begged to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford a question respecting the statutes of the University and its colleges. In July, 1838 the Duke of Wellington, the Chancellor o that University, deprecated discussion it the House of Lords on the subject of them statutes, saying, that they were then it the course of revision, and that it would be well that all opinion on them should for the present be suspended. It was now five years since this declaration had beer made, and he wished to ask whether the revision alluded to had been completed, or was still in progress, and, if so, when would be completed, and whether there would be any objection to the publication of the revised statutes.

would answer tile ques- tion of the right hon. Gentleman as well as he was able. It was within the knowledge of the House, without reference to what had taken place elsewhere, that the University had been engaged for a considerable time past in revising the statutes, and considerable progress had been made. Two or three years previously to the time to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, a great alteration had been made in reference to the relative intercourse of colleges and halls. In 1837 some change had been effected, which related to oaths, and in 1838 a considerable alteration had been adopted with regard to matriculations. Formerly it was required that young men should take an oath to fulfil all the requirements of the statutes, but that practice had now ceased to exist, and in lieu of taking the oath, every young man now received an admonition, which was addressed to him by the chief functionary of the University, the Vice-Chancellor. In the following year an alteration was made with respect to residence, which he thought would be found to be exceedingly salutary in its effects. In 1840 an alteration had been made in the statutes de moribus conformandis, and he believed that this was such a measure as would satisfy every hon. Gentleman. In another year, 1839, a further alteration had been made respecting lectures, requiring all persons to attend a certain number of courses, and of lectures in each course. He thought, that the right hon. Gentleman and the House would agree with him in thinking that much had been done, and that under the circumstances it was fit that a considerable portion of indulgence should be shown to the university. He could assure the House that the subject had not escaped the observation of those most interested in maintaining the discipline of the university, in promoting its welfare, and in rendering it one of the greatest ornaments of civilization in England.

begged to suggest to the hon. Baronet that he had not yet answered the questions which lie had put—namely, how soon the work which had been commenced would be completed, and whether the statutes might not be printed?

took it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the statutes were promulgated in Latin, and he did not know whether he could desire that they should be published in their original language. He might take this opportunity of adding what he had before omitted; the right hon. Gentleman's question had referred, not to the university merely, but to colleges also. He was able to state, that considerable progress had been made in the different colleges with respect to the revision of their statutes; but he must add, that each,)f the colleges had a visitor, subject to whose cognizance their internal affairs were conducted. The university, also, bad a visitor in the person of the Archbishop of Canterbury, besides a special visitor, to whom it was answerable.

begged to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, upon the subject of what was called bounty orders, which had been formerly granted by the Government for the encouragement of emigration. The bounty orders, during the period of office of the late Government, had been suddenly suspended; and those interested in promoting emigration had been subjected to considerable suffering by that suspension. Many of them held bounty orders, and they expected that their cases would be taken into consideration when the system was resumed. The noble Lord had given notice of his intention to resume these orders, and he desired to know whether, in accordance with the views of these persons, their case would be considered?

said, that the hon. Member was aware, that shortly before the change of Government, two years ago, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) then Secretary for Colonial Affairs, found that so many of these orders had been issued, that it was impossible that the finances of the colonies on which they were charged, could meet the demands upon them. The outstanding bounty orders on the Australian colonies at that time amounted to a million of money, which was to be paid in the course of two years. The noble Lord, therefore, had felt compelled, and he was convinced that the noble Lord had acted correctly, after giving sufficient notice to the present holders of these orders, to declare that, after a limited time, these orders should not be considered as being any longer binding. It was stated, however, that if emigration or bounty orders should be thereafter resumed, the claims of these parties should be taken into consideration. The result had been, that up to this time there had not been any surplus arising out of the monies appropriated to the payment of the bounty orders. He would not now enter into the question of the abuse of the bounty orders, but they had of late been employed for a different purpose to that for which they were originally intended. The original intention had been to afford to colonists, possessing certain means, in consideration of their laying out a certain sum of money in the colony, the power of bringing out emigrants at the public expense; but they had become matters of transfer and sale, and it was uncertain, therefore, into whose hands they fell. In consequence of complaints which had been made of the want of labour in the Australian colonies, the Government had decided on issuing tenders to take out a limited number of emigrants to those colonies, on the faith of such funds as should be forthcoming in the colonies. The object was not to renew the system of bounty orders; but to alter that plan. He did not think that those persons, who two years ago held bounty orders, had such a claim as justified the Government in allowing them to receive 20l. per head for all emigrants, when at the present rate of freight, the same advantages could be obtained at 16l. or 17l. per head.

understood the noble Lord then to say that he did not think that the holders of the bounty orders had an equitable claim on the Government.

did not think that parties who had entered into these engagements two years ago had secured to themselves any preference in carrying out their undertaking.

begged to inquire of the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, whether the Government intended to introduce any measure in the next Session of Parliament to amend the laws relating to factories?

had no hesitation in saying that the postponement of the bill, which had been before the House, to a future Session, had not arisen from any doubt on the part of the Government of its importance or propriety, but only from the desire expressed by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that it should be fully discussed. He was prepared to give his noble Friend an assurance that a bill would be introduced at a very early period of the next Session for the purpose of amending the law on this subject.

moved that the last three lines, enforcing penalty not exceeding 10l. and forfeiture, should be left out, and the words, "a fine not exceeding forty shillings," should be inserted.

proposed to insert the words "not being licensed." The committee divided on the question that the words be inserted: Ayes 33; Noes 86; Majority 53.

objected to the whole clause, but particularly to the penalty of repairing arms without licence. He moved to leave out the words "mend or repair."

moved that the words be "twenty pounds."

moved the omission of the word "repaired."

moved that! the words, "chief or under-secretary" be omitted. The committee divided on the question that these words stand part of the clause; Ayes 94; Noes 11; Majority 83.

moved to omit the words "trouble, &c." The committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause: Ayes 111; Noes 37; Majority 74.

objected to so important a measure being proceeded with at this period of the Session, and moved that it be read a second time that day three months.

defended the bill.

moved, [that leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the act 3 and 4 William 4th, c. 103.

trusted, that the hon. Member would not press his motion, as his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had announced, at an early part of the evening, that it was the intention of her Majesty's Ministers to introduce a bill on the subject.

said, that trusting that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman would be adhered to, he would consent to withdraw his motion. He knew that it was useless to press a bill of this kind against the wishes of the Government.

moved for leave to bring in a bill to continue an act for exempting certain bills of exchange and promissory notes from the operation of the laws relating to usury.

trusted that before any attempt was made to proceed with this bill, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the operation of the present act. Many representations of the most serious nature had been made to him with respect to the previous operation of the act.

observed that they only intended by the present bill to renew the present act for two years, the period for which it had been renewed from time to time since its introduction in 1834. Of course, if the hon. Member thought it necessary, he might at a future time move for a committee to inquire into the operation of the law.

trusted his hon. Friend would not oppose the introduction of the bill. So far from its being of an injurious character, he had heard that the most beneficial results had flowed from the alteration of the old usury laws by the present act.