Sitting of 24 April 1855

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—2° Metropolitan Buildings.

LANCASTER SHOT FACTORY AT WOOL WICH—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNONsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance whether the building for the Lancaster shot manufactory at Woolwich was erected by Messrs. Fox and Henderson without the supervision of an officer of the Royal Engineer department; and, if so, what was the reason for adopting such a course? also, whether that work has been performed, in respect to construction and materials, to the entire satisfaction of the Ordnance, and whether an officer of the Royal Engineer department has been directed to examine and report upon the same?
MR. MONSELL, in reply, said, that in the month of November last, on account of reports that had been received from the East by the Government, it was considered desirable to increase very largely the manufacture of Lancaster shells. He had communicated with Mr. Nasmyth on the subject, who had placed at the disposal of the Government his great works, but, on consultation with the Engineer Department at Woolwich, it was found impossible, in consequence of the absence of certain things, that the work could be carried on in Mr. Nasmyth's factory. They, therefore, found themselves obliged to erect the establishment at Woolwich to which the

1729
hon. and gallant gentleman had alluded. The plans were prepared by the inspector of machinery, in conjunction with Messrs. Fox, Henderson, and Co. They were submitted to the commanding officer of Royal Engineers at Woolwich, Colonel Foster, who declared that upon the whole, considering the rapidity with which the building had to be erected, he considered the price to be a fair one. The works were accordingly commenced in the course of December, and within a few days afterwards Colonel Foster called upon him and informed him that, in his opinion, if the materials brought upon the ground were used, and if the building were constructed in the way Messrs. Fox, Henderson, and Co. proposed, it would not stand. But Colonel Foster informed him also that if a guarantee were given by Messrs. Fox and Henderson that the building would stand even for six months, he was quite sure the building might be considered to be a permanent one, in consequence of the great force of the Nasmyth's hammers, and the great amount of machinery that would be set to work from the moment that the works were put in operation. He (Mr. Monsell) accordingly sent to Sir Charles Fox, who gave the guarantee required entirely to Colonel Foster's satisfaction, and the building was proceeded with; and in two months from the day of the commencement the first shell was forged. He might mention that the building covered 3,000 yards, was 240 feet long, and 180 feet broad. The factory had been in operation for some time, and had been working very well; but on account of certain representations made, chiefly with regard to the firebricks, Major General Hardinge, of the Royal Engineers, was requested to go to Woolwich, to inspect the building, and to report upon it. His report was in some respects unsatisfactory, and it was referred to Sir Charles Fox; and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would, when the reply of Sir Charles Fox was received, put another question, he (Mr. Monsell) would be happy to communicate to him the result. All he could then say was, that the building was working perfectly well, that it had stood the severe test to which it was exposed, and, so far as he could learn, the works appeared to answer the purpose for which they were intended. In the first instance the building was to some extent under Colonel Foster's superintendence; but after the guarantee was given by Messrs. Fox, Henderson, and Co., it ceased
1730
to be under Colonel Foster's superintendence, and Messrs. Fox, Henderson, and Co. having given the guarantee, they had the undivided responsibility of the erection of the building.

INDIAN FINANCE—QUESTION.
MR. DISRAELI: I wish, Sir, to make an inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control with regard to some financial operations of the Indian Government. The House will, perhaps, recollect that about a year ago a complete conversion of the Indian Five per Cents. was carried into successful operation by the Government of India, and they were converted into Four per Cents. The price of the Five per Cents, at the time of the conversion was 112 l. in English money, and the conversion was effected at par to Four per Cents. Of course, that was a legitimate operation, or at all events if illegitimate, it was a beneficial one. Now, I understand that, this conversion from Four to Five per Cents having been effected about a year ago, the Indian Government have since opened a new loan of Five per Cents at par. The consequence of that operation has been that the Four per Cents, upon which a loss of 12 per cent by the original conversion from Five to Four per Cents took place, have fallen by the last advices to 85 l. There is, therefore, of course, a loss of 27 l. upon them. Wishing to confine myself within the strict limits of the question, I do not intend to offer any remark at present upon this remarkable operation of finance by the Government of India; but I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay upon the table of the House any correspondence that has taken place on the subject of this financial operation between the home Government and the Government of India.
MR. VERNON SMITH: Sir, I have to inform the right hon. Gentleman that no official intelligence has been received concerning the transaction mentioned by him. All the information the Government have on the subject is that which is known to him and to the country through the public press—namely, that, in order to raise money for the purpose of defraying the expenses of public works, a loan was opened at 5 per cent. Of course the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Governor General of India has the power to open a loan whenever he pleases, without consultation with the Court of Directors or the

1731
home authorities. But of course he will send borne some notice of the transaction; and when the correspondence arrives, I shall be perfectly ready to lay it on the table of the House.
MR. DISRAELI: In consequence of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, which certainly are very unsatisfactory to me. I will, without waiting for that correspondence, take an early opportunity of putting before the House and the country the nature of the operation as I believe it to be, with respect to this loan; so that when the correspondence shall arrive, the House will be better able to appreciate its value.

ACT OF UNIFORMITY.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he would now beg to move, in accordance with the notice he had given, that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider such clauses of the Act of Uniformity of 1662, as impose religious tests. If the Resolution were adopted, he would introduce a measure to repeal that portion of the Act of Uniformity, by which it was directed that the schoolmaster of public schools should take the affirmation prescribed by the Act of Uniformity. One clause of the Act required every public schoolmaster to sign his conformity to the Church of England, and the result of which was, that they had made every grammar school in the country a Church of England institution, The schoolmasters consequently considered themselves entitled to make all the boys, without exception, learn the Catechism of the Church of England, and attend its service on Sunday. That was, of course, quite agreeable to the members of the Establishment, but was very hard on those boys who happened to be the sons of Dissenting parents, and who were obliged to attend a service in which their parents could not conscientiously join. To remedy the evil he was prepared to adopt the clause proposed by the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) in his Education Bill, by which it was declared that he would not require any child to receive religious instruction to which the parents objected. The question was one that called for the interference of Parliament, and he had the authority of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge for saying that an alteration in the tests at present imposed was highly necessary. One of the first duties of a Representative of the people was to take care that the religious scruples
1732
of the people were attended to; and he believed that great advantage would be derived from the appointment of a Committee to consider the subject. One of the earliest reformers in this respect was Lord Bacon; but since the time of Lord Bacon 300 years had passed away, and very little alteration had been effected in the meantime. In the rules of the colleges themselves, which had become national institutions, there were many objectionable religious tests. Those could not be a better example of the abuses and malpractices prevailing in the Universities than that of Trinity College, Dublin, the fellows of which had so long been rigidly bent on maintaining the sacramental test. An attempt was made in the Irish Parliament to open that institution in 1793 which was unsuccessful, in spite of the excitement caused by the case of Hearne, who was deprived of a scholarship of the value of 80 l., because he refused to take the sacrament according to the rite of the Church of England, being a Roman Catholic. Again, in Trinity College, Cambridge, when a gentleman was appointed to a fellowship, he was obliged to take an oath that he would make theology the end of his studies, and that after the expiration of seven years he would either take holy orders or surrender his fellowship. Many able men professing the Roman Catholic religion, declined to take the Sacrament, and were consequently deprived of their scholarships. He contended that an alteration in the law was called for, and that the House of Commons was the proper body to originate a change. In 1828 the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord J. Russell), brought forward a Bill for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. Those Acts were abolished with regard to the magistracy and other individuals, but with regard to the colleges no change was made, and a separate measure was now required to effect an alteration. In most of the grammar schools throughout the kingdom the trustees, in appointing a master, were confined to the election of a graduate from the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge, graduates of the other Universities being excluded; but he believed that an institution which selected the best men of the day from all parts of the country was the most likely to advance the interests of the people. We were now arrived at a critical period in the history of the country, when men of talent and ability were more needed than in former times. He called on the House,

1733
therefore, to sanction the attempt he now made to set free the educational system of the country, and to affirm the preliminary Resolution he should now lay before them, a Bill founded on which would much tend to the improvement of our educational system.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYseconded the Resolution, feeling, he said, it an honour to be identified with the Dissenters of England in one of the most important movements in the cause of civil and religious liberty which had taken place for the last 200 years.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That this house will resolve itself into a Committee, to consider such Clauses of the Act of Uniformity of 1662, as impose religious tests, limiting the advantages of academical, or grammar, or free school education; and so much of any Regulations of National Institutions, either in England or Ireland, as impose religious tests as conditions or qualifications for any advantages connected with Education, in the English or Irish Universities or Public Schools."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I waited before making any observations upon the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood), because I considered that hon. Gentlemen who are connected with some of those institutions to which the Motion refers might wish to express their sentiments on their behalf to the House. I have, however, no difficulty in at once stating the course which it is my intention to pursue respecting it. The Motion of my hon. Friend seems to me to divide itself into two very distinct and different portions. The first part of the Resolution relates to the consideration of those portions of the Act of Uniformity winch require religious tests from schoolmasters and tutors in private families—from persons, in short, from whom generally no religious tests have for a long period been required, and which imposed very severe penalties upon those who neglected to comply with the enactments. The second part of the Resolution, if I properly understand its purport, would appear to me to tend to disturb the settlement which was made last year with regard to the University of Oxford. Now, with regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's Resolution, so far as he has explained it and as I comprehend it, I shall have no sort of difficulty in going along with him. I think these obsolete enactments, which have long ceased to be of any practical effect, and which are no longer in accordance with the spirit
1734
of the times, may, with great advantage, be swept away from the Statute Book. With regard to the second part of the proposal, I think it would not be right for Parliament to interfere and disturb the settlement of last year, at ail events until we have had some practical experience of the working of that measure. I shall not, therefore, be disposed to go along with my hon. Friend with respect to that part of his Resolution, so far as I understand it. If my hon. Friend should not consent to withhold the doubtful part of his Resolution, and to propose only the first clause, yet, as agreeing with him to some extent, I shall not object to the House going into Committee. I must, however, beg my hon. Friend and the House clearly to understand that, in doing so, it is with the full reservation that I have entire liberty to deal with my hon. Friend's Bill when it is brought in, according to the opinion I may form of the provisions which it contains. I shall be prepared to concur in such portions of my hon. Friend's Bill as will sweep away the old and obsolete enactments to which he has referred, but I shall not be disposed to assent to such portions of the measure as would disturb the arrangement of last year. There may be other points in the Bill which are not included in the Resolution of my hon. Friend, and with regard to them I beg to reserve to myself perfect freedom to consider them when they are explained and developed. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will understand, if he persists in leaving his Motion in its present form, that in acquiescing in it I am by no means committed to the full extent of his proposal, but for myself and for Her Majesty's Government I shall be at perfect liberty to object to any portion of the arrangement he suggests, which upon full consideration we may think it is not desirable or expedient to adopt.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the declaration which his noble Friend had just made was, it appeared to him, quite fair and satisfactory, but he went beyond his noble Friend in this respect, that he was disposed to urge upon his hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire, the expediency of amending his Motion forthwith, because he thought it was neither convenient nor satisfactory that the House should go into Committee upon a matter affecting the Act of Uniformity, not on the proposition of the Government, but upon that of a private Member, in order to allow a Bill to be brought in and read a first and

1735
second time, with the view of cutting it down to comparatively insignificant proportions in Committee. He felt bound to give notice distinctly to his hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire that, so far as the University of Oxford was concerned, after the arrangement of last year, he (Mr. Gladstone) would think it his duty, without the smallest compunction or hesitation, to resist any attempt to interfere with the settlement then made by Parliament. He considered, however, that the omission of the latter part of the Motion would not entirely and satisfactorily attain the object of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, for a clause in the Act of Uniformity, which was in fact a fundamental part of the settlement of last year, limited college offices to members of the Church of England. He thought that any alteration of important Acts of Parliament, which might unsettle the condition of ancient institutions, was a matter of very serious consideration, and that it was most inexpedient and unadvisable that the discussion of such subjects should be renewed year after year. No doubt it appeared a very slight thing to his hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire to cut out of the Statute Book any measures which were opposed to his views of the manner in which these venerable institutions should be regulated. He (Mr. Gladstone) thought, however, that in the case of institutions so ancient, and possessing so many rights of a complex character, a strong case was requisite to justify the interference of Parliament, and it was especially desirable that such interference should be rare. He considered that his opinion would be borne out by those who recollected that it cost the House the labour of half a Session only last year, to pass a Bill for the reform of the University of Oxford. He considered that in a matter of this kind, those who desired to attain reasonable objects should proceed cautiously and step by step. Commissions had been appointed to inquire, time after time, into the old Universities of the country; they had made their reports; and Parliament had addressed itself with laudable care to the object of applying such parts of their reports as it approved to the case of the University of Oxford. It appeared to him that the recommendation given by his noble Friend at the head of the Government on a former occasion was very wise and sound—that to the Universities all minor establishments for the promotion of education should be
1736
made to conform. The system introduced by the Act of last year could not have been established, had not the University, in pursuance of clauses contained in the Act, applied itself with great good faith to carrying into effect the intentions of Parliament, by framing regulations for its better government and discipline. He considered, therefore, that it would be but an ill return for the disposition so dutifully manifested by the University, if, before an opportunity had been afforded to the University authorities of carrying any of the new arrangements into effect, they interfered with a fresh set of Parliamentary stipulations, and threw into confusion the regulations which had already been devised at Oxford. The Universities must be the key to the system of instruction in the public schools; and as Parliament had already passed a Bill with respect to Oxford, as a Bill relating to the University of Cambridge was now before the other House, and as he took it for granted that these measures would be followed by one affecting the University of Dublin, he would call upon them first to fix, by a Vote of that House, the principles applicable to the Universities, and then to consider the principles applicable to the public and grammar schools of the country.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought the most important portion of the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Heywood) referred to the endowed grammar and public schools, and that the House ought not, without careful and mature consideration, to proceed to legislate upon a subject of so much importance. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, in order to open these schools to Dissenters, the trusts of the endowments would have to be, not qualified or altered merely, but entirely subverted. He therefore asked whether, on the present occasion, the House would sanction a proposal which must necessarily have so gigantic an effect? He trusted the hon. Gentleman would listen to the advice which had been tendered to him, and would consent to alter the terms of his Motion in such a manner as would have the effect of removing those merely obsolete enactments to which the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government had referred.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he had no objection to modify his Motion. The most important and urgent cases were not at Oxford, but at Trinity College, Dublin. For the scholarships there sacramental

1737
tests were required, when they were abolished everywhere else, If it would meet the wish of the House, therefore, he would alter the Motion by inserting Trinity College by name, as that was the most important case.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he considered that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) was a satisfactory answer to the speech of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) and afforded the strongest reasons for the rejection of the Motion altogether, because the Motion that the House should go into Committee in order to find out what was the meaning of the hon. Member (Mr. Heywood) was perfectly absurd, and was a most unjustifiable task to be imposed on them. The hon. Gentleman, however, said that he was willing to qualify his Motion provided he were permitted to do something with the University of Dublin. Now, it was a most remarkable fact that that University was the most liberal of any of the Universities of the United Kingdom, and there was extant a speech of Mr. Grattan, which was spoken in 1794, in which that eminent man pronounced a panegyric on the Dublin University as being the most liberal in Europe, because it had permitted the education of Dissenters within its walls fully a century before any other University. He visited the University last week, when he saw a list of scholarships for election, and he asked whether they were to be open to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and the answer was that they were. But what did the hon. Member propose? He proposed that scholarships also should be open to Dissenters; but he did not yet go so far as fellowships. Now, he (Mr. Whiteside) admitted that the Dissenters in Ireland were a very respectable body of men; their language was more moderate than that used by the Dissenters of England—and in which he thought they showed their good sense; but the proposition, that the doubts raised as to the meaning of the hon. Member's Motion should be solved by fastening on the unfortunate University of Dublin and seizing upon its scholarships was one which he did not think even the noble Lord himself would assent to.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, that he was wiling further to alter his Motion by omitting the latter section, and stopping at the words "religious test." It would then read thus—
1738
"That this House will resolve itself into a Committee to consider such clauses of the Act of Uniformity of 1662 as impose religious tests."
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman was committing a mistake in supposing that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had actually assented to the Motion in the qualified terms in which he had proposed to submit it to the House. It was quite clear that the noble Lord did not know what were the intentions and objects of the hon. Gentleman. It was obvious that they were not those indicated by the noble Lord. He (Mr. Disraeli) thought it would be extremely unwise for the House of Commons to go into Committee on a Statute of not less importance than the Act of Uniformity, when absolutely the hon. Member who made that proposal had not indicated to the House in precise language what was his object, and when the First Minister of the Crown, who had sanctioned the Motion, had described it in a manner which proved that he was unacquainted with the intention of its proposer.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he was very sorry that he had been misunderstood. The object he had in view was that boys, not merely belonging to the Church of England, but to other denominations, should be allowed to partake of the advantages of academical or grammar or free school education, without having religious tests forced upon them of a Church to which they did not belong.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, that although but a humble Member of the House, he thought it rather an insult upon his own common sense if he were called upon to vote upon a Motion such as this before it had been explained by its proposer what was the object of it. Upon the suggestion of the noble Lord (Vscount Palmerston), indeed, some alteration had been made in the Motion; but it appeared to him that that alteration was anything but satisfactory. The subject to which it referred was one of the most important with which that House could have to deal, and it appeared to him that the best course the hon. Gentleman could pursue would be to withdraw the Motion, and bring it on again at a future day, when he might be able to explain to the House what he really did mean by his Motion.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he considered that the Motion would be rendered only the more objectionable by the alteration the

1739
hon. Gentleman proposed. It was objectionable enough as it stood originally; but it would be still more so when amended in the manner suggested. Not only would it be useless, but positively mischievous, for the House to go into Committee upon a Resolution framed in such general terms; and if the hon. Gentleman did not withdraw his Motion, he would recommend that it should be met with a direct negative and ejected altogether.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, it appeared to him the hon. Gentleman had done himself injustice in not folly explaining what it was he wished to submit to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman did not read the whole sentence, and by not doing so he seemed to propose that the House should inquire generally into the effect of the Act of 1662 which imposed religious tests. That no doubt would be a very wide inquiry indeed; but that evidently was not what the hon. Gentleman meant. He begged to be permitted to read the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Resolution—
"That this House will resolve itself into a Committee to consider such Clauses of the Act of Uniformity of 1662 as impose religious tests, limiting the advantages of academical or grammar or free school education."
This was what he believed the hon. Gentleman meant to propose to the House. He should like the hon. Gentleman to say whether he did not mean that his amended Motion should read on in the following way—That this House will resolve itself into a Committee, to consider such clauses of the Act of Uniformity of 1662 as impose religious tests, limiting the advantages of academical or grammar or free school education?
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he wished to put the Motion in the shape most satisfactory to the House, and was ready to adopt the suggestion of the learned Serjeant. With that view he would beg to be allowed to withdraw the original Motion.
Question put, and negatived.

THE CHARITY COMMISSION.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, that, in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, he had no intention of making an attack on any official, but merely wished to bring before the country the principles of conduct adopted in certain offices. The expenses of the Charity Commission were very great; the last Return showed an expenditure of 78,000 l. They
1740
had, indeed, examined 238 charities, and no doubt a large benefit had accrued to the public, and considerable funds had been rescued from misappropriation, He thought the Commission, instead of any one else, ought to have the appointment of their own secretary and counsel. It appeared that Mr. Hine had been at once secretary to the Commission and solicitor to the Attorney General, and on his resignation Mr. Fearon was appointed to fill the two offices. As secretary he might advise the Commission to institute a suit, which he would conduct as solicitor. If the Return was granted, the House would see in what manner the suits in this office were conducted. He held in his hand a letter from Mr. Hume, written a short time before his death, in reference to the Hospital of St. Cross, The veteran reformer expressed his opinion that what had occurred was owing to the neglect of the parties conducting the suit, and declared his intention, if again able to enter the House, to move for a Committee to investigate what he believed was a fraud on one hand, and gross neglect on the other. If the Return was granted, they would find the solicitor acting in his professional capacity for both plaintiffs and defendants, and the standing counsel holding a brief first on one side and then on the other. The Commission, therefore, ought to have the appointment of these officers, and it was so provided for by the 38 Geo. III., c. 91. A large amount was now derived by the officers from fees. He thought it would be better for the country to alter the system altogether, and pay them liberal salaries instead. He knew nothing personally of Mr. Fearon, and it was from no feeling of hostility towards him that he brought forward his Motion. He made the Motion solely with a view to elicit information as to what had really been done by the Commission, and as to the manner in which that expenditure had been incurred. He thought there was just reason for complaint as to the amount of fees paid to counsel in many cases.
MR. HADFIELDseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of Treasury or other Order appointing Robert Wray, esquire, Standing Counsel to the Attorney General in Equity Crown matters, or the date when and by whom and under what circumstances he was appointed."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid,

1741
that he did not like to oppose Motions for Returns, but really the Returns asked for by the present Motion was so unprecedented, and would be so voluminous, that he should not feel that be was doing his duty to the House unless he afforded them some information, so as to enable them to see what was asked for. He was sure that the hon. Member who had brought forward this Motion had done so with the utmost innocence and simplicity, and with out having the slightest idea of what he (the Attorney General) believed was the case—that he was made neither more nor less than the puppet of a discontented solicitor, who had applied to other Members of the House to bring forward the same Motion, but had failed in the attempt. The Motion of the hon. Member included twenty-two returns, the greater part of which were already on the shelves of the House, while others could only be produced at a cost wholly disproportioned to the value of the information which they would afford. With regard to the first portion of the Returns moved for, it was sufficient to say there were no such orders as those referred to. The counsel in question, who acted as the juniors of the Attorney General in charity matters, were appointed by him. The same reply might be made in the case of the solicitors, who were also appointed by the Attorney General, as it was right and fit they should be, seeing that he was responsible for the manner in which they conducted the business in which they were engaged. With regard to the next Returns, he must inform the House that they were the first of a series of covert attacks on Mr. Fearon, than whom a more valuable officer never conducted the business of a public department in this or any other country. No doubt, a number of ex-officio informations had been filed by the Attorney General without the previous recommendation of the Charity Commissioners; but that was sufficiently accounted for by the fact that there were no Charity Commissioners in existence from 1839, while there were numerous cases in which it was necessary to file informations, and in which they were accordingly filed at the instigation of parties interested in the charities. In the Motion for the other Returns which followed, he could detect the same animus he had already pointed out; while if the information required by others were furnished, it would be exceedingly voluminous and altogether useless, especially as the very information had, in many cases, been
1742
already furnished to the House. If the hon. Gentleman thought there was anything wrong in the proceedings of the Attorney General, he ought not to ask for useless and expensive returns, but to move for a Select Committee.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, he deprecated the printing of such a mass of trash as the returns moved for by the hon. Member for Southwark.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Attorney General he would not press his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE POST OFFICE.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the system under which the Post Office was administered, and to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the orders given by the Treasury to the Postmaster General, in the year 1848, to establish a Post-office communication, at the expense of his department, between the islands of North and South Uist, Harris, and Barra, should be carried into effect without delay."
In point of fact, the House should bear in mind that the Postmaster General had not perfect control over his own department, but was under the direction of the Secretary to the Treasury, who held in his hands at the same time the patronage of the Post Office, the Customs, and the Excise, and distributed it with the object of gaining political support for the Government. Thus, the head of the Administration, as First Lord of the Treasury, presided over a department engaged in something which fell little short of bribery and corruption. The patronage of the Post Office was distributed not among the deserving clerks and subordinates, but mainly for political purposes; and the administration of the department, with its double system of management, was in every way cumbrous and absurd. The case to which he wished to call the attention of the House furnished an instance of this. Near the coast of Skye were five islands, which contained somewhere about 20,000 inhabitants, and possessed Post Offices established by the Government. Practically, however, the inhabitants of these islands had never received the advantage of the penny postage stamp, for they had been compelled to maintain the packets which conveyed their letters to the islands. In 1848, during the pressure of the famine, the people refused to pay for these packets,

1743
which consequently ceased to ply, and all postal communication was cut off. At the request, however, of his constituents, he had waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the then Secretary for the Home Department, and he wrote to the Treasury, who at once consented to bear the expense of these packets. The Government, from that time, undertook to maintain the communication as far as the island of North Uist, but they had never carried it further. The charge thrown upon the poor inhabitants of the islands for keeping up the communication was very heavy, the cost of maintaining the boats being about 80 l. a year. That sum was raised by subscription, but as many of the inhabitants refused to contribute, the cost was borne by those among them who were unwilling that the postal communication should be altogether interrupted. He did not ask any favour in this case at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, but he contended that those whose cause he urged upon the attention of the House were entitled to be placed, with respect to facilities of postal communication, upon the same footing as any other class of their fellow-subjects. He trusted, therefore, that neither the House nor the Government would suffer the inhabitants of these islands, poor though they were, to be subjected for the future to the inconvenience he had described.
Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted; and forty Members not being present;
The House was adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock.

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL—3a Convention with Sardinia.

THE CONFERENCES AT VIENNA.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I last night gave notice to my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that I should this evening put some questions to him with regard to the state of the negotiations which have been hitherto going on at Vienna. My noble Friend, I am sure, will give not only myself, but every Member of this House, credit for having abstained for a considerable period from embarrassing Her Majesty's Government by any questions relating to this subject, inasmuch as I am sure we all felt the immense importance of the measures which were proceeding, and all indulged in an earnest hope that they might be concluded by an honourable and lasting peace. But, my Lords, yesterday the impression upon the public mind was that all hope in that respect had ceased, that the negotiations were broken off, and that we were now threatened with a campaign for a second time against Russia. It is my wish, therefore, to ask those questions of the noble Earl which I think are not premature; and, indeed, I find that in another place I have been anticipated by a Member of Parliament, and that the Prime Minister has announced to the House of Commons what the state of the negotiations now is. It appears by a statement made by Lord Palmerston in the other House—if I may be allowed to refer to it—that there is no longer any hope that Russia will be induced to accept certain propositions which have been made by the Western Powers, and which, as I understand, were supported by Austria. It appears from his statement, that the Western Powers, supported by Austria, proposed to negotiate on the Four Points, which your Lordships will recollect were laid down as long ago, I believe, as the 8th of August, as the basis of negotiations for procuring peace. Your Lordships will recollect that the Four Points were founded upon the following principles: The first related to the protectorate of the provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia. It was insisted upon by the Western Powers that there should be a protectorate of those provinces by the Five
1702
Powers instead of by Russia alone as heretofore. The second point was that which related to the freedom of the Danube; and the third, as explained by my noble Friend opposite and the French Minister (M. Drouyn de Lhuys), was intended to reduce the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea. The fourth and last point involved the principle of the protection of the Christian religion and the Christians in the Ottoman Empire, by a general protectorate of the Five Powers, which should Preserve them from all interference by the Government with their religious privileges. I naturally conclude, though I do not know it to be the fact, that at Vienna the Conference began with the first point; and I will ask my noble Friend whether Russia, entering into the views of the Western lowers and of Austria, in respect to that point, agreed to it? I would also ask whether, in regard to the second point, concerning the freedom of the Danube, my noble Friend met with any difficulties on that from Russia? I understand from the speech of the Prime Minister, to which I alluded, that it was on the third point that the negotiations were broken off. It appears from the noble Lord's statement, as reported, that the propositions made to Russia consisted of two alternatives—that the Plenipotentiaries of England, France, Austria, and Turkey proposed to the representative of Russia that the mode of reducing the preponderance in the Black Sea should be either that the amount of the Russian naval force in the Black Sea should henceforth be limited by treaty, or that the Black Sea should be declared an entirely neutral sea, and all ships of war should be excluded from it, so that it should be a sea of commerce only. Those are the two alternatives which were offered to the Russian Government, and Russia refused both, and made no counter-propositions whatever. Now, the propositions having been made and refused, we are unavoidably involved in what may perhaps be a war for many years. But I must be allowed to say that, though I deeply regret that some means have not been found for insuring an honourable and lasting peace for this country, that regret is very much diminished when I look at the terms of the proposition, such as they have been represented. With respect to the second alternative—that of making the Black Sea a sea of general neutrality without any armed vessels in it, except such as are necessary to guard commerce

1703
from pirates, that is, perhaps, a proposition of rather too Utopian a view, but still it is preferable, and has a better chance of success with respect to our wishes hereafter than the first alternative. I cannot conceive that the first alternative proceeded either from my noble Friend opposite or the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government. I cannot but think that it was an Austrian proposition. That alternative recommended a limitation of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. If that proposition were made simply and nakedly, as stated in the course of my noble Friend's speech, I cannot understand what possible guarantee we could have had for the observance of that arrangement. If it had been accompanied by a proposition that each of the Five Powers should have a certain limited number of ships in the Black Sea as well as Russia, then I can conceive that the treaty might have proved effective; but I cannot conceive any material guarantee which my noble Friend could have for the continuance of the peace or the observance of the treaty. Even supposing that we limited by treaty the number of vessels which Russia should have at Sebastopol and other ports in the Black Sea, does any one believe that Russia would in the course of a few years abide by the restriction, or refrain from increasing the number of her line-of-battle ships to which she was limited? She would gradually and surely exceed that number; and if our Consuls reported either to the French Government, their own Government, or to the other protective Powers that there was such a breach of the treaty, do you believe that after a few years the country would consider it a casus belli? I do not believe it would; and, therefore, I think you would have no security whatever for the observance of the treaty. It is not on bare suspicion that I say this. Look at the former conduct of Russia with respect to the Danube, the throwing open of the mouths of which was secured by an analogous treaty. But this country did not make the breach of that treaty by her a casus belli. Therefore, so far as these propositions have been made, if they have been made in the naked form represented, without any other conditions attached, I see no reason to regret that Russia did not accept them. I do not enter into the question whether the preponderance of Russia ought or not to be diminished; but I say that eventually it would not have
1704
been diminished if she had acceded to this proposition. There is another question which I should like to ask my noble Friend. On the 8th of August, when the Four Points were laid down, Prussia was to be one of the protecting Powers for the provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia. Now, my Lords, considering what the conduct of Prussia has been, which your Lordships heard so well described by my noble and learned Friend behind me (Lord Lyndhurst), the other night, I should like to ask my noble Friend at the head of Foreign Affairs, whether it is now contemplated that Prussia should be included as one of the protecting Powers of the provinces? Because, considering the animus which Prussia has shown during the whole of these important events, it seems clear that, whenever those provinces might find fault with an oppressor, we should be sure to have the vote of Prussia against us. I beg, therefore, to ask my noble Friend whether it is intended that Prussia shall be one of the protective Powers of the Danubian provinces? I think also, my Lords, I am justified in asking my noble Friend whether he does not propose to lay before the House, as soon as possible, much more extended information than he is likely to give in answer to my questions this evening? Your Lordships will recollect that we have had no official correspondence placed before us since the beginning of 1853; neither have we received from my noble Friend any positive information as to the state of the negotiations which have been going on. We have abstained from asking questions on the subject, and he has abstained, with proper official reserve, from laying on the table any documentary evidence as to what has taken place. I think the country has a right to know, now that these negotiations have ceased, and we are going to enter into an expensive, and probably protracted campaign, exactly what we are going to fight for, and what the Government consider the sine qua non in return for the expenditure of so much blood and treasure?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I fully admit—and I beg to offer my best acknowledgments, not only to my noble friend, but to your Lordships generally, for the forbearance to which my noble friend has alluded, and the desire manifested not to interfere with the negotiations that have been going on for some time past with a view to the establishment of

1705
an honourable and lasting peace. I am perfectly ready to admit that my noble friend is by no means premature in asking for the information which he has this night sought. Indeed, bad my noble friend not put the question he has, I should have felt it my duty to state to the House the condition at which these negotiations have now arrived. It is perfectly true that the conferences have been adjourned sine die in consequence of the rejection by the Russian plenipotentiary of the proposition for restricting the Russian fleet within the Black Sea within limits which were thought consistent with the safety of Turkey, and also for rendering that sea a neutral sea and one for commercial purposes only. My noble friend has thought right to state, and he has stated to your Lordships correctly, the character of the four points which were the basis of these negotiations. These points were frankly, as was said, accepted by the Russian Government, and the third point contained a proposition for limiting the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea. My noble friend is also right in his assumption that these points were discussed in the order in which he has described them—that to the first and second points Russia acceded, and that they were finally determined. When the third point came under discussion the representatives of the Allied Powers, in order to prove that they had no wish to humiliate Russia, but, on the contrary, desired to consult her dignity, proposed to the Russian representatives themselves to take the initiative as to the means by which they would give effect to the principle of that proposition. The Russian plenipotentiaries acknowledged the courtesy of the proceeding, but asked for time to refer to their Government. That time was given, but in the meanwhile, and for obvious reasons, we declined to go on with the discussion of the fourth point which it was proposed to us that we should do. The answer front St. Petersburg arrived, and it was that the Russian Government had no proposition to make. The allied representatives on the following day brought forward their proposals, and the Russian plenipotentiaries asked forty-eight hours to consider them. That time was also given, and on Saturday last they absolutely rejected the proposals both as to limitation in, and exclusion from, the Black Sea. Whether that rejection of the proposals by the Russian plenipotentiaries was justified by argument I am
1706
unable to say, because this meeting took place only on Saturday last, and as we have information of the fact simply by the telegraph, that is all the information we can give at the present moment, except that my noble friend Lord John Russell left Vienna yesterday. With respect to the other point to which my noble friend has alluded—namely, the position which Prussia has occupied in the course of these negotiations, I can only say that the position which Prussia has occupied snce the time to which he referred, and which she continues to occupy, entirely excluded her from the Conference, and therefore from all the arrangements that might have been made. With respect to other points to which my noble friend has referred, as to the consequences, for example, that might be expected from the limitation of the power of Russia in the Black Sea, and the matter in which Russia would be bound by stipulations, I think that at this moment it would not be convenient to refer to them, nor until your Lordships are fully in possession of all the information to which you are entitled, and which, I assure you, the Government will be most ready to furnish.
THE EARL OF HARD WICKEsaid, there was one point on which the noble Earl had not given the House any information—he meant as to the position in which Austria was placed at the present moment. She was placed very much in the position of parties in the other House occasionally, who were ready to play the game either mt one side or the other as circumstances might dictate. Her position was, indeed, one of great eminence, dignity, and power having placed herself in possession of two great provinces, with her armies on the frontier of Russia, and in which she might hold language that would enable her to receive the support of France as against Russia on the one side and the support of Russia as against France and England on the other. The country was looking with the deepest anxiety to this point, and he should be glad to know what information the Government now had with respect to the prospects of the war in connection with the part to be played by that great and important Power?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I am afraid I cannot give a very distinct answer to the question which my noble friend has put. Your Lordships are well aware of what are the terms of the treaty to which Austria agreed on the 2nd of December

1707
last with Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Emperor of the French, and I have no reason to think that Austria will depart from the terms of that agreement. I can only say that on Friday last, Austria appears to have held precisely the same language as the representatives of England, France, and Turkey to the Russian plenipotentiaries, and your Lordships will remember that it is only on peace not being made on the bases laid down in the treaty that Austria is to be called on to concert measures for carrying those stipulations into execution. That time has not yet arrived, and therefore it is quite impossible for me to say what precise course Austria will take.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would remind their Lordships that when he proposed the second reading of this Bill he had agreed, upon the suggestion of his noble Friend the High Steward of the University of Cambridge (Lord Lyndhurst) that the discussion on the principle of the measure should be taken at this stage. Upon the present occasion, therefore, he would lay before their Lordships some of the more prominent features of the measure, and would state what alterations he intended to make in conformity with suggestions he had received, after which he would move that the House should go into Committee pro forma, in order that the Bill might be reprinted. He need scarcely tell their Lordships that the present measure was the result of a Royal Commission issued in the year 1850 to inquire into the discipline, education, and generally into the condition of the University of Cambridge, a similar Commission having been issued with respect to the sister University. The Commissioners made their Report on the 31st of August, 1852; and it was very satisfactory to him to think that in legislating on the present occasion, their Lordships would not have to deal with an unwilling body, but with a body that, in truth, was anxious for their Lordships to confer upon it what they considered the privilege of this legislation. Indeed, if the Bill contained anything offensive to the University it would be an exceedingly ill-deserved return for the exertions which the Report showed it had made during the last half century. Whatever might be the opinion in other respects regarding that
1708
learned body—either as regarded its constitution or other matters—it was perfectly impossible for anybody to rise from the perusal of the Report without being satisfied that the University had been most anxious and industrious in its endeavours to fulfil the great objects for which such institutions were designed. It was now far into half a century since he had himself had the honour of being a student at Cambridge, and from that time very great exertions had been made to improve the character of the studies. At that time the University course, as contra-distinguished from the collegiate studies, was made up solely of mathematics. He did not regret that, for he thought that it was most important that such a prominence should be given to mathematical studies; but thirty years ago the authorities, feeling that this was too confined a course, resolved to admit the classics into the cycle of the University studies; and—not confining their honours to those who had distinguished themselves in the mathematical tripos—they also instituted an examination, and conferred honours upon those who should
distinguish themselves in classics. As society advanced, however, and as the appetite for knowledge became more diffused, even that enlarged course was felt to be still too restricted; and accordingly within the last five or six years, other branches of learning of a very extended character had been introduced as University studies. Those, therefore, that did not seek for distinction in the higher mathematical or classical rolls of honour were obliged to select either what was called the moral sciences tripos, or the physical sciences tripos. The physical sciences, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, botany, and many others, had been encouraged in the University, and it was still under discussion among themselves whether these could not among be further extended. It was almost a doubt with him whether they were not doing too much, rather than too little. He did not propose to dilate on this subject—he was sure that those who had looked at the evidence would see that he was not overstating his case. His Lordship then quoted a passage from the Report of the Commissioners, stating that the University had shown great willingness to enlarge the curriculum of studies, as far as the rigidity of their Statutes would permit, and had been liberal in the administration of their funds, not husbanding them parsimoniously, but bestowing them on objects

1709
of great academical importance, A Committee had been also appointed by the Senate some time before the issuing of the Royal Commission, to revise the laws of the University. In legislating on the subject of the University of Cambridge, therefore, it was their bounden duty to consider the sort of body they were going to legislate for; and they should repose confidence in them, because it would be seen from the high testimony borne to the authorities of the University by the Cambridge Commissioners of Inquiry, that they were persons to whom the discharge of their important duties might be safely intrusted. He would now state what it was that he proposed to do by this Bill, stating first what he did not ask their Lordships to interfere with. He thought it would be monstrous to ask their Lordships to attempt to carry into effect all the recommendations of the Commissioners—especially in regard to the studies and discipline. The study and discipline of the University were matters which must be left to be regulated by the University authorities, for it was impossible for the Legislature to interfere safely in such matters. What he proposed that the Legislature should do was to put the University in such a position that they could do all for themselves, which their conduct showed they had been anxious to do, but which their Statutes did not permit them to do. The first matter that would suggest itself to every one was, that inasmuch as in the last Session of Parliament a measure was passed to reform the University of Oxford, that measure should serve for the most part as an example for a measure in relation to the University of Cambridge. To some extent that ought, to be so. He thought the kind of reformation that was introduced at Oxford was the kind of reformation that should be introduced at Cambridge; that was to say, the Legislature should constitute a Board of persons likely to be conversant with the subject, and should give to the University and to the Colleges power to do that which of themselves they could not now do, obtaining the sanction of this Board, and afterwards that of the Queen in Council; and if the University neglected to do that in a year and a half which the Board thought ought to he done, then regulations would be made by the Board alone. Accordingly, the first clauses of the Bill provided for the appointment of seven Commissioners, as in the Oxford Bill. The names of six of these he could now state, but he was not in a position to
1710
name the seventh. They were the Earl of Burlington, Lord Monteagle, the Bishop of Chester, Baron Alderson, Professor Sedgwick, and a Gentleman who was distinguished at Cambridge, the Clerk now sitting at their table, Mr. John Lefevre. The nest question was, as to what was to be the form and constitution of the governing body of the University. In considering this, they must not lose sight of the fact, that the object of the University was not legislation. Its object would be entirely defeated if it was to be continually engaged in making laws for itself. But what was important was, that there should lot a body of persons appointed to promote the interest of the University including the interest of the public, and who should from time to time be enabled to consider and give their sanction to measures; and those measures being submitted to the Senate, that the Senate might make laws or graces as they were called, which from time to time the interest of the University might seem to require. The latter body was at present inconveniently constituted for any useful purpose. In Cambridge the governing body was the Caput Senatus, which from its composition was most eminently obstructive. The constitution of that body at present was this: the Vice Chancellor mimed three doctors, one from each faculty, law physic, and divinity, and also one master of arts of five years' standing, and one under five years' standing. Each proctor did the same thing, so that there were three doctors of law, three doctors of medicine, three doctors of divinity, three masters of arts of five years' standing, gush three of less than five years' standing, and then out of these persons so named, the Vice Chancellor and heads of houses selected one of each class, who with the Vice Chancellor formed the Caput; so that the Caput consisted of the Vice Chancellor, of three doctors, one of each faculty, and two masters of arts, all substantially nominated by the Vice Chancellor and the heads of houses. Their functions were defined by the University Statutes; and according to the statute of the 47th of Elizabeth, nothing could be proposed by way of amendment of the law, unless it met with the approbation of every member of the Senate, that was to say, unless it met with the approbation of the Vice Chancellor. It was not his present purpose to inquire whether the powers thus given had ever been abused or not; but their Lordships would admit that, in legislating on this

1711
subject, to leave the council of the University thus constituted would be most discreditable. Then the question arose, how was the new Council to be constituted? The Bill did not propose that a new Council should be constituted in the same manner as the Act of last year constituted the new Council at Oxford. The Convocation at Oxford answered to the Senate at Cambridge; that was, all the masters of arts who retained their names on the books were members of the Senate. The Convocation at Oxford was just the same; but at Oxford there had been known, in former times—he believed it had of late fallen into desuetude—a body called the Congregation, that was to say, a portion of the Convocation who were resident in the University, and the Council was elected by the Congregation. He had thought the best mode of constituting the new Council at Cambridge was to constitute it in the same manner as that at Oxford; but, in the first place, they had not at Cambridge any such body as the Congregation. One of two things, therefore must be done, if it was to be elected like the Council at Oxford—either they must begin by first constituting a constituency that was at present unknown, or the election should be by the Senate at large. Now he could not conceive anything less calculated than a general election by the Senate to secure the only object which there ought to be in electing such a body, namely, due attention to academical improvement; on the contrary, he feared there would be a contest to see who could get the most friends to vote for them. Another reason for proposing a different plan was the great preponderance of two colleges at Cambridge over the rest. He found on inquiry that most of their Lordships who bad been at the University had been at Oxford and not at Cambridge. Those who had been at Cambridge would know that it was absurd to look at any election to other than two colleges. The Senate of Cambridge consisted in round numbers of not quite 4,500 members. Of these above 1,500 were members of Trinity, and nearly 900 of St. John's. The two together had a great majority over all the rest. He could not of his own recollection name any person who for the last thirty years had been returned to the House of Commons as member for the University of Cambridge, who had not been a member either of Trinity, or of St. John's. There was another reason why this was not the best mode that could be proposed of constitu-
1712
ting a managing body to the University. He had stated that in the year 1850 a Commission was issued to inquire into this University. About a year previous, the University itself had constituted a Syndicate, as it was called—a committee to inquire into the best modes of reforming its Statutes. That committee recommended that instead of the Caput Senatus, nominated as it was now, the heads of houses should appoint three members, that the doctors should appoint three, the professors three, and that there should be nominated three non-regent masters of arts, and three regent masters of arts. He had already stated that two colleges had an enormous preponderance, and in order to avoid that influence in the nomination it was proposed that the colleges should have the nomination in turn, according to a cycle constituted by the statute of Elizabeth, called the Statute of Proctors. He thought there should be an intervening body, a sort of filtration, as it were, between the members of the University, and the governing body, and the Syndicate proposed that such a body should be constituted. They proposed three heads of houses, three doctors, three professors, three senior and three junior masters of arts. He had adopted that system with some modification. He had left out the doctors as a class altogether, as they were already practically included in the heads of houses resident in the University. He took four from the heads of houses, four from the professors, four from the senior and four from the junior masters of arts, making sixteen in all. His opinion in favour of this plan had been strengthened by the report of the Commission to which he had referred; he must, however, state that he was surprised yesterday at receiving a communication, just as he was about to take his seat on the woolsack, signed by four of the Commissioners, the substance of which was that they did not think that the expressions made use of in the report authorised him in the proceedings he had taken; but he must also say that he had communicated with others on the subject, and he considered that the measure he was introducing was calculated to meet the views of the Commissioners. When the Commissioners said that they hoped the plan proposed by the Syndicate would soon receive the sanction of the Senate, he certainly thought that that was sufficient indication of their approbation. After their Report was made a petition finding fault with it, signed by forty-three

1713
members of the Senate, had been presented, but, as this was a very small portion of the Senate he did not pay much attention to the petition. After this Bill was printed he had received communications from many quarters, not quarrelling with the general principle of the Bill, but pointing out the difficulties which would arise in the working of his measure. He had, during the Easter recess, carefully gone through the Bill, and various improvements had suggested themselves to his mind, and he hoped their Lordships would pass the Bill through Committee pro formâ, so as to enable him to introduce into it the improvements which had occurred to him and others, which had been communicated with a view of making the measure more perfect, and of obviating the objections which had been made to it. One of the provisions transferred to the council the powers now possesssed by the Caput Senatus. It had been suggested to him that that left the evil altogether unmitigated, as it left the veto in any single member of the Council—that was not so, but in order to remove all doubt, be proposed to alter the language and to enact that there should be elected a Council of the Senate, and that immediately after its election thereof it should have the duty of considering all graces, whether proceeding from the individual members of the Senate, or from the Syndicate. Thus, therefore, from time to time there would be appointed from among persons resident in the University, four heads of houses, four of the professors, four of the elder and four junior masters of arts. This was preferable to the constitution of the corresponding body in the Oxford University, which was composed of the heads of houses, six professors, and six masters of arts, all of whom must be of five years' standing. The interests of knowledge would be advanced, not by giving the government of the University to young men, but by stipulating that there should always be an infusion of young blood into the governing body, since those younger masters of arts, who were comparatively fresh from their studies would know what the wants of the students were, and would he able to render valuable assistance in the deliberations of the Council. Another class of enactments worthy of attention were designed to render unnecessary the taking of a large number of oaths that were now imposed in the University, and would therefore make it illegal to administer the oaths that were
1714
now taken not to disclose anything relating to the Colleges, or to aid in the promotion of any changes or innovations in their Statutes. These oaths were introduced in an age when a state of feeling prevailed entirely inconsistent with that of the present day; and they would, therefore, be repealed by this Bill in the same manner as was done in the case of the Oxford Act. It was also proposed, in conformity with what had been done for Oxford, to authorise the opening of private halls. He should not conceal that the Commissioners had negatived this proposition; they thought private halls were not necessary at Cambridge, where the custom already prevailed of permitting. the students to live in lodgings; indeed, out of 1,760 students, there were about 700 now in lodgings. He did not think the private halls would be much resorted to at Cambridge, but the same permission ought to be given to parties to open private halls there, if they thought fit, as at Oxford; and as such places would be under the control of the University, he could see no possible harm in it. The Oxford Act provided for the possibility of uniting together several private halls, to make one great hall, but it would not be necessary to specify that in the Cambridge Bill. The clauses which determined the constitution of the Council, and which were the main object of the Bill, did not require much explanation. A very important enactment of this Bill was that by which power was given to the colleges and the University to propose any alteration in the distribution and employment of the endowed funds, if they could get the sanction of the Commissioners with the consent of the Queen in Council. This extended to the 37th clause of the Bill. Then came a clause, also taken from the Oxford Bill, which rendered it unnecessary to take any oaths or declarations whatever on matriculating in the University. All his experience showed that such oaths taken on matriculation, whether religious or political in their character, were perfectly disregarded, and were, indeed, mischievous; that nobody recollected afterwards what he had subscribed; and he presumed that very few of their Lordships would be now able, if they were asked, to answer that question; and the best way, therefore, was to do away with those oaths and declarations altogether. Then came the 40th section which enabled the degree of bachelor of arts to be taken—excluding, however, any ecclesiastical advantages—

1715
without any oath or declaration, or signing any articles. He did not see, for his own part, why all degrees of arts should not be taken without such conditions, so long as the persons admitted were not invested with any governing power in the University, or with any authority in the Church; but he would not urge the principle to that extent. Having now explained what were the provisions of the Bill, and pointed out why he thought that on the whole the mode of constituting the Council laid down by its clauses was the one best adapted for Cambridge, he would now move that their Lordships should resolve themselves into Committee on this measure, and afford him an opportunity of introducing the alterations he had described.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.
LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, I confess, for my own part, that I very much regret that it has been rendered expedient, and even necessary, by recent events, for the Government to introduce this Bill. My noble and learned Friend has stated with great frankness that for several years past the University of Cambridge has been actively and industriously employed in endeavouring to amend its Statutes in order to render them as extensively useful as possible, and that it has only been fettered in the carrying out of that wise resolution by the want of sufficient authority for the purpose; and, my Lords, I had myself thought that it would have been far better to introduce a Bill for the purpose of enabling the University to give effect to and complete its own amendments than to bring in a measure like the present, because it would have been preferable that the University itself should be led to complete its own adaptation to the circumstances of the times, rather than that the task should be entrusted to any foreign authority, however it might be constituted. Still, after what occurred during the last Session of Parliament and the passing of the Oxford Bill, I admit that it would have been difficult, and, perhaps, improper to pursue the course which I have just suggested. It might have created dissatisfaction and jealousy, and perhaps have excited some unpleasant feelings between the two Universities, which had always been united heretofore in the closest friendship, entertaining for each other the greatest respect and esteem. I shall not, therefore, oppose the second reading of this Bill. My
1716
Lords, I think that these Universities exert much less influence, and have a far weaker hold upon the public feeling of the country at the present day, than it was their good fortune to possess at a not very distant period. I will not now enter into the causes which have led to this change; but I will merely observe, that when I first entered public life, I found in the other House of Parliament that a majority of the members of that assembly had been educated in one or other of the Universities. Now, however, as I understand, not more than one-sixth, or at most one-fifth, of the representatives of the people have been educated at either of those great institutions. I hear it repeatedly said—and I hear it with great mortification—that the system of instruction at the University is becoming obsolete; that the Universities are behind the age; and that great, essential, and radical changes ought to be made in the system of instruction pursued there, and the mode in which it is carried out. My Lords, I think that there is not the slightest foundation for any such opinion, and I should feel very great regret at finding any essential alteration introduced into the system; for, after giving my best attention to the subject, I am satisfied that no better system of instruction could be established than that which has for ages prevailed, always with due regard to the progress of literature and science from one age to another. Young men enter the University usually between the ages of seventeen and eighteen, and continue there about three years and a half, The question is, how that important period in the life of a young man can be best and most profitably employed? It is not the object of the University to cram its students with a wilderness of facts, but its design is of a far different nature—it is to form the character of the young man, and to raise and develop his intellectual and moral faculties to the highest pitch to which his powers are capable of attaining. For that purpose the studies are directed to a cultivation of the taste, to a forming of the judgment, to a strengthening of the most important faculty of attention, to an invigorating of the reasoning powers, and, above all, to an instilling deeply into the minds of the students of the principles of religion and morality. By what course of study is this attempted to be effected? It may be divided into three branches—by the cultivation of classical literature, the study of mathematical science, and instruction in

1717
the great principles of morality and religion. When I speak of "classical literature," my Lords, it is not to be supposed that this consists merely of instructing young men to translate a few passages of classical authors. Far different is the course of study which is pursued at the University of Cambridge. The students are taught to read the most eminent authors, poets, philosophers, orators, and historians of ancient times, and to compare them, under the direction of their tutors, with modern writers of the best character upon the same subjects. In that course of study the most striking examples of patriotism and the highest virtues are presented to their mind, and they are taught to admire everything that is great and good. In ancient history they are instructed also in the laws and institutions—religious, military, and political—of the ancients; they are practised in composition, not merely in the ancient languages, but in their own tongue. I confidently submit to your Lordships that no system of study can be better calculated to form the character of a gentleman—and I use the term "gentleman" in its most comprehensive sense. So, also, with regard to the second branch of university education—mathematical science. It must not be supposed that that consists simply of the demonstration of a few problems in Euclid. On the contrary, that branch of science is cultivated to an immense extent in the University of Cambridge—some think to too great an extent; but every one who is acquainted with the subject must feel how strongly that study tends to cultivate the faculty of attention, and to develope the reasoning and reflective powers of the mind. It is not merely to pure mathematical science—geometrical or analytical—that the study is confined; but it extends to all the branches of physical science with which mathematical knowledge is connected—to the science of astronomy, which is founded upon mathematical science; to the laws of fluids; to the laws which regulate our atmosphere; and to the laws of light and heat—all of which are more or less connected with mathematical science. This has a most powerful effect in forming the character of the individual. Last, and most important of all, is the cultivation deeply of the principles of religion and morality. The history of religion is studied, including the principles of our own particular faith, the doctrines which at different times
1718
have been inculcated, with the arguments in their favour and against them. And lastly, there is the study of the operations of the human mind, as traced in the works of Locke and kindred writers. Such is an outline of the system of study at Cambridge. I venture to submit that no system of instruction could be better calculated for preparing a young man to enter upon his career of life, whatever it may be, whether the study of the learned professions, of political science, or of literature. But it must not be supposed for a moment that, other branches of science are neglected. It is far otherwise. There is a beautiful passage in the Orations of Cicero in which he describes with great eloquence the union and connection between all the different branches of literature and science, forming as it were one family, mutually assisting, supporting, encouraging, illustrating, and adorning each other. In that way the course of study pursued at Cambridge operates; and although it may be proper that young men at the University should study the sciences, yet as the elementary works are easily mastered, and as they call into exercise none of the strong powers of the mind, and do not even require a great strength of memory, I should be extremely sorry that they should in any great degree interfere with or supersede those more solid branches of learning to which I have referred. My Lords, no University has ever produced more distinguished or more extraordinary men than has the University of Cambridge. It gave to the world the great father of inductive philosophy, Bacon, and the immortal Newton. It produced Milton, the sublimest of poets, Spenser, the majestic Dryden, Cowley, Byron, and a long line of illustrious men of our own day. Among men renowned for their knowledge of English jurisprudence whom it numbered among its sons, are the noble names of Coke, of Camden, of Thurlow, and Ellenborough. In the statesmen who sprang from it are the sagacious Burleigh, the brilliant Walpole, and that finished orator and greatest of statesmen, William Pitt. Nor in modern times has it failed to furnish the country with a noble example of a statesman in the person of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne), than whom no one has shown, during his long career as a statesman and a Member of your Lordship's House, more tact, more eloquence, or more sterling good sense. Then again, when I look to the right rev.

1719
benches, I cannot but call to mind the names of those great classical and learned men whom Cambridge has produced—Jeremy Taylor, Bentley, Porson, and a long list to repeat whose names alone would occupy a summer's day. Such, my Lords, is the system of instruction which has been followed at the University of Cambridge, and which, even in old times, produced such glorious fruits. Let us, therefore, be careful how we impair the efficiency of that system by new devices, interfering with that solid system of education which has hitherto been followed by such splendid results. This is one point; perhaps your Lordships will allow me to allude to another and a most important question—I mean the mode by which the system of instruction is conveyed. I do not find in the Bill now before us any specific clause making any alteration in that respect; but, although I find no specific clause, I find sundry provisions which, connecting them with what I have heard, lead me to suppose that very extensive alterations are in contemplation, and therefore a few words upon that subject may be necessary. The present mode consists of instruction by tutors of colleges, by private tutors, and by the lectures of professors. Now, with respect to the system of private tutors, when I went to the University, sixty years ago, very few students had the assistance of private tutors—it was the exception and not the rule. Now, however, I understand that the system has been entirely changed, and that every man who seeks mathematical honours is obliged, as a matter of course, to have a private tutor; nor does it follow that those who obtain the assistance of private tutors are always the most distinguished. I consider that a system which renders it necessary for every one who is competing for mathematical honours to have a private tutor is a very great evil. It leads to a system of cramming which overtasks the faculties and weakens the intellect, and at the same time it places those whose pecuniary resources are not sufficient to enable them to obtain the assistance of a private tutor at a very great disadvantage. I believe that the most distinguished members of the University are desirous, as far as possible, if not to put an end to the system, at least to modify and to limit it. With reference to the mode of education by lectures, some disposition had been shown to extend the professional system, of which I do not at all approve. A young man who
1720
hears lectures may easily be under the delusion that he is doing much, whilst he is, in fact, doing very little. He might have attended so many lectures, but his mind would wander, his attention would not always be kept alive, and it was in a passive instead of an active state. Studying in his own room would give much more accurate knowledge than the lectures of a professor, which, however, were not objectionable, and might serve to excite an interest in, and a love of, the subject to be studied. In the third method of education, by the tutors of colleges, I believe there are some defects at Cambridge which this Bill will rectify; but the system is excellent, and I remember that, when I was at college, I found the aid of the mathematical and classical tutors extremely beneficial. Between a student and his private tutor there might be too great an intimacy, so that he would rely upon the tutor to solve every difficulty without exerting his own mind; but the more general explanations afforded by the tutor of the college, who had to superintend the studies of a class, supplied a very advantageous guidance. I observe that some of the clauses of this Bill are copied from the Oxford Bill, and especially that with reference to the establishment of private halls. Now, the great distinction between the system pursued at Oxford and Cambridge is, that at Oxford no student is allowed to live in the town; so that if any one desires to be a Member of Christ Church, and that college is full, he will be obliged to become a member of some other college, whereas at Cambridge the system has been to allow the students to reside in the town, so that if, for instance, any one wishes to become a Member of Trinity College, and it is full, he may nevertheless join it and reside out. It had been asserted, indeed, that such a permission would have a tendency to relax discipline; but he could confidently deny that it had produced any such effect. But I am now told that the establishment of private halls will be of the greatest possible benefit to a poorer and more extended class of students, who, through their means, will have an opportunity of enjoying those advantages of a University education which, in consequence of their limited pecuniary resources, have hitherto been denied to them. My Lords, I do not believe it possible that in any private hall, superintended by a master of arts, who must naturally expect to make a provision for himself out of the establishment, young

1721
men can be provided for so cheaply as in their respective colleges, under the present system; and of course every one would in that case prefer going to the colleges where so many advantages are obtained rather than to these private halls. It has been supposed that the effect of the establishment of these private halls would be, that they would afford facilities for the attendance of the sons of Dissenters at the University. But the heads of these establishments are to be obliged to declare themselves to be members of the Church of England, and I do not believe that the parents of sons dissenting from the Established Church will be willing to send their sons to establishments of this description, where they will be so completely under the control, supervision, and influence of clergymen of the Establishment. I do not therefore see any advantage likely to result from the establishment of these private halls. The sons of Dissenters are, and have been treated with the utmost liberality by the University of Cambridge, and the most beneficial consequences have resulted from this liberality to persons dissenting from the Established Church. I do not, however, object to this part of the Bill, and I do not know that it will do any mischief—on the whole, I believe, that these clauses will be inoperative and a dead letter. I wish to say a few words on the subject of the Syndicate appointed by the University to revise the Statutes. Your Lordships are aware that I have the honour to hold a high office in the University of Cambridge, and I have therefore watched with great interest the attempts made by the authorities to improve the constitution of the University. My noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) told your Lordships that a year before the Commission was thought of the University of Cambridge appointed a Syndicate, consisting of some of the most eminent and learned members of the University, to consider what revision might be necessary in the Statutes of the University. This Syndicate was employed for two years in this important duty, and they recommended the appointment of a Council, the duty of which should be to consider and prepare all graces to be offered to the Senate, the duties of the Caput being limited to the consideration of supplicats and graces for conferring degrees. The Commissioners complimented the University that such a proposal should have emanated from itself, and they say that it was so constructed as to preserve
1722
a balance of power among the different colleges, as well as to prevent the excitement and rivalries of a more popular and unlimited mode of appointment. The proposal in question received the unanimous approval of the Syndicate, and when it was brought under the consideration of the Senate, out of 300 Members present only nine opposed it. It is impossible to say that the University has opposed all reform when such a change has been adopted with so little opposition; but, on the other hand, it was alleged (although this was before the Oxford Bill was brought forward) that, although so large a majority appeared in favour of the Report of the Syndicate, yet the unanimity was founded upon the consideration that the authorities were not likely to obtain anything better. A report was afterwards made in answer to Lord Palmerston's letter to Prince Albert, embodying these and other proposals. It is true that an address signed by certain members of the University was afterwards presented to Lord Palmerston, objecting to the constitution of the Council as proposed by the Syndicate, but, while the proposal of the Syndicate was adopted in a full Senate, only forty-three members of the University thought fit to sign this address to Lord Palmerston. It had been said that the Caput, Senatus was elected by the heads of houses, and that the heads of houses so influenced the fellows, that they were in fact the governing power of the University. But no one practically acquainted with the University would assert that to be the case; and by the proposals of this Bill the influence of heads of houses would be still further diminished by the addition of the masters of arts to the caput. It had also been urged that the governing body should be elected by open voting in the Senate generally; but what would be the effect of an open vote in the Senate? His noble and learned Friend had disposed of that question by showing that open voting would allow the two colleges of Trinity and St. John's to govern the University to the exclusion of the influence of all the other colleges. It was the object of the proposals of the Syndicate to guard against the excitements of a system of open voting, and this was one of the grounds upon which their proposal was approved by the Commissioners. What a scene would otherwise be exhibited every year at die time of an election of the Council, for it was upon their election the Government of the University would depend. There

1723
would be great excitement and party animosity, which would disturb that calm and tranquil state which is best adapted to the studies of this seat of learning. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that two persons are nominated by the heads of houses every year to fill the office of Vice Chancellor; but they are selected according to a certain rotation, and of the two names sent to the Senate, the first is always accepted, so that practically the heads of houses have no influence in the election of the Vice Chancellor. No recommendation has been made by the Commissioners to alter the mode of electing the Vice Chancellor, and no alteration in the mode of election of the Vice Chancellor at Oxford was made by the Oxford Bill, and there is no reason why any alteration should be made in the plan of electing the Vice Chancellor of Cambridge by this Bill. Well, my Lords, I have now gone through the Bill, and have made such observations upon its psovisions as have occurred to me. Future opportunities will be afforded in the course of the discussions in Committee for my making any further observations that may arise to my mind. I have to apologise to your Lordships for having occupied so much of your Lordships' time. But, my Lords, I believe the subject to be one of great importance—certainly of great importance to the University, and I also consider it to be of great importance to the public, affecting as it does the system of education pursued at one of the highest seats of learning in this country. I am glad to have had the opportunity of addressing your Lordships on this occasion. In the observations I have made to your Lordships I feel I have done my duty. In the further progress of the Bill I shall be ready to do everything in my power to make it a perfect measure, both for the interests of the University and for the welfare of this country and of the Church as it is established.
THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he had listened with great pleasure to the eloquent speech of the noble and learned Lord, in which he had given so vivid an exposition of the past and present condition of the University of Cambridge. That in former centuries that University was capable of producing men distinguished in the most difficult walks of life the list of names the noble and learned Lord had quoted sufficiently testified; while the notion that the system of the University was antiquated and inadequate to the requirements of the
1724
present day was sufficiently refuted by the presence of the noble and learned Lord himself, of whose brilliant powers and commanding talents it was difficult to say whether they had been more remarkably displayed in Westminster Hall, or in the two chambers of the Palace in which their Lordships were then assembled. He was happy that the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, in framing this Bill, while taking for his model the Bill for the University of Oxford, had not observed the same minute interference with the systems of particular colleges which in the early stages of that Bill were attempted. By so acting he believed there was a greater chance of the present Bill passing without undergoing the many alterations and additions which that Bill received. Still there were some points in the measure which required consideration. For instance, it was stated in the interpretation clause that the words "cycle of proctors" should be taken to mean the cycle which had been or might be made by any statute of the University, but those words were not to be found in the whole body of the Act, but were taken from the Oxford Bill. According to the preamble of the Bill, it might be assumed that the necessity of interference with the University on the part of the Legislature was demanded by the inadequate provision made by the University itself for the extension of its usefulness and for the improvement of its system of discipline, studies, and government. But no one could look at the different changes and enlargements of the system of education which had taken place in the University without feeling that those who were particularly engaged in tuition had exercised a most salutary influence over the system from time to time, and that a careful consideration had been given by them to the subject; therefore, there had been in that respect an enlargement of the usefulness of the University. With respect to the founders of the fellowship's and scholarships in different colleges, and the control which they exercised over the University by the conditions attached to their endowments, it should be recollected that they were its liberal benefactors, while, on the other hand, the State had done very little for it. The State now, however, came forward with the most arrogant pretensions to deal with the foundations, scholarships, and fellowships of the University; and in the course of the discussions which had taken place on the subject there was

1725
no portion of the subject scoffed at more than the founders of those liberal endowments; and the system of education they had directed was charged as proceeding from men of the most bigoted and narrow minds. In numerous other instances which had occurred in recent days, the University had been largely benefited by the liberality of individuals, and particularly by the honours and prizes that had been instituted by means of the gifts of several Chancellors of the University and other public benefactors. Having shown that the University had derived its chief support from the bounty of its founders, without any material assistance from the State, he might ask, what had the State taken from the University? The small stipends of the professors were diminished by fees and taxes, and, more than that, there had actually been imposed a tax on degrees, which of late years had produced from the two Universities nearly 3,000 l. At the same time exemption front these taxes had been given to the London University, and to the godless colleges in Ireland. By some mysterious process of reasoning, the two ancient Universities had been considered exceptions to the operations of the great dogma of free trade. In another respect the Bill offered a strange anomaly—he referred to the clauses which dealt with the salaries of the Regius Professors—in whom was the patronage of these appointments now to be? They were to be paid by the University; and was the Crown still to appoint professors whom the University was to pay? With respect to carrying out the details of the Bill, whether with reference to the University at large or the colleges, much would depend on the discretion of those persons who were to be appointed Commissioners, and to whom the powers defined in the Bill were to be intrusted; but he would take the liberty to call attention to the fact that the Commissioners, with the exception of the learned Judge, who, as such, could not be considered as a politician, all belonged to one political party, and had the same views, and that, therefore, opinions were not so well blended as in the case of the Oxford Commission. He regretted not to find the name of Lord Lyttelton among them, for he was a distinguished member of the University, and one who had done great good in the cause of education in the county and diocese in which he lived. As regarded the details of the Bill, he concurred in
1726
most that had fallen from the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst). With respect to private halls, he was glad to hear what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord, because the distinction which he had pointed out between the cases of Oxford and Cambridge was one of considerable importance as affecting the position of students. There were other points with regard to which the custom of the two Universities differed, and those ought not to be lost sight of in considering a Bill of this kind. But on one point he could not subscribe to the position laid down by the noble and learned Lord. He believed that anything that would interfere with the free exercise of the students in the choice of their private tutors would be an interference with the efficiency of their studies; for it would often happen that the lectures delivered in a college would not supply all that a student needed to enable him to take honours. He should be very sorry to see any interference in this respect with the liberty of the student, and he rejoiced to see the Commissioners expressing in their Report a decided opinion against prohibiting students from taking advantage of private tuition, if they desired to avail themselves of that convenience.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he must congratulate the University of Cambridge on the benefit it had received from the discussion on the Oxford Bill last year; for pretty nearly every amendment which had been carried in the House of Lords and rejected in the House of Commons had been adopted in the present Bill; for instance, he perceived that, with respect to the constitution of the Council, it was proposed in the Cambridge University Bill that the heads of colleges should be nominated by the heads of colleges, and the professors by the professors. The same rule, then, had not been applied to both Universities, but a much larger measure of alteration had been extended to the University of Oxford than to the University of Cambridge. An amendment had been given notice of, which was precisely similar in effect to that which he had proposed in respect to the Oxford Bill, and which was resisted and rejected,—establishing some provision against the perpetual rejection of a measure by certain bodies. He (Lord Redesdale) had Ventured to propose, with reference to the Oxford Bill, that if the congregation resisted a measure three times sent down to it by the Hebdomadal Board, then that Board,

1727
should have the right of taking the sense of the University at large on the question by proposing it to Convocation. The proposition was rejected; but he now understood that the noble and learned Lord intended to insert some provision of a similar kind in the present Bill for Cambridge. He had no objection to offer to the Bill, which, on the whole, he trusted would prove a satisfactory settlement of the question, and he was glad to find that it included qualifications and improvements which he and others had not been fortunate enough to secure for the University of Oxford.
VISCOUNT CANNINGwished to say a few words after the allusion which had been made to the Oxford Bill, though he was strongly of opinion that the discussion at present, in respect to all that related to matters of detail, had much better be left in the hands of those well acquainted with the University of Cambridge. With reference to the difference of constituency for the election of the Council, he reminded the noble Lord that such a constituency as was created by the Oxford Bill would, in the case of Cambridge, have been liable to be overridden and swamped by the influence of the two predominant, and, if he might say so without offence, overgrown establishments of Trinity and St. John's. Again, though he confessed that he made this admission with some feeling of humiliation, the course pursued by the University of Cambridge, since the first sign of a desire for improvement in the Universities had manifested itself in the public mind, had been somewhat different from that taken from the University of Oxford. So far back as 1837, when the alarm was first sounded in their Lordships' House, and in the other House of Parliament in regard to University reform, their Lordships' would, perhaps, remember that on that occasion the University of Oxford, speaking by the mouth of its then illustrious Chancellor in their Lordships' House, gave what was accepted at the time as a very satisfactory and gratifying assurance of the commencement of a course of progress and improvement, from which the best result was anticipated. But, this anticipation not having been fulfilled, the Government felt that it was necessary to take some steps to secure the adoption of the measures which in their opinion were necessary. The manner in which they had dealt with the University of Oxford was unavoidable, in consequence of the apparent unwillingness of the authorities
1728
to take any steps in the matter; and, even after the Oxford Bill had been announced to Parliament, the scheme put forward by the authorities fell far short of the expectations of the Government. The measure of last session was in consequence proposed to Parliament. He thought that a stronger measure of reform was now about to be applied to Cambridge than had been applied to Oxford, but the present Bill would probably be less stringent, imperative, and obligatory in its provisions than the Oxford Bill.
On Question, agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Amendments made.
The Report thereof to be received on Monday next.
House adjourned to Thursday next.