which his noble Friend had taken, in not having given any notice of his intention to enter upon this subject, he came to the same conclusion with his noble Friend—namely, that it was the bounden duty of the Government, not in time of war only, but at all times, to economise the public money. He was certain, as regarded every item of expenditure in the present Estimates in which there had been any real increase, that increase had been called for by the exigency of the public service. He could assure his noble Friend that while, in the present year, economy with efficiency had been consulted in the Estimates, so, in future Sessions, every attempt would be made to decrease those Estimates. At the same time, he should be misleading their Lordships if he were to state that lie believed, in the present
248
state of the country, with an enlarged commerce, and with an increased expenditure demanded by a war of a most national description and of the greatest possible importance, that there was any great probability of reducing to any large extent the present expenditure of the country. But if ever there was a time when economy should be observed by the Government in every possible department, he agreed with his noble Friend it was at a time of war, when the country was liable to be pressed by still further demands for the purpose of carrying on that war. He must apologise to their Lordships for the very inadequate manner in which he had replied to the speech of the noble Earl. He had by no means pretended to give a complete explanation of all the points adverted to by his noble Friend; but, if he thought fit on any future occasion to give a formal notice of a Motion on the subject, he was perfectly confident that his noble Friend at the head of the Treasury, and his noble Friend who took charge, on behalf of the Government, of financial measures in this House, would both be in their places to supply any information the noble Earl might require, and to justify the whole course of financial policy which the Government had pursued.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he believed that there was but one feeling prevailing on all sides of their Lordships' House at the present moment, and that was, how entirely unnecessary was the apology of the noble Duke for the manner in which he had just performed the duty that had devolved upon him. After no very short Parliamentary experience, he did not remember seeing any Minister placed in a position of greater difficulty than that in which his noble Friend had been placed by the very able and not unprepared attack of the noble Earl. He had never seen a Minister placed in a situation of more difficulty, and he had never seen one extricate himself more admirably from the difficulties of that situation. It was not his intention to follow the noble Earl nor the noble Duke through the details of this somewhat complicated and certainly varied branch of finance. He rose to enter his protest against the conclusion drawn—he feared, somewhat rashly drawn—from certain matters of facts in the tables to which he referred, upon a subject of great moment—namely, the subject of national education. According to his noble, Friend, there was nothing more vain than the notion of diffusing instruction among the

249
people with a view to the improvement of their character, because, said he, it only ended in worsening instead of improving the morals of the people. Really, if he wanted an illustration of how dangerous it was to argue upon such statistical facts as formed the basis of his noble Friend's conclusion upon this important subject, he should only have to remind their Lordships of the gross absurdity of the argument which his noble Friend had deduced from the papers before him, and which was neither more nor less than this—that in one part of the United Kingdom there had been a great improvement in the morals of the people, and a diminution of crime; while in another part, Scotland, there had been no improvement, but that the people there had become a great deal worse—worse by 100 per cent—and that the people of Scotland had become twofold degraded in the course of the last three or four years. His noble Friend had left them one item on which to congratulate themselves with respect to the state of things in the sister kingdom, Ireland. He should be sorry to detract in any manner from the praise that might be bestowed upon the improved morality of the people of Ireland; but his noble Friend had forgotten what had happened during the sixteen years that had elapsed since the year 1838, which was the period with which he had compared the Estimates of 1854. There had been since that time what was called the "exodus." He thought that would explain the diminution of crime in that part of the United Kingdom, as well as the diminution in the number of the people. There was another subject on which he differed greatly from his noble Friend—namely, education, both the education of time people and the education of the upper classes. No man, however strongly he might feel the necessity of increasing instruction among the common people, ever believed that it would produce an immediate effect in lessening the number of criminals, more especially if an improved police and an improved system of administration of criminal justice went on concurrently. These two circumstances would necessarily cause an apparent increase in the number of offences. But if any of their Lordships would consult the learned Judges who went the circuits on the subject, they would at once state that the calendars of offenders invariably showed that the great majority of crimes were committed by persons who could neither write nor read. His noble and learned
250
Friend the Lord Chief Justice told him that two-thirds of the whole number of criminals were those who were without any education at all. It had always been his opinion that when they relied upon the benefits of education, they ought to do a great deal more for education than had ever yet been attempted. There was one species of education which went directly to the prevention of offences—he meant infant instruction. It was somewhat too late to think of changing the nature of children by any after-training, if they waited till the children became of the age at which they were generally sent to the primary schools. But if they took infants three or four years old, they could train them to virtuous habits—keep them out of harm's way, and remove them from the contaminating influence of profligate parents. By this course of moral training they might be fitted to become good, innocent, and useful members of society. The criminal population of any country—that was to say, that portion of the people among whom criminals were found—was a comparatively small number. In a town containing 1,500,000 people, there were not more than 30,000 or 40,000 of them among whom criminals would be found. Now, by providing infant schools for training, his belief was that they would do more to eradicate crime and prevent its taking root than by any other expedient. He had said that he differed from his noble Friend also in his views respecting the education of the upper classes. If they wished to promote education among the people at large, and that it should go down even to the humblest classes, the best course to take was to create a taste for knowledge among those who were above the humbler classes. If the middle classes had a taste for the acquirement of knowledge, if they were induced to think that it was essential to their happiness, or even to their comfort, the feeling so created among them would necessarily influence the next grade of society below them, and thus by degrees a taste for knowledge would be propagated and extended throughout every class of the community. If he thought that what had been done in reference to education had had a tendency to slacken individual efforts, he should agree in the observations of the noble Earl; but his impression was, that the grants of public money had been carefully distributed, so as to interfere as little as possible with individual charity or bounty.

251
Any contrary course would have been opposed to the original intention of these grants, as recommended by the Education Committee of 1818. With respect to the Houses of Parliament, he differed less from the noble Earl than he did in regard to other matters to which the noble Earl had directed the attention of their Lordships; but on this head he took no blame to himself for any sins against good taste, for, from the very first, he held it to be barbarous in the extreme that in the middle of the nineteenth century they should erect a Gothic structure for the Houses of Parliament. He gave the fullest praise to the genius of the architect for producing all those peculiar beauties which belonged to Gothic architecture; but, with all his admiration of those beauties, he was of opinion that the architecture of the building ought not to have been Gothic, but the more chaste and severe Doric.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that, so far as he knew, there was no increase in the criminality of Scotland which was not proportionate to the increase of the population. The greatly augmented changes of the Estimates were owing to a new system of prisons which had been introduced in a great measure since 1838; but, if there had been any increase in crime, that circumstance would tell against, and not in favour of, the whole argument of the noble Earl; for unquestionably of late years the population of Scotland had outrun the means of education there. It was too late in the day to argue against the beneficial effects of education; but if the noble Earl wanted statistics on this head, particularly with respect to the juvenile criminal population, he would refer the noble Earl to papers laid before Parliament in recent years in regard to Aberdeen, and to the effect which the establishment of reformatory schools for juvenile offenders had had in decreasing juvenile delinquency 50 or 60 per cent. The noble Earl had referred to the increased expenditure on account of the Geological Museum and Department of Practical Art. The expenditure for art education had been repeatedly shown to be necessary in the present defective state of our manufactures in respect of design; and, to show the great economical advantages of education of this nature, he (the Duke of Argyll) did not know that he could do better than direct attention to that very department. Two or three years ago he went over the largest manufactory in Glasgow, and he
252
was astonished at being informed of the very large sums which were weekly, monthly, and yearly expended for the purchase of the most simple patterns brought from France. The manufacturing towns used to be entirely dependent on patterns imported from foreign countries, and some of them had been constantly urging the Government to establish schools of design. If, by the creation of a skilful class of designers, the money now expended in encouraging the artists of foreign countries were spent at home, could any one doubt that this would tend materially to the increase of our wealth and the development of our manufacturing resources? Wherever those schools had been established the very best results had ensued in an economical point of view, and the money which was before spent abroad was now expended among our artisans at home. With respect to the Geological Museum, the noble Earl would hardly have any doubt about the utility of that establishment if he had only attended some of the lectures delivered there by eminent men to the artisans of London open the practical application of the principles of science to the various arts and manufactures. It was for such objects that the Estimates to which the noble Earl had referred had been increased; and, considering the beneficial results of the institution of the Geological Museum, the Government had thought themselves justified in proposing an outlay of money for the establishment of similar institutions in Edinburgh and Dublin. The Estimates exhibited an increase of 8,000 l. for the institution at Edinburgh, and a similar sum for Dublin, and of 9,000 l. in aid of local schools of art. The general principle on which this outlay had been sanctioned by the Government was, that it would be attended with the best practical effect upon the manufactures and commerce of the country. No doubt the noble Earl might be right in saying that the Miscellaneous Estimates were capable of some reductions, but he dissented from the whole spirit which governed the noble Earl's remarks. The noble Earl objected to the whole expenditure connected with peace and civilisation as contrasted with the expenditure for war. It was true that the country had entered into a contest with one of the greatest Powers in Europe, and, as it was impossible to say when the contest might close, it behoved them to husband their resources; but still he must express his dissent from any argument

253
tending to recommend the retrenchment of the expenditure connected with the arts of peace, upon which the permanent advantage of the people must depend.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH, in reply, stated that the Estimates for the present year having appeared on the 31st of March, he had given notice of the present Motion to the late President of the Council (Earl Granville) on the 19th of May. He could not tell that that noble Earl would not now fill that office, or that he would not be present in the House that evening. He certainly thought it would be sufficient to give notice to one Member of the Cabinet. The noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) seemed to think that he had not made a fair comparison between the different items in the Estimates of 1838 and those of 1853. He had, however, carefully deducted from the Estimates of 1853 those items which were either wholly new, or were for the first time charged upon the Miscellaneous Estimates since 1853. On these two accounts he deducted from the Estimates of 1853 no less a sum than 885,000 l., and having done that he believed that it was impossible to state the comparison between the two years' expenditure more fairly than he had done. It was a misapprehension of his argument to suppose that he objected to the extension of education. He stated that the good people who were desirous to extend education believed that it would greatly elevate the moral character of the people. He then mentioned the reasons which led him to believe that that result would not be attained, at least not to the extent expected, and he afterwards remarked that it was evident the expected improvement had not taken place, since the expenditure upon the punishment of the wicked had greatly increased. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had congratulated himself on getting a grant of money for the promotion of art and science in Scotland. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) was only surprised that Scotland Lad got so little, although, indeed, it had really received not 8,000 l., as the noble Duke had said, but 25,000 l. The noble Duke had also boasted of the encouragement which the Government had given to art in Ireland. He found, however, that the Royal Irish Academy and the Royal Hibernian Academy—what difference there was between them, except in the name, he did not know—had received only 300 l. a year each from 1838 to 1854. He
254
strongly recommended the claims of these institutions to the attention of Government.
On Question, agreed to.
House adjourned to Monday next.