wished to put a question to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as to emigration from the western coast of Africa. The House would recollect that there were two points which appeared to be left in some doubt. Was the book that was laid upon the Table the one from which he understood his noble Friend had since received information? He now wished to ask him, whether the proportion between the sexes was to be preserved as first laid down; and, next, whether those parties who were allowed to emigrate from Sierra Leone were to spend six weeks in that Colony before they were allowed to emigrate?

said, the question had been put before by the hon. Member for London, and it was then the opinion of the Government, that the decision must depend, in a considerable degree, on the Report which they expected to receive from the Governor. They had since received that Report, but required some time to consider it before coming to a final decision.

wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hardships occasioned by the deductions from the dividends, &c, of individuals whose property was under 150l. per annum, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any additional facilities to parties so aggrieved in obtaining a return of the sums deducted from them.

would be much obliged if the hon. and gallant Member would bring any of those cases under his particular and personal consideration. The greatest care had already been taken to expedite the returns to be made to such parties, and many cases of apparent hardship doubtless arose from persons refusing to conform to those necessary regulations and precautions which were made to secure the public from fraud. He would, however, be obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to submit to him any case in which there had been unnecessary delay, and be would do his best to remedy the evil.

asked whether it was intended to appoint a taxing officer to the Court of Bankruptcy?

said it was the intention of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to introduce a clause in a Bill now before the other House to enable the Lord Chancellor to appoint a taxing Officer.

said, a doubt existed with respect to the Sugar Duties, whether it was intended to bring in sugar the produce of Java on the same footing as it was proposed to place the sugars of Manilla and Siam, and also whether the importers of free-labour sugar would be required to bring with them a certificate of origin, as was done in the case of the East India sugar and rum when the reduction of duty took place in 1838?

said, that hon. Gentlemen must see he must have very great difficulty in answering the variety of questions which were put to him. He should take the earliest opportunity of bringing the subject of the Sugar Duties before the House, and in the meantime he trusted the House would excuse him answering questions of a partial nature and which it did no good, but rather mischief, to answer piecemeal.

seeing the hon. Member for Beverley in his place, wished to ask him whether it were the intention of the Board of Directors of the East India Company to lay before the Court of Proprietors, or before that House, or the public such documents as would show their reasons for the recall of Lord Ellen-borough from the Governor Generalship of India?

in reply to the questions put to him by the noble Lord, must say that he was not the organ of the Court of Directors in that House, and, therefore, was not the party to be called upon to answer that question, but that implied no objection as a member of that body to state his own individual opinion. He would not wish Her Majesty's Ministers to determine, with reference to the public interest, as to the production of Papers in that House, and it was his belief that with regard to the production of Papers before the Court of Proprietors, the Court of Directors would be influenced by the course adopted by hon. Members themselves in Parliament. He hoped that, in the mean time, with reference to what had passed in another place, he might venture to express his hopes that the House and the country would suspend their judgment.

said that, as the question had been put, he would say one word, though he should not have introduced the subject. Like his hon. Friend, he would not answer for the Court of Directors, though for forty-five years he had been connected with Indian affairs. He hoped the House and the public would give the Court of Directors credit for the faithful discharge of its duties. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend in reference to what had passed in another place, and, however great the authority and the influence which it would naturally have, still it was but an act of justice due to the Court of Directors, that the House and the public should suspend their judgment as to the, transaction.

intended, in consequence of what had passed in another place, to ask the right hon. Baronet if be had any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, a copy of the correspondence with the Court of Directors. As to the question, whether the Court of Directors had acted wisely in the step they had taken or not, he wanted the public to know whether they were properly attacked or not.

—I cannot give any assurance with respect to the period at which any Correspondence of that nature can be laid upon the Table of this House.

thought it a matter of great national importance that the public in India should have assurance as to the conduct of the Court of Directors in whom they confided—and especially when that conduct was impugned, it ought to be open to public examination. For his own part he approved highly of the conduct of the Directors.

in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the administration of Oaths in the Universities of Scotland, said it was usual on these subjects to move a resolution pledging the House to some abstract principle; but on the present occasion the course he had to pursue was so different, and the remedy for the grievance he had to complain of so short, that he preferred at once to move for leave to bring in a Bill to remedy it. As the question was, whether it was expedient or otherwise that Tests should be administered to those holding office in the Scotch Universities, he must desire that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Graham) would meet him at once on the principle, instead of paying him that deference which was sometimes paid out of courtesy to Members who moved for leave to introduce Bills in Parliament. It was not his intention to go into the whole subject of university reform in Scotland, but simply to address himself to the question of the Tests tendered to those who held office in the Universities. That the House might be fully aware of the subject, he begged to read an extract from the Act of 1707, commonly called the Act of Security. By this Act it was provided, that in all time to come no professor or other person holding office in any University, college, or school, in the Kingdom of Scotland, shall be allowed to exercise the said functions, but such as own and acknowledge the civil government in the manner prescribed or to be prescribed by Act of Parliament, and also that before their admission to the same they shall acknowledge, profess, and subscribe to the Confession of Faith, as the confession of their faith, and conform and subject themselves to the whole doctrine and discipline of the Church of Scotland. Illiberal, strict, and narrow minded as this provision might now appear, he could yet find ample excuse for its original framers. This Test was not directed against any body of Dissenters, as that term was now understood. It was not directed against the Roman Catholics, for they were sufficiently excluded by the penal laws. But it was entirely directed against the members of the Church of England, or the Episcopalians, as they called them in Scotland. It was not surprising that some Test of this kind was then thought necessary. Those who originated it had not forgotten the struggle which James I. had made to obtain predominance for the Crown in matters spiritual as well as civil. They had not forgotten the harshness with which they were treated by Charles I., and the still harsher measures they endured from Charles II., and his infamous agents, Dalzell and Claver-house, who scrupled not to put nearly 18,000 Presbyterians to death mainly for upholding the Presbyterian religion. This was their only excuse; but he thought, under the circumstances, it must be considered satisfactory. Certainly these Tests might be the means of preventing an obnoxious person from retaining his office, provided the Universities were agreed in enforc- ing them. It was natural, therefore, that in forming a union with a kingdom where a different system of Church government prevailed, they should take some steps to secure the preservation and the purity of the discipline of their own. Having obtained this power, the Universities were not strong in enforcing the Test. In 1724 the Duke of Chandos, who was a member of the English Church, was appointed Chancellor of St. Andrews; and though he remained in that position for twenty years, he could not find that any Test had been tendered, or that it was recorded as having been taken. In 1744, he was succeeded by the Duke of Cumberland, and he did not find that any Oath, even the Oath of Allegiance, or any Test, had been administered to him; so that, in fact, at that early period, the honorary officers of these Universities were already excluded from taking these obnoxious Tests. How long the practice had gone on he did not know, but neither with respect to honorary officers or lay Professors had any Test been admitted. This appeared from the evidence of Professor Baird, given before the Commissioners of Inquiry, who said,—

"With regard to the answer to the 67th question, as to the Professor's subscription of the Confession of Faith, and their taking the Oath of Allegiance, it is stated it has not been the uniform practice for Professors appointed by either the Crown or the patrons to produce at their admission a certificate of having complied with this qualification; have any instances occurred since the appointment of the principal in which such certificates have been produced?—I recollect one being produced by Dr. Duncan, junior, when he was appointed Professor of medical jurisprudence.

"Was it produced by him voluntarily?— Yes; and laid on the Table with the Commission.

"Has it been required by the Senatus Academicus of the professors?—No.

"Has the Senatus Academicus any power to administer the Oath of Allegiance itself?—No.

"Has the Act of Parliament of 1707, in point of fact, been inoperative as to that in this University?—Yes.

"Does the Senatus Academicus admit professors?—It is difficult to answer the question. We go through the form of admission: whether we have power to admit or not, we do not know. When the Senatus is met, on the application of the magistrates to meet for the reception of a professor, the magistrate comes in with the candidate, and gives his Commission to me at the head of the Table, and the Senatus orders it to be recorded.

"Upon the occasion of the admission of the professor, is he not required to subscribe the Confession of Faith?—He is not.

"Nor to produce a certificate of his having subscribed it anywhere else, or the Oath of Allegiance?—No.

"Is it your impression that there has been any other instance, since your appointment as principal, in which any of the professors have produced any such certificate of having signed the Confession of Faith, except in the case of Dr. Duncan?—I should say at once I have no such recollection.

"Do you recollect if it was produced by Dr. Hamilton or Dr. Hunter?—No."

In the University of Aberdeen, it seemed, upon the authority of these same Commissioners, that since 1826, this Test had been strictly administered, with respect to professors, but they were led to infer, in page 122 of the Appendix to their Second Report, that, previous to 1826, there had been much laxity as to this Test:—

"Requisition 59. Were the professors and lecturers in the University, who have been admitted since the year 1826, required previously to their admission to the exercise of their respective functions to subscribe the Confession of Faith and formula of the Church of Scotland, as approved and fixed by Act of Parliament, and to swear and subscribe the Oath of Allegiance to his Majesty.—Return: The professors admitted since 1826 were required to subscribe the Confession of Faith and formula of the Church of Scotland, as approved and fixed by Act of Parliament, and to swear the Oath of Allegiance to his Majesty, and did so accordingly. The lecturers admitted since 1826 have not been required to subscribe the Confession of Faith, nor to swear the Oath of Allegiance.

"Requisition 60; Are the Chancellor, Rector, and Office-bearers in the University, exclusive of the Principal, Professors, and Lecturers, required to acknowledge, profess, and subscribe the said Confession of Faith?— Return: No.

"Requisition 61. Are the graduates or bursars in the University required to acknowledge, profess, and subscribe the said Confession of Faith on their graduation as bursars?—Return; No."

From what he had stated, he thought it was clear that the practice of administering the Tests, as far as concerned the University of Edinburgh, and to some extent the University of Aberdeen also, had not been found to produce any great benefit; and most assuredly, if these Tests were abolished, the circumstance would not be found to be attended with any great injury to the Established Church; for if injury was likely to result, we should have experienced it before, because the Tests had not been always rigidly enforced in these Universities. He was of opinion, so far at least as lay professors in the Scotch Universities were concerned, that no damage could arise to the established religion of the country by the omission of any particular Test. He begged to remark, that in the proposal he hoped to be allowed to submit to the House he entirely excluded all professors of divinity. He did not want to exclude any Test which those professors were now subjected to. He only referred to the lay professors. By administering the Test the Universities were made sectarian in character, and thus many distinguished persons were prevented from giving those establishments the benefit of their talents and acquirements. This was one of the many objections which he considered adhered to the Tests. He had hoped, from what he learned with respect to the Universities of Edinburgh and Aberdeen, that the practice was dying away, and that the tests might be permitted to glide into oblivion, but he was sorry to say, owing to the late occurrences which had taken place, and the disruption which had occurred in the Church of Scotland, that the question of these Tests had been again raised and brought prominently before the country. He begged to be understood not to refer to his own case. If the Tests affected only certain individuals holding honorary offices in the University—obnoxious though they were—they would scarcely be worth mentioning; but when he found these Tests were likely to put out of their position the most distinguished men of science who now graced the Universities, he conceived the question became of great importance. It was clear if the administration of the Tests was insisted on, that the system must be extended to every University in Scotland, and the laws must be impartially administered. What then would be the effect of this course? He was proud to say, that at present the Scotch Universities had many distinguished men who held honorary offices in them, and also many eminent individuals who were professors. He had already referred to Sir David Brewster, and there were in Glasgow, St. Andrew's, and Aberdeen Universities, many of the professors would by the operation of the Tests be subjected not simply to subscribe to a confession of faith, but, as the law said, to a confession of their faith, and they would be called upon to sign a formula of the Church of Scotland, or, in other words, record themselves as Members of that Church; and unless they did so, and consented to sacrifice their conscientious reli- gious feelings, they would have to give up the tenure of their offices: This was not the whole of the consequences. Another consequence would be to prevent other men of eminence from offering their services to assist in the work of education and promotion of science. It was said, that the eminent Mr. Faraday was once a candidate for the office of professor of chemistry to one of the Universities of Scotland. Now if that Gentleman at this time of day were to offer his services to the University of Edinburgh as professor of chemistry, that University would be deprived of his services, because he would refuse to put his hand to the established formula of the Church of Scotland; as if the Established Church could possibly suffer in the smallest degree from the fact of a Gentleman of Mr. Faraday's accomplishments teaching chemistry in the University without having signed the formula. The idea was ridiculous and absurd. As to the classical professors, they all knew that the Heliconien spring did not usually flow very high in Scotland. The Scotch went, and they were not ashamed to go, to the Universities of England for Professors. From England they obtained Classical Professors, and would still obtain them; but if they put the confession of faith in the way, they would deprive Scotland of those advantages of which the Scotch were glad to avail themselves. If he came to the honorary offices, he found that he had not been required to take the Test during the first year: not having presented himself for installation, he did not know what course might be pursued; but in Glasgow it appeared essential that the Test should remain even in respect to honorary offices. Let them see how this was acted on in practice. When the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) was Lord Rector, there was an election of a Professor of Divinity, at which he was present. Last year, whilst he himself was making a visit, he requested the production of the books as Lord Rector; they were produced, but the Principal informed him that he considered him disqualified from giving any order, as he dissented from the Church of Scotland. What, however, was the course pursued when the right hon. Baronet was Rector? It was notorious that he was a member of the Church of England; yet on the election of a Professor of Divinity, not only was this not objected to by Principal M'Farlane, but his vote was accepted, and he believed it was the turning vote for the election of Dr. Hill in opposition to Dr. Chalmers. A majority of the Professors in the Universities of Scotland agreed in the propriety of the abolition of these Tests, and he believed that with the exception of the Universities of Edinburgh, and by accident Aberdeen, they had expressed their desire by petitions to that House. If they proceeded with disinterring this ancient system, let them for a moment contemplate the consequences of their proceeding. In the first place, what would be the effect on the Universities? His opinion was, that it would raise in Scotland rivals to those establishments. He did not speak from a stretch of imagination, but from knowing the fact. He could tell the House that such an intention as he had hinted at really had been formed, and was entertained, and would not be easily abandoned, unless the fullest and the most liberal admission was given to Professors in the Universities. But he wished to know what benefit the Established Church was to derive? Be assured the Church would be far from deriving any benefit from a perseverance in the ancient system. They would find that they were raising up rivals to the Universities, and every individual educated in the new establishments would he educated in rivalry and hostility to the Established Church, who otherwise would have amalgamated himself in friendly feeling with the members of the Established Church, with whom they had been educated. These were some of the difficulties which would arise if the House persisted in reviving the system of Tests. Perhaps hon. Members were not exactly aware of the history of the Established Church which they desired to protect. In the year 1770, it was the religion of nearly the whole of the population of Scotland. Now, it was only the religion of the minority. Time was, when it was the boast of Scotland, that the Established Church was the Church of the majority, but it was not so now; and he did not make this assertion without being borne out by calculations. Before the disruption, there were 1,000,000 of Churchmen, and 500,000 of Dissenters; but since the disruption he believed he was under the mark when he stated that 400,000 persons had left the Established Church, and now the Established Church would be found in a minority, while the Dissenters, who all wished for the abolition of the Tests were in a majority. He would not ask the House to accede to the Motion, if he thought it would in any way affect the stability of the Church, as recognised by the Act of Union. He did not want to lay a rude hand on the Established Church. If he differed from the doctrines of the Church, he still declared he would not lay a rude hand on her privileges. If his Motion were not carried, he was quite satisfied this would be the readiest way to endanger the security of the Established Church of Scotland. If the House did not consent to such an enactment as this, the consequence would be that the people would prove their dissatisfaction by instituting seminaries and schools of a more liberal character for the instruction of their children, and providing for them teachers and professors, who should not be subject upon appointment to take the Test, or sign the Declaration. He had no objection to engraft in his Bill, if it met with the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, a sort of negative Test—he had no objection to requiring a Declaration from a Professor that in his lectures he would not teach anything that would lead to the subversion of the Established Church, though he deemed such a Test perfectly useless, because it was known, that the Professors of philosophy and of the arts and sciences in the Universities of Scotland had never done anything except mind their own business in their lectures; they did not treat upon subjects with which in their lectures they had nothing to do. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by entreating the right hon. Gentleman opposite to weigh well the decision to which he might come, and he entreated the House to stamp with its seal of reprobation the remnant of a system which might have been, perhaps, justified at the time it was adopted, which was opposed to the spirit of the present age, which was obnoxious to the feelings of every man of liberal education, and which could give no protection to the Established Church, which it was intended to support, but which would rather, on the contrary, bring into malignant operation a feeling which would tend to pull down the Church more than any system which could be adopted. The right hon. Gentleman on sitting down submitted his Motion to the House.

rose to second the Motion. He agreed in what his right hon. Friend had so clearly laid down. If his right hon. Friend had extended his Motion to the Ecclesiastical Professorships, he could not have gone that length, but having reference exclusively to the lay teachers in the Universities, he had no doubt of the propriety of introducing a Bill on the sub- ject. He attributed the necessity for legislation to the late unfortunate secession in the Church, than which nothing had more shaken Scotland to her foundation. He did not think that the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, was prepared for such a secession till it had actually taken place, and that he must now lament the supineness which had, to a great extent, aided it. He thought his right hon. Friend had overstated the number now adhering to the Church; he did not think they were more than one-third of the population. Taking the population of Scotland at two and a half millions, the calculation was, that the Dissenters having been 800,000, one half of the remainder now belonged to the free Church. [An Hon. Member dissented.] He must then take an opportunity of proving what was his firm belief. In Aberdeen the number of sittings in the Established Churches were upwards of 10,000. What number was let? Little above 2,000; so that it was perfectly clear in the City of Aberdeen four-fifths had seceded from the Established Church. Was it not also known that from 700 to 800 Churches had been built by the voluntary efforts and contributions of the people, with some small assistance, and that in a country which was not, under all circumstances, considered the richest in the world. Either the Tests under consideration were necessary or they were not. If they were necessary, it was for the support of the Established Church, otherwise they were of use to no human being; and yet to the Church they were injurious; it was evident that they prevented persons of intellect and talent from going to Scotland and obtaining these professors' chairs, unless they happened to profess the religion of the country. He would mention a case that had occurred at Mareschal College, Aberdeen. A nominee to a lay professorship had refused to sign the Confession of Faith without qualifying his reasons, and the Presbytery having taken the matter up, refused to admit his reservations, or to induct him, and the consequence was that the case was referred to the Court of Session, when the Presbytery were declared to have acted illegally, and the professor was inducted. Now did not this show that the Test was of no use, that its practice was doubtful, its application irregular, and its infliction a matter of caprice and uncertainty, and he, therefore, submitted that it should be abolished as regarded the lay professors. Holding these opinions, he seconded with great pleasure the Motion of his right hon. Friend.

said, in the observations which it was his duty to address to the House, he would first notice a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman at the commencement of his speech, with reference to which he would say, that in a matter of such great importance affecting the interests of the Established Church of Scotland, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had judged most wisely in not proceeding by Resolution. He had asked for leave to bring in a Bill which appeared, in a parliamentary sense, the most proper course; and the right hon. Gentleman had relieved him from all difficulty, by stating that although he had adopted that method, he would not insist on the ordinary courtesy, which sanctioned the introduction of a Bill, and that he would not, consider any resistance offered to him as a personal incivility. He must say that, although it would be his duty to resist the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, he entertained the greatest personal respect for him. A great deal had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman which he was disposed to admit. The state of the case in reference to the law, and historically, also, with respect to the policy of the original enactment, the facts had been most accurately stated by the right hon. Gentleman. It was quite clear that at the time when these Acts passed the jealousy of the Scottish Legislature was entirely confined to episcopacy. At the time of the passing of the Act of 1690, which was the Act which prescribed the necessity of a confession of faith, and which was the Act by which the Presbyterian religion was finally established in that country, the necessity of subscription also, on the part of the office bearers in the Scotch universities was imposed in the most stringent manner, and remained in force during the interval between 1690 and the Act of Union. On the very day on which the Act ratifying that union passed the Scottish Parliament, an Act termed an Act of Security was passed simultaneously, and it was declared, in the strongest manner that words could convey, to be a fundamental ground of the treaty of union. By the 3rd section of the 25th article of the Act of Union it was declared,—

"And further, for the greater security of the aforesaid Protestant religion, and of the wor- ship, discipline, and government of this Church, as above established, Her Majesty, with advice and consent aforesaid, statutes and ordains that the Universities and Colleges of St. Andrew's, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, as now established by law, shall continue within this kingdom for ever; and that in all time coming, no professors, principals, regents, masters, or others bearing office in any university, college, or school within this kingdom, be capable to be admitted, or allowed to continue in the exercise of their said functions, but such as shall own and acknowledge the civil government in manner prescribed or to be prescribed by the Acts of Parliament; as also, that before, or at their admissions, they do and shall acknowledge and profess, and shall subscribe to the aforesaid confession of faith, as the confession of their faith, and that they will practice and confirm themselves to the worship presently in use in this Church, and submit themselves to the government and discipline thereof, and never endeavour directly or indirectly the prejudice or subversion of the same, and that before the respective Presbyteries of their bounds, by whatsoever gift, presentation, or provision they may be thereto provided."

He was not about to argue that any Act so fundamental and essential should in all future time be imperative and not subject to modification or revision, but this he did say, that it ought not to be any cause of minor importance which ought to lead the British Parliament to deal with an article agreed to at the time of the Union with Scotland, and declared to be fundamental. It was said that these statutes, and he admitted it, were levelled, at the time when they were passed, principally against episcopacy and that they had since fallen practically into disuse. It was very true that as the Established Church of Scotland took deeper root and when the efforts of the Episcopalians to gain possession of the endowments of the country became more feeble, the jealousy of the Presbyterians evaporated, and that was practically evinced in the universities by some laxity in the use of the Tests in question. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly accurate in stating that in later times in the University of Edinburgh, office-bearers were frequently chosen from Episcopalians, and that these Tests were not applied; but the right hon. Gentleman was not fully accurate, if he excepted the University of Edinburgh, in stating that, with respect to the teachers of the other three Universities in Scotland, the use of these Tests had been discontinued. The state of the Scotch Universities had come under the review of Parliament in 1826, and a Commission of Inquiry had been appointed, and on this point the Commission had reported in 1830, that the regulations of the Act of Security not having been uniformly attended to they recommended that in future the regulations of that Act should be strictly enforced, and that all members of the three universities should subscribe the Tests required by that Act. This report not only negatived the statement that the imposition of these Tests had fallen into general disuse, but recommended that for the future they should be stringently enforced. That report was signed by the present Earl of Rosebery, by the late Duke of Gordon, by Lord Aberdeen, by Lord Melville, by the President Hope, by Mr. Boyle, the Lord Justice Clerk, by the late Sir W. Rae, by Mr. Moncrieff, by Mr. Hume Drummond, and by other Gentlemen of influence. Lord Corehouse had dissented from the recommendation that this Test should not be discontinued, but should be more rigorously enforced. He thought he was right in saying that this part of a most solemn engagement ought to be treated with peculiar caution in that House, and ought not to be lightly subverted. The gallant officer had spoken of it as harmless; then he asked why it should be lightly repealed when no grievance was stated? He had listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member, and he had not heard any grievance alleged. With regard to clerical professors the right hon. Gentleman did not propose any change; but he did not stop there—he proposed that there should be for all lay teachers a negative Test, and that Test he was willing should remain in the words of the Act of Security,—that they should declare that they would do nothing which would in effect tend to the prejudice or subversion of the Church. His proposal then after all, was anything but an abolition of the Test. The advantage of the negative Test was certainly beyond his apprehension; it marked jealousy and distrust of the teachers, but did not appear to afford any adequate security. In the University of Glasgow Episcopalians had, and he believed did now, fill the professors' chairs who had taken the Test. He believed positively, without exception, that no lay teacher in the Glasgow University had filled a chair without taking that Test. In Edinburgh they had not all taken that Test, but he could state positively that no Presbyterian Dissenter had been admitted to fill a professors' chair in Scotland up to the present time. He did not think it expedient to enter into an analysis, such as the gallant officer had entered into, of the precise extent of the late secession. He deplored it; he considered it as one of the greatest misfortunes that had occurred to Scotland. He believed it to be very extensive in its effects, and from its extent to be highly dangerous to the established religion of that country; he was most desirous, therefore, that nothing that should fall from him should tend in any degree to exasperate the differences which at present unhappily existed, particularly as there were some hopes from one Minister having returned into union with the Church that the schism would gradually abate. It was certainly with peculiar pleasure that he heard the right hon. Gentleman opposite say, that though he had seceded from the Established Church, and though no doubt his secession had been a great loss to that Establishment, yet that he was not its implacable enemy, and would do nothing to subvert or overthrow it. That was the sentiment the right hon. Gentleman expressed in that House. Sorry was he to say, that it had not been the language of many who had seceded. Many persons of great influence and of great eminence, parties to this secession, had gone forth, declaring themselves enemies to the Establishment itself, bent on its overthrow, and describing the Erastian establishment, as they called it, as a nuisance which ought to be abated. The right hon. Gentleman, most respectable and most active in support of the Church whilst a member of it, most energetic in his opposition to it now he had seceded from it, came forward at this juncture to make this Motion. He had told the House that up to this time no Presbyterian Dissenter had ever yet been a teacher in a Scotch University; now, it was right that the House should bear in mind what was the nature of the patronage in several Scotch Universities. In Edinburgh a large portion of the Professors' Chairs were in the gift of the Town Council of the city; and that very argument of the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Motion that his secession was popular, and that the bulk of the people had left the Church, must prove to the House that those Town Councils, popularly elected, must partake largely of the spirit of dissent. Admitting that dissent both in the Town Councils of Aberdeen and of Edinburgh was very prevalent, and that religious feeling at this time ran high, was it not natural that these popularly-elected bodies would almost invariably, unless security were taken, elect Dissenters to fill those chairs? The right hon. Gentleman said he would still maintain the Negative Test, and that was as he (Sir J. Graham) took it, a demonstration that the right hon. Gentleman felt how great was the influence of teachers over the minds of young persons. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman knew that there was hardly any lecture whether physical or metaphysical, ethical, or historical, into which particular religious tenets might not be introduced; and in proportion as the teacher gained power over the young entrusted to his charge, would he have the facility of inculcating or insinuating his own peculiar opinions. He did not think that there was any great evil in the establishment of rival institutions: he was not therefore overawed by the threat of Free Church Universities: he thought, however, it was of the last importance, that security should be taken that the connexion of the ancient Universities (recognized in the great Presbyterian Charter of the Act of 1690, which determined that they should for ever remain the Universities of Scotland, and which it was said in the Act of Security should for ever be connected with the Church of that country) should be maintained in alliance with the religion of the State. Those Tests were available, and fairly available, in his (Sir J. Graham's) opinion against Protestant Dissenters seeking to obtain pre-eminence and predominance in the Scottish Universities. Those Tests had existed now for nearly a century and a-half, they had not excluded talent, for he knew that to the honor of Scotland, the fame of her Universities nearly rivalled those of this country. If they looked, for example, at political economy, Adam Smith who might almost be called the father of that science, had been a Professor at Glasgow; if they took the medical science, John Hunter and Professor Clarke had been educated there; if they took metaphysics they found Dugald Stewart, a professor in Edinburgh amongst the leading metaphysicians of Europe. He recollected, also, that Lord Melbourne had been educated at Glasgow, Lord Lansdowne at Edinburgh, and that the noble Lord opposite the Member for London, (Lord J. Russell) had been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, in the strictest sect of Philosophers,; he had been a pupil of Professor Playfair's. He (Sir James Graham) confessed he could see no reason for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman asked if they were in a condition to revive the system of Tests? But that was not the question. The question was, whether they would consent, without any ground for doing so, to disturb an arrangement which had existed for a century and a-half. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned certain petitions from the Scotch Universities; now he had every reason to believe, that anything but unanimity existed in Scotland upon this subject. He had a petition of the Principal and several Professors of Glasgow University, and, of course, they had an interest in opening the door of their University to as many students as possible; yet, what said the Principal and these Professors of that University? Why that the repeal of the Test would drive away many students from the University by destroying national confidence in the character of the Professors individually and of the instruction which they communicated. With regard to the secession from the Church, they had seen, that so far from advancing, many who had seceded had since seen the error of their ways and had returned to the Establishment. The House should take care, then, not to touch the foundation of an Establishment, which though shaken, still had such a hold upon the hearts and affections of the people. He did hope that this would be regarded as purely and pre-eminently a Scottish question, and that it would be treated as he was desirous of treating it, upon Scottish grounds: he placed it upon the Article of Union, upon the great Presbyterian Charter and, more than that, upon the Act of Security, which was coincident and coeval with the Act of Union, and must be regarded as a fundamental condition. The state of the Benches was not very encouraging, still before the debate closed he trusted that the House would be favoured with the opinion of some Scottish Members upon the subject; for his own part he must say, he conceived it to be his duty to maintain as far as in him lay that Presbyterian Church which Her Majesty had sworn to uphold in all its integrity, and he was bound to take lightly no rash step such as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. With the most perfect respect, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman, it would be his duty to oppose the introduction of the Bill which the right hon. Gentlemen asked the leave of the House to introduce.

agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that this was entirely a Scottish question, and he hoped the Imperial Legislature would regard it with reference to the feelings and just demands of the people of Scotland. It was a matter of vital importance to that country. While its people were united under one Church the question might have been comparatively insignificant, but since the secession had taken place it was of much greater moment. He remembered the confidence expressed by the right hon. Baronet and the Government before that change took place. He knew how little they thought what would be the result of that secession—what a small party would go out of the Church; they flattered themselves that the feelings of the people of Scotland were much changed; they imagined that the Clergy of Scotland were mercenary men who would not leave their livings. What had been the result of these proceedings? Why, more than half the Members of the Church had seceded. The Church was no longer what it had been, for the country and for the rural population. The remark of Dr. Adam Smith could no longer be applied to it, that of all the Established Churches which existed in various countries, that of Scotland united the attachment and affection of the people towards it more strongly than was the case of any other church in any other country. That feeling had gone, and it was no longer the Church of the majority. Was it not notorious that those who had merely travelled through the country had seen the change approaching long before it took place, and was it not extraordinary that Her Majesty's Ministers, with every information before them, could not better read the signs of the times? It appeared that there were not less than 700 Churches abandoned by their Ministers and the congregations in one single year. The extent of the funds subscribed by the seceders for the purpose of providing the means of divine worship he could not mention, but it was very large, and at the very moment that the people were emptying their pockets for the purpose of building Churches, they made larger subscriptions to the charities formerly in connection with the Church than had ever been made before. His right hon. Friend and himself had been told that there was no grievance in connection with the question before the House, and the only effect of the Test had hitherto been to exclude a few Episcopalians from the professors' chairs in the Uni- versities. Were they now to be told that this was not a question of great magnitude? Why, this Test struck at two-thirds of the population of Scotland. There had arisen then, a most serious grievance, and if it was persisted in, it would unite the people of Scotland to demand a Reform in such a way that it could not be refused. He begged to remind the right hon. Baronet that this, perhaps, was the East Retford question of the Church of Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman must take care how he dealt with it. His right hon. Friend had referred to the case of Sir David Brewster, with the view of showing in what a scandalous manner these Tests had been used. He begged to remind the House that this was not the case of an obscure individual, but of a most eminent and learned philosopher, whose name by his important discoveries had become European, and who was as much distinguished for his high scientific attainments as for his religious and moral character. He would venture to say that not only was the connection of such a man an honour to the University of St. Andrew's, but when put beside and in contrast with such a man, the reputation of the University itself became obscure. This great man had been assailed in the most indecent and unbecoming manner by the defenders of these Tests; and because he had seceded from the Church, and was no longer a Member of the Established Church of Scotland, an attempt had been made to expel him from his office in the University; and yet was he (Mr. Rutherford) to be told that this was no grievance. He had referred to this case to show the evil of Tests, and he wished to impress it upon the mind of the right hon. Baronet to consider well how the continuance of them would operate, under present circumstances, in Scotland, if a timely remedy was not applied. He trusted, then, that the Imperial Parliament would at once interfere; and he appealed particularly to English Members to hold the balance between both sides, and to deal with the subject impartially, in considering the facts of the case. He would not attempt to deny the plausibility of some parts of the speech of the right hon. Baronet, nor would he follow him through his statement as to the causes of framing the Act of 1690, or the Clause in the Act of Union in 1707. He could not say, from what fell from the right hon. Baronet, whether he meant to deal with the question of Tests on the mere principle of the merit of having Tests. He first un- derstood him to say that he felt rather disposed to go into the question whether, if they had not hitherto been in existence, they should now be imposed; and whether, if these Tests had not existed before, the House should assent to their being created. The right hon. Baronet did not seem in the early part of his speech to rest much on the policy of Tests; but towards the end of his speech he apparently intended to say much in favour of them, and seemed to imply that their existence was very desirable. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that with reference to Professors not being members of the Established Church, and occupying lay and secular chairs, that they would have numerous and almost constant opportunities of instilling incidentally into the minds of the youth attending their several classes, their own peculiar sectarian opinions. The right hon. Gentleman urged this as a ground for continuing these Tests, and said that these professors, while instructing the pupils under their care in ethics, science and literature, would insidiously impress upon the minds of those under them those particular doctrines of religion which they held in contradistinction to the doctrines of the Established Church. If he believed, that anything of the kind would arise, he should think that danger was to be apprehended from the manner of teaching in Scotland. So, however, the right hon. Gentleman thought, and so argued. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman so thought, and if he feared and apprehended such dangers from the mode of teaching by such professors, he could not say a single word which would not discredit the universities of Scotland. He believed such an inference as the right hon. Gentleman drew would he attended with consequences which he would not wish the people of Scotland to adopt. It must be admitted, that up to the present time, no great complaints had been made that the lay and secular Professors interfered in teaching theology, but that they severally confined their instruction to the science or the art they professed: and he was not aware that the least suspicion had ever been felt or manifested by the Church of such interference on the part of the several Professors of ethics, of law, of medicine, of languages, or of science. The right hon. Gentleman complained of rival Universities. Now, he saw no great harm in the existence of rival Universities. But if those parties who had seceded from the Church chose to establish, by gift, or sub- scription, or endowment, rival Universities, would the Government consent to give them foundations, for the purpose of giving degrees in medicine and law to the pupils who had graduated at them, which should have the same effect as if conferred by the established Universities? If the House refused to remove these Tests, and if they withheld this power from the new Universities which would be established, it would act in a most unjust mariner. But let the feeling of dissatisfaction towards the established Universities grow up, it would work effects which would be productive of the very worst consequences towards them. It should be recollected that Scotland was not so very large. It was well known that the great portion of the emoluments of the occupiers of the chairs of Professors in the Universities of Scotland, depended on the number of pupils which each had. If many of the pupils, and this was very likely to be the case under existing circumstances, were driven away from their Universities by Tests, it would be difficult to find men of eminence who would consent to fill the several chairs, and the result would be that the whole system would be at an end. He begged the House to recollect that this matter had nothing whatever to do with the theological chairs. He admitted that it was right that the Church should appoint those who were members of it to educate the young men who were candidates for Clerical Orders, but it was not necessary to require this of those who occupied the secular chairs, and who were not teachers of theology, but who confined their instructions to law, medicine, ethics, chemistry, mathematics and Greek and Latin. What necessity was there that a gentleman to be competent to teach any of these branches of education should be in communion with the Church of Scotland? Were they to be told that no others were competent to instruct in science and art, or in the languages? Were they to be told that no man could teach the abstract sciences unless he was a member of the Church of Scotland? Was it to be borne, that they were to be told that the youth of Scotland would be corrupted if Professors were allowed to be appointed to teach in matters not at all appertaining to religion? But the right hon. Gentleman had told them that these Tests did not operate as an exclusion to able Professors. The right hon. Baronet had stated that at the present time, one of the most distinguished Professors in the University of Glasgow, and a late Professor Sir D. Sandford, who was one of the most eminent and successful Professors of that University, were members of the Church of England. He understood the right hon. Baronet distinctly to admit, that both these Gentlemen took the Tests. He went then upon the fact, as alleged on the opposite side, that these two Professors being members of the Episcopal Church, set their hands to the declaration, that they believed and adopted the profession of faith of the Church of Scotland; and this, be it recollected, was not all; but that they also submitted to the Government and discipline of the Church of Scotland, These were the words, and this was the test which the right hon. Gentleman alleged these Gentlemen to have taken. Then it appeared that these two Gentlemen, who were members of another church, signed a declaration, on condition of their being allowed to teach in the University of Glasgow, that this was their faith, and that they would conform to the practice and worship of the Church of Scotland, and they must have taken the communion in connection with that Church, if they so conformed. He contended, that if they submitted to the government and discipline of the Church, they must do so. He did not know from his own knowledge the circumstances stated by the right hon. Gentleman; but if they were as described, they showed in a strong light one of the worst evils of Tests, and they led men to whom they are tendered to palter with solemn declarations in matters with respect to which there should be no equivocation or hesitation, but only plain, and open, and straightforward dealing. It should also be remembered, that under this system of Tests Newton could not have been an instructor in science in a Scotch university, nor could Locke have held a chair of metaphysics or ethics. It has been also said, that the existence of these Tests had given rise to small evils, as the only result had been to exclude Episcopalians from the Professors chairs in the Scotch Universities, and that only a few of them lived in Scotland. But at the present time in Scotland, there was a large and powerful party, which had seceded from the Church, and which would not conform to the practice and worship of the Church, or subscribe to the decisions of the Church. Great care should be taken that you did not hold inducements to palter with solemn Tests. At the time these Tests were imposed, there could be no doubt that the great body of the people of Scotland were members of the Established Church, but this was no longer the case, and it was therefore time to legislate on this subject, and for the Imperial Parliament to remove those Tests which had now become such a manifest grievance. It appeared to him that the real ground upon which the right hon. Baronet opposed his right hon. Friend's Motion was, that he feared that if the Bill was laid on the Table, it would go forth to the people of Scotland, and that these people would strongly declare their opinions upon the subject. The real ground of objection was, that the people of Scotland should not express their opinions on the subject, and not because these Tests would be against the Act of 1690 and the Act of Union in 1707. The latter Act of Security, which the people of Scotland had so much at heart when they consented to surrender their own Parliament, and submit themselves to the legislation of the Imperial Parliament, was, that the continuance of the Church of Scotland should be secured. Now, although this Act, as was said by the right hon. Baronet, was, agreed to on the same day with the Act of Union, and that it formed an important part of the Union; yet the people of Scotland had reason to find, within a very few years, that it furnished no great safeguard against innovations on the Church, for an attack was made on the Church for the putting down the popular voice, and the mode of appointing the Ministers of the Church. Within five years after the Act of 1707 the Imperial Parliament passed an Act changing the constitution of the Church, by taking away the patronage of the Church from those who then held it, and transferring it to the representatives of those from whom it was taken by the Act of 1630. That was a specimen of most rash legislation, and a most unjustifiable interference with the Church of Scotland; but he might be told that this was an old precedent If he was told this, he would refer to the Act of last Session, which deeply touched the constitution of the Church, But the right hon. Gentleman said that that was only a declaratory Act. He was astonished that this could be said in the face of the judgment given by Lords Cottenham and Brougham; for it was clear to him that it was not a declaratory, but an enacting Act, by which you touched the safety, and affected in a most serious manner the best interests of the Church of Scotland. The Act of 1707 was in vain opposed as an objection to this invasion of the Church of Scotland; it appeared therefore, when they wished to infringe on the Church, they refused to allow this Act to be pleaded as a bar. Independent of other evils or tests, it narrowed the choice of candidates for professorships, and was productive of other evils. Speaking as he did from the Opposition side of the House, he did not know whether the right hon. Baronet would give him credit when he expressed his regret on this subject in reference to the character of the Government in Scotland. He, however, could really, and truly, and sincerely say, that he was afflicted at the course taken by the Government, for it was clear to him what the result would be. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would mark his words when he observed that the worst consequences would attend the impression that the Church of Scotland could not continue without these tests, for it would give to the Church of Scotland the worst character of sectarianism. Another result would be, that parents would not allow their children to attend the schools in connection with the Church, but that others would be formed, and there would be created all that vexation of spirit, all those bitter distinctions of religion, all that discouragement of learning, which all past history has shown has ever arisen when the great mass of the people are excluded from those places which should be carefully kept distinct from all peculiar religious opinions. By persisting in this course you will expel those from the Universities, whose reception would be hailed by hundreds of thousands of their fellow-countrymen, who would consider that they had been branded with this mark; namely, that the Legislature had declared them unfit to teach in the Universities of the country, because they could not conscientiously take these Tests. By persisting in this course the House would degrade the character of the Church in the minds of the people of Scotland, and make those who were her best and most sincerely attached members become her bitter foes.

observed that the House was called upon to repeal certain Tests which had been enacted by the wisdom of their ancestors, and which had continued in existence, without complaint, up to the present time, for the period of about a century and a half. For his own part he had never heard of one practical evil which had resulted from the existence of these Tests, except the case which had recently occurred in the University of St. Andrew's. It was admitted, as he understood, by the opposite side, that they were reasonable Tests when they were enacted, and that they were intended to protect the Church of Scotland from a danger which was then apparent. No doubt, in the first instance, they were meant to protect the Church from Episcopacy; but not merely this, but also from the danger which might hereafter arise from other quarters. If it were necessary to protect the Church against anticipated danger, then surely that was a reasonable presumption that they should continue to do so now. If it were then necessary to protect the Church against Episcopacy, he did not see why it was not also necessary to protect it now against any body of Dissenters in the country. He might be told that there had been a great change of circumstances since that time; he admitted that it was possible a change of circumstances might justify their abandoning these Tests; but he contended that they must be no light circumstances which could justify such a course. He knew that the Church attached great importance to these Tests, and every care was taken to give validity to them. He had been told that they should be abandoned, because within a year or two a great change had taken place, and a large number of its members had left the Church. He did not know whether his hon. and learned Friend meant to say that because this change had taken place that there was no longer danger to the Establishment, and that securities were less necessary. He could not conceive how his hon. and learned Friend could say that, under these circumstances, there was no longer any danger to the Presbyterian Church from those who dissented from it, and that, therefore, protection could no longer be justified. For his own part, he did not admit that the secession and separation from the Church had taken place to any such extent as had been described by his hon. and learned Friend and by his right hon. Friend opposite, although he admitted that it was still large. He did not believe that only one-third of the people of Scotland continued to adhere to the Church, although a large and very grievous separation had taken place. He might be permitted to observe that, with his right hon. Friend near him, he was more than pleased at the language used by the right hon. Member for Perth with respect to the Church of Scotland, and he sincerely hoped that that language would have its effect with many of those who, with the right hon. Gentleman, have seceded from the Church. He deeply regretted to find that the language of the principal persons who had taken the lead in separating from the Church, was of a very different character, and he must add that he did not believe that there was less danger to the Church from them than from Episcopacy at the period of the Union. He therefore did not think that it could be urged that these Tests were less necessary to protect the Church from the present enemy than from its former one. If he saw indications of the same spirit which animated his right hon. Friend opposite influence the persons to whom he had alluded, his apprehensions would be less strong than they were as to danger threatening the Church. But this was unhappily not the case, and with the existing difficulties and dangers in which it was involved, he could not conceive that it required less protection, and that the House would be justified in removing those safeguards which were formerly provided. He believed that the effect of the Tests at the time they were established, as well as at present, was, to limit the circle from which professors and teachers could be selected; and, as was eloquently observed by his hon and learned Friend, the effect of them would be to exclude Newton and Locke from teaching in the Scotch Universities. Now, although this was perfectly true with regard to Newton and Locke, his hon. and learned Friend must recollect that neither Dugald Stewart, nor Playfair would have been unable to teach in the English Universities in consequence of the Tests. He did not believe, however, that any practical grievance had arisen from the existence of these Tests, and not seeing, therefore, any practical grievance, and seeing an importance attached to them by the Church at the time when they were enacted, as well as at present, he could not give his assent to this Motion. One case of grievance had been mentioned. He alluded to the case of that eminent philosopher, who now filled the situation of Principal of one of the Scotch Universities, who did not teach in a professor's chair, but who had been exposed to harassing proceedings on the part of a Presbytery, the nature of which he did not exactly know, but had only heard of from public report. Whether the case would go further than the trial before the Presbytery, they did not then know. He did not think, however, that because an attempt had been made to remove that distinguished man from the station which he filled, and knowing nothing of the exact grounds on which it had been made, or whether that attempt would be successful or not,—that the House of Commons would be justified in removing these Tests. It had been stated that these Tests had not been strictly observed for a length of time, and that they had only recently been enforced. Now, he found it stated in the Report of the Commissioners of 1830, that these Tests had been strictly observed and enforced in all the Scotch Universities but that of Edinburgh. He found that the Commissioners had put a question on this precise point to all the Universities, and the answers from all of them but Edinburgh went to show that they were observed. Some of them said that they admitted, in the first instance, a professor on the mere declaration of intended subscription to the Tests, and that on the first convenient opportunity he would take them before the Presbytery; but this promise was always adhered to, and that the Test had always been subscribed to. Although, therefore, his hon. and learned Friend had described it as being so objectionable, it had not been productive of any practical evil. He would not go into the question respecting the hon. Gentleman who had been referred to, belonging to the University of Glasgow. He did not know what particular religious opinions were entertained by him, but it appeared in evidence before the Commissioners in 1830 that the Tests were always taken at that University, at which time the eminent Professor of Greek, who had been named by his hon. and learned Friend, held that Chair, and Sir William Hooker was Professor of Botany, and certainly in these instances these Tests did not prevent these two learned persons being appointed. No doubt there was great advantage in being able to obtain Professors from the southern part of the island; but assuredly there were able Professors also to be obtained in Scotland. As far as he had heard, no practical evil resulted from the imposition of this Test, and certainly there had been no great call for the change required; on the contrary, of the Petitions presented on the subject, the greater number had been against any such change. He saw, therefore, no reason for throwing away the safeguard which the wisdom of their ancestors had thrown over the Scottish Universities.

said, that though unquestionably the refusal of this Bill by the Government was to be lamented, if it led to the ejection from the Scotch Universities of some of their most distinguished ornaments, yet, looking at the question generally, he did not know that it was to be greatly regretted. He looked upon the proposal made as being too reasonable to be, in the long run, defeated by any Government whatever, and he trusted that the course taken by Her Majesty's present Ministers would have the very beneficial effect of leading to a union of the Scotch Seceders with the Roman Catholics and all Dissenters from the Church of England generally, in a comprehensive and vigorous agitation for the removal of all religious Tests in all the Universities of the Kingdom. As to the Tests in question, it was not denied that in the University of Edinburgh, the law had not been observed for a very long time. The Lord Advocate rested his opposition to the Motion on the ground that no grievance had been proved. But the question was, could any good be shown to have been derived from these Tests? Did any one say that any harm had arisen to the Scottish Church from the admission of Episcopalians to the Professorships in Edinburgh? Some of the most distinguished of the Professors in the University of Edinburgh were Episcopalians. Sir William Hamilton, the distinguished Professor of Logic there, and the celebrated Professor Wilson, had both been graduates of the University of Oxford; the Professor of Mathematics was not only a graduate of the University of Cambridge, but was also a clergyman of the Church of England. But after the rejection of this Bill, it was impossible to suppose but that the Tests there would be revived in all their strictness, so as to exclude a clergyman of our Church from the Professorship. Would there be no grievance then? The Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow came generally to Oxford and Cambridge for Professors of Classical Literature, and also for Mathematical Professors. How stood the case in the late election for the Professorship of Mathematics in the University of Edinburgh? The contest lay between two graduates of the University of Cambridge, Mr. Kelland a senior wrangler (who was chosen) and Mr. Gregory, who had taken high honours, though rather inferior to those of Mr. Kelland. Now, Mr. Gregory happened to be a native of Edinburgh, Mr. Kelland a stranger. If considerations of private friendship and feelings of nationality had swayed the members of the Town Council, they would have undoubtedly chosen Mr. Gregory, and in choosing him would have selected a most fit man; but they chose Mr. Kelland; and he would ask, therefore, was a body which so exercised its patronage not fit to be trusted with judging whether a candidate was likely to seek to injure the established religion of their country? The subscription to the Confession of Faith was enforced in Glasgow; but were Episcopalians excluded from the Professorships? The Professor of Latin was Mr. Ramsay, a graduate of Cambridge; the Professor of Greek, Mr. Lushington, who was a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge for some time after his election to the Professorship, and had signed both the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Confession of Faith; and, as so much had been said of Mr. Lushington, he (Mr. Christie) hoped he might be allowed to add, as that gentleman's friend, that a more honourable and conscientious man did not exist, and he would appeal for a confirmation of this statement to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: "Hear."] Then what was the good of these Tests? No harm had accrued to the Church of Scotland from their disuse in Edinburgh; and their object had not been attained by their continued enforcement in Glasgow. After the course taken by the Government, he should not be prejudicing the case of the right hon. Member for Perth, by saying, that he regretted, as one of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, that the right hon. Gentleman should have excepted the theological chairs from his proposal. He thought that with reference to theological, as well as to other Professorships, it should be left entirely to the patron or patrons, to judge of the opinions of persons selected. Have Tests for clergymen of the Church, if you please, but in an University, theology should be studied as a science, not with a view to supporting certain foregone conclusions, but with a view to arrive at truth. There Tests were unnecessary, and had only the effect of restricting the choice and cramping the mode in which the study was pursued. These views had lately been supported by a large and influential portion of the University of Oxford, where support for such views could least have been expected. In the great controversy "M'Mullen and Hampden" the whole Puseyite portion of the University were found arrayed against doctrinal Tests, for degrees in Divinity. Dr. Hampden, the Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford had given certain theses to Mr. M'Mullen, a candidate for the Degree of Bachelor of Divinity to write upon. Mr. M'Mullen first refused to write on these theses, brought an action against the Professor for damages sustained by the loss of his degree, in consequence of not being permitted to write on theses of his own choosing; and having failed in his action, and been obliged to take the theses given by the Professor, he had, a few days back, read his exercises in the Schools, and one of them had been refused by the Professor on the ground of heterodoxy. He still claimed his degree, and was backed by the whole Puseyite portion of the University. Again, a statute had been proposed by the Heads of Houses (which was to be submitted in a few days to Convocation), one of the objects of which was to affirm the Regius Professor of Divinity's right to examine and reject the exercises for Divinity Degrees — a proposition vehemently resisted, and not at all likely to be carried. He viewed this, then, as one form of a most important question, whether it was expedient to have any religious Tests at all in Universities. It was found in the University of Cambridge, where there was no religious Test on admission, that many Dissenters entered, and made no difficulty about conforming to chapel regulations in colleges; and this was a striking instance to show, that the effect of Tests was only to bring out with greater force religious distinctions which otherwise would not be insisted upon, and to strengthen and perpetuate religious dissensions. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had said, that he required the security of these Tests for the Established Church of Scotland, but that as a friend to the Universities of Scotland he had no fear of rival institutions. New institutions would not be formidable rivals to the existing Scotch Universities, but they would be formidable foes to the Established Church of Scotland. If this Motion were agreed to, it might do much to mitigate the dissensions in Scotland. The sons of Established Churchmen and of seceders would then meet and receive education together in common universities, and cement friendships in which their fathers' differences might be buried, and a later, and perhaps not distant, generation might undo the mischief which had been wrought and witnessed by the present.

was not surprised that the ton. Member who had just addressed them should—though not connected with Scotland—take an interest in this question, for he had given notice of his intention shortly to bring forward a Motion for the abolition of all Oaths and Religious Tests whatever in the English Universities. Though, as a native of Scotland, he was anxious to argue this question, as bearing on the Church of Scotland, yet he alluded to this circumstance to show English Members what a great principle was involved in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. It was not necessary for him to enter into the particulars of the case of Mr. M'Mullen and Dr. Hampden, but he thought that the hon. Member was prepared to push the principle farther than the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced this Motion, for the hon. Member objected to any Test whatever of the orthodoxy of any person claiming the honours of a University. The question on which the House was called to decide was, were they to maintain in every part of the United Kingdom the principle that the great seminaries of education should be connected with the Church through the medium of the great establishments of the country? This was the principle that was adopted in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and at the University of Dublin. This principle was insisted on in Scotland at the time of the Union, and when the Presbyterian religion was established it was made one of the claims of right immediately after the Revolution that the teachers in her University should be not only not hostile to the Church of Scotland, but that they should make a declaration that they were willing to submit to its discipline. He believed that it had been admitted by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Leith, that the people of Scotland had acted wisely in claiming this protection for their Church. It was perfectly true that at the time that this enactment was passed, the only danger to be apprehended by the Church of Scotland was from persons who professed the Episcopal religion in Scotland. In 1690, it was thought necessary to guard against this influence; and again, in 1707, when about to agree to the Union with a larger portion of the island, they felt it absolutely necessary, considering the small number of Representatives that Scotland would have, to guard against any danger of that kind. After the Union the people of Scotland saw that their apprehensions on this score were unfounded. The Scottish Parliament, at the time of the Union, however, considered it absolutely necessary to take every precaution for the preservation of ther national Church, and they passed a law, which was declared to be a fundamental part of the Union, providing that the Professors of the Universities should take this Oath, and also make a profession of faith according to the doctrines of the Church of Scotland, and also declare their readiness to submit to the discipline of the Scotch Church, as established by law. When the people of Scotland, after some experience, saw that no danger was likely to arise to the Church of Scotland in consequence of the Union, it was not surprising that in some of the Universities some relaxation should take place in requiring that all their Professors should sign these Tests. He thought the argument made use of on this point by his right hon. Friend, the Lord Advocate, was unanswerable. On what ground did they now propose to abolish those Tests which the Church of Scotland and most of the Universities were most anxious to maintain? Because some danger was now anticipated to the Church. The right hon-Gentleman, the Member for Leith, had stated, that since the late secession, the Church of Scotland was not now worth attending to; that it was the Church of a small minority of the people. He was not prepared to agree to this. He admitted that a secession had taken place to a great extent, but he denied that it had taken place to the extent that had been stated. In the part of the country with which he was best acquainted, the secession had not been of any great extent, and he had been in Edinburgh within the last three weeks, and the church which he frequented was fully attended; and, from all the information he had received on the subject, he believed that most of the Established Churches in Edinburgh were nearly as fully attended as before the secession. The effect of the secession had excited a degree of religious feeling throughout Scotland, and he believed that there was a greater attendance in places of public worship than for many years past. It appeared that the Test which it was now proposed to abolish, had been enforced in the Universities of Scotland for the last 150 years. The subject had been carefully inquired into by a Commission, which had been appointed to examine into the constitutions of the Scottish Universities in 1826, and who made their Report in 1830, and that Commission recommended not only that this Test should be more vigorously enforced in the Universities than it had been, but that a University Court should be established to visit and control the Universities. It was true it had been stated that one of the Commissioners, Mr. Cranstoun, had dissented from that Report, but, in the altered circumstances of the times, and after what had recently occurred did they think it likely that he would dissent from it, had his opinion been called for at the present time? They were now called on to take a step that would have the effect of dissevering the connection between the Universities and the Church, and they were told they ought to do this, because some eminent persons had left the Church, some of whom had held Professorships in the Universities. He agreed in what the hon. Member opposite had stated with respect to Dr. Lushington, that he was a gentleman who would not have taken any Test that could have done the slightest violence to his conscience. He knew many instances of strict Presbyterians who had been members of the University of Oxford, and who, before their matriculation, had signed the Thirty-nine Articles, and he believed that one, who was now a learned Judge, had been a member of Baliol College. They should recollect that what they now proposed to abolish was a fundamental article of the Union. He was not prepared to say, that for all time to come, it was expedient that this rule should be maintained; but, before they consented to any such change, they must have a sufficient case made out, and must have evidence that it was the wish of the people of Scotland that such a change should be made. Under these circumstances, the House ought to pause before it proceeded to do away with a fundamental article of the Act of Union, and they ought to see what was the opinion of the people of Scotland before they proceeded to deal with this question. It should be recollected that in the Univerties there was no exclusion of students on account of religious Tests, and they were open to all religious persuasions; and was it because they had thrown open their doors to students of every denomination, that they were now to sever the link that connected them with the Church of Scotland? The House should consider that the great majority of the people of Scotland were attached to the Established Church, and unwilling to break the link which the Test kept up between the Church and the Uni- versities. Let the House not proceed rashly, and, contrary to the mass of the intelligence of that country, to alter a system from which much good and no practical inconvenience had accrued.

regretted that the Government had not deemed it desirable to allow the Bill to be brought in, that it might be printed and circulated, on account of its great importance. And he thought that when, some years ago, he introduced a Measure involving the principle of the present Motion, he had met with more courtesy at the hands of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the present Government than the hon. Mover now received from the right hon. the Home Secretary. The Colleges of Aberdeen had petitioned against the preservation of the Tests, as "punishing learned men for nonconformity with the established religion," and affixing a stigma on those who dissented from the Church. Yet these bodies had at one time thoroughly realized the prophecy which he had ventured on, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would "bring a nest of hornets about his ears." The unjust operation of these tests might be observed in the case of Sir D. Brewster, who for departing from the Church of Scotland had lost his office of Principal of St. Andrew's University. He could see no inconvenience that could result from agreeing to the introduction of the Bill.

thought that there ought to be a unanimous opinion on the part of the people of Scotland, that such a proposition would be advantageous to the country and to the Universities, before the House consented to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Upon that ground he should give his decided support to the right hon. Baronet, and resist the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

as an act of courtesy, considered that Government and the House ought to consent to the introduction of the Bill. The present system operated most injuriously to the people of Scotland; it would practically have the effect of preventing a number of persons connected with that country from filling the situation of professorships in the Scotch Universities. Let the Bill be introduced by his right hon. Friend; let it go down to Scotland, and he would venture to say, that a vast amount of the population of that country would extend to it their support, and pray the House to make it part of the Statute Law of the realm. He asked the right hon. Baronet, he asked Her Majesty's Government to reconsider this discussion; he begged them not to prevent this first step from being taken. A new-born zeal had that night been displayed in favour of the Act of Union, which he had in vain invoked last year. He felt assured that if he were permitted to poll the Scotch Members in the House there would be a majority in favour of the Bill. Let hon. Members go to Scotland and take the opinion of the Scotch people on the subject, and let the Measure stand upon its own intrinsic merits.

would not hesitate, if a real grievance existed, to support the right hon. Gentleman's Motion. But this was not the case. It was a most unseemly thing that a professor of a University connected with the State should be declaiming and agitating against a Church in connection with the State. The right hon. Member (Mr. Fox Maule) spoke of the grievance of the Test. But he (Mr. Maule) did not propose to abolish the Test, but to displace it, and substitute one of his own. Hon. Members opposite told the House that Episcopalians never legislated for the Presbyterian Church without doing injury, and yet the right hon. Gentleman now came down to ask them to legislate, to remove one Test and establish a new one. Had any real grievance or inconvenience arisen from the present system? Had not Malcolm, Lushington, and other eminent men who were educated at Oxford and Cambridge, been instituted to high offices in the Scotch Universities? And there were many cases of the kind. As for Sir David Brewster, he incurred no practical inconvenience. He was deprived of neither his office nor emoluments. All he had to encounter was the possibility of excommunication, a matter he would not be likely to lay very heavily to heart. Again, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as Rector of the University of Glasgow, defied the Principal, examined the books, proceeded with the visitation, and when the Principal menaced, the right hon. Gentleman regarded it as an idle threat, and said, "If you interrupt me, I will bring you before Parliament." Now he (Mr. Colquhoun) was bound to say, that while no wrong was sustained by any one, there was nothing worthy the consideration of Parliament. When the Test which had been found so useful appeared to inflict real wrong he should then be prepared to reconsider it.

thought all Tests were improper and ought to be abolished; the time had arrived when that abolition should be effected. When they talked, as did the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that these Tests were not injurious, he was reminded of the allegation so often made in that House, that the trade of this country flourished in spite of the existence of monopoly; and that the greatness of England was to be traced to its national debt. The Universities of Scotland were not exclusive in their character, they were founded for the benefit of all classes. He believed that if all persons in Scotland had the opportunity of resorting to the Universities, the religious animosities which now prevailed in that country would to a great extent soon be allayed. But, if they maintained these Tests, they would excite a powerful combination against the Universities and Churches among all classes. He thought the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have exercised a more sound discretion had he allowed this Bill to be sent down into Scotland, in order that an opportunity might be afforded to the people to express their opinion on its provisions.

said, he had heard no good reason assigned for the introduction of this Bill. He had not heard in the county which he represented, or elsewhere in Scotland, any such strong desire expressed for the adoption of this Measure as had been represented to prevail in that country. It was for the House to determine whether, in order to remedy what he conceived was merely a fancied grievance, they would interfere with an Act of Parliament which had been passed in the most solemn manner and after due deliberation. He believed, that while the Universities would observe the provisions of that Act with a view to the security of the Church, they would not reject—and they had not hitherto rejected—men of talent and science who were likely to benefit them in the office of professors. He conceived that, if the House refused to allow the introduction of this Bill, none of the evil prognostications they had heard to-night would be realised.

in reply said, that, in the first place, he thought it right to state that he had informed the right hon. Baronet opposite, that if the Government should not agree to the principle of this Bill, and should take upon themselves the responsibility of refusing their assent to it, he would not consider it as a mark of personal discourtesy towards himself if they refused to allow its introduction. He thought that if no better arguments could be urged in defence of these Tests than had been advanced by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, he might anticipate that the time would speedily arrive when such Tests, in the case of lay professors, would be abolished. The hon. Member for Stamford (Sir G. Clerk) had stated that these Tests were so slight that arty Respectable men might take them, although entertaining different opinions as to their interpretation, and that any member of the Church of England might subscribe them without doing violence to his conscience. Now, if these Tests were in themselves so slight and insignificant, what was the use of retaining them, and what protection did they afford to the Universities? But he did not consider these Tests as of so slight a nature. What Was the nature of these Tests, which must be taken by such men as Dr. Lushington and Mr. Ramsay, Members of the Church of England, before accepting professorships? Those Gentlemen, being members of the Church of England, must declare their concurrence in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and must bind themselves to adhere to the worship, and subscribe to the government and discipline of the Church of Scotland, as now in existence in that country. He must say, as a conscientious man, that he could not conceive how Dr. Lushington or Mr. Ramsay could subscribe such Tests. The fact of their having subscribed such Tests convinced hint that, by encouraging and maintaining such Tests, they were supporting a system of immorality on the part of individuals who' ought to set a better example to the people. The right hon. Baronet had said that he was delighted to observe, front a newspaper, that a stray brother had returned to the fold,—that a Mr. Law had quitted the Free Church, arid rejoined the Establishment. It was a pity that the right hon. Gentleman had not inquired into the circumstances of this case. It was perfectly true that Mr. Law bad volun- teered to return to the Establishment; but he (Mr. F. Maule) doubted very much whether the Establishment would receive him. Mr. Law had subjected himself to the discipline of the Free Church; the Presbytery of Dundee had visited him with censure, he had been cited to the court, and the result would probably be, that the Presbytery would put him out of the Free Church. In anticipation of that Verdict Mr. Law had offered to retire into the bosom of the Establishment. But the very charges on which he was discharged from the Free Church would render him liable to the judicature of the Establishment, and he could not enter that Establishment till he had purged himself of those charges to the satisfaction of its authorities. The hon. Member for Stamford had stated that the people of Scotland complained of no grievance with respect to these Tests, and that the great proportion of petitions presented on this subject had been against his (Mr. F. Maule's) proposal. He did not believe that more than two or three dozen petitions had been presented; and certainly many of them, which had emanated from presbyteries of the Church, were against his Bill, while those in favour of it proceeded generally from professors of the Universities; and from some of the students. But did the hon. Gentleman require that some agitation should be excited before this measure was granted? If that were the case, he would promise the hon. Baronet that there should be such an agitation in Scotland on this subject as would convince him that a majority of the people of that country., whether Members of the Established Church or Dissenters, felt the deepest interest in the question. But his object in bringing forward this measure was to prevent agitation,—to give them an opportunity of legislating on the subject while they could do so calmly and judiciously. He conceived the Government had fallen into a great error in refusing to entertain the question,—that they had taken a course which would lead to the establishment of rival Universities in a field where there was no room for competition. The result would be that seminaries — which, however, would not have the power of conferring degrees—would be established throughout Scotland for the education of youth, while the colleges, which could confer degrees, would have pauper professors, whose instruction would Be dispensed to very thin classes.

The House divided on the question that leave be given to bring in the Bill.— Ayes 101: Noes 128 —Majority 27.

in moving for the following papers respecting the Archdeaconry of Armagh,

"1, Copy of the Instrument appointing the present Archdeacon of Armagh; and of any Orders or Acts of Privy Council in Ireland for disuniting the parishes forming the Union of Armagh: 2. Copies of any Memorials or Letters which may have been addressed to the Irish Government on the subject of the severance of the union of parishes forming the Archdeaconry of Armagh; and of the Answers thereto: 3. Return of any union of parishes in Ireland dissolved under the Act 3 and 4 William IV., c. 37, s. 124,"

entered into a statement of the transactions which led to the appointment of the Archdeacon of Armagh, and referred to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the subject of the Dissolution of Parishes, as well as to certain statements made by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with it. The recommendation of the Commissioners with respect to the Deanery of Armagh was, substantially, that a partial Dissolution should take place, by severing a parish from it, and that the Patronage of the Deanery should be vested in the Chapter. About the close of Lord Fortescue's lieutenancy in Ireland, a vacancy occurred in the Deanery of Armagh: and that noble Lord, thinking it would be unsafe to act on the recommendation of the Commissioners, as it was opposed to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, he gave the Deanery to a Gentleman. The Union of Armagh, however, had not been dissolved, although a correspondence had taken place on the subject with the Primate of Ireland. He was not aware that any Bill had been introduced by the Government for putting an end to this anomaly. If ever such was brought in he should think it his duty to introduce the Bill which was originally intended to be brought in by Lord Morpeth. The Archdeaconry of Armagh consisted of two parishes of nine miles by four and three quarters, the population of the Union was 16,000; there were Churches in both parishes, and the net income was 1,642l. but it had now been reduced to about one-third. The Report of the Commissioners recommended a Dissolution of the Union on the first voidance of the preferment. The Government had promoted a Mr. Stokes on the first vacancy to the whole of the benefice. He hoped the House would exhibit a feeling urging the Government to these Dissolutions, and that the Irish Church should be brought up to a proper standard.

said, that the Bill which was adverted to by his noble Friend did not appear to the Government sufficient to give effect to the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but his right hon. Friends near him concurring in the principles laid down by those Commissioners, and desirous of providing a Clergyman of the Established Church wherever there was a congregation, had it in contemplation to bring in a Measure to carry still further the provisions of the Church Temporalities Act. It was only just to the Government for him to say, that other Governments had not thought it their duty to adhere strictly to the recommendations of the Commissioners to whom he had alluded, and he therefore thought that no blame should attach to the Government of his noble Friend Lord De Grey in that respect. But he could assure the House that no men could be more anxious than were his right hon. Friends near him to give full effect to the Church Temporalities Act, and to make the Church of Ireland as efficient as possible. A measure was now under their consideration which he hoped would have the effect of putting an end to sinecures in the Church, and of making a better distribution of the Clergy of that Church and of its revenue. It would therefore be much better that such a general measure as that should be introduced, rather than any particular enactment such as his noble Friend had spoken of With respect to the papers moved for by his noble Friend, he had no objection to give them, it being understood that the memorials and papers to which he referred were only official communications addressed to the Irish Government, and not private letters.

hoped that the House would, even at that late hour, allow him to make a few observations both on the cases of the Archdeaconry and the Deanery of Armagh, referred to by the noble Lord, the Member for Plymouth. First, as to the Archdeaconry. He admitted that there had been a departure from the letter, but, he maintained, not from the spirit of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Report of 1831. He concurred in the propriety of severing Unions generally; and if the circumstances had not altered since the Report was made, he should have considered the Dissolution of the Union of the Archdeaconry, fit and desirable; but the principal ground stated by the Commissioners, as read to the House by the noble Lord, was the sufficiency of the income to support two incumbents, and the alteration in that respect had been much understated by his noble Friend (Lord Eliot). For, whereas the Commissioners had reported the Union as of the value of 1,773l. in the year 1831, he then held in his hand a return made out by the present Archdeacon, showing that now—only allowing; the deductions made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, under the Statute— and all the items were furnished—the entire net income of the united parishes forming the Corps of the Archdeaconry, amounted to 786l. 9s. 3d. If agents' fees, poor rates, and real deductions were included, they would lessen the net income by 100l. a-year, and that would reduce the value of the two parishes—not only as his noble Friend (Lord Eliot) had stated, below the value of the larger of the two, Carenteel, but to about the value of the smaller Aghalour or Caledon. Let it be remembered, too, that the Archdeaconry of Armagh, the Primate's Diocese, was one of the most important dignities in Ireland, requiring the highest qualifications in the Clergyman who filled it. When the Archdeaconry became vacant by the promotion of Dr. Stopford to the Bench, due notice of the vacancy was given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and by them to the Privy Council. The subject was maturely considered by the Lord Lieutenant, and canvassed in a correspondence with the Primate; and it was not until after long deliberation, and viewing the case on every side, that it was determined by the Lord Lieutenant that on the whole, it was more for the best interests of the Church to preserve this Union. He was firmly persuaded that it was the interest of the Church which alone influenced the Lord Lieutenant in coming to this conclusion, that it was not for the purpose of aggrandizing an individual clergyman, and exalting him to wealth was manifest, for the preferment was bestowed upon a Gentleman who held a benefice which was of equal value, and who was without any political influence, or aristocratic connexion, but selected solely on the ground of his peculiar fitness for the office, and he was no pecuniary gainer by the change. It was all very fine to say that pecuniary considerations ought not to weigh in a matter of this kind. He would not give them an undue weight; but it was absurd to suppose that a Church could be supported, or that prudent parents would allow their children to choose it as a pro- fession if its highest officers under the Episcopal Bench itself were to be cut down in emolument lower than what he had shown that important Archdeaconry to be. It had been stated that the average incomes of the English Archdeacons was 300l. a-year. Now the average of the English Archdeacons is that of their incomes accruing to them from Chapter funds, not at all taking into account their income arising from the cure of souls. The Archdeacon of Armagh has no income whatever as Archdeacon, although he has expenses as such. His income arises solely from the cure of souls. It was impossible, therefore, to institute a comparison between 300l. a-year and nothing. The House might not be aware that in Ireland Arch-deacons had very little emolument as Members of a Chapter—in Armagh none. It was also staled that the parishes had suffered in spiritual superintendence from not dissolving the Union. Now the position of the parishes was such, that a large part of Aghalour came close to the parish church of Carenteel (in some places within half a mile) and was eight English miles from the parish church and minster of Aghalour. Now, owing to the Union this part was taken care of by the Archdeacon and Curates of Carenteel; if it were dissolved the Archdeacons must cease to interfere, and these persons be left destitute of spiritual ministrations. It had also been said that Lord Caledon had been interfered with in his purpose of building a church; but, on the contrary, the Archdeacon had given every facility for the formation of the district, and allowed Lord Caledon to nominate the clergyman, and the former Curate had not, as stated by the noble Lord, been removed by the Archdeacon, but he had received promotion in another Diocese. Under all the circumstances, then, he contended that the parishes had not suffered, and that every reasonable man would allow that Lord De Grey was justified in preserving the Archdeaconry of Armagh entire. He then came to the case of the Deanery. The second recommendation in the Report, quoted by the noble Lord, related to the Archdeaconry. The first to the Deanery of Armagh, and it was, that the Union of the Deanery should be partially dissolved, and the Rectory and Deanery consolidated, in order to do away with a sinecure; but what had a noble Relative of the noble Lord's, then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, done? He desired to speak of Lord Fortescue with that great personal respect which be felt for that noble Lord; but in the instance of the Deanery of Armagh, he could not but condemn his conduct. When the late Dean Jackson suddenly died in France, where he had just arrived for; the benefit of his health—no sooner did a rumour of his death reach the Castle of Dublin than Lord Fortescue, without waiting to bring the matter before the Privy Council, in compliance with the enactments of the Church Temporalities Act—without taking into consideration this recommendation of the Commissioners, but in utter violation of it, presented a clergyman to the Deanery separate from the Rectory of Armagh, thereby establishing a new sinecure in the Church, The clergyman whom he presented, the noble Lord (Lord Ebrington) described as a Gentleman of property — and from the time of his presentation to the present, he continued to reside upon his property in the County of Cork, about 200 miles distant from his Deanery. There had been then two departures from the recommendation of the Commissioners; one in the case of the Archdeaconry of Armagh, which he hoped he had succeeded in proving to the House had been only a technical departure, and made by Lord De Grey, with the sole view of benefitting the Church. The other, the act of Lord Fortescue, was a real and substantial departure, establishing a new sinecurist and nonresident, to the great injury and reproach of the Established Church in Ireland. He had not expected from the notice of the noble Lord (Lord Ebrington) that he would have referred that night to the Union of Burnchurch, otherwise he would have brought with him the papers that would have explained it. He freely admilted, however, that it was an Union which ought to be dissolved, and that its continuance was a great evil. He believed that successive Governments had for a considerable time been anxious to dissolve it, but had been prevented by legal difficulties. He knew that the present Bishop of Ossory had, in the strongest manner, urged upon the present Government the importance of severing that Union. He had understood that the Government had a Bill prepared last Session for the purpose, and he hoped that they would not fail to bring it forward during the present Session. To the Papers the noble Lord moved for, as they were only formal, there could be no objection.

Motion agreed to.

moved for

"Returns of the sums of money demanded by the Clerks of the Peace in the different Counties and Counties of Cities in Ireland, to remunerate them for their additional services under the new Arms Act: Of the sums of money approved of by the different Grand Juries of Ireland for that purpose: Of the number of Arms registered in each county; Of the sums of money demanded and allowed as above to the different Clerks of Petty Sessions under the above Act."

had understood that the Grand Jury had the power of regulating these grants of money, but the fact was, that they would not do it; and the most extravagant expenditure was the consequence. If an Act of Parliament gave the power to vote money there was no Grand Jury in Ireland who would not avail themselves of it.

What a libel on his own country the hon. Member had just been guilty of; the regulation in Ireland was precisely similar to that in England, and the English magistrates had never been charged with improvidence and extravagance, and he hoped and believed that the imputation against the Irish was not well founded.

denied that he had libelled his own countrymen. He had merely stated facts.

said, that at the Sessions, and by the Grand Jury at Kildare, the most sedulous attention had been given, and the strictest economy enforced in regard to these matters; so that the charge made by the hon. Member (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) was distinctly false as to Kildare.

would not take that observation as personally offensive to him, he was sure it was not so intended; but had they ever succeeded at Kildare in reducing the expenditure?

Motion agreed to.

moved for

"Returns of the names of the different Union Workhouses in Ireland not having been visited by an Assistant Commissioner, from the 1st day of November, 1843, to the 1st day of April 1844: Of the salary and allowances of the Architect to the Poor Law Commission in Ireland and his assistants, for the last year; specifying the duties performed by him during that period: Of the names of those persons lately appointed Poor Law Auditors in Ireland: Of the medical qualifications of the District Vaccinators appointed for the Newtownards Union, with Copies of any Remonstrance addressed to the Poor Law Commissioners against such appointments: Of the number of the Irish Poor who have been removed from any parish, township, or place in England to Ireland, under the provisions of the Act 3 and 4 William IV., c. 40, between the 1st day of April 1843, and the 1st day of April 1844; Copy of the Resolutions addressed by the Guardians of the Ballinrobe Union to the Poor Law Commissioners, dated the 4th day of April, 1844, as to the impossibility of collecting the Poor Rates without the assistance of a stipendiary Magistrate and a military force."

The hon. Member declared the people of that country had great cause of complaint against both great parties in the House of Commons, for the course which had been by them pursued in respect to this law—it had been enacted in ignorance—it was to be maintained in obstinacy. The Irish Poor Law based and supported solely on the authority of Mr. Nicholls—predictions made with a confidence more akin to ignorance than to knowledge—a confidence that could foresee no difficulties—could anticipate no failures—had proved so ill adapted to Ireland, and so unwisely had the extensive powers granted by it to the Commissioners been exercised, that it was regarded by all classes and by all parties as the most unfortunate specimen of legislation which had yet emanated from the Imperial Parliament. Under this law eight Assistant Commissioners were at present in Ireland, whilst nine were found ample to do all the duties attached to the unions in England and Wales; they had large, much too large, salaries—1,500l. a-year each; the large allowance for travelling expenses which appeared in the Estimates was clearly to enable them constantly to attend meetings of the Boards of Guardians, and frequently to inspect the different establishments. The House, would, therefore, learn with astonishment that there were forty-five unions in Ireland which had not been visited for the last six months by an Assistant Commissioner. He found that although the Tipperary workhouse had been nearly destroyed by fire, that from the 24th of October, 1843, to the fourth of the present month, that House had not been visited by a Commissioner, nor by an Assistant Commissioner, nor had any investigation taken place as to the origin of the fire. All this time there was an Assistant Commissioner stationed at eighteen miles distance — for what, then, was this staff maintained? Mr. Nicholls had stated the union accounts were to be audited by them; this plan was abandoned, the incapacity of one Gentleman having been proved in the accounts of the South Dublin Union, where errors to the amount of some hundreds of pounds were discovered in the total of some of the columns which had been duly audited by him. Another Commissioner (Mr. Muckeridge) had lately been dismissed. The accounts reported as audited by him having been found in the greatest confusion, an investigation was ordered, Mr. Handcock was sent down to investigate it; it turned out that no audit had been made for three years, though reported as regularly done. This Gentleman was immediately removed from office. What was the conduct of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department? An Englishman misconducting himself in Ireland, was of no moment. He re-appointed him as Factory Commissioner. He should now proceed to the case of the architects. Mr. Wilkinson, an Englishman brought over by Mr. Nicholls, who in his bird's eye view of Ireland was unable to discern any specimens of native talent in the splendid architecture of their public buildings. This Gentleman was brought over at a salary of l,000l. a-year, with as he found by the Estimates, a large bill for extra assistance, travelling expences, &c. amounting annually to 1,000l, more. For this there had been erected, as a proof of his skill—they were now useless for any other purpose—upwards of one hundred huge, unsightly, inconvenient, and badly-located workhouses. He protested against the system of giving everything worth holding in Ireland to strangers. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, told them, a few nights since, that they were amply compensated by the numerous small appointments Irishmen obtained in this country. Was this the case? He found by a paper made at the end of last Session, that of clerks of the Treasury, 112 were English or Scotch, one Irish; members of the Steward and Lord Chamberlain's Departments of the Royal Household, 225 English or Scotch, four Irish; Ministers of Foreign Courts, 131 English or Scotch, 4 Irish. But, to return to Mr. Wilkinson—as a specimen of the advantages Ireland had derived from the exclusion of her native architects from his employment, he (Mr. French) would ask the attention of the House to a statement he had received from the Guardians of the Carrick-on-Shannon Union. It was sent to him with a letter signed by the Vice-Chairman, Deputy Vice Chairman, eight Magistrates, upwards of twenty Guardians. They state, that their workhouse was, in defiance of the urgent and unanimous remonstrances of their Board, built on a very exposed high hill, and therefore subject to receive much injury from storms: that before it was fit to receive the destitute poor, a chimney and one gable of the entrance building were blown down, and another gable is from the same cause, at the present time, very considerably out of the perpendicular. They show an absolute waste of upwards of 1,000l. in the carriage of materials, from fixing on this most ineligible site. They state, the building since it has been occupied, is in many parts almost untenantable in consequence of admitting the rain through the walls—that the joists, &c. have, particularly in the female infirmary, already begun to rot—that the well for the supply of water for the work-house had been sunk upwards of 100 feet, and only very lately the pumps had been put down; it was, however, perfectly useless; no water has or can be supplied from it; the water for the institution had to be carried daily from the River Shannon at a very heavy expense. He now came to the auditors, four new officers just appointed — who were they? What were their capabilities? There were no such officers in England, and he should be glad to know the reason why the Poor Law, like all other Irish accounts, were not audited here, and this expense saved to the country? The hon. Member also complained of the manner in which vaccinators were appointed. He also complained of the manner in which the Act for the removal from England of persons born in Ireland or Scotland had been carried out, (the 3rd. and 4th Wm. IV. cap. 40), the injustice and oppression of which was admitted even by the Poor Law Commissioners—and great must be the injustice and oppression when these gentlemen call out. They had not, how. ever, recommended to the Government any step to remedy the evil they admitted to exist; but they had recommended the abolition of settlement by apprenticeship —rating a tenement, payment of rates, in short, of all means by which the Irish could acquire a legal settlement in England; harshly, unjustly, and illegally, had they been treated under this law, as he should proceed to show. The hon. Member quoted several examples of ill treatment received by Irish paupers in England. The following will suffice as a specimen: He should read from the Rev. Joseph Kinder:—

"A number of ray poor people will be sent off from Hull to-morrow morning to Liverpool, and from Liverpool to Dublin, I am sure you would feel deeply interested in their behalf, if I could describe the oppression and cruel treatment to which they have been exposed. Their only crime is the applications which they have made to our poor-house for relief, during sickness; or, at times when they were out of employment; they have been dragged as criminals from their homes, and detained in the workhouse as prisoners, and are to be sent off to Dublin to-morrow morning. Some of them have resided fourteen years in Hull, some seventeen, some twenty years, having laboured honestly for their bread, and never, except on accidental occasions, as I have mentioned, applied for relief. Arrangements had been made to send them off this morning, Tuesday, at five o'clock. Fifty of them, including men, women, and children, were taken from their homes as I have described. It was not till between twelve and one o'clock yesterday that the circumstances came to my knowledge. I never ceased till late last night in making every effort to get them relieved from this condition. Ten were released, and one day was allowed to the others to make some arrangements respecting their furniture and clothes—the remaining forty will be sent off to-morrow morning."

The Resolution of the Ballinrobe Board of Guardians, was as follows—A. C. Lambert in the Chair:—Resolved

"That our Chairman be directed to lay before the Government and the Poor Law Commissioners, the continued opposition of the rate payers of the Union to pay the Poor Rates, which is increased since the withdrawal of the Stipendiary Magistrates and the assistance of the military; that it is useless and unreasonable to expect the Collectors could do more than they have done—three of them have been assaulted and severely beaten in endeavouring to serve summonses, and the distress rescued from the other two. The Board consider it idle to expect payment of the rate, except through the assistance of military, under a Stipendiary Magistrate; unless this is granted, there will be no alternative but to close the workhouse at once."

By a Return lately made to the House, it appeared between seven and eight thousand men had been employed during the last year in enforcing the collection of 1,600l. and odd, poor rate. Numerous cases were given of one hundred men out all day, and returning with 4½d. Was it desirable that such a state of things should continue, or that a law should be persevered in which aggravated every existing evil in Ireland. The attempt to modify the habits of the people by a law, was an absurdity, and must inevitably prove a failure; and although the appointment of a Committee this evening might retard, he was convinced it could not ultimately prevent the repeal of a law as odious as it was inoperative. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolutions.

was sorry the hon. Member had adverted to the old complaint, that injustice was done to Ireland in the disposal of patronage; nothing could be more disparaging to that country than that constant discussion about the injustice which she suffered in the disposal of appointments; as if they were all engaged in a great scramble for the money which the Government had to dispose of. If injustice were done to Ireland in this respect, it could not be with regard to these small appointments that complaints could be made; but the hon. Member had said that there was no Irishman in the Cabinet. Why! was not the Duke of Wellington an Irishman, of whom his country was, and well might be, proud? Let the hon. Member look at our diplomatic service. Who represented the Court of St. James's in the United States? An Irishman. Who represented this country at St. Petersburgh? An Irishman. Who represented this country at Constanstinople? An Irishman. Who represented this country at Paris? An Irishman. If there could be a conclusive proof that the claims of Ireland were not viewed with prejudice, it would be found in that fact. Who was our representative in China? An Irishman. Who was the Commander of our Forces there? An Irishman. Who the Commander of our Forces in India? An Irishman. And who grudged the Irish all these distinctions? Who was not proud to see Irishmen raise themselves to these exalted stations? But, then, let not the hon. Member quote the miserable offices of tide-waiters, and do his country-men the injustice of complaining that they had not their full share. Why, since he had last spoken on this subject, he had had to appoint to the office of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital; he had to select the best man from naval officers of eminence, and he selected an Irishman. [Mr. French: Your attention had been called to the matter by our observations.] He could assure the hon. Member that the hon. Member's observations would not at all influence him in the disposal of patronage; if they could have had any influence, it must have been accompanied by the strongest feeling of regret at hearing these invidious distinctions raised. He hoped now they should hear no more of them. He could assure the hon. Member that he would not by these means extort what seemed to be his main object, a single appointment from the Government in favour of an Irishman. Let it not, however, be supposed that the fact of a man's being an Irishman would in the smallest respect prejudice the Government against him. Amongst the auditors who had been appointed under the very Act to which the hon. Member's Motion referred, two had been Irishmen and two Roman Catholics; and yet, the hon. Member had said, that the audit of these accounts ought to be transferred to England. In conclusion, he would only say, that if he had ever heard a reason why Ireland should be excluded from patronage, it was in that statement made by the hon. Member for Kildare, who had said that, if they put in an Act of Parliament a power to make a claim, all the Irish Grand Juries would be sure to recognise it and give the money; as they would not have to pay it. He did not believe that that was a well-founded imputation; but certainly if it were, it would afford a good reason why they should be cautious in inserting any such Clause.

Motion agreed to.

then moved—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the laws for the relief of the destitute poor of Ireland."

protested against proceeding further at that late hour.

thought it advisable that the question should not be decided without more decision, and he therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.

deprecated the appointment of the Committee, and thought his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department had almost pledged himself to him before Easter, that he would not grant the Committee without a previous discussion upon the propriety of it in that House. Since that time he had communicated in Ireland with many chairmen of Board Guardians, Lieutenants of counties, and others deeply interested in the welfare of the country, and experienced in the working of the new Poor Law—and they one and all agreed that if the Government granted the Committee now moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow, it would paralyse the law, and render their duties in respect of it, which were now difficult, all but impossible. He was far from saying that the present Poor Law in Ireland was perfect; he had not, from the first, been sanguine of its success; he had regarded it as a very doubtful experiment, as made on too large a scale; and he had himself proposed many modifications and amendments of it, which had been rejected by that House; but when the law had passed, and an immense expenditure incurred to put it in operation, he felt it his duty to lend his best aid to support it and give it at least a fair trial. Considering the opposition it had to encounter—the want of machinery for working it—and that it was a new experiment, and a universal tax upon the whole country—he thought it wonderful that it had succeeded even so well as it had. He believed, in about two-thirds of the Unions it was, on the whole working well, and likely to work better; and, in the case of the remaining third, he thought it had been unreasonably opposed, and that very often by persons who should have known better, and set a better example—but they would now triumph in that Committee. The Government was, as he understood, about to agree to it, and the well-disposed towards the law would be discouraged by it. He was most willing that every information should be obtained upon the subject—that every practicable amendment of the law should be made; but then it should be done upon the responsibility of the Government, and not by their abandoning the law to the mercy of its opponents. It would be very agreeable to his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French), and all others who desired the subversion and repeal of the law; but would be considered as a hostile movement against the law by all those who desired to support it, and were at all acquainted with the forms of proceeding in that House.

admitted that the law worked well in some parts, and he was anxious that the system should be maintained. But he thought that the consideration of the question should be adjourned.

said, that certainly it would not be right that this Committee should be appointed without a distinct declaration on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that the Poor Law in Ireland ought to be and should be maintained. The Government had done all in their power to put that law into effective operation; and it must be clearly understood, that in now acceding to the appointment of the Committee, they were taking a step which they considered advisable, because, seeing that in some parts of Ireland there was an unreasonable objection to the law, they thought it possible that by showing its satisfactory operation in other quarters they would be doing something to reconcile public feeling to the enactment where it was less understood.

At the same time he repeated that in giving his consent to the Committee, he wished it to be understood that the Government was determined to maintain the law.

Amendment to adjourn the debate withdrawn, original Motion agreed to.

named the following hon. Members to constitute the Committee on the affairs of New Zealand:—Mr. Aglionby, Lord Francis Egerton, Viscount Howick, Mr. Lascelles, Mr. George William Hope, Mr. Robert Clive, Mr. Hawes, Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Viscount Ebrington, Mr. Charteris, Sir John Hanmer, Mr. Milnes, Viscount Jocelyn, Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Wilson Patten.

said, that altogether the appointment of this Committee appeared to him to be a very irregular proceeding. The other night the hon. Member for Cockermouth had obtained a vote of the House to the effect that a Committee should be appointed just as he would obtain a vote for the production of a public paper, and without making a single observation beyond this, that "he believed the Motion was unopposed by the Government." Now, at one o'clock in the morning, the same hon. Member, without saying a word as to the inquiries which the Committee were to institute, proposed to nominate fifteen Members to act upon it, ten of whom were supporters of the present Government, whilst one (Mr. Roebuck) was the supporter of he did not know who, though he believed he was notorious for attacking every colonial administration that ever existed. Really such a proceeding as this appeared to be by no means courteous to the House, whilst certainly it seemed an anomaly that a Committee should be thus appointed, which would have to inquire into the acts and deeds of many Colonial Ministers, past and present.

would gladly allow the hon. Gentleman to take his (Mr. Hawes) place. He had no wish to stand in the way of anybody.

thought it rather an unusual thing to have the Committee nominated by a Gentleman who was himself a leading Member of the New Zealand Company, which Company was to be put on their trial before the Committee. He thought it desirable that the Committee should have the assistance of Mr. Cardwell, a Gentleman of great ability, and having requested the hon. Member (Mr. Aglionby) to include that Gentleman, was surprised at being told that this was impossible, as the Gentlemen already nominated had given their consent.

stated that he used his utmost efforts to procure an impartial and effective Committee, and that neither of the Gentlemen he had selected was either directly or indirectly connected with the New Zealand Company. He had also omitted his own name from the list.

Committee appointed.

gave notice, that he should move to morrow to substitute the name of Mr. Cardwell for that of Mr. Lascelles.

House adjourned at half past one o'clock.