Sitting of 30 May 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis); Excise.
2° Poor Law Amendment (Scotland); Small Debts Imprisonment Act Amendment (Scotland).
3° Police (Counties and Boroughs); Reformatory and Industrial Schools; Factories; Pawnbrokers.

MONUMENT TO THE DUKE OF WEL- LINGTON—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT CHELSEAsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question relative to the proposed monument of the late Duke of Wellington in St. Paul's. It was understood that a balance of £25,000 remained unexpended of the £80,000 voted for the expenses of the Duke's funeral, and that it was the opinion of the Government that this balance might be properly applied to the erection of this monument. Did they intend to introduce a measure to authorise such an appropriation?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was true that the sum of £25,000 remained unexpended out of the amount voted for the funeral; but it was not in the power of the Government to apply it to any other purpose, not even to a monument in memory of the Duke. The Government, however, intended to apply to Parliament at a future period to permit such an appropriation; and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Works (Sir B. Hall) had been authorised to receive designs for a monument—the cost of which it was intended should not exceed this £25,000. When the plans were sufficiently matured, the measure would be introduced; but he hardly anticipated that he should ask Parliament
798
for a Vote for this purpose during the present Session.

THE DISCHARGED MILITIA REGIMENTS AND THE FOREIGN LEGIONS.
On the Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next,
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he hoped the House would excuse his availing himself of the motion for adjournment in order to bring under its notice a subject of quite a different character—the subject of the allowances proposed to be made to the officers and men of the militia regiments discharged upon the restoration of peace. The question of the compensation to be allowed to the militia on disembodiment had been frequently before the House; and it had been understood that the surgeons were to receive twelve months' pay, and subalterns and paymasters three months', as gratuities. When the regulations were originally made, the paymasters were placed in the same position as the surgeons; but now they were given to understand that this rule only referred to cases of ten years' service. The rule had been relaxed in favour of surgeons, and should be equally so in favour of paymasters. He thought that the surgeons and subalterns had no reason to complain of the manner in which the Government had treated them; but there was, indeed, this additional argument on behalf of the paymasters, that their duties and responsibilities by no means ceased, as did those of other officers, on the disembodiment of the regiments; for they continued responsible upon their securities, and could not leave the country until they were absolved, which could not be until their accounts were audited, which might not be for a year and a half. He desired, moreover, to direct attention to the case of the noncommissioned officers and privates of the militia. They were told they were only to receive the remainder of their bounty. But though this was a proposition which might have been recommended by economy, it could not be reconciled with justice or equity; for they were already entitled to the remainder of the bounty, and its payment could be no boon. It had been decided, at the end of the last war, that the militia were to receive a certain number of days' pay, to enable them to get home with a few shillings in their pockets. This was but right and just; and he did not think the militia of the

799
present day less worthy of consideration. Unless this was done, it was difficult to see how many of them could get home, especially if not allowed to take the military clothing; besides, many of them were under stoppages for their summer clothing, which had only just been issued. It would be cheaper, after all, to give the men some small gratuity, and then retain the clothing, to be reserved for a future occasion. Let it be remembered that the militia had supplied large reinforcements to the ranks of the regular army, and that a great many regiments had voluntered for foreign service; thus enabling the Government to send the regular troops to the scene of action, their places being supplied by the militia. The militia had supplied 33,000 men to the regular army: besides this, they had furnished the Mediterranean garrison, and if the Government had felt at liberty to accept their offers, 10,000 militia might have been procured for service in the Crimea, or any other place where the country needed their services. And the number would have been much larger had it not been for the regulations unfortunately adopted with regard to the officers, who, when the regiments were reduced to a certain number by volunteering into the ranks of the army, were dismissed until the strength of the regiments was restored—a regulation the result of which was, that the officers, to whose energy and zeal the Government were indebted for these large reinforcements gained by the regular army, found themselves seriously injured by their zeal. These being the considerations which he (Colonel Gilpin) urged in favour of the militia, he would now advert to the troops of the Foreign Legions. They were to receive a year's pay upon their disembodiment, although the expenses connected with that corps had been such, that he was persuaded every one of them had cost as much as three militiamen. They had never seen a shot fired, and never been in service; yet Lord Panmure had recently said—
"I trust that when the time comes for dispensing with their services we shall not forget the zeal they had shown in rallying round the standard of England, but shall treat them with such liberality that our name may be respected throughout Europe; and should occasion arise again to invite their services, they may cheerfully respond to our call."
Now, surely this language might far more justly be applied in favour of our militia, who had "rallied round the standard" of
800
their own country. Surely, "our treatment of them ought to be such as to make our name respected throughout Europe;" and that "when again invited to our service they may cheerfully respond to our summons." If, indeed, we should again be involved in war, he (Colonel Gilpin) hoped that whoever might be then at the head of affairs, he would not at the first sound of hostilities rush to foreign countries for recruits; but would rely rather on the patriotism of our own people. In order that we might do so, however, it was necessary to treat with justice and liberality that militia which had enabled us to carry on the war, and to conclude peace.
CAPTAIN STUARTalso advocated the claims of the paymasters, and thought it but reasonable that some compensation—twenty-one days'or a month's pay—should be granted to the men on disembodiment. He also wished to comment upon another point not immediately connected with the subject under discussion. It had been generally believed that some compensation would be allowed to officers who had served in the Crimea; but now it appeared they were only to receive the barren honour of the thanks of Parliament; and, upon their return home, to be thrown at once upon half-pay.
COLONEL DUNNEhoped the Government would consider the case of the militia, both as regarded the officers and the men. He wished to know distinctly whether the Government intended to make the men any allowance, or only to pay them the remainder of their bounty? They ought not to be discharged without some sort of gratuity. He desired to know on what footing the disembodied staff would be placed. It was well known that the staff as constituted before the war was useless, and if the staff were now to be placed upon the same footing, the public money would be wasted. To be of any use at all, the staff must be made and kept efficient. He wished further to know distinctly what was to be done in reference to the Foreign Legion. The militia regiments were now marched out of garrison, and the Foreign Legions were marched in. He desired distinctly to be informed whether it was intended to retain them? The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) the Member for London, when in office, had declared that it was not intended that the Foreign Legion should have any advantages which had been denied to the English troops; but it

801
was plain that they had peculiar advantages, and were intended to retain them.
VISCOUNT BERNARDhoped that the militiamen, especially the Irish militiamen, would not he sent home without proper clothing; for, unless they were so provided, it could not be expected that any permanent improvement would he effected in their condition by their temporary engagements in the militia; and he trusted also that the claims of the surgeons would be considered. The surgeons were gentlemen who, being connected with the militia in its disembodied state, would not avoid taking their share of risk in the time of danger, although it compelled them to abandon lucrative practice. It was his firm belief that the day was not distant when the country would again require their services, and it was most important they should he dismissed with the feeling that, when the time did arrive, their services would he properly requited.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he did not find it easy to explain why a gratuity should be given to one class of officers and not to another. He admitted that the more liberal the course pursued by the Government now, the more promptly would the ranks of the militia be recruited on a future occasion. But he did not think the Government ought to look solely to the consideration of popularity. He quite concurred that the manner in which the militia officers and men had done their duty was admirable, and that the duties performed by them were of the greatest advantage to the country during the period of their service; but, on a question like this, the Government must consider whether the duration of that period and the conditions on which militia engagements were made, were such as justified all ranks of that service in entertaining the idea of general compensation upon their disembodiment. As to the permanent staff, it was not intended that they should undertake the recruiting business of the country in the place of those non-commissioned officers and men who were now detached from each regiment of the line for that purpose, but that they should form the nucleus by which the militia might be properly officered and organised, whenever it might be necessary to re-embody it; and, as to placing the surgeons and assistant-surgeons upon the permanent staff, however desirable it might be to recognise their services, the Government would not be justified in placing them or any other
802
officers in a position in which there was no prospect of sufficient duties to occupy their time, and to compensate the country for the necessary expense. With regard to the question why the same gratuity was not given to the paymasters as to the surgeons and assistant-surgeons, he believed, when the hon. Gentleman first spoke on the subject, he expressed himself perfectly satisfied at hearing the paymasters would have the same gratuity as the subalterns. The paymasters, like the subalterns, were not men of fortune. It was but fair that some means should be afforded them, when they retired from the service of the Government, of entering upon a different occupation: and, as he had before stated, the paymasters would have to continue for a considerable time in correspondence with the Government upon difficult questions arising out of the settlement of the regimental accounts. A gratuity as great as the subalterns would receive might fairly be given to the paymasters; but he did not think they were entitled to so high a sum as the surgeons and assistant-surgeons, because those professional gentlemen, when they joined the militia, abandoned the practice they had obtained in their various localities, proceeded with their regiments to the Mediterranean and other parts, and, of course, when they returned, would find their places occupied by others. Upon that ground the Government had determined to make a more liberal allowance to them than to the subalterns and paymasters; and he thought there was a great difference in the two cases. He was asked what was intended to be done for the privates and non-commissioned officers. They would he paid to the day of disembodiment, and would receive at the same time the balance of the bounty of the current year. [Colonel GILPIN: That is their own money.] The hon. Gentleman should recollect that if the militia were continued in an embodied state, the balance of bounty would not be paid until a much later period—perhaps not until the period of training next year; therefore, although it was true they were strictly entitled to the money, still the Government anticipated the period of payment. With regard to the clothing, that for the current year was issued in April last, and upon the disembodiment of the regiments would have to be returned into the Government charge, but the men would be allowed to retain the clothes which went out of use on the

803
last issue, and also their fatigue dress. [Colonel GILPIN: It is their own.] They should be allowed to take away a complete suit of clothing. [Colonel GILPIN: They have paid for it.] There was no analogy, he thought, between the officers of the militia and the privates. A private received 1s. a day, and a subaltern 5s. or 6s. a day, both being in the service of the Government; but, when each sought independent employment, a private was more likely to obtain that employment at 1s. a day than the subaltern at 5s, or 6s. There was, also, no analogy between the privates of the militia and those of the Foreign Legion. There had been a separate convention for the Swiss, German, and Italian Legions, but the terms of those conventions were identical. The reason why the Foreign Legion were offered twelve months' pay on disbandment and a passage to the colonies was, because it was thought that without such an offer, the country would not be likely to obtain their services. The Government were bound to consider how they could most expeditiously raise these regiments, and it was natural that men who were leaving their country, and breaking up their homes should desire to go somewhere else when they were disbanded. He believed that many soldiers in the Foreign Legion would be disposed to avail themselves of a free passage to the colonies. He considered that with the provision which the Government would make, and the period of the year at which the militia would return to their homes, they would have no difficulty in obtaining employment; and that there need be no ground for apprehensions on the part of the hon. Member.
COLONEL BUCKsaid, that the militia would return to their homes with the testimony of the nation to the independent and honourable manner in which they had performed their duties; but, according to the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) it did not appear that they would carry much compensation with them. These men were to take home the clothing worn previously to the last clothing issued in April. But what was the condition of that clothing? He knew of the case of an Irish regiment which, it had been rumoured was to be disembodied, taking with it the old clothing. Colonel Dickson and the adjutant of that regiment said, "Very well; but the men cannot keep on their backs clothes which they have already worn fifteen months." As commanding
804
a portion of the militia himself, he could bear testimony to the truth of this statement. If the House wanted to know the appearance of a militiaman in the dress which it was proposed he should carry home with him, they would find it in the well-known figure of "Jerry," at Ascot. Such would be the sort of men returning to their homes with the thanks of the House of Commons to cheer them. From the gallant spirit which the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had sometimes exhibited, he (Colonel Buck) had expected that he would have adopted as his motto, "England for the English;" whereas, instead of employing the English militia to carry the English flag, it had been entrusted to foreigners. A volunteer was much better than a pressed man. His own regiment had volunteered for foreign service, but the offer had not been accepted. What had been the conduct of the Foreign Legion? Why, they had revolted, and the militiamen had been called out to restrain their excesses. He thought the honour of the country ought to be entrusted to British soldiers, who never had shrunk from their duty.
MR. WALPOLEwould appeal to the Government on grounds of public policy to consider whether something ought not to be done for the militia? It was doubtful whether those regiments which had been sent abroad could be disembodied much before the autumn. They would, therefore, come home at a time of the year when employment was scarce. The Government ought to consider that these men were those on whom they must rely for having a body of men always at command as a nursery for the army, and for the protection of the country. He should say to the Government, "Do not do anything to disappoint them." If they had a notion that they would not be treated so well as the men of the Foreign Legion, it would throw a great damper upon them. These men had served thir country with fidelity and zeal, and the present was, he thought, an opportunity for showing them consideration. He thought that, upon high grounds of public policy, the Government would have the sanction of the country in making some gratuity to these men, since it was probable that upon them the Government might have to rely on some future occasion.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENbelieved it would add to the efficiency of the militia force if some little advance were given to

805
the soldiers when they came to, be disembodied. They had in various ways parted with most of their private clothing, and they would have nothing in which to return to their homes but their undress clothing, including their shell jackets, which were their own property and which they were entitled to take away with them. He would suggest that the Government should authorise colonels of militia regiments to make small advances to the privates on disembodiment, upon condition that they should leave their shell jackets in store. The men would receive this as a boon, and it would be a great advantage to have slop clothing ready for the next time the regiments were called out.
COLONEL NORTHthought the militia ought, before this time, to have received information as to the terms upon which they were to be disembodied. He reminded the House that the men had paid for their fatigue clothing, and it was as much their property as the coat upon his back was his. With regard to the captains, they were not all of them at present, as formerly, gentlemen of property, and they had given much of their time to the purpose of rendering the regiments efficient and teaching the soldiers to take care of their arms and clothes, and now they were to be discharged with little or no remuneration; indeed, every captain who had properly performed his duty would probably retire with a loss of about £50. He thought it was not fair that a senior subaltern who had a fortnight ago been gazetted as captain should sacrifice the six months' pay which, as subaltern he would have received. Some remuneration ought to be given to these officers for their services.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I trust that the House does not expect me to enter at present into details on this subject; but I cannot allow this conversation to end without assuring the House that no men can be more sensible than are Her Majesty's Government of the extreme value of this militia force. We quite agree with what fell from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) that, with reference to the security of the country on all occasions of emergency, the militia force is most valuable, and nothing can be further from our intentions or wishes than that anything should now be done which would indispose either officers or men from pursuing on future occasions the same honourable course that they have lately pursued in coming forward in the most gallant and
806
handsome manner, and sacrificing all private considerations for the service of the country. With regard to the probable date of the return of the regiments from the Mediterranean, I have to state that arrangements have been made which will, I hope, secure their return long before the period anticipated by my right hon. Friend—certainly by the early part of July, before the harvest. With regard to the foreign levies, I think there is a material distinction between the condition of a militiaman and that of a foreigner in those levies, which difference appears to have been overlooked. A militiaman is brought back to his own country, his own home; he falls back into his ordinary pursuits and his regular labour. The foreigner, on the other hand, has been taken altogether from his own country, and is, when discharged, in a much more helpless condition. When, therefore, the offer was made to Germans, Swiss, and Italians, to enter our service, and to be employed in the Crimea or wherever their services might be required, it was necessary to hold out to them some inducement beyond their mere pay during the time of their employment. But let it not be supposed that the reason why foreigners were engaged was, as an hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated, a distrust of British subjects. The reason was simply this—We have no conscription, we do not throw a casting-net over the population, and compel as many as we want to come into our ranks the moment they are wanted. Our army and our militia are, I am proud to say, both raised by voluntary enlistment; and as that is a slower, although an infinitely better, process than conscription, and we wanted an immediate augmentation of our force, we had recourse to the formation of a foreign corps for the emergencies of the war.
CAPTAIN J. O'CONNBLLsaid, the noble Lord had made no answer to the suggestion that some gratuity should be given to the privates of the militia. He thought it would be expedient to increase the popularity of the service by giving the men something more than what they were barely entitled to receive. It appeared to him that employment being so uncertain in Ireland, the young militia soldiers might find great difficulty in resuming their accustomed occupation, and they would be forced to emigrate. He suggested, therefore, that some encouragement should be held out to these people to emigrate to the

807
colonies. There was no great practical distinction between a foreigner and a militiaman, as a man was sure to become unsettled after he had been removed for some time from civil life. He also observed that the Irish militia had hardly their fair share in the opportunity to volunteer for sevice in the Mediterranean; but they were quite as ready to volunteer for foreign service as any of the English regiments.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. BOUVERIE, in moving that the Speaker do now leave the chair, in order that the House should go into Committee on this Bill, said, that by the indulgence of the House the Bill was read a second time without discussion, and it was therefore his duty now to lay before them the grounds on which the Bill had been brought forward. The House was aware that in 1852 a Commission was intrusted with the duty of inquiry respecting the University of Cambridge, its colleges, statutes, and the general state of the studies there. The Commissioners made a Report to Her Majesty; and on that Report a Bill was founded, was introduced last year in the House of Lords, and subsequently brought down to the Commons; but at so late a period of the Session that it was ultimately withdrawn. The Bill now before the House was in many respects similar to the one so withdrawn, but at the same time varied from it in some important particulars. He wished to disclaim any unfriendly feeling towards the University of Cambridge or the colleges. Apart from the respect and attachment he felt for a place where he had spent many happy hours—some of them he hoped not unprofitably—it was impossible for him, or any one having the least tincture of a love of letters, not to feel some veneration for an institution connected with some of the greatest names which had ever adorned the history of literature and science. He, therefore, could not approach this subject with any other feeling than a sincere desire to improve the usefulness of that University, and to extend and strengthen its foundations. At this time of day it was unnecessary for him to offer any arguments as to the right of Parliament to interfere with corporations of this kind. Undoubtedly it was not many years since this right was stubbornly disputed in both Houses of Parliament; but this question
808
was, he apprehended, now settled. It was admitted, in the passing of the Oxford University Act, two years ago, that Parliament had the right to interfere with the statutes and property of the Universities and colleges. If it were necessary for him to discuss the point, it would not be difficult clearly to demonstrate the right of Parliament to interfere. The Universities were great national institutions. Cambridge was a corporation founded upon a public Act of Parliament, enjoying great privileges by Act of Parliament, receiving annually grants of public money, and virtually intrusted with the education of the clergy of the Established Church. On these grounds alone, if on no other, he apprehended it to be clearly demonstrable that Parliament had a full right to interfere with the statutes of the University and with its course of proceeding. Taking that point for granted, he would address himself to showing the House, by evidence, that there existed a necessity for Parliamentary interference with the government of the University of Cambridge and its colleges; and that was the ground upon which he wished to argue the present Bill. The proposition he would lay down to justify the interference of Parliament was this—that the University of Cambridge and the colleges were institutions having a vast revenue, and enormous means for the education of the people of this country, and that those resources were not turned to the best account; but that, on the contrary, while the means were of the largest description, the result produced was comparatively very small. He would now state what the resources of the University and the colleges were. He would first observe that the means and wealth of the University were not of proportionate dimensions to the wealth of the colleges; and, as everybody acquainted with the facts of the case knew, the colleges very much overshadowed and practically monopolized the University. It was to this particular point and to the changes he proposed to effect, that he wished to direct the attention of the House. He found it stated in the Report of the Commissioners, that the income of the University, available for general purposes, was £7,900 odd, and the income appropriated to specific objects £8,700 odd, making a total of £16,700. The income of the professors, not including the fees of students, was £7,800, making, with the

809
income of the University, £24,500. The wealth of the colleges, as he stated before, far exceeded that of the University. The Commissioners observed that the gross incomes of the twelve colleges, which had replied to their inquiries on the point, were at the present time as follows:—St. Peter's, £7,317 3s.; Pembroke, £12,013 8s.; Trinity-hall, £3,917 2s. 10 d.; King's, £26,857 7s. 11 d.; Queen's, £5,347 0s. 1d.; Christ's, £9,178 15 s. 5d.; St. John's, £26,166 14 s. 11 d.; Magdalene, £4,130; Trinity, £34,521 19 s. 10 d.; Emanuel, £6,516 16 s. 3d.; Sidney-Sussex, £5,392 16 s. 10 d.; Downing, £7,239 17 s. The Commissioners stated that they had not obtained returns from all the colleges of Cambridge, and they observed generally, that it was difficult to state accurately the net available income of the several colleges, as the returns made did not proceed upon the same system. They added that they could not estimate the income of the seventeen colleges at less than £185,000 a year. The income, then, of the University and colleges together amounted to no less a sum than £209,500. This showed that the means were great; and he should now proceed to inquire what result had been produced. He must say that, looking as closely as he could into the matter, he thought the result, as compared with the resources, was, he might also say, ludicrously small. There was only one way of testing the result of the application of the revenues to education, and that was by the number of the degrees annually conferred by the University; but before he applied that test he wished to observe, that in the appropriation of those enormous revenues, every inducement was held out in many respects to attract persons to the University. For example, there were all the fellowships, the scholarships, the headships of the different colleges; and last of all, though not least, there were the numerous livings held by the colleges, and conferred on their members. All these the House should bear in mind were great prizes, which operated as inducements to men to attend the University, to go through its prescribed course of study, to take degrees, and ultimately become successful competitors for these good things. The total number of fellowships at Cambridge, including seventy at King's, which, as everybody knew, were appropriated to Eton College, was 356, of which there were 236 foundation fellowships unrestricted,
810
and 45 restricted; bye-fellowships open, 36; restricted, 39. The incomes of these different foundation fellowships were very considerable. At St. Peter's the annual income was £258; at Pembroke, £317; at King's, £175; at Christ's, £330; at St. John's, 140; at Trinity, £225, and so forth. The scholarships of various kinds amounted to 759. Some of these were no doubt very small, but of others the incomes were considerable; they ranged from £2 or £3 to upwards of £100. Of these scholarships about 414 were restricted, leaving about half the number open to competition. The incomes of the masters were not all stated, but, as far as he could make out, they amounted in the seventeen colleges of Cambridge to £14,000 or £15,000 a year. The livings were upwards of 300 in number, having an income altogether of between £100,000 and £200,000 per annum. Now, one would suppose that such inducements would attract a vast crowd of students to the University. Such, however, was far from being the case. The number of degrees conferred was the only mode of testing the attractiveness of the University; but from a summary, taken from the Commissioners' Report, of the degrees which were granted in the eleven years from 1840 to 1850 inclusive, it appeared that the average number of persons who passed as it were through the mill of the University for the B.A. degree, during this period, was only 336 in each year. This, too, was probably a fair average, because he found that in 1854 the number of B.A. degrees granted was 330. He had referred also to a record of the degrees given in the seventeenth century, upwards of 200 years ago; and he found that in the thirteen years beginning in 1620 and ending in 1632, before the civil troubles began, and when the University was moving along quietly and prosperously—much as at present—the average number of B.A. degrees at that period was 293. Now, if the House would bear in mind that since this time a very considerable number of Irishmen and Scotchmen came to the University of Cambridge to complete their education, he thought they would see that, practically, the educational result of this great institution had not increased, though the population had increased meanwhile from 300 to 400 per cent. He felt, then, he was justified in maintaining that the effect of these enormous educational appliances was eminently unsatisfactory as to the amount of

811
work done. Look at the matter merely as one of pounds, shillings, and pence, and see what each degree cost these corporations, irrespective of what the students themselves paid. In 1854, as he had said, 330 B.A. degrees were conferred, and, the incomes of the colleges and of the University being £209,000 a year, it followed that the cost of each B.A. degree was between £600 and £700, or about £200 a year, independently of what each student paid out of his own pocket. It might be said that the object of these great institutions was to educate clergymen for the Church. Well, on that point also he had a circumstance to mention to the House. It appeared that in 1850 there were 205 theological students who passed what was called the voluntary theological examination now established at Cambridge. The Bishops, as he understood, now required all candidates for orders to pass this examination; which was, therefore, in effect, a compulsory one. Now, as in the year mentioned, 205 aspirants for ordination passed the examination, assuming that the college and University incomes were devoted to achieving this result, the cost before ordination of each of these clergymen during their residence at the University would be more than £1,000. Now, he asserted, broadly, that this result, as compared with the amount of education afforded, was, considering the enormous revenues at the disposal of the University, anything but satisfactory. Having thus spoken of the amount of education, he would proceed now to speak of its quality. No doubt it would be some compensation for the limited results attained in the one case if the quality of the education were much above the medium—if the 350 students annually turned out into the world were perfectly educated in the various branches of knowledge required for professional life; though the number might be small, they would be a little leaven in a large lump, and a happy influence would thereby be exerted upon the moral and intellectual character of the country. As far as he could ascertain, however, he was afraid that no such thing could be predicated as to the quality of education given at Cambridge. What were the three great functions devolving upon the University with respect to those whom it received within its walls? The first and one of the greatest functions of the University of Cambridge was to give a liberal education to the sons of the gentry of this country—
812
to those who by the industry of their ancestors were placed above depending upon their own exertions for a livelihood. He held it to be of the last importance that the education imparted to that class should be of a first-rate character. From that class were taken a large proportion of the Members of that and the other House of Parliament, of the justices of the peace, and of all those who held the foremost places in the country. As a practical test whether a liberal and satisfactory education was given by the University of Cambridge, he would ask whether there existed a general ardent desire in the minds of the gentry of this country to provide an University education for their sons? He denied that such a desire existed. He declared that numbers of gentlemen in this country who could afford the expenses of University education for their children did not desire to give it, having no faith in the power of the University to bestow an education which would qualify their sons for the duties of the world. In these days the question, whether a first-rate education was given to this class, became doubly important, when, as it had been said, "Brains, and not blood, carried the day. "Birth alone did not now qualify for distinction or office; he had considerable faith in the virtue of blood; but it was with men as with horses—the best bred could not hope for success unless properly trained. He asserted that the education now given at the University did not confer any such decided advantage in after life and its struggles upon those who were educated there as was sufficient to induce gentlemen to make every sacrifice to send their sons to the University. Hon. Members not personally familiar with Cambridge and its education were apt to be dazzled by the distinctions obtained by those who competed for honours. No doubt an immense struggle had to be maintained by those who competed for mathematical or classical honours, but that referred only to a small section of the University. He (Mr. Bouverie) was speaking of those who only took a simple degree, who passed the ordinary examinations, and who were supposed to be qualified for all the pursuits in life for which the possession of mental acquirements could prepare them. What were such persons required by the University to know? There were two examinations, one of which all were required to undergo, and which was known at Oxford as the "little

813
go," in which students were examined in one Latin classic and one Greek classic, Paley's Evidences of Christianity, the 1st and 2nd books of Euclid, the common rules of arithmetic, and Old Testament history from Genesis to Esther. All who knew anything of Cambridge would agree that it did not require any very great learning to pass such an examination. Upon the next examination the subjects were, one-half of the Acts, one or two of the canonical Epistles, one Greek, and one Latin author, three of the six books of Paley's Moral Philosophy, the History of the Christian Church up to the Nicene Council, the History of the Reformation, the rudiments of algebra, part of the six books of Euclid, and the elements of hydrostatics and mechanics, or just enough mathematical knowledge to enable them to describe a pump or a screw. The two latter subjects had been added since his (Mr. Bouverie's) time, as had also a requirement, that students should attend the lectures of certain professors, and pass an examination upon the particular subjects of such lectures, to the satisfaction of those professors. Thus, when a gentleman had spent three years and a half at the University in order to render himself an accomplished man, the above examination was made the test of his efficiency for his future career in life. He (Mr. Bouverie) declared it was a farce to take that as the standard of a gentleman's education. All who knew anything of the University were aware that all the knowledge required to pass this examination could be got up in three months' "cramming" under a tutor. He further declared that the amount of learning required to pass that examination was such that any schoolboy of fifteen or sixteen, decently educated, need not be unsuccessful, and any intelligent boy of that age could prepare himself in six weeks to pass it. No knowledge of history was required except that of the Church up to the Council of Nice, nor any knowledge of English history except of the Reformation nor of the literature of the country; neither were any facilities offered at Cambridge for acquisition of such knowledge. An undergraduate, it is true, had access to the libraries of the college, but not only no instruction in English literature was giver to him, no facilities or inducements were extended to him to cultivate it. He was required to read Sophocles, but need not know Shakspeare. No knowledge of
814
any modern language was required—not even of French—nor any acquaintance with the laws and constitution of England. The University sent forth young men to compete for all the dignities and advantages of the world with so imperfect an amount of knowledge as that which he had described. Therefore, he thought that so far as the first great function of the University—to educate the gentlemen of the country—it had not done what ought to be expected from it. And what was the practical result? He held in his hand a Report from Mr. Moseley, who had conducted the examination for military commissions at the beginning of the year. And what did that Gentleman say with regard to the nature of the education at the University? That Gentleman said—
"As it regards other subjects than classics and mathematics, I regret to have no such favourable opinion to record. In English literature, &c., 'there were not so many total failures as before, but the average was low, and there were scarcely any who rose above it.' Although most of the candidates who presented themselves for examination in French were able to hold a conversation of a few minutes with a certain degree of fluency, 'yet it was easy (say the examiners) to see that they had hardly an idea of grammar or of the rules of writing correctly.' 'But if (say they) we advert to history, our strictures ought to be still more severe. The amount of general ignorance in this respect is scarely credible, and the question naturally arises, have most of these candidates any historical knowledge whatever?'"
He maintained that it ought to be an essential part of a gentleman's education that he should be able to carry on a conversation in French, and write a French letter at least creditably; but this was what one of the gentlemen who conducted the examination said with regard to French—
"I was greatly surprised to discover such a general amount of ignorance as to the French language, and more particularly as to history. It is indeed rather an untoward circumstance that out of about fifty candidates, brought up doubtless at some of the best public schools in the United Kingdom, so few should have been able to write correctly even eight or ten lines in French; and yet most of these young men seem to have studied it a considerable time, as was tested by the blundering fluency with which they endeavoured to keep up any hacknied conversation started by the examiners. But when we came to paper work, or written part of the examination, orthography, grammar, idioms of the language, &c., were all set at defiance in the most ludicrous manner."
That being the result of a University education, he must say the system did not come up to the requirements of the present

815
time. If they required a higher standard of knowledge at the University it would impose on the schools which sent scholars the necessity of raising their standard of instruction. They could not raise the school system while the University system remained low; but if they raised the University system the schools would educate up to the standard of the University. He would now refer to the University as a place for the study of the learned professions. First as to theology. The theological examination was a new institution. It was only within the last few years that the University of Cambridge had had any theological examination whatever of candidates for orders. When he was at Cambridge all that was required was that the student should attend the Norrisian Professor's lectures, the principal portion of which consisted of reading "Pearson on the Creed," which the rules of the foundation of the professorship required that he should read. That no doubt was a very valuable book; but it was not a book likely to attract the attention of many young students, especially when their attendance was compulsory; and the consequence was, that while the lecture proceeded, the students were engaged in reading other books of amusement or instruction. Candidates for orders were required to pass a theological examination; but what was that examination? The historical books of the Old Testament; the New Testament in Greek; the Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England; the Ecclesiastical History of the first three centuries; and the history of the Reformation in England. That was the substance of the examination which was to indicate the qualifications of men who were supposed to cultivate that highest and most important branch of knowledge—theology. What was the result? The Commissioners said—
"There are only three Professors of Divinity in the University, a number which is altogether inadequate either to teach or to represent this most important department of human knowledge."
Having pointed out the defective arrangements in reference to lecturers and lecture rooms, the Commissioners further remarked—
"It is almost a necessary consequence of these defective arrangements, as well as of the want of a sufficient lecturing force, that no proper school for professional instruction in theology has been
816
hitherto formed in the University. When such systematic instruction is sought for, students are accustomed to avail themselves of the assistance of a private tutor, or to resort to some of the diocesan institutions which have been recently formed for this purpose. It is true that the University has instituted a theological examination, and has required from all persons who offer themselves for it a certificate of attendance during one term upon the lectures of two at least of the Professors of Divinity; but the obligation to attend this examination is imposed by the Bishops, and not by the University; and the examination itself is one for passing only, where there is no classification or public certificate of honour; and though the preparation for it requires no small amount of time and labour from young men of slender capacity, or whose previous education has been neglected, it is not calculated to exert a very stimulating effect upon the studies of those who are in a condition to regard it without apprehension of failure."
Then they pointed out that the means of education were thoroughly defective, and that the University did not possess the facilities for conveying that instruction. So that, while the University did not fulfil the function of educating theologians for the Church of England, it was accounted for by the fact that the University had no method of remedying the evil. Take the other learned profession—the law. There was the same absence of distinct education. The University did not afford the foundation for subsequent pursuit of the profession. Mr. Amos, the Downing Professor, than whom no one was better qualified to speak of the science of jurisprudence, referring to the facilities for educating lawyers at Cambridge, said—
"I think there can be little doubt but that, for future lawyers, it would be desirable, if they were not induced or compelled to read so much classics and mathematics at the University, as at present, to the exclusion of English law and other cognate sciences, such as the civil law, moral philosophy, and modern history, for which professorships have been established." "It would, I think, be attended with great benefit to the community if the authorities of colleges, in awarding fellowships, would pay an obvious regard to honours obtained in the moral and natural sciences triposes; which might be accomplished without relinquishing a paramount consideration of mathematical and classical attainments. It is far less usual than formerly for barristers to be educated at the Universities. Their parents probably think that they have read at school enough of classics, except as their own inclinations may prompt them, and that there is no paramount necessity for further mathematical reading than, at most, what is required for an ordinary degree, but would gladly send them to the University for the purpose of studying law scientifically, and in connection with the other moral sciences, provided that a degree could be thus obtained, and still more so if it were an honorary degree, or if it led to academical emoluments."

817
The Professor went on to state his firm conviction that the tendency of the present system to drive from the University all who intended to enter upon the study o the law as a profession, and to induce persons to embark in that profession who had not the benefit of the general education which a University ought to confer. Then, as to the other learned profession—the medical—why should not Cambridge have as good a medical college as any of the towns on the Continent which were much smaller than Cambridge? The late Professor Haviland said:—
"The general condition of this branch of study in the University is at present at a very low ebb. For the current academic year, only two or three young men have made known their intention of entering upon medical studies. There has been for some years a gradual falling off in the number of medical students, which perhaps may be accounted for in a great measure by the improved condition of the modes of medical education in London and elsewhere, and the superior advantages which teachers in other medical schools have in the opportunities of teaching the subjects connected with medicine, as anatomy, chemistry, pharmacy, &c., and by the entire want here of teachers, in some very important and necessary branches of medicine, as forensic medicine, hygiene, comparative anatomy, &c., and especially by the shortness and want of continuity in the course of medical lectures given here, compared with those given in London and in other schools. The most obviously desirable change would be, that which should give medical students opportunities of acquiring within the University a knowledge of all the necessary branches of their profession, and of thoroughly completing their medical education here, without which opportunities no university can in strictness be considered as a medical school. Towards this much has been done of late years, and it has been the endeavour to teach all that our present medical staff enables us to do; but it must be confessed that very much remains to be done, which can be effected only by increasing the number of our teachers, and, it may be added, by making the endowments worthy of the appointments, and such as would be sufficient to procure the services of men eminent in their respective departments."
Dr. Bond, the Regius Professor of Physic, gave the same evidence. He said—
"The number of students attending the medical classes of the University has been at all times very variable from year to year, and has for several years past steadily and very materially declined. I believe this is to be attributed in great measure to the relation in which the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford stand to the College of Physicians in London having been altered by the recent regulations of that body, to the rising reputation of the London schools, to the existence of the London University, and to the estimation in which physicians individually are held by the public having less reference than formerly to the university where they are known to have
818
studied and graduated. The privilege and prestige which once attached to the education of the physician at either Cambridge or Oxford having ceased to exist to the same extent, there remains little to countervail the greater expense incurred, and the longer time necessary before the doctorate in medicine could be obtained, and a position in the profession be secured. These circumstances have, I believe, deterred many from coming to the university as medical students who in former years would have done so."
He had now shown by indisputable evidence that, in the three learned professions, theology, law, and medicine, the state of education was eminently unsatisfactory, and that the quality of the article afforded did not compensate for the deficiency of quantity. There was only one other function of a university, not the least important of the functions of a university, to which he should allude—that it should be a seat of learning and science. A university ought to be a place in which those higher branches of science not immediately remunerative ought to be cultivated; and it was of the last importance that, in a commercial country like this, the higher sciences should be cultivated with diligence. In this respect the shortcomings of the University of Cambridge were not to be disputed. Men of learning and science were to be found there; but the University was not a place in which the higher branches of learning and science were cultivated as they ought to be. Lord Bacon had pointed out the importance of the junction of our University in this respect—
"Among so many great foundations of colleges in Europe, I find it strange that they are all dedicated to professions, and none left free to arts and sciences at large. For hence, it proceedeth that princes find a solitude in regard of able men to serve them in causes of State, because there is no collegiate education which is free, where such as were so disposed might give themselves to histories, modern languages, books of policy and civil discourse, and other the like enablements unto service of State."
Lord Bacon also said:—
"Colleges and schools of learning are to be cherished and encouraged, there to breed up a new stock to furnish the Church and Commonwealth when the old store are transplanted. This kingdom hath in latter ages been famous for good literature; and if preferment shall attend the deservers there will not want supplies."
Two or three most distinguished witnesses before the Commission had shown that the result of the existing state of society was, to diminish the attractions of the University. The various opportunities of obtaining a high income in the legal professions

819
and in commercial pursuits, the application of cathedral and chapter benefices, not to men who had distinguished themselves in university pursuits, but to those who had been engaged in the more active walks of the Church of England, and the requirements of residence—had all worked to diminish the attractions of Cambridge life. While the attractions outside had increased, the attractions within the University had not been correspondingly augmented; and the consequence was, that the prospects of the cultivation of the higher sciences were anything but promising. There was no attraction to induce men to pursue the higher branches of science like that which allured them to active pursuits beyond the walks of University life. Mr. Hopkins, a gentleman of the first eminence as a scientific man, and perhaps the best instructor in mathematical pursuits that Cambridge had ever known, said:—
"Our system is admirably calculated to stimulate the younger students to exertion; nor do I believe there is any place in the world where greater intellectual efforts are called forth in that class of persons than in this University. At the same time, the small number of our professors, and the transitory tenure of all tutorial offices deprive the university of means of offering any considerable encouragement to the continued study of the higher branches of science. As the reward for early exertion, she offers a competence for a single man and consequent leisure to prosecute any favourite study, but direct encouragement after the B.A. degree is wanting."
He had to apologise to the House for having gone at such length into these points, but it was his wish clearly to make out what he had said he would establish. He had endeavoured to show that the amount of education afforded by the University was small when compared with what it was natural to expect from it—that it was not what it ought to be in respect to the education of gentlemen of private station, nor for those intended for the liberal professions, nor as a seat for the cultivation of learning and science.
If the Universities were free, and had bad free action, and if restrictions had not been imposed upon them with which they could not contend, the blame of this state of things, which was certainly not creditable to the educational institutions of the country, would rest upon the University. But he did not blame the University; nor did he bring in this Bill in any spirit of hostility to the University, or with the desire to disparage its disposition
820
to improve, or to depreciate its exertion to amend the existing system. On the contrary, he was ready to admit that it had been making considerable exertions in the right direction, especially during the last ten years, and that some of the ablest and most powerful minds of the University had devoted themselves to this object. But the University had small power of self-improvement. There were internal causes which did not depend upon the will of the University, which tended to neutralize these exertions; and, therefore, Parliament was asked to enable the University and the colleges to amend the present state of things, if they were so disposed. He admitted that there were external causes which had their influence upon the state of the University—for example, the great attractiveness of commercial pursuits, and the unwillingness of young men who directed their attention to these pursuits to spend three years and a quarter in the pursuit of a University education. It should be recollected, too, that there had been a great growth of other educational institutions, such as University College and other institutions, which might be considered, to some extent, as rivals of the University affording the means of education. But it was to the internal causes that the present Bill addressed itself. The University of Cambridge was, in the first place, troubled with an antiquated and confined constitution. It had a code, framed 300 years ago, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and a still more ancient code, going back, he believed, into the thirteenth or fourteenth century. But the principal statutes for the Government of the University were those framed by Archbishop Whitgift, and imposed upon the University against its will. That was the law under which the University professed to live, and which gave it existence. But its law and its life were at variance. A system of examinations had grown up irrespective of the University code, which, in regard to that portion of it which minutely directed the studies of the University, had become almost obsolete and disregarded. The other portion of the code, referring to the government of the University, was an impediment to the free action of the University, and to its endeavours to meet the requirements of the time. A certain portion of the statutes of the University were Royal statutes, given by the Crown, and acted upon by the University, and these they could not change. Then, again, there

821
were statutes of the nature of bye-laws, made by themselves, which they were able to change. The constitution was the most obstructive one ever invented. The legislative body was the Senate, which consisted of two houses; the Regent's House, composed of M.A.s of five years' standing, and the non-Regent's House. The Senate had no debating power; it could discuss nothing, and merely gave its assent or dissent to the measures submitted to it by the Caput, a body consisting of the Vice Chancellor, who was elected by the Senate on the nomination of the heads of Houses—one doctor of each of the faculties of divinity, law and medicine, and an M.A. representing each of the Houses. Every Member of this body had an absolute veto upon all propositions. Without the assent of each of those no measure could be submitted to the Senate; and as the Caput was composed of the most conservative portion of the University, it was inclined to resist all improvement, and all change. With such a conservative constitution as this, it was astonishing to him, not that the University had done so little in the way of improvement, but that it had accomplished so much. This Bill proposed to do away with this Caput, and that a, body, to be elected by the resident members of the University, should have the power of initiating measures. To that body he proposed to intrust, not only these legislative functions, but also the power of framing statutes for amending or repealing the University statutes, the code of Whitgift, or any other Royal statutes in existence, together with a general power of imposing and altering bye-laws. There could be no doubt of the necessity of a considerable change in the constitution and laws of the University. The oaths of the University also demanded great alteration. He, in common with all other M.A.s of the University, had taken an oath to observe the code which, he was ashamed to say, it was impossible in all respects to obey; practically, in fact, no one was acquainted with it. But these oaths and tests produced an effect to which the attention of the House ought to be directed. The Universities were formerly, national institutions, practically open to all the nation; but now, by the system of oaths and tests that had sprung up, half the public, the Dissenters, were excluded from University degrees, and this not by any Act of Parliament, but in consequence of a letter of James I., never formally recognised,
822
although acted on by the University, in which he required all who took degrees to subscribe to the Articles of the Church of England as well as to take the oath of supremacy. In the last century the University passed a statute of its own, apparently without legal authority, enabling a person who took the degree of B.A., instead of subscribing to the thirty-nine Articles, to make a declaration that he was a bona fide member of the Church of England. With reference to the oaths required upon taking degrees, Dr. Peacocke observed:—
"We have found that they relate to observances which have become obsolete or impossible; to statutes which, to a great degree at least, have ceased to be obeyed; to studies and exercises which have ceased to be followed or performed; to payments which have ceased to be paid; to official duties which have ceased to be discharged; to continual residences within the University which have ceased to be demanded."
It was proposed by the present Bill that none of these oaths or declarations should be required upon taking degrees. He would now proceed to another point. It was his strong conviction that one of the great defects of the University was the great expense attending its education. The Report of the Commissioners stated the expense of the residence of a young man residing at the University, in order to obtain the benefits of the education imparted there, varied from £200 to £600, that was for a residence there which did not extend to more than six months in the year. He (Mr. Bouverie) saw no occasion for that. What did they find in the sister country? At the Scotch Universities the sons of decent persons engaged in day labour, and earning daily wages were able to go to the University of St. Andrews for a few years and to enjoy the advantages of a good education at an expense of not more than a few shillings a week. Many such persons had become able and accomplished men. He had an application only within a few days in which a young man, the son of a labourer and the brother of a labourer, belonging to the class he had mentioned, was anxious, after being educated at the University of Aberdeen, to come to London and earn his bread by teaching Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. They would not find a case of that kind in any of the English Universities, but he was quite sure that if proper efforts were made, as great facilities for education could be given at our Universities in England as were given

823
at St. Andrew's and Aberdeen. His hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) had an Amendment on the paper to which he was not prepared to give his assent. The colleges to which that hon. Gentlemen's Amendment referred stood on a different footing from those under discussion. It was believed that the new halls, if properly managed, would afford a great opportunity of extending the usefulness of the University. There was no reason why different sects of Christians should not have the advantage of a University education, and why they should not have their degrees. He believed that, combined with that, there might be considerable reduction made in the expense of education at the University, and the Bill sought to make provision for such a reduction by providing for the establishment of private halls. The principal feature of the Bill was, to give the colleges the fullest powers and the freest action. It was not fair to deprive them of anything until they had had an opportunity of showing what they could accomplish by their individual exertions. Over the whole of the powers given to the University on the one hand, and to the colleges on the other, it was proposed to set a Parliamentary Commission. Great powers would be given to that Commission, in order to operate as a check and control over the colleges. He believed that there were to be found in the colleges men who were disposed to promote every improvement that was necessary, and to use the fullest powers given by the Bill for the benefit of the University. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the House go into Committee on the Bill,
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
MR. WALPOLE: Sir, while I feel bound to acknowledge the ability which my right hon. Friend has displayed in explaining the objects and provisions of this Bill, I cannot but regret that he should have assumed so depreciating—so disparaging—a tone in reference to the University of Cambridge. The right hon. Gentleman has brought to bear everything that has been urged elsewhere, I will not say against the Universities, but against the "results" of the University system, as he himself has been pleased to call it; but he has entirely left the House in the dark as to everything that has been said or done in their favour. He compared the
824
state of education in the University now with the state of education in that establishment 200 years ago—namely, in the reign of Charles I.—and drew an inference by that comparison unfavourable to the present system. He complains not only of the comparatively limited number of those who participate in the advantages of the institution, but of the defective quality of the education there imparted. But, Sir, my right hon. Friend in his own speech has partly accounted for the insufficient increase in the number of those educated in our Universities by the circumstance that so many more persons are now employed in commercial pursuits at an early age than there were at the time to which he refers. As to what my right hon. Friend said with reference to the expense of education in the University of Cambridge, I entirely concur with him; but I do submit that when he spoke of the want of proportionate increase in the number of students, he should have remembered that 200 years ago most students went to both the Universities at a much younger period of life than they do now; greater attractions now draw them away; and the consequence is, that persons are engaged in other pursuits before the time when they would have an opportunity of still continuing their educational course. The fact is, in a country where great attraction exists for profitable employment elsewhere—employment which carries away young men at an early period of life from those higher studies and that larger branch of education which our Universities afford—you will always have, comparatively speaking, a relative diminution in the number of students; and I fear that those who enter the Universities and become candidates for University honours and degrees, will always bear a small proportion to the number which we should wish, if we had our own way, to obtain very generally such an education as those institutions offer. My right hon. Friend then went into the question of the quality of the education supposed to be imparted at the University of Cambridge, repeating everything that has ever been said with reference to minimum tests; but surely, Sir, upon this point, he might have tried the quality of the education given by the University by a better criterion, namely, by the men she has sent forth into life, who have signalised themselves in every station, and whose education has not proved defective or inadequate in regard to all that makes men capable of usefulness in the

825
world. I own, Sir, I was surprised—particularly surprised—at what my right hon. Friend had the boldness to say with reference to the education afforded at Cambridge to men preparing for that profession to which I have the honour to belong; when, if there be any one quality in connection with the education given at Cambridge more remarkable than another, it is the admirable manner in which it has trained up a succession of lawyers who have attained to the highest positions at the Bar and on the Bench. My right hon. Friend having thus stated what he conceives to be the defective and inefficient education imparted by the University of Cambridge, in amount and in quality, then says that the object of this Bill is to supply these defects; but as to the connection between this Bill and those alleged defects, that is a point which I own I cannot see. I am not aware that any great opposition is about to be made to the measure proposed by my right hon. Friend, though notices of Amendments have been given, both by my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. L. Wigram), and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lancashire (Mr. Heywood). With regard to my own feelings in respect to the Bill, I still stand upon the same principle which I more than once announced and advocated in reference to the Oxford Bill when it was before the House—namely, the principle that Parliament should impose as little restraint while it takes care to give as much freedom as possible to those who constitute the governing bodies of our Universities and Colleges in making such improvements as circumstances may require. Therefore, I shall not oppose this Bill, except upon those points where I think it militates against that principle. And this leads me to another reason why I think that this disparaging tone in reference to the University of Cambridge ought not to have been indulged in. When we discussed the Bill relating to the University of Oxford, it was not denied—indeed it was almost admitted—that that University, as compared with Cambridge, had flagged, as it were, and somewhat lagged in the alteration which the times demanded; but no one has said the same thing of Cambridge, nor could any one, knowing the facts, make such an allegation with anything like truth. My right hon. Friend seemed to believe that the University may be reformed by its own efforts. He said that his only astonishment
826
was, that with such a constitution as that on which the University was founded, it had not remedied its own deficiencies. Is not that a strong reason why the House should pause before it passes any compulsory measure? If a University so constituted has made such improvements for itself as my right hon. Friend acknowledges it to have done, can you not trust it to go on in that course without imposing any compulsion or restraint upon it? I trust, Sir, the House will pardon me—connected as I am with that University—if I point out some of the things which the University has done within the last few years as evidence of the confidence to which it is entitled. Twenty years ago the only degree for which an honour could be obtained was the mathematical degree. Now, without at all disparaging the importance and advantage of the study of mathematics—for I believe that there is no study more useful in fixing the attention and expanding and invigorating the intellectual faculties of the mind—I think it must be admitted that to confine education, so far as regards the principal honours, to one subject was a great defect. The heads of the University were sensible of that defect, and accordingly a classical test was established, and a Tripos—a classical Tripos—with three classes, was opened, in which students could take honours as well as in mathematics. Mathematics, therefore, no longer remained the exclusive branch of study at that University to which honours were attached. Still the system as regarded honours was defective. It was felt that the students should not be confined to mathematical and classical studies, great and valuable as those studies are as the foundation of all education, whatever pursuit or whatever profession the student may afterwards be likely to follow. My right hon. Friend has already pointed out that, in one respect at least, the University has supplied the deficiency which existed, for he says it is required that previously to obtaining the common degree, students should attend certain lectures which are given by professors, and pass a satisfactory examination on the subject of those lectures; but did the Universty stop there? No, Sir, the University went much further. Every possible encouragement was given for the study of other branches of learning besides those contained in the classical and mathematical course. Rewards and honours are given in what are called the natural and moral sciences—including in

827
the name of the natural sciences, comparative anatomy, chemistry, geology, and certain other subjects; and the moral science reaching onwards to those very studies to which my right hon. Friend said he was anxious that young men at the University should apply their minds to;—namely, moral philosophy, political economy, jurisprudence, and history. Now, when you consider these things—when you find the students at the University of Cambridge encouraged to attain distinction, according to the bent of their minds, either in mathematics or in classics, or in the moral and natural sciences—I ask you whether you find any reason to suppose that any Bill of this description would be likely, more than the University itself, of her own efforts and by her own directions, to secure the benefit of a more extended and better kind of education? Sir, I agree with my right hon. Friend that, much as the University has done, there is still more that it may well do. I agree with him with reference to one subject particularly—that of the modern languages—that too little encouragement is given to the study of them. Certainly, there is at present no inducement given in the University for the study of modern languages; but I believe that the University is alive to that defect—indeed, I know that some of those who take the greatest interest in the education of the students of the University are sensible that more might be done in that matter, and I think it not improbable that the time will come when, to a certain extent, that vacuum will be filled up. Now the point which I wish to press on my right hon. Friend is this—if the University has done these things for herself, why not leave her as free as possible to do still more; but if she have not all that freedom which my right hon. Friend thinks her present constitution prevents her from enjoying, how will his Bill give it to her? I wish to ask him this question, what does his Bill do for her? And I would further beg of him to consider, whether there are not clauses in the Bill which will rather prevent than stimulate and encourage the very object which he desires to achieve? The Bill before us may be divided into two parts—one which relates to the University itself, and the other which relates to the colleges. That part of the Bill which relates to the University, provides the new constitution for the government of the University, to which the right hon. Gentleman
828
has adverted; provides for the introduction of private halls, confers powers even of legislation on the Commissioners, and relaxes certain restrictions which now exist, with reference to the qualifications for taking of degrees. I think that is a true description of this portion of the Bill. As far as relates to the colleges, I think I may describe the principal portion of the Bill as abolishing the oaths which are now imposed, and as a consequence of the abolition of those oaths, enabling the colleges to deal more freely with their collegiate property than they now can do. If the House will permit me to make a few observations on this subject, I think my so doing will not interfere with the progress of the Bill, because, after the matter has been brought before the House in as connected a view as possible, we shall be able to discuss the details, where discussion shall be necessary, with greater advantage. With respect, then, to the first point—the constitution of the new Government: acting on the principle which I have always advocated—namely, that of giviving or securing perfect freedom of government for the University; and the non-interference of Parliament, except where such interference is necessary—I must say at once that although I would not have proposed the exact council which my right hon. Friend proposes, yet I am bound to add that it being proposed, I see no reason for offering opposition in order to defeat it. I should not have proposed the exact council, because, with the strong opinion I entertain, that the University should be left to settle matters as much as it can for herself, I should have hoped, when the University did provide a council which it thought would be satisfactory, and which had been received in strong terms of approbation by the Commissioners, that it would not have been turned round upon in reference to that point, but rather that it would have been trusted to form for itself its own constitution. Under these circumstances, I think it would have been much better to let the University have a council such as it had framed for herself, and, if it should not have been found to answer, it might have been enabled to make subsequent alterations to remedy the defects which might have become apparent by experience. In the Report of the Commissioners, I find this strong recommendation of the council proposed by the University:—

829
"We cannot hesitate to express our pleasure to find such a proposal emanating from the University itself. It has evidently been framed with careful deliberation, and with an especial view, as well to preserve a balance and power among several colleges, as also to prevent the excitements and rivalries of a more popular and unlimited mode of appointment. The suggested scheme has received the unanimous approval of the syndicate; and we hope it may in due time receive the sanction of the Senate.
Unfortunately, Sir, the Inquiry Commissioners, after expressing an opinion thus favourable to the council suggested by the University, have thought it right to change their mind; and by so doing they have been the cause of the only material difference which has taken place in the University with respect to the measure to be passed by Parliament. Since that change, the Government have proposed a somewhat different council. It is my duty, however, not to cavil against this or that variation, because the exact council is not proposed that the University would have suggested or that I should approve of; but to see if there be in that proposal any objections which we ought to remedy. Well, Sir, my opinion, on the whole, is, that the council proposed is not a bad one; and as it corresponds very much with the council which was given to the sister University of Oxford, and since I have always felt that it is a matter of paramount importance to put the two, mutatis mutandis, as much on the same footing as possible, I shall not attempt the rejection of the council as here constituted, but finding it in the Bill, and not entertaining any serious objection to it, I am prepared to give it my support, although, I repeat, it is not exactly the council I should have proposed. As to the second point, which relates to the University—the establishment of private halls—there is an important point of difference between this Bill and the Oxford Bill. These halls were much discussed when the Oxford Bill was before the House. And I will here repeat what I said when the Oxford Bill was under consideration, that I do not think well of them. I do not think they will diminish the expense of education to the student, while they may tend to impair the usefulness of the Universities in an essential particular. One of the best things about the University system of education is the domestic character which it obtains by means of the collegiate system. By that system you have students under every possible variety of circumstances
830
associating together at all times. Meeting in the same lecture-room, competing for the same prizes, dining in the same halls, worshipping in the same chapel; and though those things may at first sight appear trifling—I should not say trifling, but not very important—yet I am perfectly confident, from observation, from experience, and from that which is still better, from the mature opinion and judgment of others, that there is hardly anything that has a greater effect on the moral and even intellectual characters of students than those circumstances to which I have referred. Strongly do I deprecate any step which in any degree tends to impair the efficiency of the collegiate system, and for that reason I contended against the establishment of private halls at Oxford; but, again, I say that as you have given them to Oxford, and inasmuch as I think the two Universities ought to be placed as much as possible on the same footing—and since my right hon. Friend has urged the only strong reason which can be urged in favour of these private halls, namely, that you thereby give a greater latitude to persons who dissent from the Established Church, and afford them a greater opportunity of obtaining a University education, I will admit at once that I shall not oppose their introduction into Cambridge. At the same time there is one portion of the Oxford Bill applicable to this subject, which is omitted from this Bill, and which I hope my right hon. Friend will consent to insert in the measure now before the House. In the Oxford Act the University is empowered to make certain regulations for different things connected with the private halls, and, amongst other things, with reference to the religious instruction and the attendance at Divine worship of the students. That provision has been omitted from the present Bill. I beg of my right hon. Friend to insert it. Such a power of laying down regulations for the guidance and discipline of the young men who are there to be educated, I look upon as necessary for the well-being of the government and discipline of the University, especially when I remember that at the age of many of those students the passions are strong and the judgment weak. My hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. L.Wigram) proposes to insert a clause to this effect; and I shall certainly support him in the introduction of that clause if my right hon. Friend does not insert such a provision himself. The third

831
part of the Bill to which I shall advert is that by which a kind of legislative power is given to the Commissioners. My right hon. Friend observed, that in giving that power to the Commissioners he did not mean to do away with the free action of the University, but only to induce the University to act freely for herself. Now, there is no similar provision in the Oxford Act; and I ask, does Cambridge require such a stimulus, when she is so willing to act freely and of herself? Why bring an external power to bear upon her in forming her own statutes? Why is she not as likely as the Commissioners to make statutes suited to her condition, and which shall best promote her own interests? She must know her own requirements better than any Commissioners outside her walls. I think such a provision shows an undeserved distrust in the University, and if adopted may lead to disagreements but little likely to promote that peace and tranquillity which ought to reign in a seat of learning. But even if I did not feel thus strongly as to the compulsion and restraint thus put upon the University, I believe the provision to be otherwise most unwise. For how stands your Bill? The Bill proposes that the University shall make statutes for herself till the year 1858; that the Commissioners shall then have power to make statutes for her till the year 1860; and that when 1860 shall have arrived, that power shall be again restored to the University. Now, I think this may create a conflict of opinion that will lead to absurdities. When you propose to give the University the power of making her statutes permanently hereafter, why create the interval of two years during which the Commissioners may propose something entirely opposed to the views of the University, and to the feelings of those who best know her interests? I hope my right hon. Friend will either omit that part of the Bill altogether, or at least qualify it to this extent—that the alteration of the statutes shall only take place, like the proposed alteration of college statutes, with the consent of a certain portion of the governing body. The last part of the Bill is that relating to the intended relaxation of some of the restrictions in taking degrees; and here again my right hon. Friend has departed from the terms of the Oxford Act. That Act made, I think, the best provision that can be made with regard to those who are not members of the Established Church. It
832
said, "You shall impose no test; you shall require from the student no declaration; you shall force upon him no oath which will prevent him from taking a B.A. degree;" but further than this it did not go. My right hon. Friend now says, "Remove these restrictions up to the time of his taking a M.A. degree." My first objection to this is, cui bono? Is it for the purpose of education? I deny that it is necessary on this account, because the educational course may be said to end with the degree of B.A. And then, again, I think you ought to keep these Universities on the same footing, or else you will have one bidding against another, or members in this House will be holding up one in contrast to the other, until at last you will make these Universities totally different from what you intended when you commenced this reforming process. Since you can gain no advantage in an educational point of view by extending the periods of time during which these restrictions shall not be imposed, I see no reason for introducing this clause into the Bill, and I hope it will not be persevered in. The result, then, is that, so far as the measure relates to the University, I shall not feel it my duty to offer any material opposition to it; and I shall only seek to amend the Bill in that portion of it which relates to private halls, the omission of regulations on the subject of religious instruction and public worship. I shall also beg my right hon. Friend to omit Clause 31, which will really enable the Commissioners to act by compulsion upon the University, or, at least, I shall beg him to add such a proviso as will give the University a voice in the matter; and with regard to Clause 44, I shall endeavour to assimilate that clause to the corresponding section in the Oxford Act. The alterations in the Bill respecting the colleges, upon which a difference of opinion may arise, are two. The one is the abolition of oaths; the other is the power to be conferred upon the colleges—which power, if not exercised by the colleges, is to be conferred upon the Commissioners, of altering the tenure of college emoluments, and, indeed, of disposing of them in a different manner from that which their founders and donors prescribed. With regard to the abolition of oaths, I am in entire agreement with my right hon. Friend. Nothing can be more disadvantageous than the attempt to bind fallible man by a fallible

833
machinery, especially when circumstances may be so materially altered as to render necessary an alteration of it. The variation of laws, customs, and habits—any variation which may take place, and which cannot have been contemplated at the time—may make all the difference at some future period with regard to the propriety of imposing such tests. If I required an argument upon that opinion, I could not find a better one than is to be drawn from a period of time remote from the present, when new statutes were given to Balliol College, Oxford, by Pope Julius II. The preface to those statutes is so perfectly applicable to that part of the subject which I am now animadverting, and agreeing with my right hon. Friend upon, that I hope the House will allow me to read it. The Oxford Commissioners say:—
"The preface to the present statutes of Balliol College, given to it by Pope Julius II., well expresses the necessity for alteration, which is equally applicable to all colleges in all times:—'We do not issue these statutes because none previous have been issued; for, in fact, this is the fouth code promulgated; but because those statutes framed up to this time have, by the changes of times and men, after the fashion of human affairs, reached that point, that what in the beginning brought to the framers profit and use, afterwards, in the course of time, brought loss and the greatest mischief.'"
Now, that is as applicable to the present times as it was to the times in which it was written. I concur with my right hon. Friend in thinking that those oaths require alteration; and I think it better that the only declaration that a member of the University should make is, that he will abide by the rules and customs observed in the colleges; that any oath not to disclose any matter or thing relating to the college, to resist or not concur in any change, or to do or forbear from doing anything the doing or not doing of which tended to such change, would only encourage the evasion of an oath which he knows he cannot comply with; and that, therefore, there is a necessity for effecting an alteration. Now the consequence of an alteration in the college oaths will lead to an alteration in the college emoluments. But I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend in carrying that alteration to so great an extent as he proposes, and here, therefore, I shall be constrained to oppose him unless he consents to reintroduce into this Bill some words which he himself has struck out of it—some words which are contained in
834
the Oxford Act, and which ought, I contend, to be contained in any Act, if you desire to deal justly with the rights of property and the intentions of the benevolent founders. Now, in the Oxford Act there is a long preface to the clause which corresponds with the one to which I am alluding—namely, the 27th clause of this Bill. In the Oxford Act there is a long preamble which says that alterations may be made by the colleges in their statutes, for the purpose of promoting the personal merits or fitness of the candidates, or students, or members of those colleges; but that general power is qualified to this extent, namely, that in making such alterations you ought to have regard to the main designs and intentions of the founders. So I think you ought in all cases. If you leave out those words intentionally—meaning thereby that the colleges or the Commissioners, or both, may divert the trust upon which property is given to an entirely different purpose, then you, in reality, strike at the very root and foundation of property, and the tenure upon which it is held. More than that, if this be your intention in omitting the words, I am perfectly convinced that all that bounty and generous benevolence, which has provided and is constantly providing either these or similar institutions for the benefit of their fellow men, will be dried up, because they will object to giving their property away for such purposes, if they know that the strong arm either of this House or of Commissioners delegated by this House may take it away and divert it into another channel. I am confident that that principle is so unsound and untenable that I hope we shall succeed in inducing my right hon. Friend to reintroduce those words. I will then give him the full latitude which he desires to obtain by this clause in order to enable the colleges to deal with their property (subject only to that qualification) in the way they think most advantageous and proper. In the observations which I have felt it my duty to address to the House, I believe I have not shown any disposition or intention either to obstruct the measure of my right hon. Friend or to take an illiberal view of a great subject which has reference to the prosperity of those noble institutions the Universities of our land. On the contrary, be it remembered that my argument rests upon these two points—first, that it is a matter of sound and good policy to extend and improve freely and voluntarily the education and instruction which the

835
Universities can give; and, secondly, that you ought not to impose any greater restraints upon Cambridge than you have imposed upon Oxford, but should leave her as free to act as Oxford is enabled to do, in order that she may promote the advantage of her members. By this Bill, however, I think you have not done either the one or the other to the full extent that you ought. Is there, then, any reason upon which my right hon. Friend can resist the application I now make to him to act strictly on those two principles? I have pointed out the alterations I would make, and also the grounds upon which I would make them. I take my position first of all upon the great principle that that which is voluntarily and freely done is always better done than that which is done under the compulsion and restraint of another; next, that the University of Cambridge deserves your confidence, since she has already done so much for the cause of education and science, and, I firmly believe, if you let her alone, that she is still likely to do much more. But if I wanted another argument to induce me to take the course which I am now pressing upon the consideration of the Government, I should find it in the good fruits that have been produced. I would take it from results which are palpable and notorious to all—the great and eminent who in every sphere of life she has nurtured and sent into the world. I cannot refrain from reminding the House that Cambridge in this respect stands—I will not say as high as, but I will venture to say higher than any institution that you can name, either in this or in any other country in the world. Sir, I am proud to think that I belong to a University which, in science, has produced a Bacon and a Newton; which, in theology, can boast of a Barrow and a Jeremy Taylor; which can show you a Bentley in scholarship, and a Person in learning; whose sons in poetry have charmed, aye, and instructed too, thousands and thousands before, and will charm and instruct thousands and thousands to come after us—a Spenser, a Cowley, a Milton, a Dryden, a Gray, and a Byron. And if I go to that profession for which my right hon. Friend appears to suppose a Cambridge education does not qualify her sons—if I go to the persons who fill the highest ranks in the law, produce to me if you can nobler names than those of Coke, Camden, Ellenborough, and Thurlow. Or, if I turn to the great statesmen of our country,
836
none are higher, none more celebrated than the sagacious Burleigh, the prudent Sir Robert Walpole, and I might add as equal to either, that first and most finished of orators, and perhaps most dignified and virtuous of statesmen, William Pitt. I forbear—properly forbear, I hope from filling up the blanks with other names only inferior to those I have enumerated, because I believe it would almost occupy a winter's night to do so completely. I forbear to touch upon living contemporaries, the ornaments of Cambridge, that I may not be supposed to make my selection from partiality or affection; but the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Palmerston)—than whom there is none our common University may be more justly proud of—will agree with me when I say that there are three names to which I may advert—living though the bearers be—as preeminent examples of what Cambridge has done and will continue to do for her devoted sons. I take, first, the brilliant genius and the amazing stores of literature and learning which have charmed us so often when Mr. Macaulay sat within these walls, and which charm us still when we read his works. I will take another instance in one whose gigantic powers have compassed almost every kind of knowledge; who, as tutor of his college, has devoted those powers to the instruction of hundreds; and who now, as the master of that college—the head of Trinity—the Vice Chancellor of the University—has done, and I will undertake to say, will do more to reform and improve our education than all the Commissioners you can ever send there. But to the last of those names I refer with peculiar pride, to that eminent individual who is, at the present moment, Steward of the University, and I think his example will clearly point out what Cambridge can do when I remind you of that remarkable man who, first, as an undergraduate, then at the Bar, next on the Bench, and subsequently on the woolsack, achieved for himself the highest distinctions, and who now at the age of fourscore and four years, can vindicate in the House of Lords the privileges of his own order, can stand up to assert the rights and freedom of his country when assailed as she was in the late war—that greatly gifted man who brings to bear upon any subject which he touches not only the maturity of judgment and the wisdom of age, but a vigour and elasticity of mind which even the youngest amongst us may

837
well desire to possess. Of course I refer to Lord Lyndhurst. And now I conclude. I hope I have not trespassed unnecessarily upon the attention of the House in bringing these points before them. To give freedom to the University is the main object I desire in supporting this measure, or in proposing or supporting any amendments upon it. With reference alike to the past, the present, and the future, you will indeed, confer upon her a great boon and blessing if you attend to those principles upon which I rest my case—principles almost identical with those which have actuated the Commissioners in their labours.
"In proposing reforms," the Commissioners say, "we do not wish to dissociate the present from the past; neither do we recommend changes except for the purpose of removing positive evils."
Again:—
"The teaching of the University should be the exponent of what is highest and best in the condition of literature and science; and should be in part also the help and guide to her sons in their aspirations after moral and intellectual excellence. Where she has failed in this, it has been partly, we think, from the want of that legislative freedom which we would wish to give to her."
I am afraid that, by some of the clauses in this Bill, you are taking that freedom unduly away. But I trust you will alter them. And now I cannot express the feelings with which I regard the future career of the University of Cambridge more felicitously and more accurately than by adopting the closing sentences of the Commissioners' Report:—
"What above all other things gives us hope for the future good of Cambridge is the manly, free, and truth-loving character of her sons, springing—in part, at least—from her collegiate system, the character of her studies, and the uprightness of her administration, producing in return confidence and goodwill on the part of those committed to her care. In all her members she believes that she possesses a body of men who, strong in their historical remembrances, cling to what is truly good, would seek for no needless change, and would admit of no change which had not the fair promise of scientific, moral, and religious benefit."
With these sentiments, Sir, I am prepared to go into Committee.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTobserved that, before undertaking to legislate on this subject, it would be well for the House to determine a question in which the country felt much interest—namely, whether our Universities should be places
838
of training for men who meant to devote their lives to science and literature, or whether they should be schools in which men should be educated for the stirring pursuits of every-day life. A combination of both purposes would meet most satisfactorily the views of the country. A little more of practical education and rather less of erudition would be an improvement. Science and literature should still be cherished in the Universities, but care should also be taken that in those institutions men were duly qualified for the active duties of Church and State. Many young men who were by no means unambitious or destitute of application were prevented from turning their attention to the course of University studies because they thought them too severe, and did not wish to take only second-rate honours. To obtain any reform in this respect it would be necessary to make the constitution of the University less "donnish"—to take the government, to some extent, out of the hands of those who were resident at the University; and in this respect the Bill was, in his opinion, entitled to support. It might, however, have gone further. He desired to see the council elected almost entirely by the Senate, and reminded the House that the electoral body, as now constituted, did not include such men as Airey, Ma-caulay, Herschel, or Babbage, and many others, who were distinguished alike for scientific acquirements and for success in active life. Many of the alterations which he wished to see introduced into the Bill would be effected by the Amendments of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. J. Heywood). These he should support, and he hoped that at least some of them would be assented to by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). Upon the whole, he should support the Bill, which he thought would, to a certain degree, attain objects much to be desired, notwithstanding all that had been alleged with regard to the self-reformation of Cambridge.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he thought the House ought not to go into Committee upon this Bill without considering the application of the £185,000 which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock had, on the authority of the Commissioners, stated to be the total amount of the incomes of the various colleges at Cambridge. In his opinion these large incomes made the principal difference between the Universities

839
of Oxford and Cambridge and other Universities, for he believed that as good a degree, so far as learning and acquirement were concerned, could be obtained in the University of London. Originally the colleges were devoted to the religious profession, and their incomes were frequently derived from the custom, in ancient times, of giving large sums of money to indigent priests for praying for the souls of deceased persons. That custom prevailed at the University of Cambridge in early ages, and a large quantity of college property was collected in that way. That income, in process of time, was given to maintain the students from early life, and during a period of nineteen years which were necessary to reach the degree of doctor of divinity. That maintenance was indispensable, for no one would have stayed in a college for so great a part of their lives without it. There was a difference between Oxford and Cambridge in this respect, that Oxford had never published its records, and it was not known what had happened with regard to the disposition of its property at the time of the Reformation; whereas Cambridge had published many statutes passed at the Reformation. No doubt the money was left for the purpose of enabling persons to pursue theological studies, and was intended for the support of persons seeking professions. He meant to show that that money was not now dedicated to professions. The way in which the pursuit of these professional studies had been extinguished was curious; in fact, it had been caused by the impossibility of getting persons to stay in the University so long as had been necessary to obtain the degree of doctor of divinity, and statutes were passed enabling persons to leave after attaining the degree of bachelor of arts; the consequence of which was, that almost every one left when that degree was attained. This gave the death-blow to the ancient professional studies. Very few persons now remained at college after taking the degree of bachelor of arts unless they wished to be tutors, or to hold office. The ancient system was broken down, and there was no reason why further alterations should not be made, as the circumstances of the times required them; but, in his opinion, there ought to be a more complete alteration of the ancient constitution than was provided for by this Bill, which he could only accept as an instalment of what was needed. Another great principle which he wished to
840
see established at Cambridge was, that the ordination of fellows should be perfectly voluntary. The experience of the Oxford Act was not favourable to hasty legislation. In Oxford three colleges only had prepared new statutes, but they had proved so unsatisfactory to the House, that they had not yet been approved. The Commissioners had sanctioned a statute for Lincoln College continuing one of the founder's statutes, which declared that any person who advanced any heretical opinion in public or private should be called before the rector and expelled. He was sorry to see that the Commission to be appointed by the Bill was headed by a couple of Bishops. That was certainly to be regretted, for one of the great reasons why there had been so much larger an amount of freedom at Cambridge than at Oxford was, that it had had an happy immunity from episcopal visitations. The University had been exempted from the visitation of the Bishop of Ely, by the Pope about the twelfth or thirteenth century, and when Archbishop Laud wished to visit it the feeling against his visitation was so strong in the University, which then happened to be full of Puritans, that he was obliged to give it up. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was wrong in saying that colleges were places into which Dissenters could not be admitted, because the fact was that they were admitted. There was nothing to hinder Dissenters being educated at Cambridge; he himself had been educated there at Trinity College; and the establishment, therefore, of private halls was not so great a boon to the cause of religious liberty as the right hon. Gentleman would make out. In the old times colleges were certainly private institutions, but in the reign of Elizabeth they became more closely connected with the University. The charter by which the University returned two Members to Parliament, granted by James I., expressly stated that the University consists of the colleges—the word in the original was constat—so that the two hon. Gentlemen opposite were Members for the colleges of Cambridge as well as for the University. It was most unreasonable, therefore, to say that, though Dissenters were to take secular degress, they should not be admitted into the Senate, for the Senate was the constituency of the University, and Dissenting graduates would thus be disfranchised. That clause in the Bill by which the statutes of Elizabeth

841
were to come to an end in 1860 was a most valuable one. He did not think, however, that the University ought to be left unrestricted to make whatever alterations were necessary. Parliament ought to have the power of discussing and revising them, and it was his intention to move that the statutes, as altered by the University, should not have the force of law until four months had elapsed from the time of their being laid before Parliament, instead of forty days. In questions of religious liberty these monastic establishments ought to be viewed with great jealousy, though he was quite willing to bear his testimony to the feeling of impartiality and honour with which Dissenting students were treated by the University. He saw no difficulty whatever in Dissenters being educated at the University if the statutes of the colleges were only put on a more liberal footing.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, the great fallacy which had run through the debates on this Bill and on the Oxford University Bill, was the attempt to institute an analogy between English and foreign universities. Men stayed many years in German universities, looking to the means by which to make a great and European reputation, and not turning their attention at all to the affairs of the country. But in England it was just the contrary, because the great majority of men went to the English Universities with the view of becoming statesmen or lawyers. Was it not, then, most important that, during the few years while they could call their time their own, they should be storing their minds with that knowledge which hereafter would be of the greatest possible advantage? In Germany men might, in the course of ten or twelve years, go over the same writers again and again; but in England, if they did not acquire the tastes and habits for consecrating their minds to particular subjects while at the Universities, the attempt would afterwards be vain. Nothing was more to be deprecated than turning the Universities from their original purposes into mere schools for modern languages. What was wanted was, that they should lay the solid foundation of classical and mathematical knowledge, rather than develope the premature and precocious reputation which left nothing to fall back upon when great qualities and talents were required for the public service. The great object of Universities should be to prepare men for the active service of the country.
842
Reference had been made to the number of eminent men reared in the Universities, and to the small number of graduates in that House. He thought the test extremely fallacious. He did not mean to say a word against the Reform Bill, but the inevitable result of it was to throw open the avenues of that House to a class of people who were not brought up at the Universities, and to make it more difficult for those who were brought up at the Universities to find their way there. The activity, opulence, and enterprise of commerce, and the absence of patronage, had prevented young men regarding that House in the light of a certain profession. Many of them looked to other quarters for advancement, and if they entered Parliament, entered it at a very late period of life. But if he were asked whether he thought the Universities had not degenerated, he thought they had. The system of cramming was fatal to many understandings. The violent exertions of a few years inspired disgust with study, and a disposition to consider the knowledge acquired at a University all the knowledge that was necessary; whereas it was of very little importance compared with the acquisition of taste for literature, which should be the effect of a University education. He asked any one of refinement or taste whether he thought the writers of this century could be compared with the writers of Queen Anne's time? Talk of the genius of The Times, was there anything in The Times at all to be compared with Addison's papers in the Spectator? Did they think writers for The Times could write day after day such papers as were written week after week by Addison, or that the political writings of the age were equal to the political writings of Swift and Boling-broke? His right hon. Friend had dwelt upon the advantages of mathematics in regard to the strength it gave to the reasoning powers; but he thought that, carried to excess, it was apt to blunt the sense for moral reasoning. He concurred in the wish that Cambridge would borrow a little of the Oxford classics, remembering that Gibbon had said he fortunately left off the study of mathematics before he had pursued it long enough to lose the power of giving due weight to reasoning on moral subjects. In one remark of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) he entirely agreed, and he should give every support in his power to preserving the intentions of the founders. Nothing could be more unjust

843
or unreasonable than to accept a gift and reject the conditions with which it was accompanied. By sweeping away the conditions annexed he thought they would be drying up the sources of educational gifts, and, in his opinion, nothing was more touching than to see a man who had risen from humble life, making bequests to a college for the advantage of a particular school, that others might be raised by the same means which had enabled him to raise himself.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, they might pursue the subjects touched upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman to great length, and with considerable interest, but he hoped the House would proceed in Committee, that they might make some progress with the Bill.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee.
On Clause 1,
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsuggested that the Government should consider whether, in appointing Commissioners, five was not a sufficient number, or, at all events, whether seven was not better than eight.
Clause 1 agreed to; also Clauses 2 and 3.
Clause 4 (Commissioners empowered to require production of documents, &c.).
MR. STAFFORD, in the absence of Lord John Manners, moved the omission of the words "and no oath which may have been taken by any such officer shall be a bar to any authorities of the Commissioners." The words assumed that Parliament had power to dispense with the obligation of an oath, and the effect of them would be to interfere with liberty of conscience. The question had been raised on the Oxford Bill, and he would divide the House again on it.
MR. BOUVERIEexplained that the words were inserted not to constrain persons who had conscientious scruples, for there was no penalty on refusal to give information, but to ease persons who, without the words, might think the giving information would be a violation of their oaths.
Mr. WALPOLEthought it a most objectionable form of legislation. He had divided against similar words in the Oxford Bill, and if the hon. Member divided on the Amendment he should support him.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMOREargued that oaths were taken with a reservation of their being lawful, and if an Act were
844
passed requiring information to be given it would be no violation of an oath for a person to fulfil his duty as a citizen by giving that information. He therefore did not see what was gained by the insertion of the words.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that if it were intended to relieve persons from the obligations of their oath, it was better that distinct words to that effect should be inserted in the Act of Parliament, rather than that it should be left to inference.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, no matter what the intention might be, the popular impression on this subject was that the House of Commons by this clause undertook to absolve persons from the obligation of the oath; to remove the impression, he thought the words ought to be left out.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, as a matter of authority with Gentlemen opposite, the words were suggested by Lord Lyndhurst, and were slightly different from those in the Oxford Act.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESthought it very important to retain the words, as information would otherwise be refused on the ground that the oaths required its concealment.
MR. MALINSthought the words unnecessary.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 31: Majority 44.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Establishment of Council of the Senate).
MR. HEYWOODmoved to omit the word "sixth" and insert the word "first," his object being that the election of the Vice Chancellor should take place under the new system.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, it was thought better that the new machinery of the Bill should be put into operation on the 7th or 8th of December, which was the close of the present academic year.
Question put, "That the word 'sixth' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 19: Majority 67.
MR. HEYWOODthen moved after the words "exercised by," to insert "the heads of Houses in their collective capacity." The hon. Member said, the object of this Amendment was to assimilate the Cambridge to the Oxford Bill, by transferring the discipline of the colleges from the

845
heads of Houses in their individual capacity, to the council generally. The result would be, that the heads of Houses here would correspond with the "hebdomadal board," at Oxford, before the Act passed.
MR. BOUVERIEthought the Amendment unnecessary. The most material power of the heads of Houses was as to discipline; and that power was not to be forced upon the new council, but left to its discretion to accept.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, this was the important point. The heads of Houses had no knowledge of the students, and were a very unfit body to have charge of their discipline. He himself, during all his residence at the University, never spoke to the head of his House.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 (Composition of the Council).
MR. HEYWOODmoved to leave out the words "four Heads of Colleges and four Professors of the University;" the effect of which would be not to compel the new council to elect four heads of Houses. The reason of the Amendment was the unsatisfactory way in which the Oxford Act, from which the clause was copied, had been found to work.
MR. BOUVERIEvery much preferred the clause as it stood. This was a question as to the constitution of the council, and he confessed he should like to see all the different interests represented.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEdid not think that any council elected by the University of Oxford would be likely to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member. That University had elected more heads of Houses than it was really incumbent on them to do.
MR. CRAUFURDopposed any restriction being placed on the electoral body of the University, and should therefore support the Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 38: Majority 64.
MR. HEYWOODthen moved the omission of the following words, after the word "Members of the Senate," from the proviso at the end of the clause, "not elected as heads of colleges or professors; and if any member shall be elected of the council in two or more classes he shall, when he first takes his seat in the council, declare
846
in which class he elects to be a member, and thereupon his seat in the other class shall be vacant."
MR. WIGRAMopposed the Amendment.
MR. WALPOLEthought that the proviso, as it stood, was very objectionable, for it acted as a restriction upon the freedom of election.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that if it were desirable—and he thought it was—so far to restrict the choice as to point out in what proportions the different classes or interests should be represented, it would be necessary to retain the words proposed to be left out,
Question put, "That the words 'Provided also, that nothing herein contained' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 111; Majority 48.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7, requiring members of the Senate to reside at least twenty weeks in the University in every year, "fourteen" was substituted for "twenty," and the clause, as amended, was agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 20 (The quorum of council to be five; and questions in the council to be decided by the majority).
MR. WIGRAM MR. WIGRAM moved that, at the end of the clause the following proviso should be inserted:—
"Provided always, that in case of a difference of opinion between the Chancellor, or the Vice Chancellor, or his deputy, and the majority of the members present at any meeting of the council, the question as to which such difference may exist shall not be deemed to be carried by such majority unless the same shall constitute a majority of the whole council; but in such case the question shall be adjourned to the next meeting of the council, and such adjourned question shall be finally decided by the majority of the members of council then present."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
On Clause 23, giving power to the Vice Chancellor to license members of the Senate to open their residences for the reception of students.
MR. HEYWOOD proposedto omit the words "any member of the Senate." It had been stated that these private halls were intended for Dissenters, but a member of the Senate must be a member of the Church of England. By the clause none but members of the Senate were to

847
be at the head of these private halls; and, therefore, Dissenters might as well go to the existing colleges. He moved to insert, instead "of any member of the Senate" "any person."
Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24, giving the title of "Licensed Masters" to those opening their residences as before mentioned.
MR. HEYWOODproposed that they should be called "Principals" instead of "Licensed Masters," for the latter appellation was not liked, as it seemed to bear some resemblance to the term "licensed victuallers."
Amendment agreed to; and on the Motion of Mr. WIGRAM the term "hostel" was substituted for "private hall."
Clause agreed to.
Clause 25 (Power of University to make Statutes as to Hostels).
MR. WIGRAMmoved the insertion of the word "instruction," which would enable the University "to make regulations for the government of hostels, the instruction and discipline of the students therein," &c. His object was to assimilate this Bill to the Oxford University Act.
MR. BOUVERIEthought the Principals who conducted the hostels should he allowed to adopt such a system of instruction as they deemed most likely to enable the students to acquire University degrees.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that if it was intended to make the two Bills identical, the course to be pursued was of course clear; but if any improvements were to be considered, it would be for the Committee to make, if possible, Amendments in the Oxford Bill.
Amendment negatived.
MR. WIGRAMthen moved that after the word "therein" the following words be inserted—"Their attendance on Divine worship."
MR. BOUVERIEobserved, that the private halls were intended to be places of resort for students who did not conform to the Church of England, and no one would deny that daily worship ought to be conducted in such establishments. The Senate of the University was, however, composed entirely of members of the Church of England, and if the Amendment were adopted, power would be given to the Senate to make regulations with reference to Divine worship applicable to persons who were not members of the Church of
848
England, and the main object of the Bill might thus be defeated. He did not believe that any Dissenting parents would entrust their sons to the charge of Principals of private halls, unless they were satisfied that in such establishments due provision was made for religious worship.
MR. PELLATTsaid that, although daily prayer was offered in almost all Dissenting colleges, Dissenters would object to prayer being compulsorily ordained by law; and he hoped, therefore, the Committee would not adopt the Amendment.
MR. WALPOLEremarked, that it was not intended to require that students who were Dissenters should attend Divine worship according to the forms of the Church of England, and any abuse of the power proposed to be given to the Senate would I be guarded against by the provision that no statute could have any force or effect unless it was approved by the Queen in Council. Unless some such rule as that proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Wigram) was adopted, they might, for the first time, admit the principle of allowing students who were subject to no regulations with regard to attendance upon religious worship to enter the University. He believed the matter might be very safely left to the University.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he had not the slightest confidence in the University of Cambridge in a matter of this kind. He knew that at Trinity College a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion had been forced to attend the worship of the Church of England, to the great annoyance of some of the senior members of the college. He had also seen a Roman Catholic gentleman attending the chapel of Trinity College, and he could state that he himself, although a Dissenter, had been obliged to attend the Church of England service at that college.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he did not suppose there could be the slightest objection to attendance at the service of the Church of England by Roman Catholics or by most Dissenters, but the attendance of a Jew would certainly be most objectionable. He thought the hon. Member was under some misconception when he stated that a Jew had been compelled to attend Divine service in the chapel of Trinity College. He (Mr. Wigram) was acquainted with an instance where a Jew, who was at the University, did attend the chapel for some

849
time, but when the attention of the dean of the chapel was called to the circumstance, he thought such attendance was highly improper, and at once dispensed with it.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, his authority for the statement he had made was the Rev. Mr. Carus, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, who had expressed the pain he felt at witnessing the attendance of a Jew at the service of the Church of England under such circumstances. There were some Dissenters who did not believe in the Nicene creed. He (Mr. Heywood) was one of them, and it had been most annoying to him to be forced to attend chapel when that creed was read.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that in enacting that the University should draw up regulations according with the different forms of Dissenting worship they imposed upon the governing body a task which they were not competent to perform. How could they draw up a form of prayer, for instance, in which Unitarian, Baptist, and Quaker could join?
MR. WALPOLEdid not ask that the University should be empowered to make forms of worship, but only that she should prescribe regulations for the attendance of students in private halls at Divine worship in some place or in some manner.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwould ask the right hon. Gentleman whether each college did not make its own regulation on this point, and if the colleges were trusted to require religious observance on the part of the students, why should not these hostels be equally trusted?
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, the reason was obvious. In the one case there was a body acting under statutes; in this case there would be no such statutes and no bodies to administer them. As these hostels, therefore, would be fluctuating in character, and entirely dependent on the individuals placed at their head, something like stability ought surely to be given to their regulation on this point.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 121: Majority 42.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 26.
The House resumed: Committee report progress,
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Commissioners of Supply (Scotland); Appellate Jurisdiction (House of Lords); Annuities (No. 2); National Gallery.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that he felt compelled to move that the

777
House resolve itself into such Committee that day six months. He trusted that the Government would withdraw the present Bill and bring in a new one in its place, embodying the alterations which the present Bill made in the old Bill on the subject, so as to state plainly and distinctly what it was they proposed to enact. The original Act, which the present measure partly continued, partly modified, and partly repealed, was the 11 Vict, cap. 2. That Act consisted of twenty-three clauses; out of them the Government proposed to repeal seven entirely, and to modify ten. Under these circumstances the most sensible course would be for the Government to introduce a new Bill; for the House, in proceeding with the Bill as it stood, had no opportunity of knowing what it was doing. Another point was, that several other clauses must also be repealed—as, for instance, all those which referred to the constabulary must be struck out, partly as inconsistent with the new clauses of the Bill, and partly as inconsistent with the privileges of the House of Commons. There would then remain not one half of the original Bill in the proposed measure. He had three objections to the point of power, but he had still more important objections of another kind. The history of the Bill was this—It was introduced in 1850 as a temporary measure, being, in fact, a continuance of the old Crime and Outrage Act; it was continued yearly down to 1855 by various continuing Acts. It had lasted from its introduction to the present time, through several administrations, and it was never once supposed or hinted at that the Bill was to be a continuous one. It was enacted under special circumstances, and for a limited time; and it was reserved for the present Liberal Administration to declare that it should be continued for ever. But the circumstances which induced Parliament to assent to the original measure no longer existed, and he protested against the continuance of a system of legislation which gave the Executive undue power, and which proclaimed in perpetuity as it were, that the people of Ireland were beyond the control of the ordinary law. Under this impression—and with the feeling that the Government ought to withdraw the Bill and introduce another—he should move that the House go into Committee upon it that day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and insert "this day six months."
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHsaid, that the Act now in force expired on the 1st of July, and it was necessary to make some provision for its renewal. To introduce a new Bill would take up a long time both in that House and in another place, and the simplest plan was to move the renewal of the old Bill, leaving out such clauses as were no longer necessary. It was proposed to leave out Clauses 16, 17, 18, and 19, which the law officers and the Lord Chancellor had declared inoperative and unnecessary, or provided for by other Acts of Parliament. On this subject there could be no objection to going into Committee; it would be then competent for any noble Lord to move that the duration of the Bill should be for a limited time.
LORD REDESDALEsaw no objection to the Bill if it were intended merely to continue the Crime and Outrage Act; but when a temporary Act was to be made permanent he thought their Lordships should have an opportunity of reconsidering it clause by clause.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that, on the understanding that the object of the Bill was to continue and mitigate the existing law, he would not object to it at the present stage. But he protested against the practice of partially repealing and partially renewing the provisions of existing Acts, the only effect of which was to introduce uncertainty and confusion where everything should be clear and simple.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that the experience of the last twelve or thirteen years had shown that the Crime and Outrage Act and its continuance, the present Bill, had been of great benefit to the country. Its provisions had proved very effective, and it was not now the question whether the greater portion of the old Act was repealed or not, but whether an Act was to be continued of so much benefit to the country. Three clauses were continued, one of which gave the Lord Lieutenant the power of proclaiming a district. It had been objected that there ought to be a notice from the magistrates in the first instance; but no instance had occurred of the power being exercised without reference to the magistrates. The second provided that proclaimed districts should pay the expense of the police, which was but fair to the Consolidated Fund; and the third provided that persons should not carry arms without licence. All these provisions had been found to be of benefit to

779
the country; it was not advisable that there should be an annual discussion upon them; and he called upon the House to consider the responsibility which it would incur by rejecting a measure, to which much of the present tranquillity of Ireland was probably due.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, the House had to consider two questions—one a question of form, and the other a question of substance. He did not think there was much difference of opinion among them as to the substance of the measure, because he believed that any one who knew what the state of Ireland had been of late years, could hardly consider that it would be necessary to make the Bill a permanent one. But he attached more importance to the question of form. The Bill proposed to re-enact the provisions of a preceding Act, with the exception of so-and-so, to an extent that rendered it unintelligible in itself, and perfectly so without reference to the old Act. Every Bill should tell its own story. The Legislature was extremely desirous of improving and consolidating the Statute Law, and had spent a large sum of money in attempting to effect that object: but here they were about to adopt a process of legislation which was utterly opposed to the principle of legal consolidation.
THE EARL OF EGLINTONsaid, that so far as he understood the measure he approved of it; but he did not think it desirable that a Bill containing such stringent provisions should be one of a permanent character; and he should also say that, in his opinion, they ought not to pass the measure in a form in which it could only be understood by a reference to a preceding Act of Parliament. He would recommend the noble Lord who hard charge of the Bill to withdraw it for the present, and to bring forward an amended Bill on a future occasion.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he believed they were all agreed as to the principle of the Bill, and he did not see why they should not then proceed to consider its details in Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that in the present state of Ireland he did not consider it at all necessary that the Bill should be continued for a period of more than five years. Indeed, he did not know that there was anything at that moment in the condition of that country which necessitated the passing of such a measure. But as there had been disturbances
780
from time to time in Ireland, and as no complaints, as far as he was aware, had been made of the operation of the Act, he had no wish to oppose its renewal for a limited period. He entirely concurred with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord St. Leonards) in his objection to the form in which the Bill had been drawn.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHsaid, he had no objection to limit the operation of the Bill to a period of five years.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that after that statement of the noble Earl, he should not press his opposition to their proceeding to consider it in Committee.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Then the original Motion was agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Amendments made.
Amendment moved, and negatived.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next.

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION (HOUSE OF LORDS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said: My Lords, it is hardly necessary I should recall to the recollection of your Lordships the circumstances under which that Committee was appointed on whose report this Bill is founded. Your Lordships will recollect that Her Majesty had been advised by Her responsible Ministers to confer the dignity of a peerage for life on the right hon. Sir James Parke, by the title of Baron Wensleydale; and that at an early period of the Session, when that noble Lord proposed to take his seat in this House, your Lordships, after a good deal of discussion, came to the Resolution that he was not entitled to do so. In consequence of your adoption of that Resolution a noble Earl not now in his place (the Earl of Derby) immediately afterwards moved the appointment of a Select Committee of the House to inquire into the subject of the appellate jurisdiction of your Lordships' House. That Committee, which was a very full one, consisting of between twenty and thirty members, examined a great number of persons connected with the administration of justice in your Lordships' House, the most eminent practitioners at the Bar, two distinguished Judges from Scotland, and other witnesses. The object of their inquiry was to ascertain

781
how far the conduct of judicial business in your Lordships' House, as the ultimate Court of Appeal, was or was not satisfactory to the suitors and to the bulk of Her Majesty's subjects. Now, my Lords, I think I am entitled to say, as the result of that investigation, that the general—I might almost say the universal—feeling was, that although there were matters which avowedly required emendation, yet, the administration of justice by your Lordships was an administration by a tribunal for which no substitute would, in the eyes of the public, be equally satisfactory. It is for your Lordships and the public to decide how far that opinion is right or wrong; but that this was the unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the witnesses, I am sure no Member of the House who attended the sittings of the Committee can fail to admit. That being the opinion of those who gave evidence before the Committee—and, I think I may add, of the Committee itself—the question to which we have now to direct our attention is, how far there exist legitimate causes for complaint and for Well-grounded feelings of discontent, as to the mode in which justice is here administered. Whatever opinions may be formed on other parts of the question, I think your Lordships will come to the conclusion that there have been no pains spared to sift the matter to the bottom, by examining those best qualified to give an opinion upon the subject, and who were free from the slightest suspicion of bias in favour of the tribunal as it has hitherto been constituted. The investigation may be said to have led to this conclusion—that although no substantial ground of complaint exists, and although it is felt that the subjects submitted to your Lordships' determination are very fully and very carefully examined, there are, nevertheless, matters of detail which required amendment. Among the most prominent of these is, that the judicial business of the House being conducted, as it necessarily must be conducted, by those who are commonly called law Lords, that is to say, Peers who owe the dignity of a seat in this House to their connection with the profession of the Bar, there is no security what may be the number of persons who may attend for the purpose of hearing appeals, or who those persons may be. The consequence therefore was, that although sometimes cases were investigated by four law
782
Lords, sometimes by three, they were in other instances investigated only by two, and very often even only by one. This was represented to the Committee—and, I think, not without reason—as giving rise to dissatisfaction. It has long been a moot point among persons who have speculated on the subject of jurisprudence, whether the administration of justice by one or by several Judges is the more likely to be satisfactory. On the first blush, any one would think the application of several heads to an inquiry is likely to lead to a more satisfactory result than the application of one unaided mind. But, on the other hand, some of the most eminent jurists have held, that there is always a greater probability of a failure when several minds are directed to an inquiry into a judicial matter than when there is only one; and upon this ground—that in the latter case there is an undivided responsibility which more than compensates for the absence of a number of minds. I must say that to that opinion I have always felt a great inclination to defer. I do feel that the advantage resulting from an undivided responsibility tends very much to compensate for the absence of that greater knowledge which would be attained through the co-operation of many minds. But I do not think that is a matter on which any man's individual views ought to be conclusive; and it was the general opinion of the witnesses examined before the Committee, that the ultimate court of appeal ought to be a tribunal for which the attendance of more than one Judge should be secured. The Committee, therefore, unanimously, I believe, came to the conclusion that that was the arrangement which they ought to recommend. Now, as to the best number for such a tribunal, some of the witnesses represented that five was the number that ought to be adopted; some again thought that it would be better to have only three; and others, who probably would have a good deal to urge in favour of their opinion, recommended that there should be four. These latter witnesses said, that if four Judges were appointed, as in the case of the courts at Westminster Hall, a majority would always imply a considerable majority; while there would be no considerable majority if there were only two against one, or three against two. Much may be said in favour of all these suggestions, and something also against them; but any attempt

783
to form a tribunal which should never be open to theoretical objection from the number and constitution of the Judges would be evidently chimerical. We can only deal with the subject as practical men. After viewing the question from all points of view, the Committee came to the conclusion that on the whole, three was the best minimum number to take—that is, three who should give their regular attendance, while other law Lords might, if they pleased, take part in the decision of a case. That is the first recommendation of the Committee, and it is one which is in accordance with the opinion of the great body of the witnesses examined. The difficulty then presents itself, how are you to secure the compulsory attendance of three law Lords? The Committee could not but be sensible that that was the great difficulty they had to solve. I am not at all anxious to get rid by a side wind of the decision of the House at the commencement of the Session by recommending the nomination of Peers for life. But I must say, that concurring in the view of all the witnesses, that no tribunal would be so satisfactory to the country as the tribunal of the House of Lords, and remembering the opinion of the Members of the Bar—who, contrary to what might at the first glance seem to regard the dignity of their profession, are very generally of opinion in favour of life Peerages, on the ground that there is reason to think that barristers would not henceforward realise the large fortunes which their predecessors had realised in former times, and which then rendered the creation of hereditary peerages from among the members of the profession perfectly unobjectionable: I must say that I agree with those who think that the creation of life Peers, for the purpose of filling judicial offices in your Lordships' House, is the course which it would be most convenient to adopt. That is the recommendation of the Committee, and in that recommendation it is needless to say I concur. I do not, I confess, see any other mode so satisfactory for recruiting from time to time the judicial strength of your Lordships' House, as enabling Her Majesty to introduce eminent lawyers among you, under circumstances which would not entail upon themselves a ruinous expense, or inflict upon your order a succession of comparatively poor Peers for all time. I have further to state that one of the witnesses examined before the Committee made an observation which
784
every one who has at all attended courts of justice must feel to be well founded; he said that there is but one test whereby you can determine whether a person is fit for the discharge of the duties of the judicial bench, and that is, by actual experience of his capacity for the performance of such functions. It has been remarked, that the most skilful lawyers, and the most eloquent advocates do not always make the most distinguished Judges; and therefore the Committee have recommended that no one should be selected as a Judge in this supreme court of appeal who has not given proof of his capacity for the post by his discharge of high judicial duties elsewhere during at least the period of five years; and they suggest that it would be well if Her Majesty were empowered to select from those who have most distinguished themselves in the performance of those duties, certain persons to fill the judicial office in your Lordships' House. Various proposals have been made as to what should be the status of these Judges. It has been suggested by some, that they should act merely in the character of "assessors;" but that suggestion did not meet with any considerable approval; and the scheme ultimately adopted by the Committee was that Her Majesty should be enabled—supposing, for the sake of argument, but without prejudice to the Sovereign's right, that an enabling power is necessary for such a purpose—that Her Majesty should be enabled to confer peerages for life on certain lawyers, with a view of qualifying them in point of rank for the discharge of judicial duties in this House. The view which the Committee took of the subject was, that there should always be three Judges discharging the judicial functions of your Lordships' House, one of these three being the Lord Chancellor, and the other two being Judges appointed to sit with him. The proposal now made is that Her Majesty shall be enabled to confer peerages for life on any two persons who may have acted as Judges for a period of not less than five years, and that those two persons shall receive a salary of£5,000 or £6,000 for their services as Judges of Appeal in your Lordships' House. The salary recommended by Her Majesty's Government in this case is according to the precedent of the common law courts of Westminster Hall. It is further proposed that these Judges shall be known by the title of "Deputy Speakers" of your Lordships' House; and

785
that it shall be their duty, unless when prevented by illness, to assist the Lord Chancellor regularly in the discharge of his judicial duties; while they should hold their offices during good behaviour like the other Judges, being liable, of course, like them to removal for misconduct on address from both Houses of Parliament. By this means will be secured a permanent tribunal, consisting of not less than three Judges, supposed to be the most eminent judicial functionaries which Westminster Hall can furnish, and who will discharge the appellate duties of which the Lord Chancellor, assisted by one or more of the law Lords, now disposes. This tribunal will, I trust, be found satisfactory to your Lordships and to the public. But I may observe that the recommendations of the Committee were not confined merely to the constitution of such a tribunal, but related also to certain evils of a minor character connected with the administration of justice in this House. One of the most important of those evils is, that it often happens that business which ought to be discharged by your Lordships in your judicial capacity in the course of a single Session, is not so discharged, and that as a consequence cases remain in arrear for future Sessions. At the opening of the Session of 1855, there were no less than twenty-five cases in arrear; but I am happy to say that at the commencement of the present Session that number was diminished to ten. Indeed, so far as my own experience goes, I may state that I think the business of each Session is pretty nearly disposed of within the limits of the Session, and that the arrears only arise from those of former years. The Committee, however, in dealing with the subject, have recommended that this House should be empowered by Act of Parliament, notwithstanding a prorogation, to sit as long as may be necessary for the discharge of its judicial business, to the exclusion of the exercise of its legislative functions. That is the most obvious mode of meeting the evil to which I have referred and goes at once to the very root; and the Bill, therefore, contains a clause enabling the recommendation of the Committee with respect to it to be'carried into effect. I have now adverted to the various propositions which the Committee deem it advisable should become the subject of legislative enactment, and which I have embodied in the Bill under your Lordships' consideration.
786
There are, however, several minor details connected with this question of appellate jurisdiction, which came under the notice of the Committee, but which, as being matters with which it is perfectly competent for your Lordships to deal, they did not deem it necessary to provide for by Act of Parliament. But, although they may appear to be minor matters, they are by no means unimportant. Your Lordships are aware that in order to constitute "a House," it is required that at least three Members should be present. Now, it frequently happens that in cases of appeal the Lord Chancellor sits alone to hear the case, and even when he is assisted by one or two law Lords—who, I need not say, discharge duties quite as important as those of the Lord Chancellor—it has always been thought fit that there should be a quorum independent of those law Lords—because, as they are no more bound to attend than is any other noble Lord, it has not been thought right that they should be taxed to the extent of compelling them to remain constantly in the House in order to constitute the quorum—the result is, that two lay Lords, as they are called, have always attended for the sole purpose of "making a House." Practically, no real impediment has been offered to the administration of justice under the evidence of the system, but it wears an unseemly appearance, and I have seen it commented upon in publications which, no doubt, many of your Lordships have read, as a great grievance, that the rights of Her Majesty's subjects should be decided upon under a form by which one Judge might have heard the opening of a cause, a second be present during its progress, while a third might deliver judgment. Now, if that statement were true in substance, it would no doubt be a great grievance; such, however, is not the fact: every one knows that, in truth, the lay Lords attend only as an idle ceremony and in obedience to the rules of the House, but that they take no part in the proceedings. But at the same time it is desirable that a form of procedure should be dispensed with which wears the appearance of a defect in the administration of justice, which, correctly speaking, does not exist. The evil may be disposed of in either of two ways. In the first place, under the operation of the Bill now before the House, the Lord Chancellor and the two Deputy Speakers will, in themselves, constitute a quorum; and, if that should not be found a sufficient remedy,

787
your Lordships may make any further regulations which you please, as to what should or what should not constitute a quorum. There are other points also to which the attention of the Committee was directed by almost every witness who gave evidence before them. One of these refers to the propriety of giving to your Lordships' House in its appellate capacity as much as possible the appearance of a judicial tribunal; and the Committee have accordingly recommended that the three Judges who are to form that tribunal should always attend in costume. Now that course would no doubt have some advantages; among others the wearing of a costume would prevent those interruptions caused by persons coming up and speaking to one evidently engaged in the performance of an important duty which might otherwise take place. No one would think of talking to a Judge upon the bench, nor ought they to speak to a Judge administering justice in this House. I by no means mean to say that the law Lords who now sit at the hearing of appeals do not give as much attention to the cases brought before them as if their ordinary were exchanged for their professional costume; but, I believe that suitors would be more satisfied that their cases were attended to, if they saw present Judges whose dress indicated that they were engaged in that duty. The recommendation, I need not say, is one which may be carried into effect by the House itself whenever it may seem desirable. It has also been suggested that it would be better if the Lord who presides over appeals in this House should, in delivering judgment, instead of rising in his place, and, as it is termed, "moving" his judgment, deliver it from his seat at the table. That, too, is a matter upon which it would be absurd to legislate, and with regard to which your Lordships can yourselves make any rules you may deem advisable. Another point connected with this subject of appellate jurisdiction, and which is deserving of consideration, is that which relates to the expense which attends upon the prosecution of a suit in your Lordships' House. That expense arises partly from causes which are, I believe, entirely beyond your Lordships' control. The cases which come before this House for decision have, generally speaking, been thoroughly sifted before other tribunals, are brought here only in consequence of the importance of the question involved, and are conducted, by
788
the express wish of those who are the parties to them, by the most eminent men in the profession of the law, for whose services, as a matter of course, large fees must be paid. That is an expense against which it is scarcely within your Lordships' power to provide a remedy. There are certain regulations, however, which it lies within your Lordships' province to make, the effect of which would probably be to cause a considerable reduction in the expenses to which I have just alluded. It is now the practice of this House to, require that each litigant should, before his suit comes on for discussion, lodge what is called a "case," which is a summary of his appeal, and of the documents upon which he relies. This "case" must be in print; and with respect to the expense which that necessarily entails, I may remark that in the Court of Chancery it is found that the printing of the "case" is not only more convenient, but even cheaper than if it were simply written. Upon the expense of printing, therefore, I lay no great stress; but in remodelling the judicial tribunal of this House, I think the question how far it is possible to dispense with the "case" altogether is one which is extremely well worthy of your Lordships' notice. The fees which it is necessary to pay to professional men in getting it up would thus he abolished, and a considerable amount of money would be saved to the suitors. Whether the framing of the "case" does not eventually tend to shorten the proceedings, and thus far to diminish the expense, is a point upon which I am not at present prepared to offer any opinion. It—as well as several other points to which I have called your attention—is a subject which must be inquired into and dealt with according to the results of that investigation. To carry into effect, however, such of those recommendations for the improvement of the appellate jurisdiction of this House as require a legislative enactment, this Bill has been framed, which I now ask your Lordships to read a second time; trusting that by its operation your Lordships may be enabled more satisfactorily to discharge the high duties which the constitution has entrusted to your House.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, as he understood this Bill, the persons on whom life Peerages were to be conferred would, in addition to their high judicial offices, enjoy all the privileges of the Peerage

789
age in common with hereditary Peers, and would be able to sit in the House and vote on matters of ordinary legislation. Now the House had decided that a Peer for life was not entitled to take his seat within its walls, and to exercise the functions of legislation. He should like to know, therefore, whether in the case (no doubt a very improbable case) of one of these life peers being removed from his judicial office for misconduct, in the manner provided by the Bill, he would still be continued in the exercise of the ordinary functions of a legislator, and be able to sit and vote among their Lordships as before? Fifteen years was named in the Bill as the term of service requisite to give a title for a pension, but he would suggest that the term should be ten, as it was provided that each of these Peers should have served five years in some high judicial office before his appointment.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that if these life Peers were to be appointed it would be very unwise not to put them in exactly the same position as all the other Members of their Lordships' House, and that they should not occupy the inferior position, which an answer in the negative to the question of the noble Earl would involve. In the case suggested by the noble Earl of a life Peer being removed for misconduct from his judicial office by an Address from both Houses, it would be in the power of their Lordships to follow the precedents which existed, though they were rare, and remove him from his legislative functions by a Bill, which no doubt in such a case would be readily concurred in by the other branches of the Legislature. It might, on the other hand, happen that a Deputy Speaker might become incapacitated by age and infirmity for the performance of his judicial functions, and it might be necessary to resort to an Address from both Houses to procure his removal; but such a state of things would not involve a charge against the moral character of a life Peer as would render his expulsion from the House a necessary step. With regard to the term of service required to earn a pension, the fifteen years, he apprehended, included the service as a Deputy Speaker, and the previous service as a Judge as well.
EARL GREYsaid, he did not object to the Bill now before their Lordships, so far as it related to the creation of additional legal offices to render that House more competent to discharge its functions as
790
the highest court of appeal in the country; but he must say that he regarded it as most unfortunate that the Government in framing the Bill should have departed from the recommendations of the Committee. He, as a Member of the Committee, had been of opinion, and he still considered that a person who had been Lord Chancellor for five years was well qualified for the office of Deputy Speaker, and he had understood the Committee to express the same opinion. It was true a division had been taken as to whether, in the case of the Lord Chancellor, a shorter period of office should qualify him for selection for the office of Deputy Speaker than that which the Committee thought desirable in the case of the other Judges, and they decided that the shorter period should not confer the qualification. It had also been proposed to fix the salary at£6,000, instead of£5,000 a year. If the latter salary only were affixed to the office of Deputy Speaker, it was useless to expect that any ex-Chancellor would undertake an office which, though it gave him additional labour, gave him no increase of salary. If the ex-Chancellors could be got to undertake these duties at salaries of £6,000, their pensions as ex-Chancellors would be thereby saved to the public. The point, however, to which he wished more particularly to call their Lordships' attention was that part of the Bill which related to the creation of peerages for life. The more he considered the subject, the more he felt convinced that this. Bill did not deal with that subject in a proper manner. Not withstanding the decision of the Committee of Privileges in the case of Lord Wensleydale, and its subsequent affirmation by the House, he still remained of his original opinion, that this House, in refusing to permit a person on whom Her Majesty had conferred a life peerage to sit and vote as a Peer, had assumed to itself a power and authority which did not belong to it according to the law and constitution of the country, and had set a precedent which would be dangerous for the future. Entertaining that opinion, he objected to that portion of the Bill which related to life peerages, because it virtually affirmed the propriety of the decision of the Committee of Privileges, which declared the creation of such peerages to be beyond the limit of the Royal prerogative, and carried it into effect for the future. He had never expressed any approval of the manner in which the prerogative

791
of the Crown had been exercised by Her Majesty's Government in the case of Lord Wensleydale. They certainly were guilty of a great indiscretion in the course which they pursued. It might be highly proper that some means should be taken of regulating the exercise of the prerogative for the future; but if they were to legislate upon the subject, it was not right for that House to abrogate a power which, as he contended, Her Majesty still possessed, without providing for all the cases which might arise for the future. Under the operation of this Bill Her Majesty would be enabled to create life Peers only in the case of persons who were to hold the office of Deputy Speaker; but precisely the same reasoning which applied to that officer would apply to other important State offices. There were several high offices in the Government which, according to invariable custom, were held by Members of their Lordships' House. It had been continually found that it would be desirable to bestow some of the high offices of the State on persons who did not possess a seat in their Lordships' House, and it had been the custom under those circumstances for the Minister of the day to advise the Crown to bestow on those persons the dignity of a peerage. Now, if it were necessary that those peerages should be hereditary peerages, the effect of that check upon the discretion of the Crown would be, as in fact it had been, most injuriously felt. It might happen that the person who was the fittest for an office in the State which was usually held by a member of their Lordships' House might not possess a fortune sufficiently large to justify him in accepting an hereditary peerage, and so to saddle his children with an honour which they would not have the means adequately to support; or it might happen that he was unwilling to do so, although even he did possess sufficient fortune. It was well known that by degrees the House of Commons had become the arena in which the contest of parties took place, and consequently persons who had gained a high position in that House were extremely unwilling to leave it in order to enter into their Lordships' House. It might also happen that a man upon whom it would be desirable to confer high office would be unwilling to accept an hereditary peerage, because, by doing so, a son whose talents gave promise of future distinction, might be too soon removed from the other
792
House of Parliament. In such cases it was very desirable that the Crown should have the power of creating life peerages, accompanied by a seat in their Lordships' House. In former times, when high political offices were conferred upon individuals who were not peers, the Crown had the means of enriching them, and of thus enabling them to support the dignities to which it advanced them. Noble Lords descended from statesmen of former times who were elevated to the peerage, would see that their ancestors were raised to fortune at the same time that they were raised to the peerage. At the present day, however, the power of the Crown to confer fortune as well as dignity was greatly diminished; and it was highly inexpedient that the Crown should be prevented from employing the services of those persons who were otherwise best adapted for filling high office in the State, on account of a difficulty with regard to the fortune of their successors. With regard to peerages conferred for distinguished naval or military services, it was now the common practice, in cases in which a peerage was conferred on a person whose fortune was not large, to invite Parliament to make provision for that person; but, unfortunately, the practice was to bestow a permanent peerage, while the pension was only extended to three lives, and the consequence was that a permanent honour was created, to be provided for by a temporary pension. No doubt there had been cases in which the services rendered had been of so transcendent a character, as those of Marlborough and Wellington, in which, with an hereditary peerage, an absolute grant, sufficient to support the dignity had been made; but it appeared to him that, generally speaking, it would be more desirable that peerages thus conferred should be temporary. He did not think it necessary to go more fully into the subject, because, by the recent change in the mode of proceeding in Committee of their Lordships' House, he had been able to place on record the Amendments which he had proposed, and which fully explained his views on the subject; but there was one point to which he wished to refer. He felt himself bound to express his regret that the Government had introduced this measure in a less formal manner than he believed they ought to have done. By the law and practice of Parliament it had been always usual, when the House was called upon to

793
pass a Bill which limited the prerogative of the Crown, to signify the consent of the Crown; and, as he believed that the Crown at the present moment had the power of creating life peerages which would confer a seat in their Lordships' House, he believed that the consent of the Crown should have been formally signified before their Lordships were called upon to agree to the present Bill.
LORD CAMPBELL LORD CAMPBELL rose to express his admiration of the Bill, which went as far as it ought to go, and did not exceed that point. As to any necessity for the previous assent of the Crown, he denied the necessity for any such expression of assent. He had no hesitation in saying gravely and deliberately, that the Bill would add to and not detract from the power of the Crown. The question as to whether the Crown had power to create life peerages which conferred a seat in that House was a res judicata. Their Lordships had formally decided that question, and that decision formed the law of the land upon the subject; and, it was, therefore, absurd to contend that by the operation of the Bill a power which had no existence could be restrained. It was now proposed to give that power to the Crown under certain limitations and restrictions, and to that course he had not the slightest objection. It was, in his opinion, expedient that there should be, to a certain small extent, the power of creating Peers for life with judicial functions; and it was for that purpose that the present Bill had been introduced. He was glad, therefore, that the Bill had been brought in, and that it was confined to peerages granted with a view to judicial objects. He believed that the jurisdiction which their Lordships and their ancestors had so long exercised of superintending the administration of justice in this country, and, in the last resort, of deciding appeals from all inferior tribunals, had been most useful. He was persuaded that the nation had derived great benefit from it, and had been fully satisfied with it; and although some objections might attach to it, such as belonged to all human institutions, he was persuaded that, upon the whole, the appellate jurisdiction of the country could not have been vested elsewhere without detriment to the administration of justice. The preservation of an hereditary branch of the Legislature, independent of the Crown and independent of merely popular representation, had been at times a great prop to liberty in England,
794
and he believed that if the hereditary character of that branch were destroyed the constitution of England could not be preserved. He thought, therefore, that it was a most inexpedient course to tamper with the constitutional character of that House; still, he did not object to peerages, not hereditary, being created to the number of four, as proposed by the Bill, because it was necessary for the appellate jurisdiction that there should be power of granting life peerages to that extent. He should say nothing about the details of the measure until the Bill went into Committee.
EARL FITZWILLIAMwas surprised at one expression which had fallen from his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down; and he was the more so because it had proceeded from a person so learned, having so much experience, and so much knowledge of the constitution of the country as his noble and learned Friend. In reference to the question whether a Peer created for life had a right to sit in that House, his noble and learned Friend said that that was no longer a question, but that it was res judicata, inasmuch as it had been decided by a Resolution of that House. But the question could not be considered a res judicata, because one House of Parliament had passed a Resolution upon it. He begged to remind his noble and learned Friend, of the proceedings which had taken place with reference to the Middlesex election in 1768, when Mr. Wilkes was deprived of his seat not by one Resolution of the House of Commons, but by Resolutions over and over again repeated. Nevertheless, the whole of those proceedings of the House of Commons were ultimately rescinded and to the satisfaction, as he believed, of everybody. It would, perhaps, be out of place at the present stage to enter into the details of the Bill, but it seemed to him, with respect to the sixth clause, which regulated the particular mode in which the Crown was to be allowed hereafter to exercise its prerogative, that words ought to be introduced which, while providing for the appellate jurisdiction of the House, would not have the appearance of encroaching upon the Royal prerogative. When the Bill came to be considered in Committee he would move an Amendment to that effect.
LORD CAMPBELLwould not presume to answer the observations of the noble Earl, but he might be allowed to say, by

795
way of explanation, that he did not rely upon a Resolution of either House of Parliament. Neither branch of the Legislature by Resolution could alter the law of the land; but, by the constitution of England, the House of Peers was the only tribunal to determine whether there had been a just and valid patent of peerage granted by the Crown, and when that question was decided by the House in the exercise of its judicial function it did become res judicata.
LORD DENMANconsidered this question as one not only relating to Life Peerages, but as also involving the abandonment of all influential share in the judicial proceedings of their Lordships' House, and the delegation of their authority to certain law Lords. When first the question of the life Peerage was debated, he was informed that Her Majesty's Ministers would have a majority of thirty, and therefore, believing that Lord Wensleydale would soon take a seat among their Lordships, he had only intended to record his vote for inquiry, on principle. Afterwards, wishing to give effect to the slightest doubt on the question of the legality of life Peerages, he gave his proxy to a noble and learned Lord who at one time had a doubt on the subject; but now he (Lord Denman) felt no doubt of their illegality. He thought that, if Lord Coke had wished to affirm the authority of the Crown to create life (Parliamentary) Peerages, instead of bringing on the subject after the instance that women might be ennobled for life, by marriage—as in the case of Duchesses—he would have introduced the subject in a substantive and different manner. He (Lord Denman) rejoiced to tell their Lordships that he had in his veins some of the blood of a Lord Chief Justice in the time of Queen Elizabeth, of whom it is said (in page 107 of a book called Grandeur of the Law)—
"That he was not a time-serving Judge may be seen by his conduct in the case of Cavendish, where he resisted the Queen's claim to appoint to an office which she had no authority to grant; and also by his resistance to other acts of power."
The measure before the House is needless, as one something like it, in the time of Lord Eldon, was; and he (Lord Denman) would quote an observation of Lord Erskine on that occasion, in which he says that—
"He for one could not consent to any change to the manner in which the House should exercise its jurisdiction. For his own part, he was so well satisfied with the manner in which the
796
judicial business of the House was conducted by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack (Lord Eldon), assisted by another noble and learned Friend (Lord Redesdale), he professed he could see no remedy for the evil but impounding him in that House."—[2 Hansard, ix. 1322.]
He (Lord Denman) would also quote a passage from a speech of his father's, in 1823, on the same Bill, in which he said—
"He trusted the Commission for inquiry into the administration of the law in Scotland would supersede the necessity of adding to the law the ignoble officer alluded to. He would never vote one farthing for paying such an officer, and he called upon his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) to oppose any grant for that purpose. He objected also to the appointment of that officer because it would increase the judicial patronage.—[2 Hansard ix. 1525.]
He (Lord Denman) was very sorry that the name of Lord Wensleydale had been bandied about as it had been. He did not know whether that noble Lord would accept a deputy Speakership or not. The Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly, in his evidence before the Select Committee, spoke strongly about the value of the services of Lay Lords, in a Court of Appeal, and even declared that some of their Lordships might be worthy of a salary of£6,000 a year, (at one time contemplated by the Select Committee), but for himself, he assured their Lordships that (even if his services were of the greatest value) he never would receive any remuneration for this branch of his duty, but should at all times be happy to attend in that House, when his presence might be needed to make up a quorum. He considered the power to sit during the legal year likely to be advantageous, and had made his observations solely on public grounds.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that in supporting the Bill, he wished to guard himself against being supposed to have altered the opinion which he expressed when the subject of life peerages was last under their Lordships' consideration; it would be out of place to re-open the discussion of that question now, but he still retained the opinion that the creation of a life peerage conferred the right to sit and vote in the House. He did not, therefore, wish it to be understood that in supporting this Bill he did so upon the grounds stated by the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice. With regard to the objection that the assent of the Crown to the Bill ought to have been obtained, he certainly was inclined to think so too, though he could not

797
concur in the opinion that the assent should have been advised and sent down in the shape of a formal Message from the Crown. It would he quite sufficient if, at some future stage of the Bill, the assent was signified by one of the Ministers in their Lordships' House.
After a few words from Lord ST. LEONARDS,
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.
House adjourned to Monday next.