presented a Petition from the tradesmen employed in furnishing the materials and in executing the works in the mansion erected in the Green Park called York House, upon the order of his late Royal Highness, the Duke of York. The petitioners stated, that being desirous to ascertain on what foundation they were to proceed, they obtained the autograph assurances of his Royal Highness that their bills should be paid every six months, as the works proceeded, and that they thereupon continued to execute them; that finding, at an early stage of their proceeding with the building, they were rapidly advancing a serious amount of capital to carry on their respective works they became alarmed lest any miscalculation of the total cost of the intended mansion might have been made, and thereupon deemed it right and prudent to ascertain from what source the monies were to be derived; that after much persevering diligence, they discovered that the various sums employed from time to time in making payments to them in respect of York-house were furnished from a department of his Majesty's Government, and were in fact part of the public resources of the kingdom, and that a sum of 30,000l. or thereabouts, which had been in the first instance advanced to his Royal Highness by a banker, was afterwards repaid from the same quarter; that during the life of his late Royal Highness all the demands becoming due in respect of the building aforesaid were regularly discharged by monies from the said department of the Government, and that within a few days previous to the demise of his Royal Highness a very large sum of money was so paid by one of the Secretaries of the Treasury to the Solicitor of his Royal Highness, and through that channel to the petitioners; that the petitioners respectively satisfied themselves during the life of his Royal Highness that all the payments due, and to become due, would he made from the source aforesaid, or they would not have continued to supply the materials and the execution of the works in respect of York-house; that the payments due to the period of the demise of his Royal Highness were refused, and that the petitioners were referred to the executors of his Royal Highness; that the amount of the payments due as aforesaid is 24,124l. that the petitioners did upon application to the Duke of Wellington, then the First Lord of his Majesty's Treasury, obtain a copy of the correspondence between his late Royal Highness and the Lords of the Treasury, constituting the agreement entered into by their Lordships for the supply of the monies for building and completing, York-house, wherein their Lordships engaged to advance the sums necessary for building and completing the erection, in consideration of his Royal Highness granting to the Crown the right of pre-emption, in the event of his Royal Highness's death or other contingency. They therefore submitted, that in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, before the privilege of pre-emption could be legally exercised by the Crown, the Lords of the Treasury should have paid all the sums of money expended in the erection of York-house, just as if his Royal Highness had lived until the completion of the building. They further stated, that the right of pre-emption had been exercised by the Treasury, although the balance had not been paid to them, and that payment had been refused, on the ground that no contract had been entered into by the Lords of the Treasury with the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, considering the sum of 24,124l. to be still due to them prayed the House to direct an investigation into the matters contained in the petition. The gallant Officer proceeded to read the correspondence which took place between the Duke of Wellington and the other members of the then Administration and the Duke of York, on the subject of the building of York-house, which set forth the terms and understanding with which the building was undertaken, as stated by the petitioners. He begged the attention of the House to this petition; it was of the greatest importance to the country, as the honour of the Government was involved in it. If the principles of this contract were to be violated, then there would be an end to all contracts between the public and the Government of the country. In the first instance, it was denied by Government that there was any agreement, and upon this the contract was produced, and sent to the creditors.

supported the prayer of the petition, and observed, that he had no wish to impugn the character of the present Treasury. Circumstances, however, had lately come out which went to show, that the Treasury was not in all cases an oracle of truth. He did not impeach the present Treasury, but he must be permitted to observe that events had occurred which might induce that House to believe that on former occasions the Treasury was not the best authority for the existence or non-existence of certain documents. Here was a denial of the existence of the contract in the first instance; and when the Duke of Wellington was applied to, the Treasury produced the document. This was a case which called for inquiry, and he hoped it would be taken up early in the next Session.

said, the observations of the hon. Member rendered it necessary for him to trouble the House with a very few words on this subject. The whole of this transaction had undergone the strictest investigation, and, from the year 1826, when the claim was first made, down to the present time, there never had been the slightest difference of opinion entertained by any one of the individuals who had successively composed the Board. They all unanimously agreed that the claim was entirely without foundation. The Treasury was very far from being hostile to any inquiry the House should think proper to direct, but he was of opinion, after the House bad been put into possession of the real facts of the case, they would not consider there was the slightest necessity for such a course. The transaction was a very simple one. An application was made by his late Royal Highness the Duke of York to the Government of that day, for a sum of money to enable him to complete the erection of his intended mansion in the Green Park, and for money already clue for masonry, &c. The Government agreed to advance the loan required for the completion of the building, on condition that they should have the right of pre-emption in the event of sale, or the demise of his Royal Highness. The Lords of the Treasury, consequently, on the death of his Royal Highness, exercised their right of pre-emption, purchasing the property at a valuation which was put upon it by two impartial persons, and gave up a considerable claim they still possessed against the assets of the remaining estate. He could assure the House, that, so far from the Treasury having derived any benefit from the transaction, it had lost considerably, inasmuch as the sums advanced for the erection of the building were much greater than it was ultimately worth. That the sum of between 20,000l. and 30,000l. was still due for materials supplied and work done, he did not mean to deny, but nothing could be more clear than that the claim was upon the estate of his late Royal Highness, and not upon the Lords of the Treasury. The tradesmen who furnished the materials for the erection of the mansion stood precisely in the same situation with those unfortunate persons who might have advanced his Royal Highness money for clothes or jewellery, and it was much to be lamented that so many individuals were in that situation; but nothing could be more clear than the transaction between the Royal Duke and the Treasury, and therefore he hoped the House would see that any inquiry was quite uncalled for.

said, if a loss was sustained by any individual from a loan made by the Treasury, that alone was subject matter for inquiry. He trusted the hon. and gallant Member would bring the subject under the consideration of the house in the next Session of Parliament, after it had been admitted by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury that the public money had been advanced for such a purpose; and even if it should be proved that the petitioners had no claim on the Treasury in this transaction, still, where money had been advanced from the public Treasury on such security as this, a full inquiry was demanded on the part of the public.

was of opinion, notwithstanding the explanation that had been given, that the Treasury were bound to fulfil the engagement they had entered into with the petitioners. It was monstrous to say, that because a contract had proved a bad one, the parties were exonerated from the performance of it.

presented a Petition from John Howard Kyan, to inquire into a process which he had invented, for the prevention of Dry Rot in timber. The hon. Member stated, that an experiment of the discovery made by the petitioner had been fully tried by the Government at Woolwich and other dockyards in the country. A large piece of timber was placed in the "fungus pit" at Woolwich, and after remaining several years in the pit was found to be perfectly sound, and continued so after exposure many years to the open air. Mr. Farraday, who was at first opposed to the process, became so convinced by experiments of its efficacy, that he had lectured at the Royal Institution in favour of it. The fact was, that the corrosive sublimate (the matter used) formed a chymical combination with that part of the vegetable matter most likely to be affected, which altogether prevented a chance of dry-rot. Under these circumstances, the House would not do its duty if it did not press upon the Admiralty the adoption of the patent. If inquiry was necessary, it could be obtained by a Committee in two or three days, as all those most capable of affording it resided in town.

could not agree with the doctrine of the hon. Member, that such questions as these were adapted for the consideration of that House, and hoped he would not force upon it the overseer-ship of the navy, as it would lead to a great deal of inconvenience and confusion, at the same time, he could assure the House, that every disposition prevailed at the Admiralty to give the discovery of the petitioner a full and impartial trial. The hon. Member had correctly stated, that the experiment had been tried at the dockyard at Woolwich, and when he informed the House, that upwards of 300 discoveries, applicable to the same infection, had been submitted to the Admiralty, it would be instantly seen the importance of not adopting a proposition by which the whole navy of the country would be affected, without the most positive assurance as to the result. He was, however, enabled to inform the hon. Member, that the patent of the petitioner was about to be fairly tried at one of the docks, by adopting different sorts of wood prepared in the manner suggested by Mr. Kyan in the construction of the gates of the dock, which were alternately exposed to the influence of the air and the salt water. He would only observe, that the Admiralty was extremely desirous, as far as it was consistent with their duty to the public, to afford the fullest opportunity of a fair trial to those discoveries in art or science which held out any reasonable prospect of proving ultimately advantageous to the service.

expressed his perfect satisfaction with what had fallen from the hon. Member, and observed, that if such a disposition had been evinced by the Admiralty five years ago, the House would never have been troubled with the present petition. He thought, nevertheless, the petitioner had just reason to complain of the treatment he had suffered from the Admiralty. It was perfectly true that a piece of prepared timber had been put into the "fungus pit" at Woolwich, but the request to put a piece of plain timber into the pit with that which was prepared, was actually refused; and, therefore, the trial was in fact no trial, although after several years the prepared piece of timber came out of the pit in the same state that it went in. The hon. Member mentioned other instances where, for the purpose of experiment, sound and unsound timber had been put into the pit; that which came out as sound as it went in was officially reported to be infected with the rot, and that which was put in in a rotten state, was reported to he sound. On a public examination which subsequently took place, upon the very same wood which had been a second time the subject of experiment, the same individual was compelled to eat his own words, and actually reported the identical wood sound which he had before reported infected. He adduced these circumstances, every one of which had fallen under his own immediate knowledge, to show that the discovery of the petitioner had received anything but a fair trial; but, like the roots of a tree, they might all be traced to the same stem. It was well known that the surveyor of the navy had said the discovery was all a delusion, and that it was of no use whatever; and when an individual whose opinion on these subjects influenced the whole of the members of the Navy Board entertained particular theories, it was not to be expected that discoveries, however valuable, would obtain an impartial experiment. So great was the influence of the individual alluded to, that though the First Lord of the Admiralty had adopted the patent in building his own house, though the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had employed it in the Regent's-park and elsewhere, still the same discovery could not be applied to the navy, where some hundred thousand pounds would be saved to the country, because a high authority reported it useless.

was convinced there was every disposition to give scientific discoveries a fair trial by the present Lords of the Admiralty, as evinced in the present instance, as well as in the case of some of his constituents, who bad submitted some discoveries to the Board of Admiralty and had received the greatest encouragement. The blame rested with the late Admiralty, of which he would give the House an instance. A Danish officer sent a valuable discovery to the Admiralty for experiment. His invention met with no encouragement, and probably no trial was made of it, and in a short time he was informed it was useless. Under these circumstances, he (Sir Edward Codrington) gave him a letter of introduction to Admiral de Rigny; the invention was immediately adopted by the French government, and applied to the whole of the French navy. He had the curiosity to ask the officer what he demanded for his discovery, when he said, he should have been contented to give it up to the Admiralty for 500l. Was it not therefore a national disgrace that an invention which might have saved many thousand lives and an endless expense to the country, and which could have been obtained for such a paltry sum of money, should have been lost to the country for the want of a fair trial.

rose to call the attention of the House to a subject of very great importance. He begged the indulgence of the House as he feared he should be obliged to trespass upon their attention for some time. It had been his intention to have brought forward the subject as an Amendment on any Motion which might be made for a grant for the service of our East-India possessions; but the business of the House was conducted so irregularly, indeed, of necessity so irregularly, that he trusted no apology was required, either for delaying the subject so long or for bringing it forward at the present time. When he considered the nature of the case, and the extraordinary circumstances by which it was attended, it was a matter of surprise to him that no other Member had taken up the affair, and made it a subject of discussion; for he felt convinced that when the House heard the statement he was about to submit to them, they would be of opinion, that the circumstances connected with the case were most extraordinary, and exhibited conduct as strange as any that ever took place in any public department. The House was aware that in the last Session an Act was passed for the better administration of the affairs of India. The topic to which he was about to call the attention of the House was one of the first occurrences in the progress of the new system thus created, and the House would judge whether or not it afforded a good omen of future temperance and discretion in the administration of the affairs of that country. On the one side there was an exercise of power—of authority and peremptory command to put a certain order into execution; on the other hand, on the part of those who received this order there was a fixed and resolute determination not to obey it—a determination which could be justified only by a strong conviction of the injustice of the command which they were called upon to fulfil. From the statement, clear and concise as it could be made, which he should feel it his duty to submit to the House, they must conclude that one or other of the two parties was very much in the wrong. He should first endeavour to state to the House the course of the most singular conflict which had taken place between the two parties. He held in his hand a paper which had been laid upon the Table of the House out of the four corners of which it was not his intention to travel; for that paper contained all that it was necessary to submit to the attention of the House upon the present question. It opened in the following manner:—"On the 12th of April, 1832, the Board of Control addressed a letter to the East-India Directors desiring them to prepare a despatch for the purpose of directing the government of India to compel the king of Oude to pay certain claims upon him on behalf of Calcutta bankers." To this letter of the 12th April the East-India Directors, on the 9th of May, answered in general terms. They replied upon the general principle embraced in the present case, and urged that its decision would involve other cases of a similar description. They pointed out the very pernicious consequences that would be likely to result from their recognizing the principle involved in the direction of the Board of Control. To this letter an answer was received upon the 14th May which was also couched in the most general terms. They were desired to execute the command. They have not executed that command—they have paid no obedience to it, and in refusing to do so they have considered themselves perfectly justified. In this state matters remained from the 14th of May till the 15th of September; on one part an order made, and on the other refused to be executed. On the 15th of September, a letter was addressed by the Board of Control to the East-India Directors, reminding them that they had not executed the order they had received, enclosing them a draft of the order which they were directed to send out, and referring to the Act of Parliament which gave the Board of Control, the power of preparing this order. This letter of the 15th of September contained not only the most peremptory orders to execute the order, but even contained a draft of it, and still the Directors refused to obey it. On the 1st March, 1833, the Directors addressed a letter to the Board of Control which contained the fullest and most elaborate reasons for having opposed the order which had been received from the Board of Control. If there were any Gentleman in the House who had not read that letter, he (Mr. Herries) would take leave to call his most particular at- tention to it. It was decidedly the ablest public document which had ever come under his consideration. It omitted no single point in the controversy. Whoever might have been the author of that document, whether it were the Judge Advocate or not, it certainly did him very great credit, and in his judgment, it showed the impolicy of the course which the Government had pursued. Well, was that document answered? It remained for seven months with the Board of Control, and then how did the House suppose it was disposed of? The reply which was sent acknowledged the receipt of the letter—complimented the Directors as being "entitled to every consideration"—and concluded with a peremptory command to execute the order, which had been originally given. Confident in the justice of the cause they were pursuing, the Directors refused to obey this last order. From the 12th of September, when this short answer was returned to the long and elaborate letter of the East-India Directors, it would appear from the proceedings of the Directors that various communications had taken place between the Board of Control and the Chairman of the Company. In all these communications the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman deprecated the execution of the order. On the 15th of January, 1834, there was a meeting of the Court of Directors, the first public meeting after the receipt of the peremptory letter to which he had adverted. The proceedings which took place at the Court which was held, showed very decisively what the feeling of the Directors was upon the subject. It was at that meeting resolved, that the order of the Board of Control was unjust in principle, that it was inconsistent with the preservation of British authority in India, and that the Directors would not consent, even ministerially, to act on the order of the Board, unless they were compelled by law. At a subsequent meeting of the Board, held on the 5th of February, a letter was received from six of the Directors, expressing their determination not to affix their signatures to the declaration of the order of the Board of Control, and characterising the fulfilment of the order as a measure of spoliation towards the people of India. At the time of which he was speaking, there was another proceeding taking place in the Court of King's Bench. A rule had been moved for, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, compelling the Board of Directors to execute the order of the Board of Control. On January 31, 1834, a rule was moved for, and it was upon their receiving instructions, that this rule would be moved for, that the Directors had recourse to the proceeding he had just mentioned. The House was aware, that an Act of Parliament gave the Board of Control a power to compel the East-India Directors to send out to India any commands given by the Board of Control. The manner of enforcing this was by application to one of the Courts of Law. However, it would be obvious to the House, that the decision of a Court of Law, upon this question, could in nowise effect the merits of the despatch ordered to be sent out. The decision of the Court of Law would merely prove, that the Board of Directors were obliged to send out the order of the Board of Control, while it left completely untouched the question, of whether or not such an order was either just or politic. At a subsequent Court of Directors, a declaration was read from two of the Directors, expressing their acquiescence in the opinion of the six Directors who had sent the letter submitted to the preceding meeting. If any argument were attempted to be drawn from the apparent want of unanimity amongst the Directors, he (Mr. Herries) could only say, that those Directors who had not signed the document were prevented, not by a conviction that the "order" was not unjust and unwise, but by an opinion, that it might, perhaps, be impolitic to openly and determinedly decline sending out the order of the Board of Control. After some further details the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to express his regret that, on the present occasion, the right hon. Gentleman was not present who happened to act in a new capacity, as one of the officers of his Majesty's Government, and who filled the two distinct characters of a Director of the East-India Company, and of his Majesty's Judge-Advocate-General. He regretted, that that right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson) was not then in his place, upon an occasion involving considerations of so much importance to those parties with whom he was connected; because, if he had been in the House, he (Mr. Herries) would have appealed to him for his valuable assistance in ascertaining what course it was intended to pursue. But he knew, that that right hon. Gentleman's sentiments on this question were very strong, and that there were no legal means which he would not resort to, to prevent the execution of these orders. He had thus stated an extraordinary case as regarded the Board of Control. Twenty-three Directors were opposed to this order. Then no reason had been given for the resignation of eight Directors, nor had any reason been given by the Board of Control for their conduct in this affair. He had put the question, whether the Government intended to abandon those proceedings which they had taken, and he was given to understand, that they would not prosecute the transaction; but from what had since transpired, he felt himself perfectly justified in saying that, though the proceedings of the Court of King's Bench had been given up, the matter was not altogether abandoned, because it was intended to adopt some other mode of interference. There was, indeed, in these extraordinary proceedings—first, a remonstrance, and then a positive resistance on the part of the Board of Directors. But let the House look to the transaction itself. What was it but one which referred to the settlement of old usurious jobs of forty years' standing? If this were not an Indian question, he should take it for granted, that every hon. Gentleman had read the whole of the papers connected with it; but, as this might not be the case, he would detail it. Here the right hon. Gentleman gave, at great length, by reading from various papers, reports, &c., an outline of the case, and stated that, up to a certain period, a practice prevailed of lending money to the native princes of India;—a practice which originated a variety of abuses. It was a subject to which the attention of the Government of this country was especially called some half a century since; and it must be admitted, that it was a system of abuse which all Administrations had since wished to repress. By virtue of various treaties, the king of Oude transferred to the British Government in India a portion of his territories in lieu of certain subsidies. By two treaties in the year 1798—by one in 1801—and in no less than seven subsequent treaties, all of the same character and purport, it was provided, that the king of Oude, in respect to his private debts, &c., should be free from all inter- ference on the part of the British Government. A certain proposal, it appeared, was made by the Vizier of the Nabob, or king of Oude (as we understood) to the British resident for his interference, upon the king finding himself placed in a situation of difficulty, but no application had been made to the Government; the proposal did not come from the king. At one period the Nabob of Oude made a complete and favourable settlement with all his European creditors; and (whether the fact were creditable to the ruling powers in India at the time, he would not say) he made an equally unfavourable settlement in regard to his native debts. The result of this unequal arrangement was, that the native creditors had received only one instalment out of six, and, therefore, they were still creditors. The native creditors had applied to the Government in India, who refused to interfere; but, after a lapse of twenty years, a letter was, in the year 1814, obtained, being addressed by the Marquess of Wellesley to the Marquess of Hastings, containing the opinion of the noble Lord, given many years after he had ceased to hold the high office with which he was invested in India. In this it was recommended, in the very strongest terms, that there should be a discharge of all the claims on the king of Oude. This letter went to sanction that which had just been refused by the Court of Directors; and that same letter had never been laid before the Court, but was addressed to the agent, Mr. Prendergast. In the reply, the Marquess of Hastings had declared, that the Government could not, in this instance, interfere in the internal affairs of the king of Oude. In the years 1813, 1814, 1819, and 1822, the matter had been decided in the same way by various authorities. He found it admitted, by the Board of Control, that this principle of interference was one which ought to be avoided, and that they were solemnly bound to abstain therefrom. An attempt had been made to prove, that this was an extraordinary case; but, if it were so, there was no ground for taking it out of the operation of a general principle. The present claims against the king of Oude could only be enforced by the most wretched and grinding system of maladministration, and the most oppressive enforcement of internal taxation; if, indeed, such a system did not lead to the deposition of that monarch, and the total loss of his territory and other legal rights. If the right hon. the President of the Board of Control had been in possession of such reasons and arguments as were sufficient to convince the Court of Directors of the propriety of the course they were called upon to adopt, why had the Board of Control sought for a mandamus from the Court of King's Bench? But if the right hon. Gentleman possessed no such cogent reasons and justifiable arguments, why have recourse to such an order? But if, above all, it was right to apply for a mandamus, why was it so suddenly and without notice abandoned? What justification could his right hon. friend plead for the adoption of such a course? He felt that, under all the circumstances which he had stated, the Government had placed itself in such a situation that some ground of justification, some satisfactory explanation (if such could be given), was due to the House and the country. He was at a loss to know how it was, that a reformed House of Commons could allow a question, involving such monstrous proceedings as were disclosed by the papers on the Table to remain so long without observation. For his own part, he felt that, in bringing forward this subject, he had only done his duty to the House in calling its attention to it; and he trusted that, in his manner of doing so, he had not acted with any want of courtesy or good feeling towards those persons to whom, in the course of his observations, he found it necessary to allude.

said, that there were two points alluded to by his right hon. friend, to which he would at once give an answer, because he fully coincided with him upon them. The first was, that he had only done his duty in making this inquiry, and the second was, that, notwithstanding the vast extent to which his right hon. friend's opinions differed from his own, still he (Mr. Grant) was sure the House would coincide with him in admitting the courtesy with which his right hon. friend had called the attention of Parliament to the subject. There was another observation of his right hon. friend which had his fullest concurrence—namely, that the affair called for the most serious attention of the Legislature. He was sorry that an old observation was likely to become proverbial, that the affairs of India were daily becoming more and more matters of indifference in that House. It was, there- fore, right and necessary that this question should be brought under their consideration, but he hoped with a view to the attainment of more beneficial effects than were likely to arise from the advocacy of his right hon. friend. He said this because he felt that his right hon. friend was rather late in giving to the House an example of the interest which ought to be taken in the affairs of that country; indeed it was matter of surprise that his right hon. friend had not earlier turned his attention to Indian affairs. But he recollected that, last year, when the most momentous question that had ever affected India was introduced, so little was his right hon. friend's anxiety on the subject, that he did not favour the House even with a single opinion upon it. Notwithstanding this, however, he hailed even this tardy return of his right hon. friend to a participation in, what he conceived to be, the duty of the House towards the affairs of India, as it might have the effect of directing the minds of other hon. Members in a similar manner. His right hon. friend had expressed his regret that some difference of opinion had taken place between the two great authorities connected with India—the Board of Control and the Court of Directors; but now that those differences were composed, and that harmony was restored, it was kind in his right hon. friend to endeavour to preserve that harmony by reminding them of former differences and going over afresh all the grounds of discord. He had a high respect for the Board of Directors; he felt, that in all questions affecting India, their opinions had, and ought to have, great weight; but he felt, that he, too, was entitled to his opinion, grounded as it was upon the authority upon which he acted He was aware that the local knowledge and experience of the gentlemen composing the Court of Directors was of great advantage; but he could not conceal from himself the fact, that it was also productive of some disadvantage. Gentlemen who had resided for a long time in India, were, from local habits, likely to gather round them a certian Asiatic mode of transacting business. The principle involved in the question before the House was this—were the whole of our British subjects, no matter of what caste or colour, no matter whether European or native, entitled to the same meed of equal and impartial justice at our hands? Had that principle been uniformly acted upon, the House would never have had the present pass brought before it. He would shortly state to the House the justice of that case, which had been somewhat improperly termed an "old job," "a usurious job." That the claims in question were of long standing he freely admitted. They had existed during the last forty years. They arose out of transactions which occurred in 1796, and had been continually kept alive since that period, under a succession of public authorities. The debt was an old one, but he knew of no debt of a State which could be barred by time; if a just debt in the first instance, its justice must continue. But whatever might be said on that subject, the claims were not his; they were handed down by his predecessors in office, and had been preferred at various times for more than the last thirty years. They were made before the Court of Directors in 1811, and also in 1812. They were made in 1816, and were still held to be an open claim in 1819; it was brought under the notice of Mr. Canning. Again, in 1822, it was referred to a Committee, but was not persevered in because the Government was dissolved. It was revived during the Administration of the Duke of Wellington; and Mr. Prendergast, the agent, had drawn up a memorial to be laid before the Government, but the Government was again dissolved. He knew not whether the Duke of Wellington's Administration had made up their minds upon the subject; but of this he was sure, that if they had done so either way, the agent was unacquainted with that fact. He would shortly state to the House his view of the origin and character of this debt. The claims of these parties rested on bonds given by the Nabob of Oude, to persons whose representatives were the present claimants, men who were for the most part eminent bankers and rich men in the East Indies, and who were all subjects of Great Britain. The principal firm had a house of the first distinction in Benares, but had also houses in Calcutta and other places. The father was distinguished as a man of great wealth, and had been remarkable for his attachment and loyalty to the English Government, so much so that in the struggle between Mr. Hastings and the Rajah of Benares, he rendered essential service to the English. By those parties eleven lacks of rupees, or about 111,000l. was advanced to the Nabob of Oude. In 1799, an inquiry as to this debt was entered into by the resident of Lucknow, and the Nabob was told by the Government there, that he was bound to pay it. The Nabob divided his creditors into three classes, to whom he offered different amounts of compromise. The first class consisted of British merchants, the next of his own native subjects, and the third also of British subjects, but of men who were natives. The native subjects in his own territory were compelled to take the terms offered to them; the British merchants also accepted of theirs; but the natives who were British subjects, refused to take the terms offered to them (being less favourable), alleging that they were entitled to receive terms equally favourable with their fellow-subjects of this country. The British Government was applied to; but, perhaps from the colour of the parties, in vain; and from that hour to the present, the native British subjects never received any compensation. It was upon this ground, that he called for equal justice towards all his Majesty's subjects in India, no matter what their colour. It was upon this ground that he applied to the Court of Directors with the power which the law, by various enactments, had placed in his hands. In consequence of his advice a mandamus was applied for; that was in February. The case was to be argued in a limited time after, but in the mean time a measure was proposed between the two authorities, which, if agreed to, would render useless any such legal proceeding. Upon that ground it was that the order was discharged. Some of the highest officers under the Company in India had at various periods expressed opinions favourable to the debt. Amongst them, he mentioned the members of the Executive Government, and three most respectable and able Civilians, Mr. Edmonds, Mr. Seaton, and Mr. Dawson; also Mr. Cherry, the Marquess of Wellesley, and the Marquess of Hastings. He next referred to a letter written by Lord Hastings to the Governor of Lucknow, stating that the debt which had been contracted for the support of the Nabob's troops, and his general Government, ought to be paid. Lord Hastings gave directions to our resident to demand such payments. Lord Teignmouth not only expressed a similar opinion, but gave similar directions. The right hon. Gentle- man next referred to a letter of Mr. C. Wynn, when he was President of the Board of Control, in which it was stated that the claims made by the creditors ought to be honestly liquidated. The opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown and others had been taken upon this subject. They had the opinions of Lords Brougham and Plunkett, and of Lord Lyndhurst and Sir C. Wetherell, who said, that although the claimants had no strict legal right, yet that they most certainly had an equitable right. The opinion of Sir John Leach also went to the same effect. When the question was referred to the present Board of Control, he placed all the papers before the late Sir James Mackintosh, and his opinion was, that the claims should be then considered de novo. Mr. Cherry was sent as resident to Lucknow, to investigate the finances of the Nabob of Oude. He found them in a very dilapidated state. He reported their amount, but not having instructions to investigate the nature of the claims on the Nabob he sent for further powers. These powers were given to him; his report was agreed to by the Governor General and the Nabob; and this took place as far back as 1795. If, indeed, this extension were not permitted, the object of the mission of Mr. Cherry and our Governor General would have been entirely frustrated. In April 1796, Mr. Cherry made another report, which was approved of by General Martin, a gentleman who at that time held a high situation in the service of the Nabob. A copy of the examination taken before Mr. Cherry was sent home, and the propositions suggested by him for the liquidation of the bond claims were agreed to so far back as 1822. It was said, that the general conduct of the East-India Company was one of non-interference with the affairs of the native Princes; but from 1765, down to the present day it was a system of interference—in the times of Mr. Hastings, Lord Teignmouth, Lord Cornwallis, and Lord Hastings—and, in some instances, their interference had gone so far as to depose one prince and elevate another to his throne, and, in many cases, to interfere with the pay and allowances of the native soldiers. In short, he considered, from many documents in his possession, that the kingdom of Oude was only held as a fief of the British Government. The Nabob, as he had stated, had not the means of carrying on his Go- vernment without borrowing money to supply the wants, especially of his army, and to meet the interest of previous loans and the loans he obtained to do so were sanctioned by Mr. Cherry, the agent of the Indian Government. It was clear that, at all events, by implication, the parties who obtained a portion of the loan should so far repay the lenders. But it was said, if these claimants were paid, others would also demand payment. Why not? If these claims were just, though they might not be public claims, yet he would say, in common honesty, that they ought to be paid, though they did not stand exactly upon an equal footing. Objection was taken, however, to the rate of interest which was charged; it was certainly extravagant, whether thirty-six or twenty-four per cent; but it was the rate agreed to—it was the market rate of interest at the time these transactions took place between the parties. He was surprised that the Court of Directors were so hostile to these claims, because it was one of their rules, as between debtor and creditor, that the interest bargained for should be paid at the rate of interest stipulated for by the parties. According to that principle, the Company acted in all their Courts of Justice. His letter, which was written in 1832, left this question to the Governor General of India. The words of that letter, which had been so much complained of, did not imply the use of force. It had been said, that he had written no letter in answer to the Court of Directors;—he had communicated his answer verbally to the Court of Directors. It was plain, that Lord Wellesley did not mean to exclude the consideration of these claims. If the proposition of the Nabob had been accepted, the Company never could afterwards interpose, and they would have been in the situation in which it was said the Directors were. The proposition was rejected by Lord Wellesley, because, as he said, it would cancel all the public debts of the State. Lord Hastings did not agree that there was any impediment to these claims, because in 1816, he had made this application. He knew at what point it could be said, that a State acquired the right of committing wrong with impunity. He therefore could not agree to the declaration of Mr. Canning upon this subject. It should be remembered that this money was not to be drawn from the poor people; but from those resources which ought to go to the payment of the debt.

said, that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down were by no means sufficient to bear out his vindication of the course he had adopted in suing out a writ of mandamus from the Court of King's Bench to compel the East-India Company to enforce these claims upon the unfortunate prince on whom they were made. The question was within a very narrow compass, and to make it intelligible to those Members of the House who did not perhaps wish to hear much of the intricacies of the case, or of those strange Eastern names to which English ears were not much accustomed, he should give a very plain statement of the transaction, so as to put it on a footing intelligible to all. This debt, as well as many others of the same nature, was contracted so long as forty years ago, bearing an interest of thirty-six per cent. Since then, several Governors of India had made application for a settlement of these claims, and had endeavoured by their amicable interference to procure an arrangement satisfactory to the parties, but none of them ever thought of proceeding to any other course than that of a friendly interference, He considered it a very harsh measure, and by no means a just one, to call for the interference of the Court of King's Bench to compel the Company to pay this large sum. Was the Government prepared, and did it feel itself at liberty, to vindicate the claim of every British subject who happened to lend his money to a foreign independent State without the Government of the country, or its agents, having in any way become responsible for or guaranteeing the repayment of that loan? This was precisely the footing on which the question stood. If such were the views on which the Government was acting in the matter it was clearly confounding transactions of debt with which we had nothing to do with those other wrongs which alone in an international sense could call for the interference of our Government to protect British subjects. In cases of simple debt contracted by an independent State with a British subject, he contended the Government of this country had nothing whatever to do; but, above all, it could not be justified in attempting to interfere by force. If the right hon. Gentleman was prepared on the part of the Govern- ment to avow this right of interference, with what delight would not the holders of Spanish bonds, and of the bonds of the Cacique of Poyais hear of the avowal. Suppose any British subject were now to engage in a loan transaction with any of the new States of South America, could it be said, that the Government of this country was bound to see that the terms of that loan were satisfied? Certainly not. Yet this. would be precisely a similar case. Did not the enormous amount of interest that was to be paid upon this loan by the King of Oude show, that the lender did not consider that he was to have the guarantee of the British Government or the aid of British bayonets to sustain his claim for repayment. Instead of demanding thirty-six per cent would he not have been satisfied with some reasonable and moderate rate of interest if he knew or imagined that England was to be his security, and not merely the King of Oude? Was it right, then, for the Government to interfere in a purely private transaction? And what would be the consequence of this interference? Why, that other parties would make similar claims, and how could we refuse them if we interfered on the present occasion? The right hon. Gentleman had disclaimed any intention of interfering with force or intimidation; but what other construction than that he entertained such intention could be put on his communications with the Board of Directors, and the instructions which they were required to send to their agents and officers in India? He looked upon this question as widely distinct front the claim which a British subject would have on the protection of his own Government against a positive wrong done to him by an independent State. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to various authorities to sustain his view of the case; but, in his opinion, those authorities made against the right hon. Gentleman. Neither Lord Wellesley, nor any other Governor, ever attempted to enforce those claims. The authority of Mr. Wynn, when at the head of the Board of Control, was decidedly against them; and Mr. Canning was equally opposed to them. If the right hon. Gentleman would say, that he disclaimed all idea of enforcing those claims by any act or threat of intimidation, then he would at once sit down. If the matter was now closed, and that the Board of Directors understood that nothing was to be done, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, without the consent of Parliament, he would be content with that understanding. This was the sole purpose for which his right hon. friend had brought the subject before the House, and not with any view to perpetuate any difference that might exist between the right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Directors. He was willing to leave the matter to be decided by public opinion after it had remained unsettled for forty years without any Government interference. It was clear that the right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Directors took very different views of this subject. He admitted, that if the claim had been sanctioned or in any manner guaranteed by Mr. Cherry, it would materially alter the case, but there was nothing in Mr. Cherry's correspondence that could support such an opinion. He hoped the King of Oude would have the spirit and judgment to follow the example of the Company; and resist a compliance with what he as well as they must feel to be an improper order. It would not do to attempt to enforce this claim upon the King of Oude, unless the Legislature could carry conviction of its justice home to the breast of every native Prince in India, or otherwise we should run the risk of shaking to its foundation our whole Indian empire. Unless we could do this our motives would be misconstrued. If we were determined to violate all Treaties, and in defiance of them to dethrone the King of Oude, let us at least not begin by forcing from him a large sum of money. If we were to usurp and assume to ourselves the Government of the territory of Oude, let us take care that we did not show an interested motive for doing so, and let us be the more cautious in this because we happened to have the power and authority in our hands.

doubted very much if the right hon. Baronet, who was so desirous that others should understand the subject, really understood it himself. The right hon. Baronet had asked why this one claim only was selected. The reason was, which the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to know, that this was the only claim that remained unsatisfied. Could any thing be clearer than that the Nabob of Oude admitted the justice of this claim when he offered a compromise? But the agent for the suffering parties refused to take less than they had aright to claim; and this refusal he considered as an additional proof that their claim was well grounded, and that their conviction was, that the transaction was a real and just one.

said, that having received his education in one of those venerable institutions, the constitution of which the present Bill proposed so materially to alter, he craved the attention of the House whilst he endeavoured to expose a few of the fallacies which were entertained by the public as to the fitness and expediency of legislation on this subject. In the first place he could not but observe, whatever might be the propriety of the present measure, the House and the country were decidedly labouring under a delusion if they fancied that such an enactment could be practically carried into effect. He did not mean to say, that the authorities of these Universities would resort to any subterfuge for the obstruction of its provisions; but by the natural exercise of the discretionary powers with which they were invested, and in the ordinary course of the forms to which applicants for admission must in all cases conform, persons of obnoxious character or principle could not hope to be admitted. The law might enact that the new student should be subject to no test of faith on his admittance, and to that law the Universities would be obliged to bow obedience. But it should be recollected, that before the ceremony of matriculation could take place the Vice-Chancellor had to inquire of the new corner what College he belonged to. Here they were all abroad at once, for the tutors and heads of Colleges, holding and being resolved to act up to the opinions they now entertained, would invariably refuse admittance to their respective Colleges in the first instance. The Bill would consequently be inoperative, and it might be asked of him, therefore, why he should now rise to oppose it, since it could do no harm? But though the present measure was not one which could work out the objects which were held in view by its promulgators it was one which, if passed, must inevitably lead to great dissension and confusion, and eventually to endless applications and legislation in that House. He would, therefore, endeavour to vindicate the character of the University establishments of the country, and to show, upon principle, why the present attempt to subvert their object and destroy their efficiency should be resisted by the House. It could not be denied that the object of the founders and benefactors of these institutions was, the maintenance of the Established Church, and the cultivation of its doctrines in the rising generation of the country. For 800 years that wholesome object had been kept in view, and the Universities had become the preparatory seminaries to the Church Establishment. Now in a country where there were seminaries for all her professions, was it too much to demand that the Church should be allowed her seminaries too? The Universities had been spoken of as national institutions. He admitted the term, but not in the sense with which it was generally put forth. They were undoubtedly national institutions, but only in so far as they were connected with the National Church. The vital principle of these collegiate foundations was to provide a course of education which should attend to the moral character as well as the scientific attainments of their pupils. To attain this a certain fixed course of study and of discipline must be observed. But how could this be done when by the Bill before the House it was proposed to throw open their doors not only to Dissenting Christians of every sect and denomination, but also to all sorts of persons, be they Christians or not? This he hoped the House would never allow. In the course of the various arguments which had been put forth in support of this measure the University establishments of the continent, and especially those of Germany, had been cited, and a comparison drawn between them and those of this country. But the case between them was very different, and he would beg to cite the authority of M. Cousin to show in what that difference consisted. The Universities of Germany did not pretend to hold that important place in the moral constitution of the State which our Universities had by long and established usage been admitted to. The business of the former institutions was merely to provide for matters of general and scientific instruction, and M. Cousin had distinctly stated, that they objected to include religious instruction in their course, because it would bring within their walls a subject of continual difference of opinion. Now, these were the dissensions which were avoided by the German Universities, and which it was now proposed to force within the walls of the Universities of England. If the Parliament of this country sent Dissenters of every denomination into the Universities, they reduced them to this dilemma: either they must destroy the system of education hitherto pursued in those Universities, or they must degrade the Dissenter by obliging him to conform to parts of that system which he did not concur in. Under the present state of things—what he was about to say, he spoke in no offensive sense—the Dissenters were allowed to remain in, and participate in the benefits of, the Universities during good pleasure; that was, whenever there might occur anything in the forms and regulations of the University, which the Dissenter did not choose to comply with, there was this sole alternative: the Dissenter had to comply, or to leave. With regard to the course of education which a Dissenter would receive at Oxford, it was not solely of that scientific and classical nature which, as was pretended, men of every sect and shade of belief might equally participate in; the lecturer on moral philosophy, for instance, would find himself placed in almost as delicate and unpleasant a predicament in regard to his various pupils as the lecturer on divinity itself; and, indeed, throughout the whole schemed instruction, including the classics themselves, there was or should be a constant aim at the one grand object of Christian and moral improvement kept in view. Now, as to the abuses which, it was pretended, had crept into the administration of the affairs of the Universities. He did not stand there to defend those establishments and all that was connected with theta as complete perfection; but could any one pretend to say, that the abuses complained of flowed out of the institutions themselves? Was the practice of daily prayer for instance (a practice observed to this day), in that House before the commencement of public business—was daily prayer a bad practice in itself, and such as ought to be prohibited? A noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Palmerston), who was himself a member of one of the Universi- ties, said on a former occasion, that it gave him pain to see the students of the Universities going from wine to prayers, and from prayers to wine. Now, he (Mr. Gladstone) had not so bad an opinion of his fellow-collegians as to believe that even in their most convivial moments they were unfit to enter the House of Prayer. He believed that nine-tenths of those who entertained contrary opinions of the practical morality of the Universities knew nothing about the matter, though of course, he must conclude, that there were some who knew by experience what they were saying. But, however the practice might be subject to abuse, surely the principle was not a bad one. It might be modified; the prayers might be shortened; but they could not with any show of reason or expediency be entirely done away with. How could the system, however modified, of the College be preserved when once Dissenters of every denomination were admitted, a class of persons, who would be universally, and by their own tenets, expressly excluded from these devotions? To show still further the dread with which the present measure was looked upon by all the respectable individuals concerned in the government of the University of Oxford, he would beg to read one passage from the Memorial they recently drew up upon the subject. The greatest unanimity prevailed amongst the members of that University; out of nearly 100 of the heads of Colleges, and others immediately connected with the instruction and discipline of the place, there were only two dissentient voices. Let not the Government suppose that this was a party question at Oxford between the adherents and the opponents of the Ministers. The adherents of the Ministry were undoubtedly in a minority at Oxford—but upon this question men of all parties were agreed. The following passage he would take the liberty to read from this memorable Declaration. The above learned and respectable individuals said, "That the University of Oxford has always considered religion to be the foundation of all education, and they cannot themselves be parties to any system of instruction which does not retain this foundation. They also protest against the notion, that religion can be taught on the vague and comprehensive principle of admitting persons of every creed. When they speak of religion they mean the doctrines of the Gospel as re- vealed in the Bible, and as maintained by the Church of England as settled at the period of the Reformation; and as on the one hand they cannot allow those doctrines to be suppressed, so, on the other, they cannot consent that they should be explained or taught in any sense which is not in accordance with the recognised tenets of the Church of England." What, he would ask, was he to gather from this solemn declaration? What did it mean but this, that if the House were to attempt to compel these respectable teachers to act contrary to their conscientious and fixed resolutions, they would virtually abrogate their functions? Hon. Members might smile and sneer at this notion; but he would ask what other construction could they put upon the declaration, that "they could not themselves be parties to any system of instruction which did not rest on the purest foundation?" In his opinion no other construction than the one he had suggested could be given to those impressive words. It was said of the ancient Romans, that they

"Made a solitude and called it peace:"

He very much feared that the House, in establishing their present principle of religious liberty, would drive from their functions men who had so long done honour and service to their country, and thus inaugurate their reign of religious peace by an act of the grossest tyranny.

could not believe that the effect of this Bill would be to subvert the Established Church of this country. On the contrary, he thought that such a measure must be beneficial to the Church. The preamble of the Bill removed the necessity of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles upon entrance to the University of Oxford; and the practice of compelling subscriptions to the Thirty-nine Articles upon entrance at Oxford was very prejudicial to the interests of the Church. When he went first to the University of Oxford, he appeared before the Vice-Chancellor of that day, the late Dr. Hudson, a learned and excellent individual, who of all men would be the last to administer carelessly or negligently the prescribed forms of the University. He had subscribed a variety of things usually put before young men upon matriculation—such, for instance, as that he would never appear in the High-street except in blue breeches and yellow stockings, and many other things of the same sort, until, at length, he was asked, whether he was aware that he had subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles. He replied, that he was not, and thereupon the matter was a little more clearly explained to him. Could any one think that such a course could tend to promote the interests, or to add to the stability of the Established Church? He applied the same argument to another system of the University, of which the hon. Gentleman who spoke last had undertaken the defence—namely, the daily attendance at chapel. He would not say, that daily worship was not a proper institution for a University, but the daily attendance upon divine worship at Oxford was not insisted upon or enforced upon grounds of religion; it was only enforced as a matter of discipline. The Bill was rather to be considered as a compliment to the Dissenters, than as affording them any substantial benefit; because, though that Bill should become a law, the Universities might make such internal regulations as would completely prevent the admission of any Dissenter within their walls. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the admission of Dissenters to the Universities would be a national evil. He entertained directly the opposite opinion. It would be a national good The Dissenters—an active and intelligent body of men—asked to be admitted to the same privileges as their fellow-countrymen—to participate in the same advantages of education—to exercise their vigorous understandings in the promotion of science, and the advancement of the literature of the country. Was there anything unreasonable in such a request? Was it possible that any danger to any institution in the State could ensue from acceding to such a request? If the request of the Dissenters was reasonable, the Universities ought to prove, that mischief could result to society at large, or to the institutions of the country, from its being acceded to. He could not see any mischief to be apprehended. The hon. Gentleman said, "The army, the navy, and other professions have their places of education, why should not the clergy of the Church of England have their place of education also?" If the University of Oxford were only a seminary for parsons, he should agree with the hon. Gentleman; but Oxford professed to be a national institution for general instruction in literature and the arts. The hon. Gentleman himself acknowledged that the University was a national institution. Admitting that, he thought, it would be impossible to refuse persons entering those institutions, upon the ground of their dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England. He knew that there might be practical difficulties in the way of adopting any scheme for procuring the admission of Dissenters into the College; and, therefore, his hon. friend did right in proposing only to establish the principle by the present measure. Unfortunately, the ground upon which the Legislature had proceeded for many years had been to refuse concessions until concessions had been extorted from it. Such was the course pursued with respect to the Roman Catholic claims, until, at length, the Legislature was obliged to yield to the agitating energies of the hon. and learned member for Dublin what it had refused to the statesman-like eloquence of Mr. Pitt. Smugglers had driven us into free trade, and poachers into an abandonment of the Game-laws. If the cry of "the Church is in danger" should ever assume an appearance of truth, he would take his stand in its defence, for the sake of religion itself, and of domestic peace, to the preservation of which he believed an Established Church to be essential. At the same time, he was perfectly ready to admit, that every Dissenter who understood his own interest, was for the separation of Church and State. If the Dissenters, however, in seeking for the present measure, thought that they were taking a step towards the separation of Church and State, it did not abate the force of his argument. He was not prepared to refuse a demand which, upon the face of it, appeared to be just and reasonable, by degrading the Established Church, supposing that it was nothing but a hue and flimsy fabric raised up for the purposes of the State, and for the mere sake of adding grace and dignity to a religion that was purely ornamental. He believed the Church of England to be based on a firmer foundation than to be overturned by a measure of justice. It was strong in itself, and would be strengthened by the admission of Dissenters to the Universities, where they never would gain any influence. He should vote for the Bill, hoping that it might receive the support of the other House of Parliament.

said, that he should claim the attention of the House to a few observations, and he was the more disposed to do this, as he had not declared his sentiments on the Bill in any of its former stages. The hon. member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone) had said, that this Bill, in its present form, would not benefit the Dissenters. It would, however, do one thing—it would remove the religious test at the Universities; and if that was effected, a step in advance would be made towards their admission to those national seats of learning. The object of this Bill was, to allow persons of ail religious denominations, who had the means within their power, to enjoy the benefit of an University education. This, he thought, must be admitted to be a just claim, whether considered as to the original foundation of the Universities, or as to the present state of society. The original statutes admitted all, and excluded none; and it appeared by the earliest records of Oxford, that as early as the year 1231, Henry 3rd issued an ordinance admitting to that University the master and scholars of the University of Paris, who had been driven from their University by persecution. The Statutes of those early times showed, that there were then no tests, nor did any exist at Oxford, in either the time of the Lollards, or of Wickliff. In the University of Cambridge, as early as the reign of Edward 1st, that Monarch had been called in to arbitrate upon the point, to what part of the country, and to what classes of the people, the benefits of this University should extend; and his decision was, "that they should extend to all who repaired thither for instruction." This showed the intention of the founders of the Colleges; and in that state they remained till the period of the Reformation, at which time, as appeared from a paper in his hand, there were thirteen Colleges at Oxford, which were increased by three pending the Reformation, making sixteen out of the nineteen Colleges at that University; while at the University, there were twelve out of the sixteen Colleges in existence before the time of Henry 8th, and two others were erected before the order of James 1st was issued, directing that tests should be imposed on the taking of degrees in that University. The term University had in it an argument for the general use of these seats of learning, which were meant to be universal, both as to the subjects taught, and the persons to whom they were communicated. In this sense the term was understood and applied in other countries, and it was an extraordinary fact, deserving of attention, that the Universities of Oxford and of Cambridge were the only Universities that were closed to a large proportion of the middle classes of the people in any country in Europe. This, the Dissenters of England, on whom the exclusion operated, felt as a grievous indignity, and they thought it unjust that Englishmen should attempt to degrade Englishmen by excluding them from the best seats of literature and science. This exclusion was justified on the ground, that the Colleges were Ecclesiastical Corporations—that they were schools of theology—and that the morning and evening services of religion were indispensable to the Colleges. As to the first of these points, Sir William Blackstone said expressly, that they were not Ecclesiastical but Lay Corporations; and Professor Pusey the present Regius Hebrew Professor at Oxford, had declared: "One fortnight comprises the beginning and the end of all the public instruction which any candidate for holy orders is required to attend previous to entering upon his profession." He had also another authority upon the same point, equally strong; it was that of Professor Thirlwall, of Cambridge, the martyr to his principles, who said, in the face of the whole University, who could have contradicted him if he was wrong—"We have no theological Colleges—no theological tutors—no theological students." How, then, could the Universities be a school of theology? As to the daily morning and evening services, the Professor said—"That to an immense majority of the congregations they are no religious services at all, and to the remainder they are the least impressive that can be conceived." And yet these were the arguments that had been insisted upon so much for excluding Dissenters from the Universities. But it was said, that, by giving instruction to young men of various religious opinions, heterodoxy was promoted; and the Colleges of Daventry, Manchester, York, Hackney, and Lady Hewley's charity were quoted as proof of this, though they had no affinity to the case. Nor had the experiment been tried in the London University. But an experiment had been tried at the college at Homerton, over which that learned and excellent divine, the Rev. Dr. Pye Smith presided, where there had been a religious test imposed for eighty years, which test was abolished twenty-two years ago, without any prejudice, as he was authorized to say, to the College or its students. The petitions against the admission of Dissenters to the Universities had been relied upon; but how stood the fact? There were, according to the last-published votes of Parliament, 418 petitions against the admission of Dissenters, containing 40,881 signatures; and 1,103 petitions, containing 344,000 signatures for the Dissenters' claims, of which admission to the Universities was one. He had said, that the Dissenters, if admitted to the University, would claim equal privileges with the members of the Established Church, and to that declaration he adhered. They sought no superiority, and they thought that they ought not to be subject to any inferiority. As to the Bill of his hon. friend, the member for South Lancashire, he should give that Bill his most cordial support. It would abolish the tests, and by showing the disposition of the Legislature, would, he hoped, prevent any measure, either in the Colleges, or in the Universities of Oxford or of Cambridge, that might contravene the liberality of Parliament.

said, that the hon. Member, one of the Lords of the Treasury (Mr. Vernon Smith), in his support of the Bill, must be considered as having made a very ungracious and ungenerous return to the University of Oxford, whose education had enabled him to address the House with so much ability. Notwithstanding the remarks he (Mr. Hughes Hughes) had several times taken occasion to make (as the hon. Mover was aware) on occasion of presenting petitions to the House against the Bill, he could not content himself with giving an entirely silent vote, and the more so as the hon. Lord of the Treasury had referred to the annual grant made by Parliament to defray the charges of the salaries and allowances to certain Professors in the Universities, as entitling the Dissenters to the admission sought by the Bill. Now, as he had, on a former opportunity, stated to the House, it appeared by Returns laid upon the Table, on a Motion made by him, that the amount annually received from the Universities, as duty on matriculations and degrees, was upwards of five times as large as the annual grants to which reference had been made. Not, however, to dwell upon a minor point, he could assure the House, and was most anxious it should be fully understood, that his opposition to the present measure did not proceed from aversion to the Dissenters, towards whom, as a body, he entertained the most friendly feelings, and with many of whom, as the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) well knew, he lived on the most intimate terms. He had no hostile or illiberal feeling whatever towards the Dissenters; nothing could be more foreign to him than anything of the sort; he wished every facility to be afforded to every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. He opposed the Bill for two reasons, one of which respected Dissenters, the other the Established Church. He could not conscientiously accede to the measure on behalf of the Dissenters, because he believed it would delude the expectations it would create, by proving perfectly inoperative and ineffectual for its professed objects; unless the House were prepared to go much further than the Bill, in its present shape, sought to do, and to meet the Declaration of the Oxford tutors, to which his hon. friend, the member for Newark (Mr. W. Gladstone) had referred, with an enactment, that they should instruct the youth committed to their care, not agreeably to their own religious opinions, but according to the ever-varying views of the parents and friends of such youth, Dissenters might, under the Bill, successfully claim admission to that University on one day, but would, as certainly be prepared to quit it on the next, and this the hon. Lord of the Treasury had virtually admitted. With reference to this point, as he had on a former occasion stated to the House, he had repeatedly inquired of intelligent Dissenters, whether they would consent to relax one iota of the laws and rules by which their Colleges of Hackney, Hoxton, or Cheshunt, were regulated, in order to accommodate themselves to the introduction of the sons of Churchmen, and had uniformly received for answer, that if admitted, it must of course be in the ordinary way. Now, he would put it to the House whether, after such an admission, it was reasonable that Dissenters should require that the University should abrogate the laws which governed them, and in so doing also trample upon the wills of the Founders of the various Colleges. He likewise felt it to be his duty to object to the Bill on behalf of Churchmen, who had what he considered to be a vested interest in the Universities, as places for securing to their posterity a sound education in the doctrines and principles of the established religion. On these grounds, and seeing it was not calculated to give satisfaction to the party it affected to benefit, while it greatly wounded the feelings of the other party, he considered it his duty to conclude with a Motion, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

—They had now a Bill different from the former one: the present Bill was not the same as that called for by the petition, or the same as that brought in by the member for Lancashire. And was the House of Commons now called on to pass in its third stage a Bill different from the Bill introduced in the former stage? The hon. Member gave no reason for the change. If there were not some finesse designed, he would have explained the cause of the change. His objection to the Bill was founded on the inconsistency, if not the mischief, of separating religious from literary education. He would never assent to give up as a compliment the utility of training up the youth of the country in religions instruction, according as the petition from Cambridge advised. If they abandoned the form of religion they would soon learn to abandon the essence of religion. If Dissenters accepted of the terms of admission they were bound to conform to the rules of the College to which they obtained admission. Again, he would say, that if he found one individual who would open the Colleges to Dissenters under existing circumstances, that man had a more pliant conscience than he had. He intended only to say a few words in reply to the arguments advanced; but these he would utter honestly. Those Gentlemen had no right to supersede the statutes and principles of the University. Sane of the arguments went on the assumption, and it was nothing else, that the Colleges were national institutions for the national good, without reference to religion. He could not see it in that light. If they did not train the minds of the youth of the country to the principles and habits of religion, it would be hard to say, to what end their morality would tend. He should regret to see the practice of the London University adopted in the two established Universities; but as even then they could not extinguish the practice of religious instruction, it was a strong argument why it should not be abolished in the Universities of Cambridge or Oxford. The hon. member for Leeds said, as a proof of the former toleration of Cambridge that persons expelled from the University of Paris were admitted there. But, then, be it recollected, that the religion of both countries was the same. The hon. Member had mentioned the case of Edward 1st, having gone to the University of Cambridge, and declared, that it was an open University—open to all; it might be well, however, if the hon. Member who relied upon that fact had taken the trouble to look at dates, Edward 1st, let it be remembered, died in 1307. Now, at that time, the only College that existed in Cambridge was Peter-house; every one of the others had been founded since, the next oldest not till nearly fifty years afterwards. The coming of Edward to Cambridge, had therefore nothing to do with the question [Mr. Baines: Peter-house College was at that time the whole University]. He admitted, that but that had no bearing on the present question because there was then but one University in the country? The hon. Gentleman also said, that the majority of the Colleges did not belong to the Church of England; but could he really be ignorant that the second article in Magna Charta recognised the establishment of the Church of England? He would tell the hon. Member that there was no period of our history in which the Established Church of this country, as an institution sanctioned by the nation, was not recognised. The former Bill went to admit all to matriculation and degrees, but reserved fellowships for the members of the Established Church; whereas the present Bill went further, and did not exclude Dissenters from any preferment, but threw all the emoluments of the Colleges open to all indiscriminately. Whatever regard that House might have for the encouragement and promotion of science among Dissenters and every portion of the community, it appeared to him a monstrous proposition, that in order to indulge that disposition the system of religious education should be destroyed. Let hon. Members consider the effect of this Bill with respect to the grammar-schools. He had before adverted to that topic, and so strongly did he feel its importance that he could not avoid doing so again. The only test of fitness to preside in one of those schools was the fact, that the candidate had taken a Master of Arts degree at one of the English Universities. If this Bill, therefore, passed into a law, the intentions of the founders of those establishments would be violated, their wills would be perverted, and their bounty used for purposes wholly in opposition to their wishes. He knew the House, especially at that late hour, was little disposed for further discussion: but still he could not avoid remarking that he had on every opportunity protested against a Bill of such great importance being discussed at a late hour, and at a late period of the Session, when many hon. Members were necessarily absent, and all were desirous of being so. He would not, therefore, longer trespass on the House, for he felt that in its present temper [The House had called repeatedly, "Question," and so interrupted the right hon. Gentleman that it was with difficulty he could proceed] he could not hope to do so with any good effect, but would conclude by again protesting against the measure as one which must, if efficient to its declared purposes, destroy religious education in as far as the Universities were concerned.

(who spoke amidst cries of "question" and repeated interruptions) contended, that the only argument used by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) was, that the Bill must destroy religious education at the Universities. Now, if that assertion were disproved, the whole of his argument fell to the ground. Then he (Lord Palmerston) asked, were not Dissenters admitted without hindrance to Cambridge? They were. [Mr. Goulburn said, "No."] He begged to say, that Dissenters did partake fully of the whole course of education at Cambridge. There were no inquiries made with a view of preventing them from pursuing their studies. It had been invariably the practice to avoid inquiries; therefore, if any bad effect was to result from the admission of Dissenters, that bad effect must have been already felt by the University of Cambridge; but it had not been felt by that University, and therefore, it was not true, that the purpose for which the University of Oxford was founded, would be frustrated, if Oxford were placed on the same footing as Cambridge was placed by prac- tice. It seemed to him, that the argument answered itself, and that the right hon. Gentleman was placed in a dilemma from which it was impossible he could escape. The hon. Gentleman who spoke first in the discussion, alluded to an opinion expressed by him on a former occasion, with respect to the compulsory attendance of students at Divine worship. It was almost unnecessary for him to make any remarks upon that part of the question, because he concurred in the conclusive defence made by his hon. friend, the member for Northampton. He had no hesitation in repeating what he stated on the former occasion. Admitting as fully as the hon. Gentleman, the benefit of daily attendance on Divine worship, he maintained that when that attendance was compulsory, and when large bodies of young men left those meetings of winebibbing to which allusion had been made, and which, however the case of the hon. Member might have been, he must say, from his own experience, were not the best preparations for serious meditation, or the proper observance of Divine worship, the wisest course was not adopted for the promotion of piety, and the increase of religion. The hon. Gentleman argued that this Bill would be an instance of persecution, by compelling men who thought that it was contrary to their religion to admit Dissenters to the Universities, so to admit them. That argument of the hon. Gentleman was founded, undoubtedly, upon truth, but it was founded upon a painful truth, with respect to the constitution of human nature; because it was certainly true, that there was nothing which mankind resisted more stubbornly than any attempt to compel them to cease from acts of intolerance. In that respect, it would be persecution, but it would be a sort of persecution which he was not afraid to join in, and which he would gladly concur in inflicting upon some of the professors at Oxford. He could understand how those who entertained the opinion, that religious distinctions ought to be the foundation of all political and civil rights and privileges, could think that the present Bill would be subversive of the principle of Church and State; but he could not, by possibility, understand how those who thought that religious distinctions ought not to be the foundation of civil rights could resist this Bill. Those who emancipated the Roman Catholics, and abolished the Test Acts, by which they admitted Catholic and Protestant Dissenters to enjoy civil and political rights could not oppose the present measure, with any consistency. He supposed those Gentlemen would affect to say, that the instruction afforded by the Universities was calculated to qualify men for the discharge of their duties, as members of a particular religious community, and for the discharge of duties peculiarly belonging to the clerical functions. But it was not true to say, that these were establishments to educate persons for holy orders. The reverse was the fact. Only see the inconsistency to which those hon. Gentlemen were reduced! They admitted Dissenters to sit in that House, and to discharge the highest functions of legislation; they admitted them, together with members of the Church of England, to perform every duty, civil and political, which could be performed, in every class and relation of life; and yet they said, that Dissenters should not be admitted, in common with the members of the Church of England, to those institutions of the country where the best education could he obtained. They, in effect, therefore, said, that Dissenters might be placed in situations which should require every degree of political knowledge, and the highest cultivation of the mind, and yet they should be denied the means to qualify themselves for the discharge of the duties which such situations might impose on them. This did appear to him the grossest absurdity and inconsistency of which public men ever were guilty. In the name of common sense, all those persons, who had most properly, and most advantageously to their own character, as well as to the country, enabled Dissenters to take a share in all the civil duties, and to partake of all the civil rights which the Constitution recognizes, were bound to give theta their support on the present occasion, if they were prepared to act up to their own principles. He did not value the argument which had been advanced, that this Bill would be ineffectual; because he could never bring himself to believe, that if the Legislature should admit the principle, that religions dissent should not form a ground of exclusion from the benefits of a good education to be attained at the Universities, however the Universities might, by the strict exercise of their particular privileges, defeat the object of the Legislature, he could never, he said, believe that enlightened, intelligent, and honourable men, such as the persons charged with the government of those Universities, whatever might be their private opinions, would endeavour by any new regulations of their own, to defeat that which should receive the deliberative sanction of the Legislature.

rose amidst cries of "Divide." He had before had the indulgence of the House extended to him; it was not abused; and if it were now again extended to him, it should not be abused. The noble Lord had entirely misunderstood the argument of his right hon. friend (Mr. Goulburn), which was, that under the present system the heads of the Colleges at Cambridge did not know, through any of the College laws or regulations, that there was a distinction there. The fact was, that no exception was made at Cambridge in favour of Dissenters, and there was but one discipline for all students. Now, this Bill would entirely alter that, and expressly provide, not a system of discipline for the University, but a system for the admission of Dissenters. The hon. member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith) had said, that no doubt when the Bill was passed, the heads of Colleges would be found to concur in its provisions rather than sacrifice their places. That hon. Member knew but little of the principle which animated those honourable men. He could well admit, that a Whig might be ready enough to sacrifice his principles for his place; but he was more confident that the heads of the Houses in the Universities would never make any such sacrifice, but would ever maintain their principles, even though they should lose their places. He was indeed astonished to hear such an imputation against those honourable men from one who had been educated by them. Had the hon. Member forgotten how Magdalen sent forth her fellows when the tyrant James attempted to force upon them a new principle? Such men would again be found if a similar occasion occurred. If that Bill passed, it would speedily appear, that there was in Oxford a power to awake in every College a resistance that would reject it, and he had good reason to believe, that a like spirit of high and pure principle would not be found wanting in Cambridge. The hon. member for Leeds had said, that the Universities were national establishments, and that then they ought to be open to every sect of the community. Why, every College almost demanded qualifications of a peculiar character. Under one founder, a benefit was limited to persons born in a particular county, under another, to persons born in a particular diocese, and under another to persons born in a particular parish. How, then, could the hon. Member say, that they were purely national establishments, and ought to be open to all? Then the hon. member for Northampton had talked of petty details; but if attendance at chapel was a petty detail, then must religion itself soon become a petty detail. The hon. member for Northampton had also said, that the Bill would only be a compliment to the Dissenters, for that in fact it would give them no substantial rights, but only facilities for leaving sectarianism. If that was the way the hon. Member complimented, he (Sir Robert Inglis) hoped, he should ever be exposed to his attacks. Nothing which had been said had altered his opinion of the measure, and he should continue to give it his unqualified opposition.

was inaudible for some time, owing to the cry of "Question." The hon. Member continued standing for a considerable time, but could not obtain a hearing.

suggested, that perhaps some one of the hon. Members who were so much opposed to the debate going on would, on reconsideration, move its adjournment to some future day.

was then allowed to proceed, though not without interruption. He contended, that the Bill had not been altered either in its principles or its enactments. If the Bill should pass, and the heads of Colleges should wish to defeat it by enacting bye-laws, the remedy was easy, and would consist in the foundation of new Colleges. The Bill threw the Universities open, but it interfered with no private College. The Bill would only make Oxford do that which Cambridge practically did, and Oxford and Cambridge do that which Dublin did. He had not brought forward the Bill for sectarian purposes, for he really believed that, instead of promoting sectarianism, it would make it less offensive, by making the Church more tolerant and comprehensive.

said, the hon. member for Leeds had attributed a statement to Professor Pusey wholly at variance with the fact. He had stated that Professor Pusey had declared that before a student took holy orders, the only theological discipline he went through as to study was to attend lectures for a fortnight. Now, the fact was, that every student before taking holy orders was obliged to attend those lectures, but he also went through a continuous course of theological study from the period of his entering the University.

had quoted the words of Professor Pusey.