Sitting of 20 June 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Intestates' Personal Estates; Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment (No. 2).
2° Joint-Stock Companies Winding-up Acts Amendment; Sardinian Loan.
3° Peace Preservation (Ireland).

THE MURDER IN PANTON STREET— ESCAPE OF FOSCHINI—QUESTION.
MR. BOWYER, pursuant to notice, rose to ask a question respecting the non-apprehension of the Italian Foschini, who had recently attempted to assassinate three men in a house in Panton Street, all of whom were severely wounded, one so dangerously that it was feared he would not survive. A reward of £100 had been offered by the Government for the apprehension of Foschini. Placards had appeared all over London describing his appearance, and every exertion was apparently made to effect his apprehension.
1734
All the endeavours of the police had, however, been found of no avail, and he was informed, on authority upon which he could rely, that this man was safe in America. He was further informed that so certain was Foschini of his escape that he had actually returned to the house where he lodged after the commission of the crime; that he slept there that night, and breakfasted there on the following morning, and that he then went off. From the premeditation of the crime and the craft of the individual, there was enough to show that there was some agency employed in it that was capable of baffling the efforts of the police. He was also informed that the Italian refugees in England, as well as elsewhere, were divided into two factions or sects. The one was composed of the more moderate men, who looked forward to an amnesty with the hope of being able to return to their native country. The other comprised what was called the "Reds," who were men of a more desperate character, and who wished to keep up an agitation in different parts of Europe, and thereby to prevent any amnesty being granted. Of this latter class Foschini was a member, and was the intimate friend and associate of Pianori, who had attempted the life of the Emperor of the French. This party was on intimate terms with Mazzini, whose government—["Question, question!"] Those men were closely connected with Mazzini—["Question!"] It was necessary for him to mention those facts, in order to explain the reasons for his question. Those attempted assassinations were committed by persons who did those acts for their own purposes, and to prevent the more moderate refugees from getting back to their own country. Although the offer of £100 reward for Foschini would be very likely to tempt persons to give such information as would lead to his apprehension, yet the members of that party were deterred from doing so from the fear that they would fall victims to the knife of the assassin. Such being the facts which he had received from an authority upon which he could rely, he submitted that something ought to be done to put down the evil of such an organisation, which evidently existed in this country, and with which the police were unable to deal. The fact of this man Foschini being a foreigner rendered him a more marked character, and more likely to be apprehended. It was, therefore, the more extraordinary that the police had been unable

1735
to effect his capture. This was a matter upon which Her Majesty's subjects should receive the fullest information from the Home Office. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Baronet whether there is at the Home Office, or with the Commissioners of Police, any Report or other papers regarding the escape of Foschini, for whose apprehension a reward was lately offered; and if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay such Report or other papers on the table of the House?
SIR GEORGE GREY: I know nothing of the facts which have been alleged by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am not without hope that the crime to which he has alluded may yet be made the subject of a judicial investigation. Every means were taken by the police, immediately they received information of the crime, for the discovery and apprehension of Foschini, the person charged with its commission. Not only was a search made for him in London, but a description of him was sent by telegraph to all the ports by which it was thought possible that he would attempt to escape, and measures have been taken for his identification and apprehension if he should have reached any of those countries with which we have treaties of extradition for offences of this kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not therefore assume that if he has left the country he is beyond the reach of justice; but I have no positive information as to whether or not he has left it. No doubt there is reason to believe that the crime was premeditated, and that immediate means were taken for the concealment and escape of the person by whom it was committed, which have been the cause of his not yet having been discovered.

REDUCTION OF OFFICERS OF THE ARMY—QUESTION.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, he had the other day asked the Under Secretary for War in what manner the Government intended to deal with those officers who were to be taken from the active list in consequence of the termination of the war. The hon. Gentleman then stated that the Minister of War had every desire to bring those officers back into the service as opportunity might offer, and he entertained a confident expectation that no long time would elapse before they would be absorbed into the service. Since that statement was made he had received numerous communications upon this matter, which
1736
naturally excited great interest among the officers and the families of the officers who were likely to be included in the reduction. If it were possible, he should be very glad for no practical reduction to take place, but he would not shock the susceptibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by such a proposition. It appeared, then, that a reduction must take place, and the only question was, in what manner such reduction should be made. It was desirable that that reduction should be carried out with the least amount of individual hardship. A plan had been put forward in the public journals, the merit of which was that the reduction would be confined to the lowest class of officers in the regiments—that was, the ensigns. The great advantages of such a plan was, that those officers who had the larger amount of experience would be retained in the service. He hoped, at all events, that an opportunity would be given to the lieutenants to continue with the regiments in which they served upon ensigns' pay, if they pleased to do so. To those who were acquainted with the military service it was very well known that there was no such difference in the duties of ensigns and lieutenants as could raise any difficulty against the adoption of this plan; but to those who were not acquainted with military matters it was necessary to state that in every regiment there were five classes of officers from the lieutenant colonel downwards. Practically, however, the duties of the officers were confined to three classes—namely, the field officers, the captains, and the subalterns. Consequently, there was no duty of an ensign which a lieutenant could not perform, and no objection to the proposed plan could be offered on that ground. He would, therefore, ask the Under Secretary for War to explain in what manner it was proposed to carry into effect the intended reduction of officers in those regiments whose establishments were increased in consequence of the late war?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, whatever might be the hardship occasioned by the reduction, it appeared to him that nothing could be clearer than the course the Government were bound to take. In the regiments placed on the war establishment there were sixteen companies, and in each regiment there were twenty-six lieutenants and fourteen ensigns. On the peace establishment there were twelve companies, and in each regiment there were fourteen lieutenants and ten ensigns; consequently,

1737
there would be reduced twelve lieutenants and four ensigns in each. The junior officers in each grade would be reduced. There could be no doubt that the senior officers had the right of preference. He did not think that the suggestion of the noble Lord could be carried out to its extent, inasmuch as the proposed plan would not reach the captains. As far as he was informed, there was no intention of adopting the course alluded to. The ensigncies would, no doubt, shortly be absorbed, as vacancies arose. It would be hard to postpone the promotion of the ensigns by filling all those vacancies from the half-pay lieutenants' list. Perhaps a satisfactory settlement of the matter might be arrived at by filling up the vacancies, alternately, from the ensigns and from the half-pay lists.

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES—QUESTION.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in putting the question of which I have given notice, it is hardly necessary for me to add more than a word of explanation. The House will recollect that on Monday last, and at the time my noble Friend at the head of the Government announced to this House that Her Majesty's Government had not thought it necessary to advise Her Majesty to suspend diplomatic relations with America, he did not add any explanation of the motives which had led to that course being taken by the Government; nor did he advert to the view taken by the Government in regard to the conduct of the American Government with reference to the dismissal of Mr. Crampton. At that time there was reason to expect, from a notice which was then on the paper, that there would be an immediate discussion on the subject; and whether my noble Friend thought it better that the views of the Government should be declared on that discussion, or whether he thought that they would be better disclosed by producing to this House the despatch of Lord Clarendon in answer to Mr. Marcy, I do not, of course, know; but either of those reasons I construe as the probable motive of his silence on Monday last. I beg it to be understood that I do not complain of that silence; but that Motion has, at least for the present, been withdrawn, and it is now uncertain at what time the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Moore) may think it right to refer the House to this subject. It is, therefore, Sir, that in my notice I
1738
naturally refer in terms to the despatch which my noble Friend said would be prepared in answer to Mr. Marcy; and, without at all attempting to press upon the Government for the production of this despatch at an earlier period than may be consistent with the most ample pains in its preparation—without any such desire or attempt, yet having regard to the advancing state of the Session, and to the state of the business of the Session, which is advanced—I may say happily advanced—even more than is usual at this period of the year, I venture to express an opinion that it is desirable that this despatch, which contains in the clearest and most authentic form the views of the Government in reference to the dismissal of Mr. Crampton, should be brought under the notice of the House at the earliest period possible. It may conduce to the convenience of the House if the noble Viscount give us the best information in his power as to the time at which he may be able to produce it. As regards the production of the despatch, I make no question at all, because I think the inference to be drawn from the speech of my noble Friend on Monday evening was, that it was the intention of the Government to produce the despatch when prepared. I beg, Sir, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury at what time it may be expected that the answer of the British Government to the recent despatch of Mr. Marcy, with reference to the dismissal of Mr. Crampton from Washington, will be laid before the House?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My right hon. Friend quite rightly understood the motives which induced me not to enter on an explanation of the views of Her Majesty's Government on this subject. These motives continue equally strong at the present moment. I shall, therefore, say, in answer to my right hon. Friend's question, that I have no doubt of being able to lay those papers, including the answer of Lord Clarendon to Mr. Marcy's despatch, on the table of the House early next week—probably on Monday.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: It appears to me, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford has done quite right in asking the Government the question he did respecting the production of those papers; and I am glad to hear from the noble Lord, that we may hope to receive in a few days the answer which Her Majesty's Government propose to return in reply to the despatch of Mr.

1739
Marcy. Perhaps it may be fair to the Government, till that despatch is on the table, and in the hands of hon. Members, to postpone any discussion on the conduct of the Government with regard to the enlistment question; but I do very earnestly hope that that discussion may not be long postponed. I speak in no party sense—I assure the House that I speak with no party object when I say that I regard with feelings of the greatest anxiety—I may go further, and say, that I regard with feelings of shame the present state of our relations with the United States of America. For that painful state of affairs I attach blame—judging from the public documents in the hands of us all—to the serious misconduct and the unwise policy of Her Majesty's Government, by which the Government of the United States has been irritated, deceived, and offended. Under those circumstances, I think that the day ought not to be distant when we shall enter on some discussion on this subject. I regret very much that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness shire (Mr. Baillie) should have felt himself under the necessity of postponing his Motion; but I do hope that either on the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore), or on some other Motion or Resolution, the independent Members of this House may be at liberty to call the attention of the country to the present state of our relations with the American Government.
SIR GEORGE GREY: I must say, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman in assenting, as he professed to do, to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, would have exercised more discretion, and would have acted more in conformity with the course which he usually adopts in this House, even towards those who are politically opposed to him, if, while deprecating any discussion on the question at present, and admitting that my right hon. Friend had exercised a wise discretion in postponing that discussion, he had not himself anticipated it by the expressal of a most decided opinion on the question. However, Sir, I gladly perceive, not only from the cheers on this side of the House, but also from manifest indications which I see from hon. Gentlemen who sit behind the right hon. Baronet, that there is a general concurrence in the sentiments which I express. I do hope, Sir, that if there is to be a discussion on this question
1740
—and it will not be the fault of Her Majesty's Government if that discussion shall not take place—the House will in the meantime suspend its opinion as to the conduct of the Government or of Her Majesty's representative in the United States.
MR. G. H. MOORE, while acceding to the general feeling that he should postpone his Motion, in consequence of the announcement made by the noble Lord, thought it was not unreasonable to ask the Government to fix some time when the discussion might be brought on.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.
Bill, as amended, considered.
MR. WIGRAM MR. WIGRAM moved the insertion of a clause to provide that the (Statutes made by the Commissioners to be laid before the Council of the Senate before the same are submitted to Her Majesty).
MR. BOUVERIEobjected to the clause as unnecessary.
Clause brought up and read 1°; but was withdrawn.
MR. HEYWOODproposed to add the following clause:—
"It shall not be lawful either for the University, or any of the Colleges, or for the Commissioners, to introduce any new religious test, or new religious qualification, relating to any university or college office or emolument, into any statute of such University or of any of such colleges."
MR. BOUVERIEagreed that it was not desirable to introduce new religious tests in these colleges, but he thought the hon. Gentleman's clause would not accomplish the object he had in view.
Clause withdrawn.
MR. HEYWOODthen moved the following clause:—
"From and after the first day of Michaelmas Term, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, it shall not be necessary for any person on obtaining any exhibition, scholarship, or other College emolument available for the assistance of an undergraduate student in his academical education, to make or subscribe any declaration, or to take any oath, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding."
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he had no objection to the adoption of the clause.
MR. WIGRAMthought that the insertion of this clause was unnecessary. Why should they introduce into this Bill what was not required in the case of the Oxford University Bill? Such matters as this clause proposed to deal with ought to be left in the hands of the college authorities—more especially since their proceedings were to be supervised by a Commission.
MR. GLADSTONEhad heard no reason, political or practical, in favour of the clause, which involved a most essential deviation from the principle Parliament had adopted in the case of the Oxford Bill. There was no ground for supposing that there would be any disposition on the part of the college authorities to prevent the enjoyment of undergraduate endowments by Dissenters. It was true that in the case of Exeter College, Oxford, a test of membership with the Church had been introduced, but that had been done in compliance with the statutes of the college and the will of the founder; but where no such restrictions interposed, no test was required. In reference to Oxford, the intention of Parliament was to leave a discretion to the colleges, acting in concurrence with the Commissioners, and there was no reason why the same trust and confidence should not be placed in the University of Cambridge.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsupported the clause, and reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the founder of Exeter College, who, the right hon. Gentleman said, required by his will the test of membership in the Protestant Established Church as a qualification for scholarship, was a Roman Catholic bishop.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEwarned the House against too much interference in this respect, lest they should defeat one of their principal objects—the conversion of fellowships into scholarships. The scholarships in Exeter College, in regard to which the test of church membership had been imposed, had been formed from fellowships, and that test had been rendered necessary by the fact that these fellowships were confined to the clerical profession, which of course implied belonging to the Church.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he should decline to enter into any discussion with regard to Oxford upon a Bill relating to Cambridge. He should support the clause proposed, because it rested on the broad principle which he thought was now universally admitted, that it was desirable to abolish all unnecessary oaths. Nothing could be more repugnant to common sense and common feeling than to call on people to take oaths when the solemnity of the case did not require so grave a sanction, or to call on men to take oaths without being deeply sensible of the engagements which they took. Now, to call on undergraduates to take oaths about college observances
1742
and rules and the practices of daily life, was, he thought, a course which no one could wish to perpetuate. A young man was called upon to swear that he would conform to and obey all the statutes of the college to which he belonged, and then that was accompanied by a saving clause that if he did not he should submit to the punishment which they imposed. Could anything more unnecessary be conceived than the sanction of an oath in such a case? Then they had been told that they might obstruct reform by legislating on such a subject, and that it was desirable to leave to the colleges and to the Commissioners perfect freedom of action. That might be if the clause was one enjoining something to be done; but he hardly thought it could apply to the case of a clause forbidding something to be done.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the object of the clause was apparently to say that you should take no oath on obtaining any emolument in the course of an undergraduate career. This object was already provided by the 27th Section, which gave the Commissioners, in conjuction with the college authorities, power to abolish all oaths which they thought unnecessary. He was averse to interfering with the freedom and discretion of the colleges.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the 27th Section of the Bill only permitted the college or the Commissioners to give endowments without restriction. This clause went further; it said in the name of Parliament that no such restriction should be imposed. He (Mr. Cardwell) thought that it was extremely desirable to emancipate undergraduates from restrictions of this kind, and did not think that the reasoning of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heath-cote) ought to induce the House to reject this clause.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause be now read a second time."
The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 109; Majority 42.
Clause read 2°, and added to the Bill.
MR. HEYWOODthen moved the following clause:—
"From and after the first day of Michaelmas Term, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, a declaration to the following effect shall be substituted in lieu of any declaration heretofore subscribed, or any oath heretofore taken, on obtaining a fellowship or any other employment, or a professorship, headship, or any other office in the said University, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding:

1743
"'I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I will never exercise any power, authority, or influence which I may possess by virtue of the employment of [or office of], to injure or weaken the Protestant Church as it is by law established in England, or to disturb the said Church, or the Bishops and Clergy of the said Church, in the possession of any rights or privileges to which such Church, or the said Bishops and Clergy, are or may be by law entitled.'
"The said declaration shall be made and subscribed as aforesaid before the Vice Chancellor of the University for the time being, or his deputy."
It was his intention to substitute the declaration contained in this clause, and which was the same as that prescribed under the Municipal Reform Act for all municipal officers; but he did not intend to divide on it, because no similar clause had been passed with reference to degrees; and as he had no doubt the subject of oaths at Oxford and Cambridge would come before long again before the House, he would not press the clause.
Clause withdrawn.
MR. HEYWOODthen moved the following clause:—
"It shall be lawful for the governing body of any College, or the major part thereof, at any time before the 1st day of January, 1858, to prepare a form or order of prayers, of a short and comprehensive kind, for the use of the chapel in the said College, and such form or order of prayers shall be submitted to the Commissioners, and if approved by them, may lawfully be used in such Chapel, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding."
He said he should not press the clause for similar reasons, and especially as it involved a change in the Act of Uniformity.
Clause withdrawn.
MR. WALPOLE MR. WALPOLE moved in Clause 27 the insertion of the words, "for promoting the interests of religion and learning, and the main designs of founders and donors," previous to the words "it shall be lawful for the governing body of colleges to make alterations of the statutes, and if such colleges fail to do so, that then the Commissioners shall," and so forth. Unless some Amendment of that kind were adopted, neither the Commissioners nor the colleges would have any guide as to the way in which they should exercise the large powers which the Bill entrusted to them, in reference to the remodelling of statutes. Those powers went to the apportioning and redistribution of the revenues of the colleges, to rendering a portion of the college property available for the University at large; to the consolidation of the fellowships and scholarships; the disannexation of colleges from schools, and other powers
1744
of the like kind. Unless, therefore, the Commissioners had something to guide them, the Bill would entrust to a body of men who were entirely unconnected with the colleges the most arbitrary powers for making any alterations they pleased, whatever the original trusts on which the property was given, or whatever the purposes for which that property was designated; consequently they would be violating almost every principle that was recognised either by Parliament or by the laws of the country with reference to property so given for charitable and educational purposes. Believing that to be the case, he would press his Amendment earnestly on the attention of the House, for without it they would bring about that very undesirable result which had already occurred in one or two cases, where threats had been held out of interfering with the administration of charitable property—namely, that of entirely stopping benevolent persons in future from making their gifts for these excellent objects, and so drying up all such sources from the exercise of charity and benevolence, than which a more deplorable consequence could not ensue.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he had already placed in the hands of the Speaker an Amendment to answer the end aimed at by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, to serve as a guide to the Commissioners in the exercise of their powers. This he sought to effect by the insertion of words declaring that for the promotion of "useful learning and religious education" it should be lawful, &c. Further than this, however, he was not prepared to go, and could not consent to bind the Commissioners invariably to have reference to "the main designs of the founders," whether those designs contemplated the advancement of useful learning and religious education or not. It was desirable that the colleges should be enabled to appropriate a portion of their income to purposes beneficial to the University at large; yet that was an object clearly inconsistent with the main designs of the founders. Moreover, as a power of petitioning the Queen to withhold her approval of any proposed statutes was to be given to the colleges, the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would open the door to a small minority to appeal to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council in any case, and raise

1745
endless controversies as to what really were the intentions of founders 300 or 400 years ago. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would, on reflection, feel satisfied that the words he (Mr. Bouverie) suggested provided a sufficient remedy for the evil to be apprehended.
MR. HEYWOODalso said, it was difficult to ascertain what the main designs of founders were, and he mentioned the case of the statutes of Eton College, which had been altered so often—erasures and alterations being found in the original charter—that it was hardly possible to know what was the will of the founder. In the case of Trinity College the fellowships were originally intended only for bachelors of divinity, and yet the intention had been systematically set aside, and the fellowships were held by laymen.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREthought that the main designs of the founders ought not to be disregarded, and believed it to be a gratuitous assumption to suppose that those designs were necessarily irreconcilable with the promotion of useful learning and religious education. He thought the invasions of property contemplated by this measure ought to be watched with the utmost possible care; and he was prepared to prove that the system which it was proposed to subvert had tended to supply the State with a numerous body of useful and eminent citizens. Some hon. Gentlemen were earnest advocates for the cultivation of physical science; but did they believe that there was any danger in the present day of yielding too much to abstractions, and of disdaining material advantages? Those who looked to past ages, and who saw that such danger at one time existed, might suppose the same danger was still to be apprehended, but in his opinion the danger against which they had now to contend was that of becoming too material.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONagreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken, and said that at a meeting the day before, of gentlemen educated at Westminster School, to found a monument to those officers who had been educated there who fell in the Crimea, there was a strong feeling in favour of founding an exhibition at a university connected with the school. But this difficulty was felt, that they were afraid that at some future time, some one might say that the exhibition which was intended as a, memorial for
1746
heroes connected with the school ought to be turned to some other purpose.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsuggested, that after the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), "for promoting the interests of religion and learning, and the main designs of founders and donors," the following words should be inserted:—"So far as they are consistent with such interests." That addition would, he thought, remove the objections which had been taken to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONobserved, that hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to forget that it was contemplated that a portion of the endowments should be transferred from college to University purposes, and it was perfectly clear that in such cases the main design of the founders must be departed from. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would, therefore, prevent an arrangement which, as far as he was informed, everybody admitted to be desirable. The Amendment was also liable to the objection that it would render necessary an inquiry as to the main designs of founders, which it would frequently be very difficult accurately to determine; and he thought it might be fairly presumed that the main design of all founders must have been the promotion of useful learning and religious education. He would, however, go a step further, and say that where it appeared that the main designs of founders, some 200 or 300 years ago, had not been directly for the promotion of useful learning and religious education, Parliament was entitled to set those designs aside. The hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) had abjured them not to violate those feelings which connected the present with the past, and which led persons who derived advantages from educational endowments to look back with respect and veneration to those by whom such endowments had been established; but surely that feeling of veneration would be increased in proportion to the more extended usefulness of the endowments. He hoped, therefore, that his right hon. Friend would not press his Amendment, which would prevent the accomplishment of one of the objects of the Bill, which every one had agreed should be included in it.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his noble Friend who had just spoken had stated the case very fairly. The noble Lord

1747
intimated, however, that in all cases, unless there was some indication to the contrary, the main design of founders must be considered the absolute and exclusive appropriation of the endowments to the purposes of colleges, and the withholding that property from any contribution to the purposes of the University at large. There were not many things in which he could compete with his noble Friend; but with all respect for his noble Friend, he (Mr. Gladstone) might say he believed he had spent many more hours in reading the statutes of colleges than the noble Lord could have done, and he thought the noble Lord formed an exceedingly unjust idea of the main designs of founders. Undoubtedly the founders of these colleges were the very flower of the age in which they lived, whose views were directed forward, and whoso great desire was to meet the emergencies of society as they might rise to the surface. As far as he could judge, it appeared to him a most rational belief that, under the present circumstances of colleges, considering the vast increase which had taken place in their property and the great influence they exercised in the government of the University, the founders would at once have recognised the perfect equity of contributions from the property of colleges to the University, in return for the advantages derived by the colleges from the University. The Oxford Act contemplated as the great object in view the promotion of religion and learning; but it also made a specific, although not a paramount reference to the main designs of founders. The House then admitted the principle that they were not to obstruct the intention of gifts devoted to the promotion of religion and learning, but only to modify the particular form in which those endowments were to be applied. There were some founders whose views were directed to the study of theology; others showed more anxiety to promote the study of ancient learning or natural science; while others, again, chose to place their foundations in connection with particular schools. Those founders were men who represented the character of their age and nation, and whose memory deserved to be held in reverence; and the indications of their peculiar inclinations should be respected, unless, from the alteration of time and circumstances, the carrying out of their views would interfere with the promotion of religion and learning. The interests of religion
1748
and learning were held out as the great end to be kept in view, but in so far as they did not interfere with the interests of religion and learning the main objects of the founder were to be respected. It was impossible to put things on a basis more just and rational than this; and therefore he hoped the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) would commend itself, if not to the favour of the noble Lord, at least to the approbation of the House.
MR. WIGRAMthought it must be evident to everybody that Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House were doing everything in their power to commend the views they entertained on this point to the approval of the Government, as the object they aimed at had been offered in various shapes. He hoped that, whatever might be the form of words used, the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be accepted by the House. There was one foundation in King's College which was for the promotion of medical science, and there was Bell's foundation, which was confined to the sons of clergymen, and the object of which was to promote learning and science among clergymen. To divert such foundations from the main designs of the founder would be little better than sacrilege.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that though he had for a short time been a Member of the Oxford University Commission, he would not presume to compete with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) in his knowledge of the statutes of the colleges; but he thought he had somewhat mistaken the effect of the noble Lord's remarks. His noble Friend said that, if they were to be limited in reforming the colleges by the main design of the founders, there would, in the first place, be a difficulty in determining what that main design was; and he went on to say, in the second place, that these founders were founders of colleges, and that their entire design as to each of these colleges must have been limited to the college itself—that though the original design was to promote religion and learning, yet the principal design was the foundation of a college; and his noble Friend argued that if the endowment was diverted from the college to the University admitted to be a good object—it could scarcely be said that this was carrying into effect the main design of the founders. Such was the substance of the view expressed by his noble Friend. Now, provided

1749
it were clearly understood that there was no wish to tie the construction of the statutes to the main design of the founder, considered as a college founder, but only that the general design he had in view—viz., the promotion of religion and learning, was to be considered, then there could he no objection to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He proposed that some such words as the following should be adopted—viz.,"In order to promote useful learning and religious education in the colleges and University, and the main design of the founders and donors, so far as consistent with those purposes."
MR. WALPOLEhad no objection to these words, and therefore consented to the alteration.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Clause, as amended by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, agreed to.
In the same clause,
MR. WIGRAMproposed to insert the words "or of Jesus College," which would have the effect of retaining the right of nominating the head of the College in the hands of the existing patrons. He only asked that the same exemption should be extended to Jesus College that was given by the Bill to Magdalen College, and he might observe that it was universally admitted that the patronage of Jesus College had been uniformly exercised in a beneficial manner.
MR. BOUVERIEadmitted that the patronage had always been exercised with a due regard to the interests of the college; but the question was whether it should or should not be left to the governing body of the college to say whether the present was the right way of appointing the head, and whether some other way might not be advantageously resorted to.
MR. STAFFORDregretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not applied the principle of free competition to Jesus College, so as to leave the field of selection as wide as at present. He trusted that he would even yet consent to the Amendment.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 130: Majority 69.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 44 (No person to be required on matriculating, or taking any degree in arts, law, medicine, or music, to take any oath or to make any declaration whatever.)
MR. WIGRAM MR. WIGRAM moved to leave out
1750
"any," and insert "the;" and after "degree," to insert "of bachelor;" the effect of the Amendment being to exclude all persons at Cambridge from taking any degree other than that of B.A. without a subscription to a religious test. He said he should not object to the clause if it carried the test at Cambridge to the same extent as at Oxford. There a B.A degree might be obtained without subscription to any religious test whatever; it was now proposed that persons at Cambridge should be admitted to the M.A. degree in the same way as they were admitted to the B.A. degree. He would explain the principle on which he acted in opposing any extension of the provisions of this Bill beyond those which had been inserted in the Oxford Bill. The question was one of the most important character—if they were to have in this country an Established Church they must have places of education appropriated exclusively to the Church of England in which those who were intended for the ministry in the Church might be brought up. This clause, as it stood, would abolish education of an exclusive Church of England character altogether. He thought the reasonable course would be to keep the two Universities upon the same footing entirely; and as they had the rule established at Oxford, to preserve a similar rule at Cambridge also.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, this was a very important clause; but he might state to the House that this was precisely the form in which it had come down from the House of Lords last year. At present, no test whatever was required for matriculation at Cambridge. Upon taking the B.A. degree, it was necessary to take the academical oath of obedience to the statutes, and to subscribe a declaration that the candidate was a bonâ fide member of the Church of England. But, upon taking the M.A. degree, persons were required to sign the 36 canons of 1608, whereby they declared that they were bonâ fide members of the Church of England, that they adhered to the Articles of that Church, and that they acknowledged the supremacy of Her Majesty in matters ecclesiastical. The intention of the clause was that for the taking of any degree, except a theological degree, no oath or declaration whatever should be necessary. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Wigram) had proposed to limit the change to Bachelors of Arts. He would allow them to take a bachelor's degree without any test, but not

1751
an M.A. degree or any degree in divinity, music, or medicine. But what he (Mr. Bouverie) wanted to know was, upon what principle the hon. and learned Member could make that limitation? As it was, none but doctors of law at Oxford and Cambridge could practise in the ecclesiastical courts; and he should like to know what connection there was between practising in the courts at Doctors' Commons and being a member of the Church of England; why a Protestant Dissenter or a Roman Catholic should not be as good an advocate as a member of the Church? Now, as regarded the degrees which were higher than that of B.A., they were merely signs of academical rank. These further degrees were merely evidence of a man's having received a good education, that he was a cultivated man, and as such they ought to be open to every member of the community. The hon. Member (Mr. Heywood) wished by this clause to carry the admission to Cambridge degrees further than at Oxford; but there were many men whom the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would allow to take a B.A. degree, but whom he would prevent from proceeding in either music or medicine. He (Mr. Bouverie) thought that if they were to give a University education at all, it ought to be open to all classes of the community.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERconceived that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were fallacious and required to be answered. The right hon. Gentleman asked what reason there was for drawing a distinction between the degree of B.A. and the higher degrees. Now, one reason was, that the degree of B.A. did not entitle any one to take any share in the government of the University, while hitherto the higher degrees did so. The right, hon. Gentleman admitted that the government of the Universities should only be placed in the hands of Members of the Church of England; but if he wished to adopt one course which more than another would leave the matter unsettled, that course was to introduce for the first time the distinction between governing and non-governing masters of arts. The degree of M.A. was not founded upon any examination, but was merely a mark of academical rank; and to draw a distinction between persons holding that degree would give rise to confusion. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the valuable practice of Doctors' Commons, by being confined to doctors of law, was, by the present system,
1752
placed beyond the reach of Roman Catholics or Protestant Dissenters; but that argument appeared to him to carry little weight, because Doctors' Commons was about to be abolished; and even if some delay took place, it did not appear to him very absurd to say that the business of the ecclesiastical courts of the Church of England should be conducted by persons who were best acquainted with the rules of that Church. As regarded doctors of medicine, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman might be of great force if that degree could not be conferred anywhere but at Cambridge; but when it was conferred at various other Universities, it lost all the weight which it might otherwise possess. The effect of the present Bill would be, for the first time, to divide the higher degrees, which were only a symbol of academical rank, into two classes, which would always be ranged against each other, and which would keep up a perpetual dispute. For his part, he did not see why the rule which had been laid down in the case of Oxford should not be adhered to, of admitting all persons to the degree of B.A., but of not going beyond that grade. If a different principle were established with regard to Cambridge, the result would be the renewal of agitation upon the question at Oxford. The step further was wholly unnecessary, and he could not imagine how it could prove useful for any purpose whatever.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he hoped his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) would keep the University of Cambridge in the same position in advance of Oxford as it always occupied—a position of a more enlightened and liberal character. He remembered a time when boys were not admitted to the Universities without subscribing to theological propositions which had puzzled the greatest divines. Cambridge, however, had broken through such an absurdity, and admitted students without such tests, while Oxford persisted in maintaining them; but still she would not confer the higher degrees without them. But if a person was not to be admitted to an M.A., an M.D., or an LL.D. degree at Cambridge without submitting to a religious test, he (Mr. M. Gibson) would be glad to know what that test was to be. He himself was a B.A. of Cambridge, and was not an M.A.; and he, and those in the same position as himself, wished to be informed what was the theological proposition they were to be compelled to subscribe

1753
to in order to take an M.A. degree. As a member of the Church of England, he (Mr. M. Gibson) said distinctly, he considered it a very offensive thing to be continually requiring persons in secular professions to subscribe to debateable theological propositions.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the question really was, whether the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were for the future to be Universities immediately connected with the Church of England or not? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) had said that it was desirable that a distinction should be kept up between Oxford and Cambridge; and, certainly, if they were to keep up that distinction, it would not be necessary that they should alter the Cambridge Bill as it stood at present. It was said that Cambridge ought to be in advance of Oxford. He (Mr. Walpole) was a great admirer of the liberality of Cambridge, and he thought it had been attended with great benefits; but this keeping a little in advance of Oxford had this disadvantage—it would induce hon. Members to say, "Now let us do a little something for Oxford," which would lead to a little more—then, again, following Oxford, the House would be asked to grant Cambridge a little further latitude; and thus the two Universities would be running a race as to which should be most liberal. Unless they intended to open the door to great alterations, they had better say that the same rule should apply to the two Universities; and he (Mr. Walpole) was ready to adhere to that which had been laid down for Oxford.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had a great respect for the University of Oxford, and he admitted that Cambridge and Oxford were sister Universities, but he objected to their being looked upon as Siamese twins, and to its being said that whatever was done by one should be done by the other also. He repudiated the argument that any particular proposition which had been placed in the Oxford Bill should therefore be placed in the Cambridge Bill; and, for his part, he had no fear of the result of the race referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Universities were connected with the Established Church. Well, he would admit that such was the case; but still the exclusive object of the Universities was not to educate persons for holy orders. If such were their sole purpose, then he would admit that it might be right to enact that
1754
no one should take any degree, or derive any advantage from the Universities, who was not qualified to perform the functions for which his education had destined him; but, although in a great degree connected with the Established Church, the education of clergymen was not the only object for which the Universities were established; and, in order to give full effect to the working of those educational institutions, the laity ought to be freely admitted to those seats of learning, and no unnecessary obstacle should be placed in the way of those who wished to partake of their advantages. It was argued, however, by the right hon. Gentleman that by conferring the higher degrees on the laity you admitted to a share in the government of the University persons who were not members of the Church of England; that was really not so. The present Bill did not admit any one who was not a member of the Church of England to any share in the government of the University. Well, then it might be said, what would be the value of conferring the degree of M.A. if it did not confer a share in the government of the University? But were there not hundreds of Masters of Arts whose names were not on the books, but who retained the degree as an honourable distinction, and without any desire to share in the government of the University?—and could it be said that it was no gratification to a man who had passed honourably through a course of education to obtain a high degree from the University where he had studied? It was said that he might go to the London University, to Durham, or to other parts of the kingdom, and might get his degree there; but was that the same thing to a person who was attached to Cambridge, and who valued his degree, not simply for the few letters which he was then enabled to add to his name, but, because it was an honorary record of a distinction acquired by him in the University where he had received his education, and with which all his early associations were mixed up? It was a mockery in such a case to tell a man that he might go elsewhere, but that he should not receive this degree in the University in which he had been educated. There was no ground for this restriction, even as regarded an honorary degree; but there were degrees which conferred solid advantages to persons in the professions to which they might afterwards devote themselves, and he was really quite at a loss to understand why it should be necessary that

1755
a Doctor in Medicine, or a Doctor in Law, or a Doctor in Music, should be compelled to be a member of the Church of England. So to employ these tests tended, he thought, to cast ridicule upon things which were of themselves worthy of respect. It should be remembered that the restriction now proposed was not inserted in the House of Lords. In the House of Commons, hon. Gentlemen were apt sometimes to think that they were more disposed to go forward in the work of improvement than noble Lords in another place. He hoped they would not on this occasion set an example of the opposite kind, but would allow the Bill to stand as it had come down to them from the other House.
Question put, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes 118: Noes 41: Majority 77.
MR. HEYWOODproposed to leave out the words "entitle him to be or to become a member of the Senate, or," the effect of which would be to allow persons who had qualified themselves as Masters of Arts to take their seats in the Senate, and to vote for Members of Parliament. Unless this Amendment were adopted, many members of the University would virtually stand in the same position as one of the Members for the City of London did with regard to the House. They would have seats provided for them below the bar of the Senate, and they would be entitled to attend and listen to the proceedings, but they would not be allowed to take any part in them, or to vote for Members to represent the University in Parliament. An objection was taken to this proposal—namely, that it would allow a Dissenter to become a member of the governing body of the University. Now, he was of opinion that it would be very much for the benefit of the University that there should be in the Senate a moderate sprinkling of persons of other religious denominations besides the Church of England. He was not aware that there was any valid objection to this proposition, except that, if carried, it would render the corporation of the University less exclusive, but in that respect it would only be following the general course of the nation.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, the effect of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be, to confer upon Dissenters who took the higher degrees a right of interference in the affairs of the University and a vote for Members of Parliament. If he (Mr. Bouverie)
1756
had the sole power of decision upon the point, he might not see any abstract objection to the proposition; but he feared that it would mar the usefulness of the Bill by exciting a feeling of hostility and alarm in the minds of those whose co-operation was necessary for the efficient working of the measure. It must not be forgotten that there was a strong connection between the Church of England and the Universities, find a proposal to allow Dissenters to interfere in fixing the theological studies to be pursued in those Universities would excite great alarm in the minds of many persons. He opposed the Amendment, believing that it would tend to impair the practical usefulness of the Bill.
MR. I. BUTTexplained his reasons for supporting the Amendment. He could see no reason why, if Dissenters were admitted to the higher degree, they should not be permitted to become members of the convocation of the University. The Church of England had too strong a hold upon the Universities, to make it at all likely, or probable, that she could ever be ousted by the Dissenters.
Question put "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 85: Majority 25.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Alexander, J.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Lockhart, W.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Malins, R.

Barrow, W. H.

Massey, W. N.

Bentinck, G. W. P.

Michell, W.

Blackburn, P.

Montgomery, H. L.

Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

Montgomery, Sir G.

Bramley-Moore, J.

Mowbray, J. R.

Bruce, Major C.

Naas, Lord

Buck, Col.

Osborne, R.

Bunbury, W. B. M'C.

Palmer, R.

Burrowes, R.

Palmerston, Visct.

Chambers, M.

Rust, J.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Smith, Sir W.

Davies, J. L.

Smith, W. M.

Davison, R.

Smollett, A.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Spooner, R.

Duncombe, hon. W. E.

Stewart, Sir R. M. R. S.

Dunne, Col.

Sutton, J. H. M.

FitzGerald, J. D.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

FitzRoy, rt. hon. H.

Warren, S.

George, J.

Wigram, L. T.

Gordon, hon. A.

Wilson, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Guinness, R. S.

Woodd, B. T.

Gwyn, H.

Wynne, rt. hon. J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Heathcote, Sir W.

TELLERS.

Herbert, H. A.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Horsman, rt. hon. E.

Mulgrave, Earl of

1757

List of the NOES.

Adair, Colonel

Maguire, J. F.

Anderson, Sir J.

Miall, E.

Barnes, T.

Milligan, R.

Baxter, W. E.

Milner, Sir W. M. E.

Beaumont, W. B.

Monck, Visct.

Bell, J.

Murrough, J. P.

Berkeley, F. W. F.

Napier, Sir C.

Black, A.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Bland, L. H.

North, F.

Bonham-Carter, J.

O'Brien, P.

Bowyer, G.

O'Brien, J.

Brady, J.

O'Connell, Capt. J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Flaherty, A.

Butler, C. S.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Butt, I.

Pellatt, A.

Cheetham, J.

Pigott, F.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Price, W. P.

Collier, R. P.

Ricardo, S.

Cowan, C.

Rice, E. R.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Ridley, G.

Deasy, R.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Dillwyn, L. L.

Russell, F. C. H.

Duncan, G.

Scobell, Capt.

Dunlop, A. M.

Shee, W.

Esmonde, J.

Smith, J. B.

Fenwick, H.

Somerville, r. h. Sir W. M.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Strickland, Sir G.

Ferguson, J.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Forster, C.

Thompson, G.

Fortescue, C. S.

Thornely, T.

Freestun, Col.

Tite, W.

French, Col.

Vernon, G. E. H.

Gaskell, J. M.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Warner, E.

Goderich, Visc.

Watson, W. H.

Hadfield, G.

Whatman, J.

Hastie, Archibald

Wilkinson, W. A.

Higgins, Col. O.

Willcox, B. M'G.

Ingram, H.

Williams, W.

Jackson, W.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Kennedy, T.

Wise, J. A.

Langton, H. G.

TELLERS.

Lee, W.

Hey wood, J.

Mackie, J.

Clay, Sir W.

MR. HEYWOODthen proposed to add certain words, in order that persons not members of the Church of England should be allowed to fill certain secular offices connected with the University. He did not object to the professors of divinity being required to sign the Thirty-nine Articles, but could see no reason why other professorships, such as that of anatomy, should not be open to all persons who were qualified for the duties. He had particular reference to the case of masters of grammar schools who were required to be Masters of Arts, and that requirement, as the clause stood, would confine those offices to members of the Church of England. He, therefore, moved to insert after "qualifications" the words—"and the duties of which office are ecclesiastical, and limited to the inculcation of the doctrinal formularies
1758
of the United Church of England and Ireland."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, the object of the proviso at the end of the clause was, that no Dissenter should be appointed to any office which had heretofore always been held by a member of the Church of England. As to the secular offices spoken of by the hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Bouverie) apprehended there were no such things. The hon. Gentleman might obtain his object by moving the omission of the proviso, although it was to be hoped that he would not deem it necessary to persist upon this point. In the case of the grammar schools where the masters were required to be Masters of Arts, it could not be doubted that the object of that requirement was to render it necessary for the master to be of the particular religious persuasion of the founders of the schools. The Amendment proposed would render that just and proper provision completely nugatory, and he hoped would not be pressed,
MR. I. BUTTthought the Amendment would have an unfair operation. It was true they had now decided to make the higher degrees accessible to all persons, but in those cases where the qualification for holding office was the degree of Master of Arts, to that requirement must also be added membership of the Church of England, which was a necessary qualification for that degree at the time when those offices were established.
MR. HEYWOODwas willing not to press the Amendment at the present moment, being convinced that in a year or two the House would be obliged to adopt his views.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be read 3a*, on Monday next.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Committe read; House in Committee.
Clause 3. (Appointment of Officers for Asylums heretofore made to be valid.)
COLONEL DUNNEcalled attention to the appointments which had been made under the old Act by the Lord Lieutenant. Some time ago the Lord Lieutenant had appointed a chaplain to the Belfast Lunatic Asylum, the legality of which appointment had been disputed, and the Court of

1759
Queen's Bench had decided it to be illegal. With regard to chaplains in asylums, he might say, that he did not think there ought to be any such appointments. He did not mean to say that lunatics should receive no spiritual consolation or religious instruction; but those were points which ought to be left to the judgment of the medical attendants and the governors. The Clause declared that appointments of officers to asylums heretofore made by the Lord Lieutenant should be valid, and he objected to it, because it set aside the judgment of the Queen's Bench; and he had therefore to move the insertion of the words, "save and except all such appointments as have been decided by the Court of Queen's Bench to have been illegal."
MR. HORSMANsaid, that the question how far chaplains were necessary in lunatic asylums at all was not raised by this Bill which was merely declaratory. The Lord Lieutenant had always been considered to have the appointment to offices in lunatic asylums in Ireland, and it was only when the question came before the Court of Queen's Bench that the legality of the appointments was disputed, and the decision given by the court showed that all such appointments were illegal. As all the appointments were made in good faith, and under the impression that they were legal, the clause proposed that the gentlemen holding the appointments should not be sufferers by the mistake that had been made. It would also place future appointments in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. In reference to the appointment of chaplains at all for lunatic asylums, that was too large a question for him to enter upon on the present occasion.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that as representative of a borough in the county of Cork, he was an ex offcio governor of the Cork County Lunatic Asylum, and he felt that he should be in a very invidious position if this Bill passed, for it would make the governors responsible to the public for the management of the asylums, while it placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant the power of appointing as many officers with such salaries as he pleased without consulting the governors at all. He would not be the cat's-paw of the Lord Lieutenant or a jobbing Chief Secretary; for he thought that, when responsibility was imposed, it ought to be accompanied with
1760
power. He spoke the more freely on the subject because he did not for a moment believes the present Chief Secretary would ever be guilty of a job. If the Bill passed, he would never enter the walls of the County Lunatic Asylum again as a governor. The Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was most reasonable, for it was a most indecent thing to take such a course as the Government had proposed, while the decision of the Queen's Bench remained un-reversed.
MR. HORSMANthought the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in supposing that he was an ex officio governor of the Cork County Lunatic Asylum in virtue of being a representative of a borough in the county. He believed the hon. and learned Gentleman owed his appointment to the Lord Lieutenant, who usually nominated the various county and borough members. There was no new principle introduced into this bill, its only object being to declare the power which the Lord Lieutenant had always exercised. If the clause were rejected, the lunatic asylums in Ireland would be left practically without any officers at all.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSdenied that the right hon. Gentleman had given a correct representation of the effect of the Bill. He also had his doubts as to the propriety of appointing chaplains for asylums. He knew one case where the Lord Lieutenant appointed three chaplains to an establishment where there were seven different sects of inmates. He thought it desirable that the decision of such questions should be left with the governors.
LORD NAASsaid, the only point to which the decision of the Queen's Bench went was the legality of the appointment of three chaplains to the Belfast Infirmary; and he wished to know whether the effect of this clause would be to give the Government power to confirm these appointments?
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, the effect of the Bill would be, not to give the Lord Lieutenant the power of confirming appointments already made, but actually to confer them. The Bill was rendered absolutely necessary by a recent decision in the Queen's Bench. He had never heard until that night that the governors of the asylums either had, or claimed to have, the power of appointing the officers.
MR. GROGANthought the appointments were in the hands of the ratepayers, and that it had been usurped by the Lord Lieutenant. This Bill was not a declaratory Bill at all, but conferred upon the Lord Lieutenant powers which he never legally possessed. There was no reason why Irish gentlemen were not as competent as English gentlemen to manage such institutions.
MR. H. HERBERTcould not vote against this clause, as its omission would cause the greatest confusion in Ireland, because it appeared that, as the matter now stood, the whole of the appointments were illegal. Hence the necessity of a retrospective clause declaring the appointments valid. But along with this he wished to see an attempt to assimilate the government of these institutions to that which prevailed in England, by vesting all future appointments in the governors.
MR. KIRKsaid, the Amendment would entirely nullify the clause, except so far as related to the three chaplains of the Belfast Asylum. He should prefer an Amendment which stood on the paper, and would be afterwards proposed. He was favourable to the appointment of the matron, manager, and chaplain being vested in the Lord Lieutenant.
MR. DAVISONsaid that the law, in order to be acceptable should, as far as possible, be assimilated to the law of England by leaving the whole of the local appointments in the hands of the governors, who were themselves nominated by the Lord Lieutenant. If the Government would agree, that in those cases in which the governors of the asylums should think proper to appoint chaplains, the Lord Lieutenant, with their concurrence, should have the power of making such appointments, he should offer no objection to that course. When the local governors were of opinion that the appointment of chaplains would be injurious rather than otherwise, he must contend that the appointments ought not to be made.
MR. KIRKsaid, that the Lord Lieutenant had hitherto exercised the power of appointing matrons, and he did not know of a single instance in which a matron so appointed had been complained of.
MR. BLANDsaid, that a decision had been taken of the highest court of judicature in Ireland, the Court of Queen's Bench, and he did not think it would be very decorous of the House to override
1762
that decision. He should, therefore, support the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Dunne). It was said to be very hard for certain parties to lose their salaries, but nothing had been said of the hardship upon those who had to pay those salaries without getting equivalent services performed.
MR. BEAMISHsaid, he must differ from his colleague, as he believed the appointments by the Lord Lieutenant had proved satisfactory in all cases.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he must object to ex post facto legislation in any shape.
CAPTAIN MAGANsaid, that his acquaintance with matrons was not so extensive as that of many other hon. Members who had undertaken to speak in their favour. But he knew one matron—the matron of Mullingar—and she had long been considered the nuisance of the establishment.
MR. CAIRNSobjected to the words in the preamble of the Bill, "that doubts had arisen" as to the validity of these appointments, when the Court of Queen's Bench had declared them invalid, and there could, therefore, be no doubt as to their invalidity.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that the Court of Queen's Bench had merely refused its order to compel the governors to pay the salaries of chaplains. The Court threw out words to the effect that the appointments were not authorised by law, but nothing more. The money had been given out of the public funds to the governors for the payment of those salaries, but notwithstanding that they had refused to pay.
MR. DAVISONexplained that it was compulsory upon the governors to have the presentment made, and that the money had been paid into Court, and there remained.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESdid not see with what propriety or justice they could give the appointment of the officers of the asylums to the Lord Lieutenant instead of to the ratepayers.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 81: Majority 1.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 4,
MR. DAVISON MR. DAVISON moved the insertion of certain words, the effect of which would be to enact that the governors of the asylum

1763
should with the approbation of the Lord Lieutenant and Council, fix and determine from time to time the number and description of officers to be appointed.
MR. HORSMANcomplained that the Amendment was at variance with the spirit of the Bill.
MR. I. BUTTthought otherwise, and submitted that it was a very proper matter for the Committee to determine whether the administration of these institutions should be vested altogether in the Lord Lieutenant or whether the local authorities also should have a voice in it. The question was, whether Ireland was to receive the benefit of the old English principle of local self-government or was to remain under the despotic system of centralisation? The governors of county lunatic asylums in England appointed their own officers and fixed their salaries, and why should Ireland not have the advantage of the same system? In the name of common sense, let Irishmen be told whether they could or could not be trusted with the powers of local management that were enjoyed in the rest of the United Kingdom. He was one of the governors of the Cork Lunatic Asylum, hut if this Bill passed into law he declared that he should never again enter into the boardroom of that institution. He would not consent to bear the odium of acts over which he had no control. He must be intrusted with more than a nominal power if he was to be responsible to the ratepayers. The Cork Lunatic Asylum was built by a Government department at double the cost which would have been necessary if the matter had been left in the hands of local managers; and, indeed, so profligate was the expenditure found to have been, that the Government were compelled to refund a considerable sum to the county. The Chief Secretary for Ireland talked of granting the local bodies the right to manage their own affairs; but then he made lunatic asylums an exception to this rule; he made another exception in the case of prisons; in short, every practical question was in turn to constitute an exception; and all that the people of Ireland had was the admission of a barren abstract principle. Bill after Bill was brought in after midnight by the Government, frittering away the right of self-government in Ireland, and Irish Members were obliged to fight the battle against centralisation on matters of detail. He had spoken, he confessed,
1764
with some warmth, but if a similar injustice were about to be practised upon England, he was sure the English Members would evince still greater indignation.
MR. DEASYthought there was much force in the observations of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt), and that there was too great a tendency exhibited by the Government of Ireland to encroach upon and absorb the powers which ought to be vested in the various local bodies. The Government had no claim to make the appointments under discussion, as the establishments to which the Bill referred were entirely supported from the rates raised in each district. The Amendment was, therefore, perfectly reasonable, and he trusted the Committee would preserve the rights of the ratepayers in opposition to the principle of centralisation.
SIR ROBERT FERGUSONregarded the remarks of the last two speakers as inapplicable to Clause 4. They should have been reserved for the discussion upon next clause. It would, he thought, be much better if the central authority stated what establishment each asylum should have, and that the governors should fill up the different appointments.
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, the number of medical officers, chaplains, &c. was regulated by Act of Parliament.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, this clause would enable the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to appoint such officers or servants of lunatic asylums as he thought fit, and to fix the salaries they were to receive, and the ratepayers would have no security that that power would be exercised with any regard to uniformity or economy. He would support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, which would vest the appointment of officers jointly in the Lord Lieutenant and the boards of governors.
LORD NAASwished to remind the Committee that, although, according to the terms of the clause, the appointment of officers was given to the Lord Lieutenant and Council, their selection would practically rest with two inspectors of lunatic asylums. He certainly thought that the governors of lunatic asylums, in the various localities, would be far better able than the inspectors to judge what officers ought to be appointed.
MR. H. HERBERTobserved, that in England a certain degree of uniformity with regard to the appointment of officers of lunatic asylums was insured by the

1765
provisions of an Act of Parliament; but it was proposed that in Ireland the power of making such appointments should be vested in the Lord Lieutenant arid Council, who, he thought, should not be the sole and exclusive judges upon such a matter. At the same time, he did not think it quite safe that the board of governors should have the entire control, as in some cases they might refuse to act.
MR. I. BUTThad not the slightest objection to fix, by Act of Parliament, what officers should be appointed in lunatic asylums, leaving it to the governors to select such officers; but he thought the powers which this measure proposed to delegate to the Lord Lieutenant were inconsistent with the principles of free government. The real question was, whether a system of central or of local government was to be established in Ireland.
MR. KENDALLsaid, that in England the governors of lunatic asylums were appointed by the courts of quarter sessions, and if the power of selecting the officers of such asylums was to be given to the lords lieutenants of counties—who were likely to be far better acquainted with the circumstances of their respective districts than the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland could be with the circumstances of the country over which he exercised authority—he believed the governors would at once resign their positions.
MR. BEAMISHconsidered that all these appointments ought to rest in the governors, subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that the House seemed to lose sight of the fact that the care and treatment of the lunatics should be necessarily vested in persons of great experience; and he had yet to learn that boards of governors were the fittest persons to judge of their capability; but the feeling of the House being evidently in favour of the Amendment, the Government would consent to it.
Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7, referring to the appointment of chaplains, struck out.
On Clause 8,
On the Motion of Sir GEORGE GREY, a provision was inserted, vesting the appointment and removal of all officers in each asylum in the governors, subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant and Council.
The remaining clauses were agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported, as amended.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES WINDING-UP ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE (SECOND NIGHT).
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to be made to Question [6th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Debate resumed.
MR. HUMEappealed to his hon. and learned Friend who had charge of the Bill to postpone the further consideration of it till next week, seeing that the decision of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland in the case of the Tipperary Bank was expected to be delivered that day. That decision might form an important element in the discussion of the measure, and he thought that it was undesirable to proceed with it until they were acquainted with the judgment which the Master of the Rolls had pronounced.
MR. DEASYhoped that the House and the Government would not accede to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman; but that the Bill would be speedily passed, in order to put an end to the anomalies of the law relating to the Joint-Stock Companies in Ireland. These Companies stood in a very different position to English Companies. The House was perhaps not aware that by an Act of the Irish Parliament, as soon as a Banking Company stopped payment every partner in it was absolutely divested of all his property for the purposes of the payment of the debts of that bank. That might have been a very wise measure for the times in which it was passed, but to the present day it was totally inapplicable. The consequences of this law were that the bankers of Ireland and every Railway Company had been advised that they were not safe in transferring money or shares belonging to persons who were shareholders in the Tipperary Bank. At the same time the official manager made calls for the purpose of winding-up the bank, and thus the two conflicting laws came in collision, and resulted in a dead lock. Under these circumstances, he thought that the House ought at once to proceed to an amendment of the law. He

1767
could not, however, but think that the Bill before them was defective in taking away from creditors rights they had at present had against shareholders, while it gave them no equivalent remedies. He thought, however, that if the Bill were read a second time there would be no difficulty in amending these matters in Committee. It also ought to have added to it a clause making the order for a call, which was made by the Master, equivalent to a judgment at law; it was plainly the intention of the Legislature, in passing the Joint-Stock Act, that this should be so, but through the ignorance of Irish law, which was but too frequent in that House, that intention was not manifest in the existing statutes. Another matter which required remedy was the exorbitant amount of expense which occurred in putting the existing law in force; so great were these expenses, that sometimes the whole available assets of a Company were swept away in law expenses. In the case of the Tipperary Bank at least 500 actions would have have to be brought, the undefended cases costing at least £20 each, while the defended actions would cost £100. It was important, also, he thought, that power should be given to some one representing the creditors to enter in for reasonable and bonâ fide compromises; and he hoped that the House would consent to the second reading of this Bill, which would, he believed, when amended in Committee, get rid of great anomalies at present existing.
MR. CAIRNSthought that the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to him to tell rather against than in favour of the Bill. For his own part, he could conceive nothing more fatal to the credit and stability of joint-stock banks than any measure in the slightest degree analogous to the present. In legislating upon the principle of limited liability, banking companies had been expressly excluded from the operation of the Act, and the reason of that was, that the great source of credit of a joint-stock bank was the fact that every creditor knew that he had the power by legal proceedings of coming upon the property of every shareholder. He implored the House, as a matter of principle, to pause before they altered the rights of creditors and the liability of shareholders in a concern which had become the subject of litigation, and with regard to which the rights of the parties were already defined.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREjoined with the hon. and learned Gentleman in asking the House not to pass this ex post facto measure. The present law might be a bad one, but it was the law under which the parties concerned in this bank had mutually contracted. He trusted that the House would not violate a great principle by passing a retrospective measure to meet a temporary inconvenience.
MR. GEORGEalso protested against the retrospective action of the Bill. The concern to which it was intended particularly to refer had extracted £400,000 in the shape of deposits from hundreds of poor people; and they, before the shareholders, ought to be the objects of the sympathy of the House.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, this Bill was undoubtedly designed in order to remedy some clearly admitted defects in the present law. If there was a partnership or company consisting of a large body of people, common sense dictated that their affairs could not be carried on unless you permitted the majority to bind the minority. Supposing they became bankrupt, the same principle came into operation under the Bankrupt Act, but if they were brought under the operation of the Winding-up Acts, that principle was at present most imperfectly developed. Things that were most expedient for preserving the property of these unfortunate companies, and preventing litigation, were unable to be done, because at present there was no effectual mode by which the majority could bind the minority; and the consequence was, as he had unhappily to observe in his extended experience, that a very small minority succeeded in continuing most ruinous litigation to the great profit of solicitors, and other persons concerned, and to the great detriment of the interests of the creditors. It was most right, therefore, that the principle applicable to the conduct of a company when thriving should be applied when its affairs had to be wound up, and that was the principle which this Bill involved. He quite concurred, however, in the opinion that it would be necessary to introduce some limitations into the Act. For instance, he did not concur in the provision giving to two-thirds of the creditors present at a meeting, power, without reference to the general body of the creditors; but that was not an objection to the principle of the Bill, but a limitation which might be introduced in Committee.

1769
The Bill introduced a very wholesome and useful improvement, enabling a representative of the creditors to attend the proceedings before the Master to defend their rights, which was not the case now, because the official manager could only be regarded as charged with certain statutory duties relative to the accounts. He was at a loss to understand how the Bill could be said to be ex post facto, as it was really no more so than every Bill for improving the procedure or process of any court of law or equity. He trusted the House would consider in Committee whether the principle was carried out in the provisions of the Bill, or whether those provisions were susceptible of improvement. The third and fourth sections were open to objection, as leading to litigation and dispute. He should like to see them omitted, and he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman did not consider it important that they should be retained.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he had at first thought the Bill objectionable, and that it would bear injuriously on the interests of creditors of joint-stock banks, having been brought forward for a special purpose. However, having since given it fuller consideration, he had come to a different conclusion. He was fully of opinion that the creditors were the first objects of their sympathy; but he believed that this Bill, with the alterations, which his hon. and learned Friend proposed to introduce, would be found to be really a creditors' Bill, as removing an obstacle which had existed between them and the property of the shareholders. If this Bill did not pass, he feared that the lawyers would reap the advantage, and that to send it to the Committee would be the best thing they could do for the unfortunate shareholders.
MR. MALINS,in reply, denied that this Bill was any more ex post facto than the Winding-up Acts of 1848–1849. He denied that the Bill took away any rights from the creditors. There were 3,000 creditors of the Tipperary Bank, and there were 200 shareholders, against whom they were to recover. What rights, therefore, would they be deprived of? The Bill gave the shareholders the power to meet together, and appoint an authorised agent to represent them, for want of which at present the enforcement of their rights was greatly retarded. The solicitor to the New-castle-on-Tyne Bank proprietors, who were
1770
the largest creditors of the Tipperary Bank, had drawn up the strongest reasons in favour of this Bill. He maintained that it was a creditors' Bill, and did not deserve the reproaches that had been cast upon it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 77: Majority 35.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, it was the intention of many hon. Members to oppose this Bill on the second reading and to object to its being referred to a Select Committee. He, therefore, suggested that it would be better that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) should appoint some day for the second reading, when the discussion would certainly be taken, since hon. Members on his side of the House were put to great inconvenience from these repeated postponements.
SIR JOHN BULLERwas not opposed to the principle of the Bill, but submitted to the noble Lord that it would be desirable to abandon it for the present Session. Country Gentlemen were obliged to attend at great inconvenience whenever it was on the paper, and if it were referred to a Select Committee their report could not be laid on the table in time for the House to pronounce a satisfactory decision on it, as it would no doubt be so altered that it would be in effect a new measure.
MR. KNIGHTLEYalso urged the postponement of the Bill until next Session.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, the Select Committee would not be appointed before the week after next, and then the Gentlemen who represented the agricultural interest would not be able to give it their assistance, as they would be obliged to leave town to attend to the quarter sessions and the assizes. He hoped the noble Lord would consent to the withdrawal of the Bill for this Session, and that he would next Session introduce a measure more palatable to the country.
MR. DEEDESsaid, that although by no means unfavourable to the principle of the Bill, he felt bound to press upon the noble Lord the utter impossibility of its being fairly considered at that late period of the Session.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I assure the House that the Government very much

1771
regret the inconvenience to which hon. Gentlemen are put by the necessity of postponing from time to time a Bill in which so many of them take an interest, but I think it was arranged that the Bill was not to be taken to-night later than half-past Ten o'clock. The measure is one which deserves the serious consideration of the House, and all I can at present say with regard to its postponement is, that we will fix it for Friday evening, when I hope we shall be able to come to some agreement on the subject.
MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, the statement of the noble Lord was not at all satisfactory. As a supporter of the Bill he urged the noble Lord to withdraw it, and reintroduce it and refer it to a Select Committee at the beginning of next Session.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, no measure of this kind would be satisfactory to the country if founded upon the compulsory principle.
MR. FELLOWESobjected to the postponement of the Bill from day to day and also urged its withdrawal until next Session.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I see clearly that great difference of opinion exists with regard to this measure, and, perhaps, therefore, there is not much chance of our arriving at any useful result in the matter during the present Session. I think the question is one which ought to be considered by a Committee, and, perhaps, the shortest way of disposing of it will be to say, that I shall propose a Committee upon it at the beginning of next Session.
Order discharged.
Bill withdrawn.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.