presented a Report from the Committee appointed to try the merits of the late Canterbury Election, to the effect—"That Frederick Villiers, Esq., and the Electors of Canterbury be at liberty to question the validity of the return for the City of Canterbury, within the next fourteen clays, if they think fit."

wished, briefly, to direct the attention of the House to the Report. The circumstances under which it had been agreed to were these:—In the opening of the proceeding before the Committee, Mr. Harrison, as counsel for the petitioner, proposed not to go into his whole case, but begged the Committee first to examine one point, viz.: Whether the returning officer had not partially and improperly exercised his discretion by rejecting certain votes that were upon the register, and ought to have been received, thereby giving Mr. Villiers a colourable majority. The consequence of establishing this point, as the learned Counsel stated, would be, that the petitioner would be placed in the situation of the sitting Member, and the sitting Member should be allowed to petition if he thought fit. The Committee acquiesced in this course, and after entering upon the inquiry specified, decided that Mr. Lushington had a legal majority of votes; that he ought to be returned, and that Mr. Villiers ought, if he thought it expedient, to be permitted to petition against that return. This was an exercise of discretion on the part of the Committee that in his (Mr. C. Buller's) opinion, ought not to be supported but on very substantial grounds. The House would at once perceive the hardship upon Mr. Villiers; he had brought a number of witnesses to London, expecting that the case would be proceeded with in the usual way, and now found that he must maintain them at a heavy expense during the fourteen days allowed him to petition, or relinquish his right altogether.

interposed: He was not aware whether the hon. Member contemplated any motion, but certainly the Committee sworn to try the merits of the petition, had a perfect right to adopt that decision if they thought it justified by the facts of the case.

said, that there was a question before the House, and that he should conclude with an Amendment.

remarked, that Counsel on both sides had been perfectly aware of the course contemplated and taken by the Committee.

said, that the Counsel for the petitioner were not aware of it until it was adopted, and then objected to it. The effect of the decision was of some interest to the House; serving on an election Committee was no very agreeable task, and by the resolution this Committee had shifted the burden from its own shoulders to that of another Committee to be appointed upon the petition of Mr. Villiers. He was aware that there were precedents apparently justifying the proceeding, and had they been in point he, perhaps, should not have objected to this result.

spoke to older: The House had no power in this mode to re-consider the decision of au Election Committee.—He would not enter into the question whether the Report was right or wrong, because the House had no authority of the kind.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn), that, the House had no power to re-consider the determination of the Committee, but there was a Motion before the House, he could not say whether the hon. Member really meant to bring any question before the House.

, was speaking strictly to the question. An instance of the kind did not occur once in twenty years, so that the precedents were few. One of these, upon which the Committee had relied, was the Middlesex case: there Sir Francis Burdett had a majority over Mr. Mainwaring on the fifteen days' poll; but the returning officer thought proper to keep the poll open for a sixteenth day, and at the close of the sixteenth day Mr. Muinwaring had the majority. The Committee had decided, that as it was clearly illegal in the returning officer to keep the poll open for sixteen days, Sir Francis Burdett ought to have been returned; and they, therefore, made Mr. Mainwaring the petitioner. In the Carnarvon case, the returning officer had admitted votes, contrary to the express directions of an Act of Parliament: the Committee struck them off, and, unseating the sitting Member, left him to petition, if he thought, fit. The determination of the present Committee was clearly incomplete, and they had no right to come before the House with such a Resolution, and to pretend they had discharged the duty imposed upon them, without entering upon a scrutiny of the votes of either party. He was aware that the course he was pursuing was not very agreeable to hon. Members on the other side; but, nevertheless, he should call upon the House to consider the manner in which the sitting Member had been treated, by which not only he was put to double expense, but the House to double trouble. He was not prepared to say, that the decision ought to be reversed, because there were not materials yet upon the Table to enable any man to form a correct judgment: but it was clearly unprecedented, and he should move to-morrow that the minutes of the Committee be produced.

said, that he was little acquainted with the forms of the House, but he apprehended that no Member had a right to call in question the decision of a Committee appointed to inquire into and determine the merits of an election petition. However amusing might be the speeches of hon. and learned Gentlemen, such a course as that now taken would be extremely inconvenient. He would not enter into any of the particulars of this case, but merely say that the decision of the Committee had been unanimous. There had, in fact, been no difference of opinion on the subject.

contended that although the report had been unanimously adopted, the House had the power of calling for the minutes of the Committee, and if it appeared that the determination was pregnant with injustice to call for the opinion of this House. He trusted, therefore, that his hon. Friend would persevere in his Motion for the production of the minutes, that the House might be in a condition to pronounce an opinion.

remarked that, after what had been said by the Chair, he would not question the regularity of this discussion, although he might be allowed to say that the course was not usual and that it afforded an opportunity of indirectly casting, not imputation, but disrespect, on the decision of a Committee. Whether that was or was not intended he did not know, but it seemed to him that nothing improper had been done. He had risen for the purpose of doing that which Mr. Villiers, had he now been a Member of that House, would have done as an act of duty, and which he had attended in his place yesterday to do had an opportunity been afforded. The hon. Gentleman in the course of a recent discussion, had said that the brother of the right hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a clergyman in Canterbury, Lad been actively engaged in tampering with a voter. That reverend Gentleman being entirely innocent, had naturally felt pained that his name had been dragged forward, and at that Gentleman's request he rose to give the statement a direct contradiction. He had also communicated with Mr. Villiers on the subject, and had that gentleman remained long enough a Member, he would himself have admitted that he was mistaken, and that he had been misinformed. He had no hesitation in saying that Mr. Villiers had spoken entirely under a misconception, and that the rev. gentleman was in no way concerned in the transaction. In making this statement he only did justice to the individual.

observed that the Committee should have tried, according to the Act of Parliament, which of the two parties was entitled to the seat—the sitting Member or the petitioner; but they had not done so, but had merely unseated the sitting Member.

was anxious to impress on the House the great inconvenience of discussions of this nature. The question, however, was, did the evidence justify the decision of the Committee, and was it competent for the Committee to act on that evidence, leaving to the House to take any ulterior measure it thought proper? He thought the House could not interfere further, as the Question was one on which it was not the province of the House to decide. The only course the hon. Member could properly pursue was to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to restrict the powers of Committees. Such a course had been pursued before. He thought it injurious to interfere wantonly with the powers of Committees.

observed, that in some cases it was not possible for election Committees to take into consideration all the merits of the subject submitted to them.

thought that the House had, in all cases, the right either to receive or reject the decision of an election Committee. At present he was unable to form an opinion on this subject and therefore wished to see the evidence before he was called upon to do so. He was of opinion that all discussion as to the merits of the petition was premature, and must be so until the requisite information was laid before the House.

observed, that the House was precluded, by the Grenville Act, from taking up the subject in the way proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard. Unless there was a special report, he doubted whether the House could proceed further with the case. The Committee had to determine whether the sitting Member or the petitioner was duly elected, and they determined in favour of the petitioner; and there the matter must end unless the late sitting Member chose to petition the House.

wished to call the attention of the House to a Petition, which he presented last night, from Mr. Joseph Parkes, the agent for the Petitioners, complaining of the Return in the Borough of Leicester Election. The Petitioner wished to be allowed to alter the name of one of the persons who had been given in as sureties. It appeared that when a gentleman who had been named in the first instance, declined to become surety, the agent was authorized to give in the name of Mr. Thomas Stokes, of Leicester, for that purpose, but that, by some clerical error, the name of Mr. Samuel Stokes was given in. He was not aware of this until yesterday morning, when he received a letter from Mr. Stone, the solicitor for the petitioner, against the sitting Members at Leicester, informing him of the error, and that it was then too late to give the usual notice of this change. The Act enabled the House to alter the name of the proposed securities once, but it stated that the time shall not be enlarged more than once, or for a longer period than thirty days. The name of the securities had been altered once, and the present was not an application for that purpose, but merely that leave might be given to rectify that which was little more than a clerical error. If the Motion was assented to, no injury would be inflicted on any party, nor was there the slightest ground for supposing that any injustice would be done. The House had consented to a much more important alteration the other night, in reference to the Ennis petition, by substituting the number six for five in the address of one of the securities, and he did not see how they could refuse to listen to the prayer of the petition in the present case. The hon. Member concluded with moving that Mr. Parkes be called in to verify the allegations of the petition.

said, that the Motion of the hon. Member could not be assented to without violating the letter of the Act. It was directly contrary to that Act to let the name be altered a second time. With respect to the Ennis case, he would only observe, that it was not analogous to the present case, as then the only question was, whether parties should be allowed to alter the number of a house, which number they were not under the necessity of inserting.

said, that hon. Gentlemen on the other side gave two different interpretations to the same Act. The interpretation given in the first place was, that name meant person. Now, it was not in the present case wished to substitute one person for another, but one name for another name erroneously given to the same person. The House having decided that person was the proper interpretation of the word name, he contended that they had the power to make the required alteration.

was of opinion, that the prayer of the petition contemplated, not only a breach of the Statute, but of the regulations of the House. The Statute said, that the name should not be changed more than once, and the name had been already changed. Then there was not sufficient time, for the 30th of the present month was the day by which the whole matter must be decided, and the House required seven days' notice even from the presentation of the petition, in order that the other party might have the opportunity of examining into the sufficiency of the sureties.

contended that the case required only a common sense view to dispose of it properly. The first object of the House in such matters was, to do justice between the parties—in the first place, to the petitioners; and, secondly, to the sitting Member. He thought the Act would be in no respect violated by allowing the error, which was only a clerical error, to be corrected. The Statute, he admitted, would not allow the surety to be changed more than once, but it would allow of the Christian name being altered, if the identity of the person was known to be the same.

said, that while the Act precluded the substitution of one person for another more than once, it did not preclude the correction of an error in the name ten times over, if the House thought fit. It did not appear to him that the Act objected to the change of the residence more than once.

said, the error was not to be considered merely a clerical error; because, if they granted the prayer of the petition, they would deprive the other party of the power intended to be given to him of inquiring into the sufficiency of the sureties. On the 20th of this month, notice was served on the sitting Members, that a person of the name of Samuel Stokes, of the parish of St. Mary, Leicester, was named a surety. The parties went to inquire for him; it was a large parish, and they could not find any such person. Then, on the 25th, came another notice, which told the parties that they had been looking after the wrong man, and that they should inquire after Thomas Stokes in the same parish. The consequence was, that the parties could not have the time to which they were entitled, viz. seven days, the 30th being the day on which the recognizance would be perfected.

was then called to the Bar; and having been sworn, was examined. He said that he was instructed, on the 20th of March, to substitute the name of Thomas Stokes for Matthew Babington. On the 20th of March he tended the affidavit of Thomas Stokes to the examiners, and delivered the name of Samuel Stokes to Mr. Rose. The mistake made of giving the name Samuel instead of Thomas, was an error on his part, and it was committed without the least intention of creating delay or difficulty. In reply to the Attorney-General, he said he had a knowledge of Leicester, and wag acquainted with only two persons there of the name of Stokes, one Thomas and the other Benjamin. He had had no communication by letter with Thomas Stokes; the only communication with him was the receipt of his affidavit. He first applied to change the name of Babington to Stokes on the 20th of March. He communicated the error yesterday morn- ing to the opposite party. He was not aware whether they had heard it before. He had lodged the proper notice, but still he thought it right to inform the House of the error. There was yet time to send down to Leicester. He had served the formal notice of the mistake and substitution yesterday about one o'clock, on the opposite party. The answer from them acknowledging the receipt of the notice, was dated half-past three o'clock.

said, the question lay within the narrowest possible compass. If the House passed a law, it was the duty of the House, as it was the duty of the other subjects of his Majesty, to set the example of conforming to the laws. The enactment provided that seven clear days should intervene between the day on which the names of the sureties should be given in, and entered in a book, and the day on which the sufficiency of the sureties was to be examined into. The question then was, whether the name of Samuel having been given in, the House had afterwards power to sanction the substitution of that of Thomas—would that be a compliance with the Act? A name had been given in seven days before completing the surety—would they, by substituting another name, comply with the rule?

did not agree in the terms of the distinction taken by the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). The substitution was merely the name of Thomas for Samuel; it was the same surety, but an error merely having been committed, they could allow the parties to correct the error.

said, if the House had the power of granting the Motion for the alteration of the name in the case of a mistake, it ought to grant it. He fully admitted that without any reserve; but it was another matter when the mistake might make it too late for the sitting Member to write into the country on the subject of the inquiry into the sureties' sufficiency. He thought the time had gone by. He was reluctant to address the House on the subject, but as it was peculiarly within his province as a lawyer, he could not avoid it. He would appeal to Mr. Speaker, and, confident of his impartiality, put the question in his hands; if he thought it a case to extend the indulgence of the House to, it ought to be granted.

said, if it were the pleasure of the House, he would give it his opinion. ["Divide," "Chair"]. He would give his opinion; but it would only be that of an individual in that House. The question, being the construction of an Act of Parliament, it was undoubtedly for the House to decide it. It was clear, from the Act, that seven days' notice were required of any change being made; but the witness at the Bar stated, that the House having enlarged the time, he did not consider it necessary for him to give seven days' notice. The question then, was, how far it might be consistent with the usage of the House, to dispense with such notice? He was not able, from his own experience, to state any case in which it had done so; and, having applied to those who were much more conversant with the subject, he could not find that they recollected any instance in which such a course had been pursued.

amidst cries of "Question" and "Divide," said, if they adopted the principle contended for by the Motion, it was indifferent for how long it was. He would appeal to the other side, whether they were acting honestly, in dealing with this question in the manner they were doing.

never saw such proceedings on a question where there ought to be the absence of all party feeling, and it would be recollected that the other side of the House (the Opposition) cheered when the witness was under examination at the Bar. He thought the House had not power to dispense with the rule, although it was a mere laches committed—the Act was clear, and they were bound by it.

felt unpleasantly situated when he thought he was bound to vote against the party he usually voted with, and it was a question how far, when acting with a political party as a body, he could be permitted to vote against them on questions like the present. He agreed with the Attorney-General, that the question was, whether the House had authority to interfere under the Act. It was impossible to enlarge the time beyond Monday next; the rule must apply, and there would be no time if the place were Cork, or any other distant town.

had voted with the majority under the impression that it was for the correction of a mere clerical error, but he was now bound to say he had found out he had, by so doing, acted erroneously.

differed from his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, on the construction of the Act, as to the alteration of the name, and he thought the words of the Act did not preclude them from making such an alteration as was then proposed. In this case, the name of the surety had been given; they did not propose to change it, but merely to correct a clerical error committed by altering the name of the same person.

amidst cries of "Question," said, that though, as had been observed, they did not propose to substitute another person, but another name, still the effect would be the same to the parties interested.

said, in case there had been no name of a surety delivered in till that day, he should have agreed with those who opposed the Motion, because seven days could not then elapse. But the name of the surety had been given as far back as the 20th or 21st instant.

said, the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) had stated the case truly. The name of Samuel Stokes had been given in from the 20th inst. and continued till yesterday. The sitting Member only knew that as the real name.

rose to bring a similar matter under the notice of the House, and to draw their attention to the consideration of the petition which he had presented last night, for leave to rectify a mistake in the name of a proposed surety in the case of the Cork County Election. The object of the Petition was to obtain an enlargement of the time for entering into the recognizances, with the view of correcting a clerical error in the Christian name of one of the sureties; the words "William Mannix" having been inserted instead of "Henry Mannix." On the Motion of the right hon. Member, Mr. John Jackson, one of the agents for the petition, was called in and examined in proof of the alleged facts; after which the right hon. Gentleman moved that the time be enlarged ten days for giving in a correct name.

opposed the Motion on the same ground as he had voted against the last.

contended that it was perfectly competent to the House to grant the request contained in the petition. He was certainly still of opinion, that in order to guard against any possibility of fraudulent practices, the House was bound to hold parties to the strict letter of the law, and not give facilities to alterations of this description, unless in cases where the substitution of one name for another was purely accidental, and that the correction of the mistake could not be construed into any violation of the law. In the last case before the House (the Leicester petition) they had determined that one name might be changed for another, though it was impossible to grant an extension of time equal to the number of days which was allowed upon the first application, in order to enable the sitting Member to inquire into the legal securities. In the present instance it was proposed to change the name of William for that of Henry, and this alteration could be made in unison with the provisions of the Act of Parliament, so as to allow the usual number of days which were granted to afford the sitting Member an opportunity of inquiring whether the securities offered were or were not sufficient. He could not suppose, therefore, that hon. Members, under the circumstances of the case, and after the decision to which they had come in the former instance, could without exposing themselves to the charge of acting entirely from party motives, and thus holding themselves up to the public in a light which he would not attempt to describe, refuse the request contained in the petition which had been presented by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin.

observed, that next to avoiding any error, the best course was to devise the safest and most effectual means to correct it; and when upon that principle he had voted for the prayer of the former petition, he felt himself compelled, by the dictates of justice, not to reverse in the present the vote which he had given in the previous case. He would however, for an instant recal the attention of the House to the circumstances attending the former petition. He would remind hon. Gentlemen that the request of that pe- tition was granted not as the consequence of a decision of that House, but through the concession of the sitting Member. It must be in the recollection of several hon. Members present that, upon that occasion, the party against whom the petition was presented said, with a generous and truly honourable feeling, whatever the strict letter of the law might be, and however he might if so disposed, find a shelter under it, he was not desirous to make his defence upon a strict construction of the Act of Parliament, but would at once give his consent to a compliance with the object of the petition. The object of the Motion, then, which they had that night discussed, with reference to the Leicester election, was to induce the sitting Member and the House to follow out the concession which in the first instance he had so manfully and generously made. With reference to the petition now under consideration, however, the hon. Gentleman against whose return it was presented, for reasons best known to himself, and under the guidance of his judgment, which he was, of course, in such a case, at perfect liberty to exercise, did not wish to accede to the alteration of the names; but he called upon the House to sanction the opinion which had been pronounced by the right hon. Gentleman (the Member for Montgomeryshire), that they should act in accordance with the strict letter of the Jaw, and not suffer precedents to be established which might open a door to fraud and injustice. The hon. Member for the county, it was to be supposed, from the course which he had thought fit to take, cautioned the House in the same manner as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Williams Wynn), had formerly done, against wandering into any equitable construction of the law, and advised them to take it as it was embodied in the statute, without suffering themselves to be biased by party feelings or predilections. For himself, he would take the course which he considered the most equitable; he would, if a division took place, give the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lefroy) the benefit of his vote; but he did trust that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Williams Wynn) would spare himself from the imputation of inconsistency, and that he would attach to the lecture which he had read to the House, and which no man had a right to deliver more authoritatively than the right hon. Gentleman, that weight which must necessarily arise from a coincidence between his advice and established precedents.

thought that the hon. Member who had just sat down was not exactly the sort of Gentleman who was entitled to read the House a lecture upon equity and consistency. The reason why he (Lord Sandon) had objected to an equitable view of the former case was, that the House had only had the option of inflicting a hardship upon one side or the other, and it had therefore given its decision in favour of the party that had done nothing for which he ought to suffer; but the present case was exactly the reverse, and the House was at perfect liberty to follow the dictates of equity, and in so doing he should act with perfect consistency with his conduct on the previous division. He could only observe that, according to the doctrines of many hon. Members opposite, when equity was on the Ministerial side of the House then equity meant one thing, and when it was in favour of the Opposition Benches then did it mean another. Acting on the principle of equity, and with a view to do justice to both parties, he should feel no difficulty in acceding to the Motion of his right hon. and learned Friend. If hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had been determined to infringe an Act of Parliament for the sake of equity they ought to pursue the principles of equity now that no law was to be broken by so doing.

was desirous not to cast the slightest imputations upon hon. Members at either side of the House, with respect to the course which they had taken with reference to those petitions. He could not help, however, expressing it as his opinion, that he did not consider there was the slightest inconsistency in opposing the prayer of the last, and granting that of the present petition. He had before stated that the indulgence which was sought ought to be granted, if the House had the power of conceding the request. There was no doubt that in this instance the House had the power of allowing that alteration in the names of the securities to be made when the substitution could be made without violating the law, which proposed that there should be a certain time for the purpose of enabling the sitting Member to examine the competency of those securities.

said, that in the former case, the Speaker had informed the House that he had found no precedent for making extension of time a second time, after a period of seven days had, upon the first application to Parliament, been granted for altering the securities.

said, that the former petition had prayed for the substitution of the name of Thomas for Samuel. And there-quest contained in the present petition was, that the name of William should be changed for that of Henry. The only difference he could perceive between them, therefore, was, that one was presented by an hon. Member sitting on the other side of the House, and that the present petition had been brought under their notice by his hon. colleague. He perceived, that the hon. and learned Member expressed his approval of the correctness of the opinion which he had ventured to pronounce; but he could not believe, that the hon. Members opposite would—unless they acted on the principle of the hon. Member for Middlesex, who had asserted, that he would state black was white to support the party on his side of the House—reject the prayer of the petition.

said, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) had remarked, that these petitions were identical; and yet he voted against the one and seemed disposed to vote in favour of the other. The right hon. Gentleman, after such an admission, had certainly displayed considerable moral courage in taunting the hon. Member for Middlesex with an avowal that he would vote black to be white against Ministers. The hon. Member (Mr. Shaw) would not truly vote black to be white; but he showed a perfect willingness to vote orange one way, and green the other. He acted judicially, too, in the decision to which they had, in the former instance, come; and, as a learned Judge, he called upon those who sat at his (Mr. O'Connell's) side of the House, to do justice in the cases of both petitions, though he appeared to forget, that in these instances he was himself open to the charge of voting justice only to one party. He could not avoid congratulating the learned Judge, and those to whom he administered justice, on his admirable consistency. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, too, charged those on his side of the House with inconsistency, in voting in one case differently from the manner in which they determined to decide in the other. Now, the hon. Member for the county of Cork had voted against the last petition, and he expressed himself ready to vote against this; and the hon. Member for Southwark had voted for the last petition, and he intended voting for the present petition, if a division were to take place. The noble Lord, therefore, must allow, that it would be more easy to find inconsistency in the conduct of some other hon. Members, than to urge such a charge successfully against those on his (Mr. O'Connell's) side of the House, who had taken part in the discussion. The noble Lord himself could not be at any difficulty to discover an individual who intended to vote differently in the two cases. He (Mr. O'Connell), however, was perfectly free, for he had not voted at all upon the last petition; and he would certainly vote in favour of the present, if he considered the error which was sought to be rectified a clerical one. When it was admitted, that Henry and William Mannix were brothers, and that Henry was meant when the name William was written, he could not help calling to his recollection an anecdote which he had once heard of an Irish witness, who, upon being called to prove an alibi, said, that he was prepared to prove, that potatoes were wheat. If the substitution of one name for another in this instance were a slip of the pen, and not a mistake of the person, he would not hesitate to accede to its prayer; but under the circumstances of the case, he felt bound to vote against the Motion.

said that, if this mistake were not considered a clerical error, it could only be construed into an intentional fraud, and he did not believe that any one would attach such an interpretation to the proposed intention in the present case. Indeed if there were a doubt upon the mind of any hon. Member as to this point, he thought it ought to be immediately removed, when he reflected that the residence of Henry Mannix was given with the name of William inserted by mistake as one of the securities.

said, that the very fact of the residence having been mentioned in the first instance, confirmed him in the opinion that William was not inadvertently substituted for Henry; because, as it was proved that these two individuals were brothers, it was extremely likely that William, being the younger, resided at his brother's house, and that one address, therefore, answered for either.

said that, to show there was no intention of fraud, Henry Mannix was prepared to show that he was the person residing at Richmond Villa, the address appended to William Mannix's name, as given in the securities.

observed, that it appeared that a gentleman from Cork, named Cummins, had suggested that the address of Glanmere should be appended to the name of William Mannix when the securities were first entered; and it did not appear that this gentleman was forthcoming, although he had been called as a witness by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin.

asked if it was the intention of the Government to oppose the Motion of which he had given notice—namely, for an "Address to his Majesty, beseeching him to grant his royal charter of incorporation to the University of London, as approved in the year 1831, by the then law officers of the Crown, and containing no other restriction than against conferring degrees in divinity and in medicine?"

had no objection to state that it was his intention to propose an Amendment to that Motion.

begged to inquire the nature of the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman would answer the question, it might have the effect of saving the time of the House.

said, he had no objection to do so; but it was difficult to state an Amendment without stating the reasons on which it was grounded. He would say, however, that the Amendment would be to the effect that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to order copies of the memorials which had been presented against this charter, together with an account of the proceedings before the Privy Council.

was glad to hear that such was to be the Amendment. The question it involved might be very briefly disposed of by the House. He considered that the memorials were of little, if any, weight, and that the proceedings before the Privy Council were in fact no better than a blank sheet of paper. He said that he should content himself with laying before the House a plain statement of facts. In 1833, he brought forward a similar Motion to the present, but, on that occasion, he was induced to withdraw it under circumstances that would not, he hoped, cause the University to suffer any detriment by that withdrawal. Since that time the University of London had greatly increased in utility and in the number of the students that attended it, and this he looked upon as an additional reason for granting the charter for which he now applied. The charter was not sought for any sectarian purposes, but for the advantages of general education in the metropolis. Indeed, there were many members of the Church of England in the Council of the University, and this was sufficient to show that it bore no sectarian character. The charter applied for on the former occasion had actually been prepared, and had received the sanction of the three Law Officers of the Crown, and had passed through the offices of the Privy Seal and of the Secretary of State; but it was stopped in its progress by the refusal of the Great Seal. It was a matter of surprise that it had not been granted according to their recommendation. Time passed on, however, and memorials were, in 1833, presented from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, from the College of Surgeons, and the College of Physicians, and counsel was heard on both sides before the Privy Council, but no minute was made. The University did not desire to have any chair of theology, because it was considered the pupils might be instructed in their religious tenets and duties at home; nor did it desire to have the power of conferring degrees in divinity or in medicine. All it wanted was, the right to grant degrees in arts and in law, with probably the same initials as in the Universities at present recognised. These degrees they looked for in the expectation that they would be received by the public with that respect to which they were entitled from the value of the instruction therein. As to the proceedings before the Privy Council, they were of a very extraordinary character. He would not, however touch upon them, as they could be so much better explained by his learned Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets. Indeed he wished to reserve all that he might have to say on the subject for a reply in answer to any objections which, might be urged to his Motion, but there was one point to which he felt it necessary to advert immediately. An imputation had frequently been thrown out against this University, as belonging to a Joint Stock Company, as being a commercial speculation, and that, therefore, it should not have the privileges of the established Universities. Now, the fact was, the London University was not the property of a Joint Stock Company, in the ordinary sense of the word, nor was it a commercial speculation, because four per cent was the extreme limit of the interest they could receive upon their money. He considered that the claims of the institution to a charter were increasing daily. There were now 400 pupils. There was also a medical board, not to be surpassed by any other institution in the country. He trusted that London would be granted that privilege which was possessed by almost every other capital in Europe—the privilege of having a recognized University. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Address to the Crown.

observed that the hon. Gentleman had omitted the main point, which was, whether the House, without receiving any information as to what had taken place before the Privy Council and the proceedings which had followed, should, under the circumstances in which they stood, vote an address to the Crown, praying his Majesty to confer a Charter on this institution, and expressing in that Address the restrictions with which they wished that Charter might be granted. It should be recollected by the House that the hon. Member brought forward a similar Motion last Session, and that, on the recommendation of the noble Lord, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, he withdrew it, and the Question was referred to his Majesty, and to the responsible advisers of the Crown. The Question had undergone anxious investigation. It had been referred to the Privy Council, and this at a time most favourable to the interests of those concerned for the University, and then those parties who conceived that they were likely to be injured by the grant of this Charter stated the reasons which appeared to them conclusive against the grant. Yet, now the hon. Gentleman came forward again to ask them—without any knowledge of the proceedings before the Privy Council, or the objections to the grant that had been there stated—without any knowledge of the views of the Government, further than that they were aware that the charter had not been granted—to agree to an Address to the Crown respecting the exercise of its prerogative. He did not think it necessary to recommend to them by any lengthened argument an amendment which only required, before any further step was taken, that they should have that information which the hon. Member possessed, and perhaps some other hon. Members, but which was not known to the House collectively. He would move as an amendment that they should humbly address the Crown for a copy of the memorials in this case to the Privy Council, and a statement of its proceedings. He begged not to be considered as giving an opinion upon the question. It had been deliberated upon by the Privy Council and had received all the consideration compatible with the real nature of the case.

hoped, that the House would not, upon the bare statement of the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion, agree to an Address of this nature. He did not intend to make this an occasion for going into the general question of the disabilities of Dissenters to enter the Universities, nor did he mean to say anything whatever that might be considered disrespectful to the Dissenting body. All he should deal with was, simply the Resolution before the House. He first objected to this Resolution, on the ground that it went to infringe the immediate prerogative of the Crown. ["Oh," from Mr. Hume.] He knew that this doctrine of the King's prerogative was not very popular, and that it was peculiarly unpalatable to the hon. Member for Middlesex. In the last year, this Charter was applied for under the most favourable circumstance in which it could be brought forward. The then Lord High Chancellor of England, was a member of the Council of the London University, and three other Cabinet Ministers besides, were also members of the same Council. Was there not, therefore, reason to suppose that everything that could be urged in its favour, was urged at that time? And yet it was found that the Charter was not granted, and that no decision was come to by the Privy Council upon it. Under these circumstances, he did not think that the House would be justified in addressing the Crown in such a case. But he opposed the Resolution upon another ground, which was, that the Motion was in direct variance with the declarations made in that House by Henry Brougham, when he brought in a Bill for the foundation of this very London University. The declaration was then made that no power was intended to be sought for to grant degrees of any sort. He might, indeed, be told, that what Henry Brougham had said in that House, or what Lord Brougham said in the other House, was not to be attended to.

begged to correct the hon. Member. The London University, as it really existed, did not at all emanate from the proceedings of which the hon. Member spoke. It originated in a meeting that was held long subsequent to those proceedings.

said, if the hon. Member was disposed to throw overboard what Henry Brougham or Lord Brougham had said, the time might come when what Mr. Tooke said might also be thrown overboard, as not binding this year any more than what Henry Brougham said six years ago. But it appeared that the present Motion applied for a Charter to grant degrees only in arts and in law. This, however, was merely an attempt to get the small end of the wedge in, when the rest was sure to follow in time. He objected, also, to the incorporation of this establishment, because it was calculated to interfere with a system of sound education in the metropolis. He felt convinced the result of granting such power, would be injurious to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. There was a petition presented from Oxford on the subject, in which it was stated that they would have no objection to the privilege of granting certain degrees. What they wanted was, that the degrees conferred by the London University, should not circulate as having equal authority with theirs. They might have equal value when the new University should become as distinguished for all the qualities that ought to belong to such institutions, as the old were. There was another consideration worthy of attention. He did not mean to impeach the solvency of individuals, when he said that property was one of the original elements of the London University. There were shares in it which were now as marketable as shares in any other speculation or business. Now, was a Joint-stock Company, that sort of body which ought, or could with propriety, be vested with the privilege of conferring degrees? What was the opinion expressed upon this point, not by one or two fellows of a College, but in a memorial delivered in to the Council, from the medical faculty of the City of London, by Lord Lansdowne. The memorialists there observed, that the London University was a Joint-stock Association, in which shares were bought and sold, and might, therefore, fall into the hands of any person, no matter how unfit. In the same memorial, it was stated, that when this institution was first suggested, it was spoken of as a scheme. Now, did not the word scheme, imply something not very respectable in its nature? There was nothing in the nature of this institution, whatever name it might assume, or under whatever initials the degrees might be conferred, that would imply the same standard of excellence, as those conferred by the old Universities. Even the M. A. of the Scotch was not considered an equivalent for those of the English Universities. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tooke) said, no more was asked than the privilege of conferring degrees in arts and in medicine. He seemed to think it much that they did not ask to give degrees in divinity. Was he aware that the degrees in divinity conferred at Oxford and Cambridge, were few in number, compared to other degrees? Not being fully prepared for this question, he was not furnished with sufficient Returns. However, in the year 1832, there were 281 Bachelors' degrees, and 168 Masters' degrees, conferred in Oxford, while the degrees in divinity were not more than twelve. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, relinquished only that which was valueless, and retained what was of the greatest importance. Feeling that it would be inconsistent with the prerogative of the Crown, to grant such a Charter, contrary to the original declarations made when this institution was first proposed; that it would be injurious to the interests of the other Universities, unfair, also, to King's College, where there was as good a medical school, and as able professors, as at the University of London; that it would be injurious to the general course of education, and to grammar schools, established upon the faith that the present system was to continue, he must oppose the Motion. It must have the effect of doing great injury to the cause of education, if the same degree, which at Oxford was a test of religious education, could be conferred by a University which had no religious education in its system of instruction.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) opposed the Motion on the ground that the House was not in possession of sufficient information. The right hon. Gentleman said the memorials laid before the Privy Council upon this subject, and the proceedings which arose out of them, the arguments and discussions, ought to be first before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had ample time for perusing all these documents. Had he produced any arguments from these documents they might perhaps afford reason for rejecting the Motion altogether, but their absence afforded no reason for delay. The right hon. gentleman was well aware that the memorials or arguments of Counsel would have no effect upon the House, otherwise he would have availed himself of them upon this occasion. The Members for both Universities were in that House, and if there were any solid objections to this Motion they could easily have stated them on the part of the Universities. His hon. Friend (Sir Robert Inglis) said, it would be interfering with the prerogative of the Crown to grant the Motion. What interference was it with the prerogative of the Crown to ask his Majesty to exercise it for the benefit of the country? Would it be said that Oxford and Cambridge were sufficient to fill up the void which now existed in the public education of this country? Were they extensive or economical enough? They were notoriously so expensive that education in them must be confined to persons in a high rank of life. They could not effect the purpose proposed by the University of London. What was that purpose? Why, to afford the opportunities for education to the children of the vast population of London, consisting of all sects and persuasions. How many persons were there who, having witnessed the expense, the inconveniences, and evils, of education at a distance from home wished to have their children under their own eye? As his hon. Friend (Sir Robert Inglis) would exclude the great body of the Dissenters from education in Oxford and Cambridge he ought, in common justice and humanity, to be disposed to grant the privilege now sought for. His hon. Friend said, the value of the degree would be less. No person ever thought a degree in a modern as valuable as one in an ancient University; but grant the power and the Professors would naturally feel anxious so to exert themselves in the cause of education as to bring respect to the degrees conferred by the institution. If the degree of Oxford and Cambridge was entitled to such high distinction, they need not apprehend any injury from a rival institution. The hon. Baronet and his Friends might depend upon it, that it would be no disadvantage to the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford to allow another institution to compete with them in the race. Excellence in degrees of learning was best obtained, as in other objects of human desire and exertion, by competition. It had been urged that a degree conferred at the London University would be obtained without religious education. This was hardly a fair representation of the case, for although degrees obtained at the London University would not be, as they were, at the other Universities, a test of education in the established religion, it did not follow that it was a principle of the University of London to throw religious education entirely out of the question. Instruction in a particular form of religion, it was not insisted the students should receive; but they were left to be placed under the religious guidance of such instructors as their parents or guardians might select in their own homes. His hon. Friend (Sir Robert Inglis) said the charter was now under consideration, that the question was sub judice. [Sir Robert Inglis: I did not say sub judice.] No, but something equivalent. The late Government had no objection to grant a charter, and it would he an extraordinary course if the memorials and arguments which were addressed to a Privy Council under a former Government were to be decided on by another Privy Council. He was quite willing to leave the question on its own merits. If there was any one thing more conducive than another to the general welfare of the people of England it was that they should be left freely to cultivate the talents which God gave them.

said, that as he intended to vote for the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, he was anxious to guard himself against the supposition of being disposed to quash the proposition of the hon. Member for Truro. Enter- taining the highest respect for the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, he must confess that if he had to judge of this question by the speech delivered by him compared with that just delivered by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, he must vote with the latter. In fact, he did not apprehend those dangers and inconveniences which had been so much dwelt upon by the hon. Baronet, nor did he think that the interests of sound education would suffer from the incorporation of the University of London. He could not forget, however, that acceding to the Motion would, in effect, be to found a dissenting University. He confessed that he was unfortunate enough to entertain scruples—he said unfortunate, because he considered it a misfortune—to entertain scruples which he did not see any likelihood of being removed, to the admission of Dissenters to Oxford and Cambridge: and, for this reason, he was disposed to countenance some central institution for the education of the Dissenters; and he did not doubt, were such an one established, that their numbers and wealth would enable them, whilst their knowledge induced them, to give it greater support than, as far as he could ascertain, they had yet given to the University of London. What, however, determined him to vote for the Amendment in preference to the original proposition was, that he had not information sufficient whereon to ground his opinion. It was the favourable feeling he entertained to the general proposition, that made him anxious to obtain information to guide him in his course. As a subscribing Member to the University, he could not now say, that he even had information enough to induce him to consent to the exclusions the hon. Mover was willing to make. Till he had further information, he was unwilling to decide that this institution had not qualifications for bestowing the very degrees the hon. Member was willing to take from under its control. For this reason he should vote for the Amendment.

said, that although the noble Lord had concluded by expressing his determination to vote for the Amendment, he confessed, considering the views generally taken by the hon. Gentlemen who now occupied the Treasury Bench, and with whom the noble Lord was associated, upon the subject of education, he had not heard the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord without some feeling of mitigated satisfaction. It was true, that noble Lord, in common with those with whom he acted, was determined to oppose the Motion, but still his opposition had been expressed in terms infinitely more liberal than the House was accustomed to hear from the Treasury Benches. He (Mr. Warburton) would venture to affirm, that a similar proposition, made in behalf of such a body as that of the London University, would have been very differently treated by any Government that might have been in power 150 years ago. After the discussions that had already taken place upon the subject—after the course adopted with respect to it in the last Session of Parliament, he confessed he was surprised to hear the objections that was now urged against the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Truro. It was asserted by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the London University was a mere stock-jobbing concern, and that the professors and other parties interested in it looked only to the amount of profit that might be derived from it. Never was an assertion made more completely destitute of foundation. The profits, if any, derived from the Institution were limited to four per cent, so that, under any circumstances, it could not be regarded as a speculation into which parties would enter with a view to pecuniary profit. Yet it was constantly thrown in the teeth of those who came forward to advocate its interests, and to endeavour to obtain for it a charter, that it was a mere stock-jobbing company, and that the only object in empowering it to confer degrees was to make it more profitable. This was one of the chief grounds upon which the charter was objected to. Another argument used by the hon. Gentlemen opposite was, that the Report, if it were deemed of such importance, ought to have been more strongly pressed in the last Session of Parliament, when the parties generally supposed to be most favourable to the London University were in power. "Why," said the hon. Gentlemen, "did you not press the question under the former Administration?" The answer was obvious: the parties then in power were generally favourable to the admission of Dissenters to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and, consequently, the incorporation of the University of London was not deemed a matter of so much importance; but now that the Government was composed of persons known to be directly hostile to the admission of Dissenters to the other Universities, it became of paramount necessity that no time should be lost in pressing the claims of the University of London. If there were anything in the argument that had been advanced, that the chief desire of the friends of the London University, in obtaining for it the power of conferring degrees, was to increase its profitableness; if the sole motive were considered to be one of profit, the same argument would apply with equal force to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, because those Universities had throughout the whole of the discussions upon this subject been most anxious to maintain their monopoly of granting degrees in the arts and sciences. "Do not interfere with our monopoly in this respect," exclaimed they; "we do not care about degrees in divinity and medicine; but touch not our degrees in the arts—that is the source from which we derive our profit—that is tabooed ground—touch it not." But if the right hon. Gentleman opposite thought that the professors of the London University might have too great an interest in multiplying degrees, let them come forward with a proposition to establish one general University for London, comprehending the King's College, as well as the London University, and let them appoint a set of examiners of their own to determine upon the granting of degrees wholly independant of the professors of the two Colleges. If the right hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would pledge himself to adopt that course, he (Mr. Warburton) would withdraw his support to the proposition now brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Truro; but unless he had an assurance to that effect, he should certainly recommend his hon. and learned Friend to press his Motion to a division.

, notwithstanding the sweeping charge of illiberality which the hon. Member for Bridport had brought against those who sat upon the Treasury Bench, begged to remind the hon. Member that he was one of the earliest subscribers to the London University; and having been one of the earliest subscribers, he certainly was enabled to confirm one of the observations that had fallen from the hon. Member. The idea of the University having been established with a view only to the profit of the subscribers, was wholly unfounded. Those Gentlemen were actuated by a generous desire to diffuse the benefits of education, and he rejoiced that their proceedings had caused the establishment of King's College. If three or four similar institutions were hereafter to be founded, he should experience still greater gratification. But he begged to call the attention of the House to the real question for their consideration. It was whether it would be useful to these establishments to have the privilege of conferring degrees exactly the same as those conferred at Oxford and Cambridge? Now, he did not understand what it was, that prevented the London University from giving other academic distinctions, which would be of equal service to the students. The Universities wanted no charter to do this, and they might entitle the distinction in whatever way they pleased. The Question had several times been brought before the House, and in what position did it now stand? It was brought forward when the hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power—it was referred to the Privy Council, of which the great patron of the institution was a member—it was, of course, very maturely considered by them, yet up to the removal of the late Ministers from office, no step had been taken upon the subject. Surely, then, it was fair for him to presume that the late Government had found some difficulty standing in their way which prevented them from immediately recommending the Crown to grant a Charter of incorporation to the University; and if such a difficulty interposed between the Members of the late Administration, and the object to which they were all supposed to be favourable, surely it was not too much to say, that the present Government ought to be allowed to pause before such an address as that proposed by the hon. Member for Truro were presented to the Crown. At all events, the House ought to know what took place when the question was examined by the Privy Council before it called upon the Crown to grant a Charter in precise and express terms. He (Mr. Baring) would suggest to the Gentlemen who sat upon the Liberal benches, whether the concession of this power to the London University, to the exclusion of the other schools in the metropolis, would not be to give it that very monopoly which they complained of in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Never having entertained the slighest hostility to the London University, he must still fairly confess that that part of it which had since grown up, and which was not contemplated by those by whom it was originally established—he meant education unaccompanied with religious instruction—he could not approve of. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by expressing his determination to vote for the Amendment moved by his right hon. Friend, the member for the University of Cambridge. [Cries of "Question!" and "Divide."]

rose and said, I take it for granted, from the general demand that is made in the lower part of the House for an immediate division, that the Gentlemen assembled there are perfectly acquainted with the nature of the Motion on which they are going to divide, that they have maturely weighed the proposal upon which they are going to address the Crown, and, therefore, that they consider there no longer remains any necessity for further discussion; but, to those who are not exactly aware—to that portion of the House which not having heard the argument [a number of Members had just entered the House] cannot be acquainted with the nature of the proposal upon which we are going to pronounce an opinion, I take the liberty of reading the Motion. It is in these words: "That the House do agree to an Address to his Majesty, beseeching him to grant his Royal Charter of incorporation to the University of London, as approved in the year 1831 by the then Law Officers of the Crown, and continuing no other restrictions than against conferring Degrees in Divinity and in Medicine." No man who has not read the Report of the then Law Officers of the Crown, or does not know the contents of it, is very well qualified to press the restrictions specified in the Motion upon the Crown. The address is to grant a charter of incorporation, but to grant it upon the principle approved of by the Law Officers of the Crown in 1831. Now, I ask the House of Commons whether it be decorous to proceed on a certain night to address the Sovereign of this country to grant a charter to a certain body according to the mode approved of by the Law Officers of the Crown some years since, without having maturely weighed the scheme of which the Law Officers of the Crown so approved? Will hon. Gentlemen consent that I should examine them severally upon the opinions expressed upon the Report of the Law Officers of the Crown, in order that I may ascertain, out of the 300 or 400 Members who are about to pronounce an opinion upon it, how many have maturely considered the recommendation of 1831? The Law Officers of the Crown, who were consulted in that year, proposed these restrictions upon the charter—that it should convey no power to the University to grant degrees in divinity and medicine. It may be very obvious and right, in the opinion of many Gentlemen, to restrict the right of giving degrees in divinity, but why impose the restriction with respect to medicine? Why address the Crown to exercise its discretion in the grant of a charter, but limit the grant by the expression of some opinions to-night, and exclude the Crown from granting a charter for conferring degrees in medicine? I have an account in my hand of the state of the University of London in 1831. It had then 480 students, of whom 293 were students in medicine, 113 students in the arts, and 74 students in law. Am I to address the Crown to-night to give the privilege to the University of conferring degrees upon the 74 students in law, and upon the 113 students in the arts, but to exclude the 293 who are students in medicine? This question has been brought before the House on former occasions. No longer ago than last year it was submitted to Parliament, and taken into consideration by the Crown, and by his Majesty it was referred to the Privy Council. Suppose the House should agree to address the Crown again on the present occasion, what course is the Crown to pursue? Is it again to refer the matter to the Privy Council? Or is the Crown, having once referred it to the Privy Council, and having received no Report from it, to disparage the labours of the Privy Council, and to grant the charter without reference to it? that is the question which the Crown must determine if this address be presented. The matter was referred to the Privy Council because the King thought it was but right to give the parties who were adverse to the proposition, an oppor- tunity of being heard. What course is now to be adopted? If the Crown is not to exclude the Privy Council, is it to refer the matter again to the Privy Council? The hon. Member for Bridport says, he thinks that some better mode might be devised than granting a charter to the University of London. If the hon. Gentleman is of opinion that some better course might be pursued than that which is proposed to-night, why should not the House of Commons take his advice, and at least pause before it agrees to such an address as that now proposed? The hon. Gentleman says he thinks it would be better not to confer any exclusive charter upon the University of London, but to establish one general and common University for the metropolis, including the King's College and other schools, as well as the particular establishment now under consideration. Then, why am I to be called upon to-night to present an address to the Crown, praying that a charter may be conferred upon the University of London? The hon. Member for Bridport says, that those who sit on this side of the House are not in the habit of adopting liberal opinions. [Mr. Warburton: Were not.] Does the hon. Gentleman mean in the course of the last year? In the course of the discussions that have taken place upon this subject, the strongest opinions have been expressed against granting a charter to this University. I do not recollect ever having expressed a strong opinion upon the subject; but the strongest objection that presents itself to my mind to the proposition now before us is to be found in the proceedings adopted last year at the instance of the hon. Gentlemen then in the Government, but who now sit on the opposite side of the House, and by whom this very question of granting a charter to the University of London was submitted to the Crown, and by the Crown referred, as I have before stated, to the Privy Council. A committee of the Privy Council was appointed—they received the petition of the parties adverse to the grant of the charter, or at least anxious that it should be accompanied with certain qualifications—they heard the evidence—they heard the speeches of counsel on both sides—they heard a very able speech from my learned Friend Sir Charles Wetherell—they heard a speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Lushington)—they took the whole subject into their consideration, but to this hour they have never given any opinion upon it ["Hear, hear!"]. "Hear, hear!" says the hon. Gentleman opposite with a sort of triumphant laugh. I am only answering the charge he has made upon the hon. Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House as to the great obstructions that they have ever been disposed to throw in the way of education. I presume, from what I have stated, that there must have appeared some good and valid ground for withholding the grant of the charter, especially as the late Lord Chancellor was one of the committee of the Privy Council which was appointed to inquire into the matter. I find, by a paper in my hand, that the members of that Committee were the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Brougham, the Archbishop of York, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Ripon, the Duke of Richmond, Earl Grey, Lord Eldon ["Hear!"], the Earl of Carlisle ["Hear!"]. Surely if the hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered the name of one of those noble Lords, they ought to groan at the other. I continue: Lord John Russell, the Bishop of London, Lord Holland, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Denman, Chief Justice Tindal, Lord Melbourne, and Lord Stanley. This committee was constituted by the late Government; it met, and gave the greatest attention to the subject. It sat upon the 26th of April and on the 3rd of May. The late administration did not quit office until the 13th of November. And why, having considered this matter fully, having heard the speeches of counsel on both sides—speeches which certainly did justice to the subject, in point of length, as well as in ability—why, having heard all this, and closed their proceedings on the 3rd of May, they never took a single step upon the subject up to the 13th of November, I confess, I for one, cannot understand, unless they felt that there was some serious difficulty, legal or constitutional, that stood in the way of granting the charter. If that were really the case, what course is the Crown now to pursue? Is it again to refer the matter to the Privy Council? ["No, no!"] It is not to do so; it is not to ask again for the opinion of Lord Brougham or Lord Denman?

rose to explain. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to several Reports of the Law-officers of the Crown not having been produced. He thought that the right hon. Baronet was hardly aware that the paper which had that day been printed, and as yet but very imperfectly delivered to hon. Members, did instance a charter which was issued upon the Report of the Attorney and Solicitor-General, which passed through the Home Secretary's office, through the Signet office, through the Privy Council, and which twice received his Majesty's Sign Manual. It was to carry into effect the recommendations of that Committee, that he (Mr. Tooke) brought forward his Motion.

The hon. Gentleman refers to a paper which he admits has been very imperfectly delivered. Was there ever such a farce. He holds in his hand a paper which he admits has been very imperfectly delivered this afternoon.

I am not fairly treated by the right hon. Baronet.

Then I must have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I understood him to say, that the paper was not printed until to-day, and that as yet it had been but very imperfectly distributed. But I will not dwell upon the point. I proceed. I have described the proposition of the hon. Member for Truro. Now what is the proposal of my right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Cambridge? He proposes an amendment, praying his Majesty to give directions that there be laid before the House, not merely the proceedings before the Privy Council, but copies of the Memorials presented to, and the proceedings had before, the Privy Council, in the matter of the London University. I conceive that the House, being in possession of all those documents, will be better able to determine what course it will be proper to pursue, than it can be at the present moment. The hon. Member for Bridport says, that he shall feel it to be his duty to press the question to a division, unless I will pledge myself to take the adoption of a particular plan which he has pointed out, into my serious consideration? I will not, for the purpose of evading the temporary difficulty, give any pledge of the kind required by the hon. Member. If the House shall think it decorous to proceed to an Address to the Crown, praying that a Charter may be granted to the University, as settled by the Law-officers in 1831—if it shall be prepared to say to-night, that the Charter when granted, shall include a restriction on medical degrees, let it pursue that course. I say openly, that, in my opinion, it will be an unwise and an improper course. I believe that the course pointed out by my right hon. Friend would be much more safe and much more satisfactory. It precludes nothing—it prejudices no future proceeding—it only enables the House to form a better judgment upon the question. But feeling my objections to the Motion of the hon. Member for Truro to be well founded, I say on this occasion, as I say on every other, rather would I be found in a minority, and throw the responsibility of what I conceive to be an unjust and unwise proceeding upon the majority, than acquiesce in any proposition for the purpose of escaping an occasional or temporary difficulty. I feel, Sir, that it is not proper for the House to present this address to his Majesty. I feel that the presentation of such an Address will not in any way facilitate the object which the hon. Member has in view. My past experience convinces me of the justness of these feelings; and, therefore, upon these combined grounds, I cannot give my consent to the Motion before the House. At the same time, Sir, while I say this, I do feel that the position of that portion of his Majesty's subjects who do not conform to the Church of England, and who, in consequence of their not submitting to certain religious tests, are excluded from the Universities, is deserving of attention. It is a ground of just complaint for them, and their claim to academical honours is not fairly and fully met. As to what may be the proper mode in which these honours should be conferred. I am not prepared to say, but I do not make this statement for the purpose of entrapping the House, nor will I give any pledge on the subject. Let the House take that course which it, in its wisdom, thinks fit, without my interposition. But, at the same time, it is right that I should not withhold the expression of my opinion; or refrain from declaring that I myself have no objection to some provision being made that should accord to Protestant Dissenters, who are excluded from the Universities, the power of acquiring academical distinctions. But that is a question which will demand very great consideration; and which, in my judgment, is very different from what is now proposed to be acceded to by the House. I do not ap- prehend, Sir, that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge which now object to granting a Charter to the London University, ever objected to that University granting degrees, and that the objection was narrowed to that Charter conferring the power to grant honorary titles which might be confounded with the University honours of Oxford and Cambridge. I believe, Sir, there exists no objection to the London University granting degress in the arts and in the law, specifying, in the diplomas, upon what authority those grants are made. At all events, this is a matter worthy of consideration. I hope, Sir, that I have dealt with the House perfectly fair. I repeat, I make no pledge, and give no assurance upon the subject; because I have not yet given the matter the consideration which it deserves. I think the Motion of the hon. Member for Truro an unreasonable one; and I prefer the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, because I conceive it to be the only course which the House can with propriety adopt in the present state of this question. I shall conclude by declaring, with great deference to the authority of the House, my respectful opinion that its decisions will acquire much greater authority if adopted after mature deliberation, and much greater weight will belong to them, if they are known to be the result of dispassionate discussion, and formed after the House shall have received the information that is within its reach. I hope the House will not come to a hasty resolve in favour of the terms in which the Charter should be granted to the London University, especially when the hon. Member for Bridport has stated, that those terms ought to be more extended, and when it is very doubtful whether medical degrees should be excluded from the Charter or not.

said, that when the right hon. Baronet acknowledged that the claims of the Dissenters to admission to Universities were well grounded, and when he said that those who did not conform to the Church of England should have an opportunity of obtaining academical honours, he wished that the right hon. Baronet had, at the same time, pointed out some way in which the House could have expressed its acquiescence in his opinion. But while the right hon. Baronet allowed the justice of the claim under consideration he did not point out any mode by which it could be satisfied. The right hon. Baronet could not say, that the Motion "took him by surprise." The notice was sufficiently long before the House, and time enough had been afforded for the production of the Memorial. If it were the opinion of the right hon. Baronet that some better, some more enlarged course should have been adopted, he had had full time for taking the matter into consideration, and for developing the plan which he should recommend the Government to adopt. The present position of the House with regard to this question, he begged to say, was not that in which it stood last year; because the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge having opposed the admission of Dissenters into those two Universities, and having succeeded in their opposition in the other House of Parliament, and having the power, by their rules and regulations, to exclude Dissenters, they thus stood forward and said, that not only should these persons be excluded from the ancient Universities, but that an institution which had been established at the expense of 150,000l., and which was fully capable of teaching learning and the arts, should not have the power of conferring honours and degrees. This was deemed a grievance by the Dissenters, and ought to be remedied. The House had been told by the right hon. Baronet, who had argued the case with ability, that what the Universities objected to was, that the London University should confer the title of master and bachelor of arts. He know that there was a certain degree of honour attached to these names, and that they conveyed with them the idea of proficiency and skill; but if new names were to be employed in the London University, for the mere purpose of making a distinction between the degrees which were conferred in Oxford and Cambridge, and those which were conferred in London,—and if the new names were not to carry with them the weight attached to the old ones,—persons who were prevented from entering into the old Universities would still be deprived of those distinctions to which they were entitled, although they might be able to obtain all the academical honours which could be conferred by the new. The right hon. Baronet and the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade had referred to what had passed on this subject before the Privy Council. He (Lord John Rus- sell) bad been present at that Council, and he had heard with attention the arguments of his hon. and learned Friend near him (Dr. Lushington), as well as the hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken on the part of the ancient Universities. The great objection appeared to him, and he believed all the Council thought so, to be not so much on the part of the two Universities as on the part of the medical schools of London, and he thought that the other schools of London would be entitled to confer medical decrees, if that power was given to the University of London. The Member for Bridport had said, that it would not be desirable to give the London University the power of conferring medical degrees, and the objection which he (Lord John Russell) had just stated was the principal ground of the proposed restriction. On the whole, the matter appeared to be of so much importance, that the Council did not come to an immediate decision. But he was surprised that the right hon. Baronet should have been ignorant of the fact, and should have believed that the Council had done nothing on the subject. Why, Lord Brougham had been employed almost constantly on the subject. A fortnight did not pass without his (Lord John Russell) receiving a communication from his noble and learned Friend on the subject of granting a Charter to the University of London, and how it could be reconciled with other institutions. During the noble and learned Lord's journey into Scotland, he had been very much employed on this subject, and the noble and learned Lord had sent him a voluminous paper on the question. It was not a matter of ridicule or of scorn that a person of high legal station should occupy himself in advancing literature and science. He could say of Lord Brougham, that whatever were his political or legal pursuits, he (Lord John Russell) never knew a time when that noble and learned Lord did not evince the greatest anxiety for, and was not ready to devote a large portion of his time to, the advancement of science and of art. Then it came to this, that the late Government, and Lord Brougham especially, had been anxiously occupied in considering, first, whether it was possible to obtain the consent of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to Protestant Dissenters taking degrees in those Universities; secondly, if that failed, whether a charter should be given to the London University, to enable Protestant Dissenters to take degrees therein; and thirdly, whether any other large and combined plan could be devised which should extend to the London University and other schools; and he had not heard from the right hon. Baronet that there was any disposition on the part of Government to pledge itself to introduce a measure which would afford to Protestant Dissenters a prospect of obtaining the literary honours they naturally coveted. He might mention many names of men eminent for learning, though not endowed with rich pluralities, who were gratified by literary honours; he would only mention the name of one such, Dr. Lardner, who, at the end of his life, received a degree from a Scotch University, and acknowledged that it could not but be agreeable to literary men, whatever their religious tenets, to receive an honour of that kind. Protestant Dissenters who dedicated their talents to the fame of their country, and to the promotion of its literature, might, indeed, receive an honour from Scotland; but there should be a place in England where they might obtain literary honours, although they could not sign the articles of the church of England. He admitted that there might be some objections to the charter of 1831, and he wished the hon. Member for Truro had omitted some of his observations on it; but still, having no hope afforded him by the right hon. Baronet that Government would adopt any measure on the subject, and having to choose between two alternatives, he should concur in the motion of the hon. Member.

wished to correct a misapprehension which had run through the whole discussion, on the part of the hon. Member on the other side of the House. But before he did so, he must say, that he hailed with satisfaction the observations of the noble Lord, for he thought there could not be a stronger reason for acceding to the proposition of the Secretary of State for the Home Department than the noble Lord's statement of the assiduity which the Privy Council had applied to this question, and he thought that the House would be unjustly treated, if it was not put in possession of the result of the consideration of the Privy Council. The paper which had been exhibited to the House, and of which it had had an account from the hon. Member for Truro, he had never heard of before. The Gentlemen on the other side had argued the case as if the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were adverse to the institution of the London University, as a place for diffusing education. That, however, was not the case. They had no wish to prevent the grant of a charter to that institution, or that the charter should not contain a provision to enable it to confer academical honours. When gentlemen pressed the point so strongly, it was but just to the University of Oxford to read the sentiments expressed in the petition of the University to the king, and which had been referred to the Privy Council, wherein they stated that they were by no means desirous that an institution formed for the promotion of education and science should be restrained from bestowing marks of honour on its members; but such marks of honour, they said, in civil law and theology, should not bear the same titles as those conferred by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Why not?—because the degrees conferred by the Universities of Oxford were adopted as a criterion for placing individuals in situations of great trust. That view was, he thought, correct, for many bequests were made, with the condition that, having a degree in arts, an A.M., was a qualification to their enjoyment. Now, it was obviously contemplated that the advantage should be confined to those possessing a degree from Oxford or Cambridge, while this object would be defeated if another establishment were privileged to confer the same honour under the same title. The hon. Member concluded, amid reiterated cries of "Question question," by supporting the Amendment.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the appointment of convenient places to hold the Assizes in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member said, persons in Ireland had to travel sometimes sixty or seventy miles to obtain justice. He need not say, how very inconvenient such a state of things must be; he should be happy to meet with the assistance of any hon. Members in preparing his Bill, and as he did not expect any opposition to his motion, he would simply move for leave to bring in his Bill.

said, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the measure—he only hoped sufficient time would be given to refer the matter to a Commission.

did not intend any opposition—he only wished to say, that he was afraid the vigilance of the hon. Member for Salford must be asleep, or he would have moved the adjournment of the House.

said, that some time ago an attempt was made to remove the assizes from Waterford. The Bill had met with great opposition from the inhabitants; and he was afraid the hon. and learned Member had sought to introduce a measure which was extremely obnoxious to the great body of the magistracy of the county.

said, that from his experience in Ireland, he believed such a measure would be extremely useful. He thought the apprehension of his hon. Friend was quite unfounded, because it would be quite impossible to remove the assizes without the concurrence of the Privy Council.

looked upon the measure as giving the death-blow to the independence of Ireland. He had no objection to the Privy Council of England, but he wished the affair to be brought to the proper tribunal, and that was that House. He would not refer it to a tribunal, not only partial, but consisting wholly of one party. When he knew that the Grand Juries in Ireland were nominated by the Orange Sheriffs, and the Orange Sheriffs of Ireland by the Orange Judges, and these Orange Judges forming a large and influential portion of the Privy Council of Ireland, he must say, that a more unjust proposal could not have been imagined, and he trusted that Irish Members, having a majority against Orangemen, would not permit the Bill to pass ["Hear"].

said, he had not expected such opposition, It had been objected to vesting, in the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, the power of choosing proper places for holding the assizes; and he did say, that he thought it was carrying party spirit too far to attribute the influence of partial feeling to such persons. There was a check upon them if they were disposed to act in that manner, because, without the consent of the Grand Juries of the county (who were composed of men not very likely to appoint inconvenient places for the assizes), they would not be enabled to carry this Bill into execution. He thought their objection, however, would come with better force in the Committee, when they would examine into the details, as this resolution was only intended to introduce the principles of the Bill.

having expressed his disapprobation of the Privy Council of Ireland,

begged leave to make an explanation personal to himself. (After some opposition, the hon. Member was allowed to proceed.) He said, that an hon. Member opposite had objected to his being named as a Member of the Committee appointed the other night to inquire into the Orange Societies of Ireland. He did not clearly understand the nature of the objection, but he hoped it was not meant, by the hon. and learned Member, to cast any imputation upon his honour—for, though conscious of the purity and integrity of his own intentions, he could not allow even a supposed imputation to rest upon his character on the part of others. He was at a loss to know upon what occasion he had so misconducted himself, as to be pronounced, by the hon. Member for Tipperary, an improper person to take his place on that Committee. The only instance he recollected which afforded that hon. Member an opportunity of judging of his conduct was in a Committee last year, upon a subject which interested that hon. Member not a little, and he trusted the hon. and learned Member would do him the justice to say, that, upon that occasion, his conduct was not influenced by ungenerous or unfriendly feeling's, and that he joined in the decision of that Committee as heartily as any Member belonging to it. He had had the honour to present a petition from the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, praying for an inquiry into the origin, nature, and principles of the Orange Institution. In the prayer of that petition he fully concurred; but he had hoped the inquiry would have been instituted before a fair and impartial tribunal—such, he must say, he could not consider the Committee appointed. He would repeat that that was not a fair tribunal—because some of its Members had already expressed themselves in such terms of the Orange Society, as to render them any thing but fair and impartial judges; and if the House would permit him to read one or two short extracts from the sentiments declared by some of the Members of that Committee, he had no doubt the House would concur in opinion with him. The hon. member proceeded to read the following extracts:

Mr. Sheil said, in 1826, "We," the Catholic Association, an illegal body, "shall be masters of the representation of Ireland. We have already driven the faction out of their strong holds; and, improving upon our success—having acquired a confidence in our resources—having learned what union and organization can effect—we shall not have a single Orange representative in Ireland. Look, for example, to Louth—in forty-eight hours' notice we beat the whole Protestant aristocracy to the ground. I am not given to boasting, but this I may venture to assert—that, however unconnected with the county, I could, without any considerable exertion—nay, almost with the movement of my finger—have thrown Mr. Leslie Foster out of the county. I forbore to make any vigorous exertions against him, in the hope that he may turn the lesson which he has received to good account; but if he does not—if he is determined to bid defiance to the people—if he is dead to all admonition—he never shall represent Louth again."

Mr. O'Connell wrote a letter to Lord Duncannon on the 30th August, 1834, in which he said, speaking of the Orangemen, "Their souls are so hardened in guilt, and so accustomed to the avowed desire of practical cruelty, that they do not affect to conceal their wishes to render Ireland once more a desert, and to irrigate her plains with the blood of her inhabitants."

And again, in his letter "To the People of Ireland," dated 20th September, 1834:—"The Orange faction are, in point of intellect and understanding, the most deplorably degraded that ever excited the contempt or scorn of mankind." …… "Then, as to their moral qualities, what are they? The preaching up of wholesale proscription, massacre, and extermination. They call themselves Christians. They preach up doctrines almost too bad for the eternal enemy of mankind to suggest to human depravity. Bayonets and blood—bayonets and blood—form their texts and commentary Their laymen vie with their parsons in ruthless atrocity; and it becomes doubtful which of the two are the more ready to preach rapine, murder, and desolation. The infernal spirit of religious persecution reigns over the whole, and renders the Irish Orangeists the most depraved, as well as the most despicable of the human race."

He begged to assure the House, that his only reason for desiring to be a Member of any Committee appointed to inquire into the Orange system, would be a persuasion, that his knowledge of the society and his long standing in it, might be rendered serviceable to the objects of fair inquiry. As to the Committee now appointed, after what he had already stated, he thought it almost unnecessary to say, that he strongly disapproved of its constitution; and that he could not expect from a tribunal, some of whose Members had expressed sentiments which actually made them parties in the trial, an unprejudiced inquiry or an impartial decision.