Sir, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the good government and extension of the University of Oxford and of the colleges therein, I consider that I am about to bring under the consideration of the House a most grave and important subject, and I think under these circumstances that I have peculiar need of your indulgence. I have peculiar need of your indulgence, in the first place, because not having had the honour of studying there, I have not any personal acquaintance with the institutions of the University of Oxford, in regard to which I propose to bring in a Bill; and in the second place, because, labouring under the effects of bodily indisposition, I fear I shall not be able to convey amply and fully to the House the views which the Government entertain with regard to this very important question. On the other hand, Sir, I shall have had the advantage of having had under my consideration a very elaborate and copious Report from the Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into the state of the studies, discipline, and revenues of the University of Oxford. I have had the advantage likewise of the Report which has been submitted by a Committee to the heads of houses on the questions raised by the Report of the Commissioners, and the able evidence submitted to them upon the questions which have been raised. I have likewise had the very great advantage of the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Member for the University of Oxford, in the preparation of the Bill which I am about to ask the House to give me leave to introduce. I therefore, Sir, proceed at once to the question whether or not it is advisable to propose to Parliament great changes with respect to that University. I will not, at the present moment, enter into the objections which have been made against any interference by Parliament with the constitution of that University. But after having stated the views which we take, I will endeavour to meet those arguments which have been used in order to prevent the interference of Parliament. The Commissioners, Sir, have pointed out at great length the defects which they conceive to exist in the University of Oxford, and the remedies which they think are required. But it is not the Commissioners only who have stated that the University of Oxford does not at present fulfil all the purposes for which she is designed as a national institution. I find a statement to the same effect in that very able evidence which was laid before the heads of houses by Dr. Pusey. Dr. Pusey said:—

"There is much need of every exertion to extend the old Universities. They have means for sound education, and a traditional feeling which no new institution can possess; means (as our fellowships) which are now often comparatively wasted, because no adequate employment is found for them within the University. But now, instead of extending our influence, we have been gradually losing the preliminary education, not only in some degree of other learned professions (as the bar and the higher medical profession), but even of the very clergy. The population of England increases day and night; increase of clergy is not only needed, but demanded."

There cannot be stronger testimony to the fact that some reforms are needed, when so able an opponent as Dr. Pusey says not only is the University of Oxford not adequate, in extent at least, for the education required for the bar and the medical profession, but even for the clergy, whose education, it is supposed, the University of Oxford is fully competent to impart. In considering this matter, I propose to take in their order the different subjects which I stated in a speech last year upon national education, and which subjects were again pointed out in a letter to the Chancellor of the University of Oxford from my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Borne Department. In the first place, I will consider the alterations to be made in the constitution with a view to the public welfare and to the extension of the useful influences of the Universities. The Commissioners have stated that they are general defects in the constitution of the governing body. They have stated that the heads of houses who now constitute it are generally elected for very different reasons; some, because they are supposed to be conciliatory in their manners, or that they will exercise a wise superintendence over the administration of the revenues of the college, or, lastly, from their connection with those who sympathise in the doctrinal or political opinions of the majority, but in no case because they show that they are peculiarly qualified to take the superintendence of the studies of the University. That this is the case I think has been admitted by several of those who have given their opinion to the Committee of heads of houses. Without now stating what it is proposed to do upon this subject, I proceed to the next question, upon which there is a great deal of evidence in the Report of the Commissioners—I mean the extension of the University. We are to consider that this is a national institution—that it is one which ought to supply education for as many as can be supposed to require at that place a large and liberal system of education. In looking at the history of the University, we find that in ancient times, the University, and not the colleges, was the principal ruling body—that the Congregation of the leading resident tutors, and professors, summoned by bell, formed the ruling body of that University—that at one time there were no less than 300 halls, to which scholars resorted to obtain the benefit of the education of the University. But in progress of time the whole of this system was subverted, and the Commissioners state that for 150 years—it appears, however, for a considerable longer period—the halls have entirely disappeared, and become altogether extinct, and no instruction has been given except under the modern system, through the medium of the tutors of the different colleges. I find that this is stated, not only by those who are in favour of the Report of the Commisioners, but by those who are against it. There is, then, quite a different system from that which was originally established; and the consequence of that different system is, that the education has become far more confined—that young men are obliged to enter themselves of a college, and that, belonging to that college, they are obliged to receive the education given in that college, and they look only to that education as the means of obtaining, whether degrees or honours, or whether fellowships and the more substantial rewards of the University. Now, Sir, there is in the evidence of Dr. Posey, to which I have referred, a great deal of very acute discussion on the question which he puts as the alternative —education in colleges or education by professors? I own it appears to me, in the first place, that these are not antagonistic questions. It appears to me that nothing can be more wholesome, nothing more advantageous, than the existence of a college the head of which and the fellows of which exercise a certain amount of discipline on the young men, who are sent to that University, who afford them the benefit of their society, and both by their authority and their manners can put some check on those excesses into which youth is apt to fall, both in point of extravagance and in the indulgence of the passions. It is, I say, a very great advantage that this country should possess such colleges as these at Oxford, and that education should be going on within them. But, Sir, if education is entirely to be confined to those colleges, it is obvious that the tendency will be this—that the teachers and tutors of those colleges will confine themselves to certain branches of learning, and not only confine themselves to certain branches of learning, but in those branches of learning confine themselves to certain books, and a particular class of views on those subjects with which they will of course become thoroughly acquainted, and find, therefore, greater facility in teaching from them than upon a larger and more comprehensive system. On the other hand, the professorial system merely considered alone, as it is said by one whose authority is worthy of respect—"the professorial system taken alone has a tendency to afford a loose and somewhat superficial kind of education." The student, though he hears the lectures, has not the advantage of a vivâ voce examination by a tutor in whose room he is sitting, and from whom he is receiving immediate instruction, and therefore goes away with but scant information. But, Sir, on the other hand, it is not to be expected that the college tutor, with that tendency which I have said to confine himself to certain branches of studies—it is not to be expected that he should attain that large and comprehensive view of different sciences which would be obtained by any person who is in the situation of a professor, whose faculties, as is generally the case, have not been so much trammelled, and who has been devoted more minutely to a branch of study, and who is also able to point out all the various branches of learning which belong to that particular branch, Dr. Posey has drawn, in this comparison between the tutorial and professorial sys- tems, a picture of the German Universities, and he has said the choice lies between the tutorial system of Oxford and that system of German rationalism which is taught by the professors in the Universities of that country. But, Sir, logical truth is entirely wanting. The system of German rationalism does not belong to the professorial system; and if, instead of going to Germany, Dr. Pusey had gone to Scotland, he would have found professors of divinity, such as Dr. Chalmers, as far removed as possible in their views from the views of those German rationalists which it is the dread of Dr. Pusey lest they should be admitted into this country. I own it appears to me, Sir, that we have an opportunity, and an opportunity which we ought not to lose, to combine the advantage of tutorial college tuition with that of professorial teaching. I should as little listen to a person who said, because the tutorial system is excellent, and our colleges are of the greatest value, we ought not likewise to have professors, as I should listen to a lesson on agriculture, in which the teacher said, "It is of the utmost importance to prepare the land, to break, to plough, and to harrow it; to enrich it with manure, and to make it ready for culture; but with respect to sowing seed, that is a matter of little consequence, to which we need pay little attention." That seems to me to be the argument employed by Dr. Pusey. The argument apparently is, that you ought to do all in your power to strengthen the mind, and only to convey bare information. If the young men of Oxford stayed there only until they were fifteen or sixteen years of age, I could well understand such an argument; but as they stay there until they are one or two and twenty, it is advisable that, besides this college tuition, they should have information with regard to those great branches of learning and science which of late years, and not of late years only, but during the last century, have formed the riches of modern times. The science of Newton, the literature of modern days, of England, Italy, and France, should be included in the scheme of a liberal education. It appears to me that there are two classes of persons for whom a University education is desirable. The one class are those who study for some profession, or at all events expect to derive great advantages from study in after life. I do not think you give those young men sufficient education, unless you point out to them the road by which such eminence may be obtained. I admit, Sir, that in the scheme of studies, proposed in 1850, a great advance was made in this respect; but I think that if the Statute of 1850 is examined, it will be found that even there there is not sufficient scope—not sufficient means—for a young man to obtain that knowledge of the science and learning of modern times which it is desirable he should have an opportunity of acquiring. Now, I find that at Cambridge every person who endeavours to obtain honours is obliged to have some acquaintance with the Principia of Newton; but I find no such obligation at Oxford; and yet it appears to me that, whether considered with a view to forming the mind—whether with a view to strengthening the intellect for other species of reasoning—whether with a view to watching the progress of discovery as continued in successive ages, by one eminent man after another, or whether as giving the most sublime views of Divine Providence and Divine Intelligence—from any of these points of view it appears to be that to follow out the geometrical propositions from the commencement of Euclid to the third book of the Principia would be as good and as useful a study as a young man could possibly pursue. But it would appear as if the modern date of Newton's discoveries was in some way an objection to the book being used in the University of Oxford. I observe that Dr. Pusey takes great credit for the instruction given in Butler's Analogy. I admit that Butler's Analogy is a book as fit to be put into the hands of men whose minds are to be exercised and taught the process of reasoning as any that can well be pointed out; but I find that it has only been within the last few years that that book has been used at the University. I have here a statement of the number of pupils who have attended the lectures of the several University professors, and I will take the liberty of reading it to the House. Those numbers have varied, from time to time, during the last two years, having sometimes been, in the case of the Regius Professor of Divinity, 43, 3, 6, 26, 16, 14. The attendance at the lectures of the Regius Professor of Medicine was, in former times, rarely more than 10, and often not above 4 or 5. At the lectures of Savile's Professor of Geometry the average attendance was not above 3, the numbers having varied from 18 to none. The average number attending Savile's Professor of Astronomy was about 3; White's Professor of Moral Philosophy, between 40 and 50; and Camden's Professor of Ancient History, for the popular lectures, about 50, for the others, 10. The lectures of the Regius Professor of Modern History having been a great attraction on their establishment, the attendance for the first year was 160 on the average, and for the second year 57. The attendance at the lectures of the Earl of Lichfield's Clinical Professor was, on the average of the last three years, 5; and at those of the Lord Almoner's Reader in Arabic, 3, 4, or 1. The attendance at the lectures of Aldrich's Professor of Chemistry averaged, from the years 1822 to 1830, 31 per annum; from 1831 to 1838, 16 per annum; and from 1838 to the present time, 12 per annum. The average attendance upon Lee's Prælector of Anatomy varied from 12 to 20, upon the Reader in Experimental Philosophy it was 30, upon the Reader in Mineralogy and Geology it was 107 on the average for four years, and upon Boden's Professor of Sanskrit it was 10. Thus it will be perceived, in regard to all these professorships, that they do not form, in fact, a part of the education of the University; and, therefore, when it is stated, as it in some of the works that have been issued against the Report of the Commissioners, that there are at present professors, the obvious answer is, that no doubt there are at present professors, but that attendance on their lectures does not form any part of the road to honours or emoluments in the University, and that the consequence is, as might naturally be expected, that the studies of the colleges are preferred, and that the young man who has given an hour to a Greek play, an hour to Thucydides, and an hour to Aristotle's logic, is not much disposed to attend a lecture on chemistry, mineralogy, or modern history. It is clear, therefore, that the time has come when there ought to be a junction between the system of teaching in the colleges and the duties of the University professors. Sir, I have stated these matters in order to show how completely the University has changed; and it is a fact of that change, that, instead of there being any of these halls of which, as I told you just now, as many as 300 existed at an earlier period of our history, the only means of obtaining education is by becoming an inmate of one of the colleges. The consequence, then, of the colleges having this monopoly, and of the restrictions established in consequence of the Laudian Statutes, has been that those cheaper modes of living which were in use at former times, and by which great numbers of persons, otherwise poor, could obtain entrance into the University, all those avenues are shut up, and the numbers at the University have been very much reduced. It was stated by the heads of houses, in the year 1846, that at that time the number of undergraduates was 1,450, and that the general number had been about 1,300. Now, when it is considered that there was at one time at Trinity College, Cambridge, alone, 1,300 inmates of the college, besides 700 who lived in lodgings, but were considered as belonging to it, we must think that 1,300 students for a great national institution, with a revenue of 150,000l. a year, is a very insufficient number. This, therefore, is one of the defects for which we wish to provide a remedy—that there is no means of obtaining education at Oxford except by belonging to one of the colleges. The next point to which I wish to refer, and which I mentioned last year, is the restrictions which are placed upon the various emoluments, which are the rewards of learning in the University. And here, again, I cannot help thinking that, although the ancient Statutes are referred to, these scholarships and fellowships are far more restricted than was ever intended by the original founders. As to the results, at all events there can be no doubt. With one witness after another saying that, in consequence of those restrictions, and especially of restrictions to the kindred of the founder and to particular localities, the ordinary man is very often preferred, while the man of singular talent and learning—the man who has distinguished himself in University studies—is rejected. Thereby, undoubtedly, the field of utility is narrowed, and the University does not produce all the advantages which it otherwise might, and which they certainly are capable of affording. It is part of the same subject that many of these fellowships are held by those who for many years have had no connection with Oxford, nor contributed in any way to the studies of the place, and thereby the means of this great University are restricted and frittered away by that waste to which Dr. Pusey has referred. The next subject to which I have to allude touches a question with respect to which, undoubtedly, objections may be raised, but the object to be gained is one of so much importance that we could not omit it out of our scheme of necessary reform of the University. It appears to me that some part at least of the revenues of the richer colleges—that some parts of those revenues which are not now applied to the purposes of learning and the purposes of teaching in the Universities, ought to be so applied; and that we could not do better than lay down certain rules by which professors and lecturers, and others engaged in teaching in the University, might receive a sufficient income and be made available for the future purposes of University education. On this subject I will venture to quote what has been said by Burke upon another subject, and which, although I think he did not probably apply it well—speaking, as he then was, of the monasteries in France—yet, as a general rule, regarding great revenues which are not now applied to useful purposes, lays down maxims so admirable, that I think the House may well be guided by the wisdom which they display. He says:—

"A politician, to do great things, looks for a power, what our workmen call 'a purchase;' and if he finds that power, in politics as in mechanics, he cannot be at a loss to apply it. In the monastic institutions, in my opinion, was found a great power for the mechanism of politic benevolence. These institutions are the products of enthusiasm; they are the instruments of wisdom. Wisdom cannot create materials; they are the gifts of nature or of chance; her pride is in the use. The perennial existence of bodies corporate, and their fortunes, are things particularly suited to a man who has long views, who meditates designs that require time in fashioning, and which propose duration when they are accomplished. He is not deserving to rank high, or even to be mentioned in the order of great statesmen, who, having obtained the command and direction of such a power as existed in the wealth, the discipline, and the habits of such corporations as those which you have rashly destroyed, cannot find any way of converting it to the great and lasting benefit of his country."

Now, Sir, there is no question in the present case of destroying any institutions, or of disposing by sale of their great resources; but there is a question of applying them to purposes for which it is evident they were originally intended, and of applying them in a way suited to the wants of our own times. I may be told—and that I shall now come to—I may be told that this is an unhallowed interference with the disposing of property by will—that it is breaking into foundations and endowments surely laid, and by antiquity. I find, indeed, that the Chancellor of the University of Oxford—blasting this measure in its very birth—says, that the whole effect and spirit of the Bill which I propose to introduce to-night is utterly subversive of all those privileges of the University which he is bound to maintain. To the same purport have been other communications received by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now no doubt it is a serious question, but it is a question with respect to which I should think it impossible for any man to deny—not only that we have the power, for I should think very lightly of that—but that we have the right and the duty to apply these great endowments to the purposes of education in the manner which the necessities of the times require. Let us look back, in the first place, to the origin of these foundations. Has everything been kept exactly and literally according to the Statutes of the founders? I need hardly refer—I do not know that it would be fair to refer—to such an event as the Reformation, but I may observe that, fourteen out of the nineteen colleges at Oxford having been founded before the Reformation, many of the injunctions of their founders were changed, at that event, by the Statutes of Parliament and by the orders of the Sovereign who reigned at the time. That was one great change; it was a great change for the national benefit, and it may be said that, as the whole nation had changed, it was necessary that these great institutions should be made conformable to the alteration which had taken place in the national belief and faith. But the change did not by any means stop here. Changes have been made affecting the very question itself of the kind of teaching that was to be adopted at the University. I believe I have stated—or if I have not, I must do it now—that in early times, in many of these colleges, there were certain sums of money set apart for lectures in divinity and in the canon law, and on moral and natural philosophy. What has become of these foundations? They were intended, evidently, for the benefit of the whole University. Have they been so applied? I will read you the account of a very venerable man—a man not only venerable from his age, but respected for the contributions he has made to the historical literature of the country—I mean Dr. Routh, the President of Magdalen College. Dr. Routh says, in reply to the questions:—

"I send, with my respectful compliments, for the information of the Committee of the Hebdomadal Board, 'on what are the particular circumstances respecting readerships or professorships in Magdalen College, for the service of the University,' a copy of the college Statute relative to our lectures in divinity and moral and natural philosophy. As to what is the actual state of such readership or professorship at the present time,' I answer that the usage has been, ever since and before I was a member of the college, for our lecturers to read, each of them, only one lecture at the end of every term,"

Now, Sir, Dr. Routh says, and very truly—confining himself to the fact—that this has been the usage since he was a member of the college, and previously to his time, and before. He does not say it was according to the Statute; indeed, it was quite clear that it was not. It is quite clear that these lectureships were intended for the benefit of the University, as means of advancing the study of divinity and moral and natural philosophy; and that the Statutes, in this respect, have been complied with by reading one lecture at the end of every term. Now this is an abuse which we propose to remedy. We propose to rectify abuses, and not to destroy institutions—to act, as we believe, in accordance with the spirit of the founders, and not contrary to their intentions. Dr. Routh, however, says further:—

"But it appears by Bishop Morley, our visitor's injunctions given in 1663, that the lectures were directed by him to be given once in every week, instead of the times mentioned in the founder's Statutes. This injunction he sends, they are his own words, 'pro ratione temporis,' referring, I apprehend, to the change which had taken place in education, conducted as it now is, principally by tutors, persons unknown to the Statutes of Magdalen College."

So that, according to this statement of the President of Magdalen College, these changes were made by Bishop Morley, in the year 1663, pro ratione temporis. Well, then, let us also act pro ratione temporis. Why should we not have as good a right to consider the ratio temporis in the year 1854 as Bishop Morley had in the year 1663? Let us look at the intention of the benevolent founders of these institutions, and let us act, as far as we are able, in the spirit in which we believe they would have been disposed to act for the promotion of education and the encouragement of learning. Sir, there is a Statute of one of the most ancient of the founders of colleges at Oxford—Walter de Merton—whose regulations were, in many respects, copied by other colleges, not only at Oxford, but at Trinity and some other colleges at Cam- bridge, of which I will take the liberty of reading an extract to the House:—

"Cæterum quia casus omnes futuri ab initio certâ lege includi non poterant, seu statuto, ideo volumus," &c.

He ordained, therefore, that the head of the college and eight or ten of the senior fellows should make Statutes from time to time, which should be obeyed by those who were subject to them—thus showing clearly that his view was that, according to the claims and circumstances of the times, innovations might be introduced in the regulations of the college. If we look also to the foundations of William of Wykeham, of William of Waynfiete, and of other founders of colleges at Oxford, we shall find in several of them that there was an intention to have lecturers and professors on these subjects of the learning of the times, and that they intended these lectures to be for the benefit of the whole University. They acted according to their knowledge at that particular time, and when the first of these colleges were founded, scholastic learning was held in great repute, for it was a time when Aristotle was held in such reverence that in many of the towns of Germany it was said that, instead of reading a chapter of the Bible, the clergy used to read a portion of Aristotle's Ethics. The colleges founded at that time bear mark of the founders' intention to promote that kind of study. After that came the revival of learning; the literature of Greece became an object of attraction at Oxford, as elsewhere; professorships of Greek were founded, and the new learning was adapted to the new times. Well, Sir, three centuries and a half have elapsed since that time; we have made great advances in many sciences, and those sciences have produced wonders of which it is desirable that every man should know something with respect to their discovery and of the laws which apply to them. And with regard to those who attend the University of Oxford, whether they intend to pursue some profession, or whether they are persons whose circumstances are affluent, and whose position does not oblige them to earn their bread professionally, still, I say, they ought to receive at a national University either such learning as may enable them to pursue such branches of study as they may wish particularly to follow, or such general information as that they may be able, on going out into the world, to meet on equal terms with those who are generally well informed on these subjects. Sir, I cannot think that, in proposing to make a change of this kind with respect to a part of the revenues of the University of Oxford, we shall be at all trenching in any way upon the will or the intention of the founders. On the contrary, I think we should be rather acting in the spirit of these founders; and if there is any question between antiquity and modern times, I say that antiquity is with us, and that it is only modern times that can be quoted in favour of an education exclusively in colleges. I will now state the general nature of the Bill which I propose to introduce. I have pointed out the defects of the University at present, relying on the statements of the Commissioners, corroborated and brought home as they have been by the testimony given by various witnesses to the heads of houses. What we propose in the first place then is, that instead of the Hebdomadal Board, consisting of the vice chancellor, the proctors, and twenty-three heads of houses, there shall be a body composed of twenty-four or twenty-five members, to be called the Hebdomadal Council, and to be composed in the following manner. We propose that the vice chancellor and the two proctors shall always form part of this Council, and that when the vice chancellor for the preceding year shall not be an elected member, he also shall form part of the board. That will give three or four persons who will be members ex officio. With respect to the others, we begin by forming a body, to be called, according to the ancient name, a "Congregation," and which will, in fact, consist of all the resident teaching staff of the University. There will belong to that body called a Congregation all the heads of houses, the tutors of colleges, the professors, persons bearing certain offices in the University, and others who are resident, upon certain conditions, and fulfilling certain rules which will be laid down. This body will, therefore, be numerous, and we propose that of the remaining twenty-one members of the Hebdomadal Council seven shall be heads of houses, of whom six shall be chosen by the Congregation and one nominated by the Chancellor of the University. To these seven there will be added eight professors, of whom the Congregation will choose six, the Chancellor will nominate one, and the eighth will be one of the divinity professors of the University. There will then remain six, who will be chosen out of the resident members of Congregation by the Congregation. The greater part of the governing body will thus be elected by the Congregation, but under these restrictions and conditions; and it will consist of the vice chancellor, of the vice chancellor for the preceding year when not an elected member, of the two proctors, of one head of a house and one professor, nominated by the Chancellor, of six other heads of houses, seven other professors, and six resident members of Congregation. This we propose as the governing body of the University. We propose that a certain number of those first chosen shall go out at the expiration of three years, but that, after the first election, the period for which they shall be chosen shall be six years. The next subject which we propose to insert in the Bill has reference to the oaths, and upon this subject it is very clear that we ought not any longer to permit any oath to be taken binding the party, either not to repeal any of the Statutes of the University, or to obstruct any change of the Statutes. Upon this subject, therefore, we propose to make the following provision:—

"Every oath, therefore, directly or indirectly binding the juror not to declare any matter or thing relating to his college under any inquiry appointed by law, to resist or not concur in any change in the Statutes of the University or college, or to do or forbear from doing anything the doing or the not doing of which would tend to any such concealment, resistance, or non-concurrence, shall be an illegal oath."

The next subject is one of which I have already stated to you the effect—I mean the exclusive character of college education. I propose that there should be a power to open private halls, which may be opened by any master of arts obtaining a licence from the vice chancellor for that purpose. He will obtain that licence only under certain rules and regulations, made in a manner to be hereafter explained. Those Members of the House who have attended to the recommendations of the Oxford University Commissioners will recollect that they propose that undergraduates should be permitted to live in lodgings under certain restrictions; but, upon considering the matter, we think it a safer plan that those who are not in colleges shall be in private halls, where they will be subject to some discipline, but where at the same time they will have a more economical mode of living than is to be obtained at present. Of course this must be matter of experiment, and its success will very much depend upon the means which persons may find of making it more economical than it is now; but there is every prospect that such a measure will succeed. I will here say a few words—and only a few words—upon a subject which attracts a good deal of attention, and which has been very much alluded to by all who have written upon the subject—I mean the habits of expense and extravagance upon the part of the young men attending the University. I believe, Sir, that this is a very serious evil, but that it is not to be corrected by a law passed by Parliament, but rather, in the first place, by inducing better manners and better morals; and, in the second place, by rules and orders made by the members of the University themselves. I do not think that any law passed by Parliament would be likely to cure the evil, for I cannot but anticipate that means would be found to evade its strict letter. I cannot but think, also, that there is much in what is said, that when parents send their sons to Oxford with very considerable incomes—they having had, as is often stated, as much as 200l. or 300l. a year spent on their education at school—it is utterly out of the power of masters and professors, or of the ruling body of the University, if they keep such young men among them, to control their habits of expenditure. It would require a degree of inspection which would be foreign to English habits and to English feelings, and I think it right not to attempt so inquisitorial a system. But I think, however, that the ruling body should have a right to say to the parents of such young men, "Ours is a place for education; we want young men to come here that we may instruct them in learning, and at the same time teach them habits of virtue and religion. If you send your son here to indulge in habits of extravagant expenditure, and to set a bad example to the sons of parents who can probably but very ill afford such expenditure, you are not within the scope of the University; and for that reason alone, not on account of any vice or crime, or of any dishonourable conduct, but simply because of your son's extravagance, and of his setting a bad example to the University, we shall request you to withdraw him from our society, in which we cannot allow him to remain." I think that sort of check would have a very salutary effect, and that it ought to be exer- cised more frequently, and perhaps I may say more fearlessly, than it has been hitherto done. At the same time, of course, these halls will be under the conduct of men whose character is well known, and; who will keep a kindly and at the same time a useful discipline over those under their charge; and this will in itself be some security that no extravagant expenses should be incurred. I come next to a question on which I do not propose to go into detail—first, because it would lead me too far; and next, because I think the House had better wait for the Bill before forming an opinion on the proposal of the Government. I come to the question, on which I have already touched, of preferences granted, owing to Statutes arising out of wills, to those who come under one of these different denominations—that they are related to the founder, that they come from a particular place or county, or, lastly, that they have belonged to a particular school. I think the first two of these restrictions stand upon a different footing from the last; for while the distinction in favour of the kindred of a founder must constantly lead to the emoluments of learning being taken by young men who are not entitled to receive them either by their industry, or application, or probably by their talent; and while the restriction to particular counties must often I lead, as Archbishop Whately says it does, to results at variance with the intention of the founder, and tend to lower the standard of education imparted at the University; upon the other hand, restrictions to particular schools, provided there is a fair competition at the schools, and that the authorities at the University have an opportunity of selecting the best men, may be, practically, very useful. Now we propose to do away with the restrictions with respect to founders kindred and to particular localities—except with respect to those which have been founded within 100 years, and with respect to the lineal descendants of the founder; and except also with respect to certain districts which are of considerable extent, and the circumstances of which are such as to justify, in our opinion, a departure from the general rule. With respect to schools, we only provide in the cases of their claims to fellowships that there must in every instance be at least two scholars from whom to choose. We go on to make a further provision with regard to fellowships. We propose that unless a person holding a fel- lowship is engaged in certain employments and occupations which I shall state, he shall not hold his fellowship more than one year. The occupations which we propose a fellow should hold are—that he should be habitually engaged in tuition, in the discipline of some college hall or private hall of the University, or that he should hold some one of the offices of the University which will be found named in the schedule. He may also retain his fellowship if he is either incumbent or licensed curate of a parish situate within three miles of Carfax, in Oxford; or should hold a certificate of study under this Act. This relates to resident fellows. With regard to non-resident fellows, we provide that he must be the resident incumbent or licensed curate of a parish within three miles of Carfax, in Oxford, or of a parish whereof at the time of the passing of this Act the college owned the great tithes, or wherein at the same period it owned property in land, such ownership then also continuing; or that he shall perform some duty requiring his absence from Oxford, the performance of which is now enjoined by Statute on the holder of such fellowship; or perform some duty, the performance of which may, by some future Statute to be made in pursuance of the powers conferred by this Act, be declared to confer on the holder of a fellowship at Oxford the privilege of non-residence. We likewise provide that after a person has held a fellowship for twenty years, and been engaged in the task of education at Oxford, or in the performance of any of the duties required, he shall then be free from these conditions and restrictions which I have I been enumerating. In certain cases also, and for the purposes either of study or of pursuing certain professions, there is in this measure a power conferred upon the colleges of giving a licence of non-residence for a period of five years. I come now to state the powers which we propose to give of applying part of the revenues of the colleges for the purpose of increasing the funds for education in the University; and this, perhaps, will be a convenient time that I should state that as some of these last provisions and those which I am about to mention require a great deal of consideration in certain cases, and in order that each college may have time to consider its Statute very carefully, we propose that there should be for a certain limited time a Commission of five persons, who shall have the power I now pro- pose to state. In the first place, we propose that they should have the power of approving of Statutes in conformity with the proposals of this Bill—those Statutes to emanate from the University if they regard the University, and from the colleges if they regard the colleges. We propose that the power of this Commission to approve what the colleges and University propose shall last till Michaelmas Term, 1855, and that after Michaelmas Term, 1855, if the University and colleges are held not to have performed that which is expected of them—that which is within the compass, within the limits of this Bill—that then the Commissioners shall have power to enact by Statute rules in accordance with this Act, which rules, when they have been laid before the Privy Council, have been approved by Her Majesty, and have for a certain period been placed on the table of this House, shall have the force of law and be binding, as Statutes, on the University and the colleges. Such being the constitution of the Commission, it is proposed that each of the colleges shall have the power of contributing from its annual revenue any sum not exceeding one-fifth part towards the foundation or better endowment of professorships and lectureships for the instruction of the Members of the University at large; to regulate the tenure of such professorships or lectureships; to provide for the discharge of the duties thereof; to diminish the number of fellowships belonging to such college, or suspend payment of the emoluments of any of such fellowships, with a view to the foundation of such professorships or lectureships; or to the supply of pensions upon retirement there from of the professors or lecturers; or to the foundation of scholarships in the college; or to raising the income of the remaining fellowships to any sum not exceeding 250l. a year; or to the erection of new buildings for the purpose of accommodating an increased number of inmates; or to the establishment of halls, to be affiliated to such college, and the acquisition of grounds and buildings for the same. We propose, also, that they Shall have various powers, to which I have already referred, with respect to the grounds of preferences, and that they may appropriate any number, not exceeding one-fourth, of the fellowships belonging to any college to the encouragement of the special studies of the schools of mathematics, natural science, or modern history, or of any other studies recognised or to be recognised by the University. These are undoubtedly very large powers, but they are powers which it is proposed to give entirely for the benefit and improvement of the University. The remaining parts of the Bill, I think, only refer to that which I have already mentioned—the Statutes to be made by the Commissioners, and some other provisions which it is not necessary to trouble the House with at this time. I have thus gone over the proposals I have thought fit to make to the House, for a change in the constitution of the governing body of the University. That change is proposed to be made with a view to the extension of the University by the erection and maintenance of private halls, the abrogation of those oaths which are contrary to public policy and public virtue, and the abrogation of those preferences which now exist by law, and which so much limit the advantages which are to be derived from the University. I have also stated the powers we propose to give for the endowment of new professorships and the increase of the salaries and endowments of existing ones, and I cannot but believe that if a measure of this kind could pass into law, the University of Oxford would gain great advantages—I cannot but believe that the nation at large would gain great advantages from a change which would tend to bring a far larger number of young men there to share in the studies of the University, and to reap the rewards of their assiduity and learning. It is obvious, at all events, that these fellowships and the other emoluments which were intended as a reward and encouragement to learning will thereby be given to men who have qualified themselves for them, and that they will not be disposed of by abuses which it needed some measure of this kind to cure. Sir, there remains one question on which there is no provision in the Bill, but on which I shall at any time be prepared to give my vote in conformity with the opinion I have always held. I cannot think the whole purposes of the University are fulfilled while there is a test at the entrance of the University which hinders so many persons from entering it at all. I never, Sir, would consent to any measure by which the discipline of the colleges—nay, more, the conduct of religious instruction in the colleges, and the attendance of Divine worship, was in any way interfered with. But I do expect certainly that by the addition of those new halls there will be facilities which may induce Parliament not much longer to interpose the obstructions which hitherto have been interposed to the enjoyment of the benefits of those great schools by a far larger portion of Her Majesty's subjects than at present enjoy them. But though this is my opinion, I do not think it would have been wise in Her Majesty's Government to have decided on placing any proposition of the kind in the present Bill. The subject is one which divides this House; it is one which divides the other House. It is a subject that I think should be reserved for a separate measure and for a separate consideration. I certainly shall always and at any time be prepared to give my vote as I gave it twenty years ago. Then I did so in company with the present Chancellor of the University of Oxford; I fear I shall no longer give it with the sanction and countenance of such authority now. But I shall, nevertheless, still give my vote for the admission of Dissenters; but, as I have already said, that is no part of the question now before us. This measure, I think nobody will deny, is a large and comprehensive measure of reform. No one will dispute that we have not undertaken this in a narrow spirit—no one will say that we have listened to objections that we thought founded in prejudice or error. Sir, it is with the view of making these great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge worthy of the nation that we are determined, at the same time that we preserve the spirit of their generous founders, to allow the people of this country as far as possible to have the benefit intended for theft, and to enjoy the advantages of a sound, religious, and liberal education.

said, he begged to tender his sincere thanks for the Bill generally. The noble Lord had evidently bestowed a great deal of care on his scheme for the reformation of the University of Oxford. He agreed most heartily with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord on one part of the subject, and he deeply regretted that the noble Lord had not taken the present opportunity of giving effect to those sentiments; he alluded to the observations which had been made by the noble Lord as to the admission of Dissenters to the Universities. He (Mr. Blackett) of course had no right to speak in behalf of the Dissenting body, whose claims would no doubt be urged by advocates more immediately interested and more able to do them justice; yet, as an Oxford man, he felt bound to declare his opinion that the removal of the prohibition against Dissenters would have a most beneficial effect upon the University itself. He believed that no one could have attentively considered the causes of those evils, which had afflicted and impaired the usefulness of the University of Oxford, without feeling convinced that they were mainly attributable to the narrow, sectarian, and clerical spirit which ruled the institutions of that University. He believed that one of the most effectual plans of reforming the University would be to introduce a clause into this Bill of the noble Lord's, declaring that that splendid institution was henceforth to be the inheritance of the whole nation, and not the monopoly of a sect. With regard to the general scope of the noble Lord's Bill, so far as he could catch its provisions, he was inclined to regret that the measure proposed would not reproduce that ancient University of Oxford to which the noble Lord said we ought to recur as a model The noble Lord's proposition to establish private halls would, of course, afford great opportunity for improvement and for cheapening the expense of education at Oxford; but he (Mr. Blackett) was convinced that those ends would never be attained unless they adopted the principle which was recommended by the Royal Commissioners, namely, that of giving permission to any person to go and reside at Oxford, and annex himself to the University, without entering into any smaller society. The only two other topics which he should touch upon were the constitution of the governing body of the University, and the provisions which the noble Lord had introduced with regard to fellowships. There could be no doubt that the alteration proposed by the noble Lord with regard to the governing body would be an immense improvement upon the close corporation which at present administers the affairs of the University; but he thought that the private tutors of Oxford, Who had more influence on the youthful mind than any other class of men connected with the University, ought to have a voice in the administration of its affairs. He confessed he did not understand the provisions proposed by the noble Lord for the regulation of fellowships. Unless he had strangely misconceived the noble Lord, the restriction with regard to fellowships would not work well.

said, he had no intention, when the noble Lord commenced his speech, to say one word to the House on this subject, but he confesssed that he had seldom passed an hour of deeper mortification, and had seldom felt more acutely a sense of humiliation, than he had felt during the speech of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had, no doubt, from its announcement, brought forward a wise Bill for the regulation of education in the great national institutions. According to the late census as to religious worship in England, it would appear that this country, religiously speaking, might be divided into three parts. There were above 5,000,000 absenters, about 5,000,000 dissenters, and above 5,000,000 members of the Establishment, three tolerably equal divisions. The national institutions of Oxford and Cambridge, he found, however, were to be improved and continued for the special and exclusive advantage of the one-third part of the people of these realms. He was not about to argue that point at the present moment, but he simply rose to enter his protest against this one-sided legislation. Whenever that House passed measures of taxation, he, as well as those 5,000,000 of people who were not connected with the Church of England, were considered as a part of the nation; but, when a measure for extending the advantages of education were discussed, he and those 5,000,000 with whom he was associated, were not considered as a part of the nation. They were not permitted to participate in those advantages. All the emoluments, honours, and benefits connected with the Universities were to be entirely kept from the 5,000,000 of Dissenters. The noble Lord had said, and, no doubt, with a sincerity of which he had given proof, that he would willingly vote for a Bill which would permit Dissenters to participate in the advantages of the Universities. Now he (Mr. Miall) conceived that no more proper time could be selected for conferring that privilege upon the Dissenting bodies than when we were passing a measure for the express purpose of improving and extending education. He hoped, however, that the Government would think better of the matter, and permit the insertion, in Committee, of a clause which would open the Universities to Dissenters. If such a clause should endanger the Bill in another place, let the responsibility of throwing out the Bill, in consequence of its containing such a clause, rest upon the Members of that other place. He did not think that such a responsibility ought to rest upon Her Majesty's Government, unless, indeed, they concurred in the exclusion of Dissenters from the national institutions of Oxford and Cambridge.

Sir, it is not my intention, on the present occasion, to express any positive opinions as to the provisions of the measure just introduced to our notice by the noble Lord the Member for London, except in so far as it appears to me that there are certain principles so important in themselves as well as in their consequences that they ought not to be altogether passed over in silence. The noble Lord said towards the conclusion of his speech that at any rate he had brought in a large and comprehensive measure of reform. Sir, large and comprehensive the measure undoubtedly is—large and comprehensive in the alterations which it introduces into the University and the colleges; but whether these alterations are of a reformatory character—whether these measures are to have an improving influence, remains as yet to be disclosed. Now I think, as far as I can follow the noble Lord, that there is a radical defect in the scheme of the Government with respect to their plan for the extension of education in the University of Oxford. It shows no confidence, but much distrust. I hope such a scheme will not be applied to the sister University, of which I have the honour to be a member. I conceive that, with reference to both Universities, the plan upon which the Government ought to have proceeded after receiving the Report of the Royal Commissioners would have been to have removed any inabilities existing in the Universities or in the colleges, whereby they were prevented from carrying into full execution and effect that system of education which was best for the whole country, rather than to act as they have done here by bringing to bear an external pressure and force, without consulting those who must necessarily, from their position, character, and occupations, be better acquainted than we can be with the immediate necessities and with the requisite reforms of the Universities themselves by which they may be improved. And I am all the more anxious to press this point upon the noble Lord, because the Commissioners for the University of Cambridge have, in a marked and pointed manner, drawn in their Report the attention of the Crown, and therefore of the Minister advising the Crown, to that particular subject. They say:—

"If Parliament should entertain the question of reforming the Universities and colleges, it seems to us it would be convenient to lay down in the Act of the Legislature the principle upon which such reforms shall be conducted, and to entrust the Board with temporary powers for carrying them into effect. By this means it would be possible to consider carefully the various individual and corporate interests affected, and to consult the feelings and wishes of those whose active and willing cooperation for the successful accomplishment of any such measure, however urgently demanded, were necessary to any well-matured scheme."

said, he should have been content if the Motion had passed by common consent, without observation, believing that the mere introduction of the Bill might have been safely taken as a matter of course, acquiescence in which concluded no one, and that its provisions might be discussed with more convenience when they were actually before the House. But as, in fact, a debate had arisen, entire silence might expose him to misconstruction, and be understood to imply acquiescence where he did not intend it; as, for example, in some of the observations which had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) who had just sat down, with reference to the important question whether this ought to be a compulsory, or only an enabling Bill. He confessed he thought that if they passed an enabling Bill only, they would get into a difficulty and do nothing at all, and the House would, perhaps, allow him to point out the reasons for that opinion, which were applicable particularly to Oxford, and with which the right hon. Gentleman, being himself of Cambridge, might not be so intimately acquainted. He would observe, first of all, that the Bill was divided into two distinct parts, one relating to the University and the other to the Colleges. With respect to the University the question as to whether the Bill should be enabling or compulsory did not arise; but there was a very grave prior question, and one on which he was not satisfied, namely, as to whether they ought to legislate at all, for it was quite clear that with the consent of the Crown, the University itself had power to legislate; and, if there had been a previous agreement between the Government and the University, a new constitution might have been arranged without bringing down the external force of the Government; and all that was to take place with respect to extension, all questions of form, and, in fact, all matters which concerned the University alone, might have been settled without the interposition of Parliament at all. On that part of the ease there had been a most unfair obloquy cast in conversation, and by public writers, upon the governing authorities of the University at Oxford, with respect to the plait they had brought forward for amending the constitution he did not say it Was wise to delay so long as they had delayed, and in consequence of that delay, to hurry at last in the preparation and production of their measure, and thereby to cause the heavy penalty of external force to be brought to bear on the University, but when it was said that the measure of the heads of houses was in its substance entirely indefensible, was not bonâ fide, and was brought forward with the intention of reserving everything in their own hands, those were hardy assertions which would not bear examination, and assertions which were made with unfairness, and with no little inconsistency. He had seen one attack, which, after reflecting on the heads of houses, as so greedy of power that they would part with none, went on to state, not by way of qualification of this charge, but as if in aggravation of it, that their plan of a second board would, in fact, deprive them of it; and, therefore, that in their preference of their own plan they were making a stand for nothing. How this admission was to serve the purpose of the person who made it he did not know, but he accepted it and believed it to be true, and that in point of fact the second board, being composed of younger men and those elected, and representing the opinions of other influential persons, would by degrees have become the predominant board in legislation. But, nevertheless, it was reasonable to keep the original board also, because there were two distinct sets of functions to be performed—those of legislation, in which their failures were complained of; and those of ordinary administration, of which no complaints were made; and it was most in accordance with the practice of English legislation to make no unnecessary disturbance, no waste of legislative power in attempts to apply remedies, for the sake of a theory, where there were no evils to be got rid of. To return, however, to the point from which he had suffered himself to be diverted, in order to do justice to those who had been unfairly attacked: it was clear that in respect of the University, apart from the colleges, there was no need of any enabling Act; but, if it was necessary to legislate at all, it could only be because it was determined to leave no choice on certain steps which were absolutely required, and that could be effected only by compulsion. With respect to the colleges the case was different. They could not move unless set in motion by Imperial legislation, and the question was whether it should be enabling or compulsory. That correspondence, which had interested every one who took any interest in the subject at all, had shown how exceedingly desirous the colleges were, without exception, to improve their own Statutes, and according to the argument of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) they had nothing to do but to set them free. But how did the case really stand? At Oxford, at the present time, there were three or four colleges that had power to amend their Statutes and apply them to the existing state of things; all the rest of the nineteen colleges were bound by their Statutes, and fully half of them by such stringent oaths, that, whatever might be the enabling Statutes that House might pass, they would, in reality, be unable to do anything at all. Parliament would never arrogate to itself the power of dispensing with oaths, and if it did attempt to dispense with them the conscientious men who composed those societies would never act on such a dispensation, nor consider themselves free to set aside what they had sworn to maintain; and the measure must, therefore, be in form compulsory, and be imposed by external power, with the force of law. It need not be a hostile proceeding; but that would turn entirely upon who were to be the proposed Commissioners, and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) in introducing the measure had not mentioned the names. If those intended Commissioners carried out the regulations bonâ fide and for the benefit of the University, he thought that the mere fact of the measure being a compulsory one would not necessarily lead to the inconveniences apprehended by his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-burst. There were, however, enactments glanced at by the noble Lord about which he confessed he felt as much doubt and difficulty as his right hon. Friend or any one else; for, if the proposal were to divert from colleges funds given to them by founders for very different purposes, and to apply them to professorships, it was a proceeding upon which he should look with very great suspicion. Surely colleges, if not entitled to more protection than other charitable foundations, were at least entitled to as much, and it would be difficult to show that the founders of those colleges had anything in view appertaining to the establishment of professorships or lectureships, except in some particular cases, upon which it would seem the noble Lord had founded his argument as applicable to others. Endowed professorships were comparative novelties in Oxford, the old system there being one of instruction by any graduate; and there was only one state of things under which there could be any colour of justice for mutilating foundations—it would be if colleges resisted all attempts to extend the University beyond their limit, and chose to consider themselves as exclusively the University; which case it might be fair to require them to provide the means for any University expense. But when the University was to be extended beyond the colleges, it would seem to be an unjustifiable diversion from their foundation, if provision was made for the wants of other than their old members; and if, moreover, these diversions were to be made in order to endow professors whose appointment would rest in the Crown or in other authorities, different from those bodies from whom the money came, it would be nothing but confiscation. He knew very well that the Houses of Lords and Commons, in conjunction with the Crown, had power absolute and despotic in its nature, that they had often passed acts of attainder and of confiscation; but those were acts of uncontrolled authority and supreme power, and not acts of legislation, properly so called—they were privilegia, not laws. It was not within the province of ordinary legislation to take franchises and rights from one party and transfer them to another without some forfeiture judicially declared; therefore, on that part of the Bill he looked with great suspicion and doubt. He apprehended, however, that in practice the principle was not to be extended to the length which was understood by his right hon. Friend. He understood the noble Lord to say not that one-fifth was always to be taken, but not exceeding one-fifth in any case. In some cases it might be consistent with the foundation to make such an arrangement. If the measure were carried out, as he hoped it would be, with an intention to see justice done, and if colleges showed that they had wants of their own, and that the funds would be more rightfully and properly applied in carrying out the intention of the founders, he did not apprehend, from what fell from the noble Lord, there would be an absolute sentence given against them. [Lord J. RUSSELL: Hear, hear!] That view materially affected the argument, and it might be that in practice it would turn out different from what was first imagined. From his imperfect knowledge of the Bill at present he would not say more; but he thought that no friend to the University, though bound to watch it cautiously, should endeavour to meet it with obstructions, and he trusted, from the tone of the noble Lord's remarks, that there would be a disposition on the part of the Government to give effect to any fair objection that might arise in the course of the discussion. In that case he was not without a hope that the result of the measure would be to give increased power to the University to do good—to give her that expansiveness which she required—to enable her to get hold of the youth of the country, who had, to a lamentable extent, escaped from her influence, not only in the active professions, but even in the learned professions, of which she was at one time the sole nursery. Anything which would restore her to that position, and enlarge her influence, would, he thought, be worthy of a great effort and of no little sacrifice.

said, that although this was not the time to enter into a full discussion on the measure, it was a convenient opportunity to make a few observations upon its principles which might be useful for the further prosecution and eventual satisfactory settlement of the question. Considering the exceedingly good tone which appeared to prevail on both sides of the House, he was sure it would be received by the University as an earnest of the disposition of the Legislature to consider their true interests as well as those of the country. He fully concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heathcote), that any Bill introduced on this subject must, to a certain extent, be a compulsory one. With respect to colleges, he was, for particular reasons, less able to express himself freely than his hon. Friend; but with reference to the University, he thought it was practically necessary to legislate compulsorily, and the reason was obvious—they could do nothing without first settling where the power of self-legislation within the University should for the future reside. In the University of Oxford there existed a form of government which vested the whole power in a certain body; of that body he desired to speak with the utmost respect, feeling quite sure that its members had the most upright intentions in all they did; but it was utterly impossible that that body should not exercise the powers which belonged to it according to its own views. The plain matter of fact was that the University could not stir one single step in the direction of any legislation concerning its interests, unless that legislation had previously approved itself to the gentlemen of the present governing body; and unless, therefore, that House was content to leave the control and veto over the whole course of legislation in the hands of that body, this, or any other particular measure, which might be thought necessary for its improvement and extension, could not take effect unless it were compulsory; and, even if all questions of detail should be left to be decided at Oxford, the question, what governing body ought to exist in Oxford, could not be so decided. He was not going to criticise the proposal made that day; it was sufficient to say, that Her Majesty's Government had had before them a great variety of plans on an extremely difficult subject, and had framed a scheme which they thought would prove advantageous. Assuming that scheme to be a good one, the University, as now constituted, could not adopt it, unless it were first approved of by the Hebdomadal Board; and it was manifest that they differed from it. He was of opinion, therefore, with respect to the University quite as much as the colleges, that some compulsory legislation was required; and it did seem to him that the Government, in dealing with the subject, had shown abundant proof of its desire to proceed with due consideration and regard to the independence of the University and to the principles of self-government to the utmost practicable extent, and that it had given ample time for the collection of information, and of the opinions of persons competent to form them on the subject both within and without the walls of the University. It would be an error to suppose that the Government had not been greatly influenced by the useful and valuable labours of those gentlemen within the walls of the University who had been employed in devising such suggestions and recommendations as they thought best. It must have struck every one that there had been a universal concurrence of opinion, both within and without the walls of the University, as to the necessity of introducing extensive improvements, more especially with reference to the present system of government. With respect to the plan which was now proposed, as far as he had been able to collect, it did appear that a great deal of pains had been taken to combine some of the best features of the various plans proposed by different persons; whether it was a perfect scheme or not, it was not now the time to consider. The principle of the plan seemed to be a representative government of the University, giving a large share of the representation to the teaching body and to the heads of houses, and at the same time giving to the resident members of the University their fair share of power; he thought, so far, that the proposition was entitled to their favourable reception, and that, after further consideration, the measure might be very likely to approve itself, equally to the House, the University, and the country. With respect to the second main topic of the Bill, which proposed the extension of the University, he thought the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) did not exactly apprehend the true nature of the provisions. His right hon. Friend made some remarks in which no one could more cordially concur than himself, with reference to the indispensable necessity, whatever they did by way of extension, of paying regard to moral discipline, and not allowing themselves to be led by any desire of opening the door wide, to introduce a lax system, which might destroy all the useful objects contemplated by the measure, render the residence of students a source of evil rather than of good, and in all probability prevent that diminution of expense upon which the public so greatly relied, and in the end destroy the great object of extending the advantages of the University to a much larger proportion, than at present, of the youth of the country. Nothing would satisfy the people, but a cheap, and good, and moral training. Then, what was the system proposed by this Bill? Instead of being a system affording less security for sound moral discipline than the system of lodging now prevailing in Cambridge, and, to some extent, at Oxford also, it was a system which afforded infinitely greater security. And he would explain why. At present, youths at Oxford, at the beginning and end of their University course, and at Cambridge throughout their University course, were allowed to reside in lodgings, subject to such collegiate discipline as might radiate from the colleges to the various lodging-houses. This system was exposed to two defects. In the first place it was very hard to make that discipline compulsory on youths not resident within the walls; and, in the next place, even if they were within the walls, it was difficult to maintain so high and stringent a discipline as the authorities would desire, if they had the power, on account of the aristocratic notions and lavish expenditure which frequently prevailed. But the Government system, as he understood it, provided that there should be in every lodging-house in which the students were collected and resided, a responsible master of arts, a senior member of the University, licensed for that purpose, who should undertake the care of their moral and religious discipline, be responsible to the authorities of the University for the due discharge of those duties, and be removable if he neglected them. The measure, in this respect, was, in his opinion, more obnoxious to the criticism of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Blackett) than to that of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole). But even the criticism of the hon. Member for Newcastle he looked upon as equally unfounded. The hon. Member said a student should be allowed to live wherever he pleased. Now, that was plausible at first sight, but would not answer in the end. What class of students would be most anxious to avail themselves of this privilege? Why, the rich, the dissolute—those who wanted to free themselves from restraint, those who disliked discipline for discipline's sake—and not the poor, the frugal, and the real students and searchers after knowledge. Within these lodging-houses, kept by masters of arts, you would be enabled to accommodate the system of each hall to the wants of the class which frequented it, while, by having a common table upon moderate terms, by not allowing needless expenditure within the walls, by establishing strict regularity in regard to keeping proper hours, you would cut off all that extravagance which now usually arose within the walls of a college as well as in lodging-houses. The whole system proposed would be infinitely preferable to the present system of lodging in the Universities. There was one other subject on which he would wish to say a few words, namely, that of oaths. He had himself, at a fernier period of his life, had to take oaths of a very stringent character in the college to which he belonged; and it certainly almost appeared to him as though the oaths, in many cases, were framed with the intention of pursuing the person who took them into all the subsequent relations of life. Such a person would, in his judgment, do wisely to act with the greatest caution under such circumstances as the present. He must confirm what the lion. Baronet (Sir W. Heathcote) had stated, that it was manifest these colleges could not, of themselves, do anything in the way of changes involving a departure from their Statutes, which Parliament might require of them, even if an enabling Statute were passed; and therefore, if Parliament thought it right to exercise its power, that power could not be exercised except compulsorily in the manner proposed by this Bill. He (Mr. R. Palmer) took the liberty of saying that he recognised with satisfaction the disposition evinced in this Bill to regard the spirit of the founders' intentions; and, without at all saying how far he thought the details of the Bill were sufficiently in conformity with those intentions, he could not help expressing his concurrence with the principle laid down, that, at all events, the general spirit of the founders' views ought to be respected. This was not, in his opinion, an unfit occasion to bear some testimony to the great merits of these founders of colleges. There were, he believed, no institutions in the country, except our churches and the general institutions connected with the Church, more ancient than these, and none which had been the source of greater benefits to the people. But for them the higher education of the country would have languished for centuries; and, if that had taken place, it was impossible to say what the country might have suffered either in its constitutional liberties, most of which were developed after the origin of these institutions, or in respect of its education or civilisation. Whatever might have been the points of detail on which the founders of these institutions erred, they ought to be honoured and revered for having contemplated great and beneficent designs which had been of the utmost value to the country. And as there was one subject on which the colleges had been much misrepresented, he would just refer to it—he meant that connected with the change which Lad taken place in religion. If there was any one point on which he was convinced, it was this—that the founders had in view, in a large and truly liberal sense, the maintenance of sound learning and sound religion. Of course they professed their religion according to the circumstances of the Church at the time in which they lived, but it was not to maintain the sectarian or special tenets of that particular condition of the Church, but to maintain the true interests of religion, that they founded these institutions. He might quote the founder of his own college, William of Waynflete, as an example, who stated that his main object was—

"The exaltation of the Christian faith, the advancement of the Church, the increase of Divine worship, and the liberal arts, sciences, and faculties,"

And—

"That the knowledge of Holy Scripture, which was the mother and mistress of all the sciences, should be more widely spread,"

That sentence from a bishop of the Church of England in the time of Henry VI. showed that the minds of some, at least, of these founders rose far above mere Roman Catholic feelings; and if their views were to be judged of in this spirit, as he believed they might, it was not to be supposed that since the Reformation there had been an essential departure from the intentions of those founders only because the Church of England had thought it right to relinquish some of the tenets and practices which generally prevailed at that time. Leaving this point, he would remind the House that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had stated two things—one, that he was desirous of removing the religious test imposed upon students at Oxford, and the other, that he should be desirous of so doing it as not to interfere with the religious education which formed the base of the system as it was now conducted in the Universities; and reference had been made to the system adopted in this respect at Cambridge, and to the propriety of assimilating the two systems. Now, it did not appear to him that this would be so large an extension of the University of Oxford to Dissenters as some imagined; and whether it were worth while to make that particular change for the sake of so small a benefit as would be conferred, he left to those who were the advocates of that change to determine. He was not one of those advocates, and that not because he entertained the least particle of sectarian feeling as regarded Dissenters. Nothing would give him greater satisfaction than to see Dissenters and Churchmen living together, and prosecuting their studies together at the University; but, at the same time, knowing the strong feeling of individuals on the subject of religion, knowing the strong religious jealousies which existed, the objection to proselytism, and the zeal on the part of individuals for the tenets which they believed to be true, he did not see how it was possible to maintain the supremacy of the established form of religion—to maintain the mode of worship and instruction to which the noble Lord referred, and at the same time to satisfy the views of those who would, of course, require that nothing should be done which would have the effect of withdrawing their children from one community to another. It was not, there- fore, from any jealousy with regard to the presence of Dissenters that he should feel bound to oppose the removal of the existing tests, but it was with a view to maintain that mode of religious instruction and those religious principles in the University which he thought ought to be the object of every statesman desirous of preserving the national Church, and of every member of that Church in his individual character. But the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall) contended that the University being a national institution, should include and admit all. Dissenters. Well, the hon. Member was quite consistent in that opinion, because he was one of those who wished to abolish the national Church. That, however, was not the principle of the present Bill, and was not the law or the policy of this country. We possessed a national Church; and, that being so, there was no inconsistency in saying that a nation which had a national Church might also have national Universities in which the instruction given should be in accordance with the religion of that Church. If that could be done, and if, at the same time, the children of Dissenters could come and partake of the advantages which those Universities afforded, he should be most, happy to see them do so. If they were, willing to accept instruction upon those terms, and only desired that the religious element, which formed the basis of the educational system there, should not be applied in any manner unnecessarily offensive to them, let it be so; but he could not, as a citizen of the State, or as a member of the Church of England, consent to the proposition that, for the sake of making the University include the children of Dissenters, it should be stripped of that which was its greatest boast anti ornament—its connection with the Church of England and the religious principle which governed it.

said the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heathcote) had made a suggestion which was well worthy the attention of the House. It referred to the constitution of the governing body of the University, and whether in truth the compulsory interference proposed by the Bill of the noble Lord was really necessary. That suggestion the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) had met by an argument to which he (Mr. Wigram) would address himself for a few moments. The hon. and learned Member stated that, with- out the concurrence of the Hebdomadal Board at Oxford, it was impossible for the governing body there to effect any reform of the University, unless the Legislature interfered compulsorily. Doubtless there was an appearance of truth about that argument; but it was an argument which was merely popular, and, in fact, was delusive. The question was altogether a practical one, and he would test what might be done by what had already been done at the sister University of Cambridge. It was impossible to have a governing body which by its constitution had greater powers of excluding any change than that at Cambridge. Practically the governing body there consisted of a caput of five, any one of whom had an absolute veto upon whatever measure might be passed through the senate. But what had taken place? Why, upon reviewing the expediency of reconstituting the governing body at Cambridge, the authorities themselves had framed a constitution which proposed to abolish the existing caput. They had framed a scheme of government that very much resembled in substance that which the noble Lord proposed by his Bill to introduce at Oxford. In spirit it was the same, though not entirely in its details; and that scheme, which had passed both houses of the senate, had received the unanimous assent of the caput, and at this moment only awaited the approval of the Crown. It deserved consideration, therefore, whether this part of the plan of the Bill might not be met by a scheme proposed with the concurrence of the existing governing body at Oxford, receiving also the sanction of the Crown, and thus rendering the compulsory interference of Parliament altogether unnecessary. There were only two other points to which he (Mr. Wigram) would refer. The two most important objects which were aimed at by the Bill seemed to be, first, the establishment in the University of private halls; and secondly, the new appropriation of the collegiate revenues. With regard to the first of these points, the establishment of private halls, he concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, that there was no reason to apprehend that by the establishment of private halls the discipline of the University would of necessity suffer; but these institutions might involve some objections. The object of establishing such private halls was, as he understood it, that a cheaper education might be given to those who, it was supposed, could not afford to go to the larger colleges. Now he (Mr. Wigram) knew very little about the expenses of the colleges at Oxford; but he was persuaded that the necessary expenses of a collegiate education at the sister University of Cambridge were not greater than those which would necessarily be incurred in one of- those private halls; and it deserved the consideration of the House, in dealing with this part of the scheme, whether they would be prepared to institute in the Universities private halls, where there was too much reason to apprehend that the poorer students would be altogether separated and become a distinct class from the wealthier students. He had hitherto viewed it as one of the chief advantages of our Universities that there the distinctions of class were abolished as much as at public schools, and rich and poor mixed together very much on a footing of equality. The scheme of the noble Lord was attended with this probable result, that the poorer class of students would probably be confined to halls, whilst the richer students would go into the colleges of the University; thus separating one class from the other in a manner which to him would be open to considerable objection. With regard to the other point, namely, the appropriation of the collegiate revenues, he would say only a few words, because, as he understood the views expressed by the noble Lord, what he proposed to do in that respect was to be in furtherance of the objects of the original founders. That must necessarily be a matter of detail, and it would be for the House to see whether the noble Lord's proposal carried into effect that view or not. If, on looking at the foundation of a college, they found that the measure did further the objects contemplated by the original founder, then, of course, it would be worthy of adoption; but if it appeared that any of those rights of property which had hitherto been respected in those foundations were to be interfered with, he, for one, would not consent to give his support to a measure of that kind. That, however, he did not understand, from what the noble Lord had stated, to be his object. The noble Lord had declared that the object he had in view was to further the original intentions of the founders of the colleges, and not to interfere with them. But this was a portion of the scheme which must be considered when the House came to the discussion of its details. In conclusion, he begged to say that he was anxious to give his best consideration to the details of the Bill, and to support those of its provisions which were calculated to promote the real good of the University; but he should strenuously oppose anything which tended to interfere with the original intentions of the founders, or with those rights of property which it ought to be the great object of the Legislature of this country to maintain inviolate.

said, he considered that the country was much indebted to, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), and to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the attention which they had paid to the subject of University reform, which had resulted in the production of the present measure. The most valuable part of that measure was, in his opinion, the appointment of the five Commissioners, and the extensive powers which were conferred upon then). The colleges were of a strictly monastic character, and might, in his (Mr. Heywood's) opinion, fairly come within the inquiry of the Committee proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers). In the fourteenth century no seat of learning was more free than Oxford, but after the preaching of Wickliffe, a persecution was carried on to exclude Lollardism, and, as the best means of doing this, there was a sort of monopoly of power established in the colleges, an example which was in course of time imitated by the Protestants. He had no objection to the establishment of private halls, but he thought that the better plan would be to open the colleges, and that we should take care lest the private halls should be converted into monasteries. The 'University of Oxford controlled the education of the higher classes all over the country, and the state of religious liberty which prevailed there' was, therefore, of the greatest national interest. It was on this account that he much regretted the Government had not included in their measure a clause for enlarging the boundaries of the University with regard to the admission of other parties not members of the Church of England. A civilised person would hardly believe that a student had at matriculation to sign Thirty-nine Articles which be had, perhaps, never seen or heard of before, and which he probably knew nothing about, except that his clergyman believed in them, and, possibly, some members of his family also. The great objection, however, appeared to him to be in the subsequent part of the career of a student at Oxford. Every student was compelled to learn by heart the Thirty Articles, and to be able to prove them from Scripture, and it was entirely out of the question that Dissenters should be placed under such a regulation. There s was, however, no reason why the system of the Church of England might not be carried out in its full integrity in the case those persons who were intended in after life to take holy orders. There was another test to which allusion had not been made, and which he considered to be ill founded. At Oxford, every person admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Arts was compelled to subscribe the Three Articles of the Thirty-sixth Canon, including the Thirty-nine Articles of Belief; and this, he considered, to be objectionable, because from the age at which a young; man graduated, generally when about twenty-one or twenty-two years old, it I could not be supposed that he had devoted any very considerable amount of study to these subjects. These tests were sometimes defended on the ground of preserving a high standard of morality, but he did not believe that the standard of morality in the English Universities was at all higher than that of the Universities in Germany and the United States of America, where no such tests were imposed. There was another point to which he wished to allude, and which he considered to be of considerable importance. He believed that one great error in the University system of this country was the compulsory celibacy of the Fellows of Colleges, and that it was desirable to abolish such a restriction. It was his anxious desire that the University of Oxford, which, with all its faults, was one of the most magnificent institutions ever founded, should enjoy the confidence of the whole body of the people of this country; and, in order that it might do so, it became the duty of Parliament, as they possessed the power, to control the present system, and to compel the Universities and the various colleges to adopt a better course of instruction than at present obtained. With regard to the extension of the system of education to the study of modern languages, it was melancholy to observe the occasional ignorance of modern languages among Oxford and Cambridge men; and, indeed, he believed that, in the mercantile community, there existed a greater amount of knowledge upon modern subjects than among those persons who had had the advantage of an education at the old Universities. He was gratified to hear that the subject of the endowment of colleges was to receive attention, and, also, that measures were to be taken for the foundation of new professorships. College fellowships were objects of ambition to the youth of all the public schools and of most of the large schools in the country, and the education of boys intended for the University was almost entirely devoted to enabling a portion of them to compete for, and, if possible, obtain a fellowship. It was a very great step for the Government to have brought in this Bill, as the subject of the constitutional reform of Oxford has not been mooted in Parliament since the Long Parliament, the time of Oliver Cromwell, and the Act of Uniformity. So strongly, however, did he feel on the subject of the exclusions from the University of Oxford, that when this measure was in Committee he should move to insert in it a clause to open the matriculation and graduation of students at that University to the whole British people. He should have been glad if the Government had taken that part of the question into their hands, but as he did not feel satisfied that it was a subject which ought to be dealt with by a separate Bill, he should, when the opportunity arrived, move a clause which would do away with restrictions which he deemed to be not only useless, but injurious.

said, that the fact of the University of Oxford educating a large proportion of the clergy and an influential class of the laymen of this country rendered him the more anxious respecting the present measure; and he could not say that he felt less anxiety upon the subject after hearing the remarks which had just fallen from the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat. For his part, he thought Parliament should take care to preserve the University as—what it was now to a great degree—an engine for diffusing sound religious education and useful learning amongst the people, and that they should not reduce it to the level of an institution that was to suit everybody's religious sentiments and convictions, by making it what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heywood) by his proposed clause wished to make it, and which, no doubt, the hon. Member had received a cordial invitation from the Government to try to make it. [Mr. HEYWOOD: No, no!] However, after what the noble Lord had stated, and he must say he had never heard a more direct invitation—considering the course which the hon. Member had hitherto taken upon the question of University reform—he must confess he did not wonder at the announcement just made by the hon. Member, that he would endeavour to do that which must necessarily lead to the adoption of one broad system of infidelity. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen appeared to dissent from that opinion. Let them not run away with the idea that he (Mr. Henley) was one of those, and some of them were then sitting on the benches opposite (the ministerial benches), who applied the name of infidel to the man who dissented from him in religious opinions. Do not let them run off with any such notion as that. Nothing of that kind could be imputed to him. But this he did say, if, within the walls of the same institution, a half dozen or a dozen systems of religious teaching were carried on, then very great confusion must arise in the minds of the young men, that confusion must necessarily produce indifference, and indifference would eventually beget infidelity. He did not hesitate to assert that a single instance could not be cited of such a practice existing without infidelity making wide and rapid progress at the same time. With regard to the measure under consideration, he should decline expressing any distinct or decided opinion upon it until he had had an opportunity of examining its provisions. He could not, however, shut his eyes to some of the circumstances under which the measure had been presented to the House, nor to what had taken place on previous occasions. Twice had the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) brought a measure connected with University reform before that House. Some years ago the hon. Member's proposition was for the direct admission of Dissenters to the Universities. In 1850 it was a measure of a more general nature, which a late Member of this House (Sir Robert Harry Inglis) termed a Bill of indictment against the Universities, and the noble Lord objected to the counts of that indictment, and said he would issue no Commission upon such grounds. That was followed up by a letter which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) addressed to the late Chancellor of the University of Oxford, the Duke of Wellington. In that letter, announcing the appointment of the Commission, the noble Lord assured his Grace the Chancellor that the Commissioners were to report—

"Whether any measures can be adopted by the Crown or Parliament by which the interests of religion and sound learning may be promoted in the conduct of education in the said University."

In the same letter the noble Lord was also pleased to declare that—

"The object of the Commission is not to interfere with these changes, but to facilitate their progress, not to reverse the decisions of the University, ab extra, but to bring the aid of the Crown, or if necessary, of Parliament, to assist in their completion."

But when he came to the Commission issued by the noble Lord, not a single word did he find in it which required the Commissioners to report their opinion as to what was requisite for the promotion of religion. Their inquiries were to be confined wholly to the subject of education in the University. It was not a matter of surprise to him, therefore, that throughout the 260 pages of that remarkable Report—remarkable, he must say, in more senses than one—the question of religious education was scarcely touched upon. True, he could not say it was not touched upon at all, but it was as nearly as possible not at all. Something was said about theology; but need he say that theology and the promotion of religious education were not precisely one and the same thing—that there was, indeed, the most essential difference between the two? The Commissioners, of course, wound up their Report with what might have been expected from them, considering the nature of the Commission which was sent to them. They said—

"Our object has been to lay such proposals before your Majesty as we believe to be calculated to place the University of Oxford at the head of the education of the country; to make its great resources more effectually serve their high purposes, and to render its professors fit representatives of the learning and the intellect of England."

Now, the Bill of the noble Lord, so far as he (Mr. Henley) could get at its objects, did in so many respects follow the recommendations of the Commissioners that it was hardly possible to separate them in one's mind. No one who had paid any attention to the Report of the Commissioners could fail to see that in all its leading and most important particulars the Bill closely followed those recommendations; and he must say that he agreed very much with what had been stated by a gentleman of no inconsiderable eminence in the University—he meant Mr. Hussey—that if this Bali were carried, it must necessarily sepa- rate the education of the University from the Church. ["Hear, hear!"] He (Mr. Henley) might be wrong, but so far as he could gather from the noble Lord's statement of the objects of the Bill, he thought that must be the case. As he understood the noble Lord's observations, also, the Commissioners did not lay down anywhere what they conceived to be the object of the education that the University was to perfect and complete. The noble Lord, indeed, touched upon the question whether the University education, as at present conducted, was or was not carried too far in a preliminary direction. That was to say, the noble Lord thought, if he (Mr. Henley) caught his meaning correctly, that one of two great changes, or both, should take place; either that the preliminary education of persons who were to become members of a profession should cease sooner, or those persons should acquire the whole of their professional education at the University, whilst those who were not intended for a profession would get, in addition to their preliminary education, a smattering of knowledge in some or in all the sciences, so as to stand on a par with persons of intelligence whom they might encounter in after life. That opened up an enormous question, which had been ably treated by Dr. Pusey, in the letter already referred to by the noble Lord. That great authority had laid down certain propositions with regard to education, which he (Mr. Henley) doubted not would be much more in accordance with the general feeling and requirements of the country than the measure propounded by the noble Lord that night. The principle there laid down was, that by forcing persons to work themselves in order to acquire knowledge, the tutorial system, as it was termed, had the effect of training the mind, and giving it a strength and power which enabled it to apply itself more profitably to any subject it might have to deal with in after life; that it laid the foundation of sounder information than could be obtained by persons who merely attended lectures, from which they could derive nothing more than a smattering of knowledge, at little cost or trouble to themselves; and that the latter, system could not ensure the attainment of so much success in the future as the tutorial system which was now in force. The noble Lord had commented somewhat unjustly on what was said by Dr. Pusey with regard to one system or the other being likely to introduce rationalism or infidelity. The noble Lord must concede to him that the professorial system of Germany had not been able to resist the infidelity which sprung up at the latter end of the last century in various parts of Europe—that the professorial system of Germany had been powerless to resist that infidelity, if it had not absolutely fostered and created it; whereas the system pursued in this country had offered a successful resistance, on which account he (Mr. Henley) believed it to be a sounder and a better system. Regarding the Universities as the teachers of the people, and the teachers of those who, as the hon. Member for North Lancashire truly said, exercised influence over the affairs of the nation, it was of the utmost consequence that the system to be pursued should not only produce the greatest amount of good in itself, but also be able to resist the greatest amount of evil. With respect to the details of the Bill, and particularly as to the forcible change in the constitution of the governing body of the University, no notice had been taken by the noble Lord of what were to be the powers of convocation. The governing body in the University—the heads of houses—at present initiated measures, but those measures did not become the law of the University except by an Act of Convocation. Now, he had not succeeded in collecting what the noble Lord meant to do with convocation, and whether their powers were to be wholly abrogated or not. The noble Lord merely proposed to substitute another body in the place of the heads of houses; but whether convocation was to remain unchanged or not, the noble Lord did not say. That was of course a material feature in the case, because convocation was not a body so subject to change and the passing influences of the day as the resident body of the University. The resident body, especially the younger portion of it, was, from a variety of circumstances, subject to great, sudden, and capricious changes. Convocation, being composed of men of all ages, spread over the face of the country, was not so liable to change. It was a matter of great importance, therefore, to know how far, and to what degree, that part of the constitution of the University was altered by the noble Lord's Bill.

was understood to intimate that he did not propose to interfere with the power of convocation.

That made a very material difference. He believed it was not so understood before. On the contrary, it appeared as if the noble Lord's measure left the government of the University in the other body; whereas that body was to be subjected to control on the part of convocation. He (Mr. Henley) could not ascertain whether the noble Lord adopted the recommendation of the Commissioners as regarded the professors. It was a most important part of the scheme which they proposed. The Commissioners recommended that professors of any country and of every creed should be appointed, subject to no regulation except one, which be (Mr. Henley) intended subsequently to mention. The noble Lord did not say whether or not the professors under his Bill were to be of the same kind. He (Mr. Henley) would be glad to learn that fact, and so, he was satisfied, would the House. Assuming, however, that such were to be the provisions of the Bill, the Commissioners proposed, as well as the noble Lord, to take a part of the revenues of the colleges for the maintenance of these professorships. The revenues of these colleges, however, were unquestionably given for the maintenance of religion, that was incontestably proved by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. H. Palmer), and no one could agree more thoroughly with the principle which that hon. Member laid down than he (Mr. Henley)—namely, that because the country had chosen to throw off certain abuses, it was not to continue to maintain the same Christianity as was professed at all periods. These foundations were given by pious persons in past times for the maintenance of sound religion and useful learning—so ran the old phrase, though it was sadly cut down of late; but the Commissioners proposed to give one-fifth of the revenues of the colleges to professors, who might be Jews or Infidels, or Turks, or anything else. It was true the Commissioners recommended one system of regulation, which was remarkable as being the same that the Government imposed on the schoolmasters of the national schools—namely, that they should teach nothing adverse to the Christian religion. That was the only regulation which a Commission, consisting of a bishop, dean, a head of a house, a lawyer, and a clergyman, proposed to impose on these professors. These professors, however, were to be the means by which additional knowledge was to be imparted, and by which additional scholars were to be obtained. The noble Lord's proposition differed in respect of the mode of extension of his system from that of the Commissioners; his plan was to be more in the nature of halls as now established than in that of colleges. Nobody could object to as great a number of halls as could be filled with scholars; but how these halls were to afford cheaper education than the existing colleges, without which element they were unnecessary, he (Mr. Henley) could not at all understand. The colleges, as at present established, were provided with chapels and chaplains, and all requisite means of exercising a religious influence as well as a moral control over the students. The noble Lord did not of course mean to bring numbers of these young men together without adequate provision for their spiritual instruction and moral guidance. The Commissioners, however, ignored that point altogether, though these young men would be exposed to the greatest temptation at a time of life when it was of first-rate importance to surround them with religious and moral influences, to induce them both by example and precept to act rightly, and so to lead them on to the source of all good. If the halls proposed by the noble Lord were to be provided with places of religious worship, and the other necessary adjuncts on these circumstances—such as rooms for taking meals and places to lodge in—any person of the least experience in the cost of building diocesan training schools, which the House should remember were for pupils of a far more humble sphere than those who frequented the University, must know it would be utterly impossible for these halls to compete in point of cheapness with the present colleges. With respect to what had been said of permitting students to lodge out, he doubted very much if the experience of persons lodging out of college would bear out the system of the noble Lord. He (Mr. Henley) could not speak from personal experience, but he had heard the members for the University of Cambridge say that persons so lodging out were the objects of more strict supervision than those who lodged in the colleges; and that the lodging-house keepers were as much spies upon their conduct, on the part of the governing bodies, as the men who kept the college gates. Under these circumstances he (Mr. Henley) much doubted that the cheapness proposed by the plan of the noble Lord would be realised. With regard to the question of interference with the privileges and property of the colleges, that was a very serious question, and it was all the more so when its extent came to be considered. Expediency was a very tempting phrase, a very convenient one when the end proposed was to lay hold of other men's property. But how did the noble Lord propose to deal with the property of the colleges? The noble Lord proposed to take not only one-fifth of their revenues, to be applied to purposes not consistent with their constitution, but he proposed also to apply a further portion of these revenues to other purposes equally not contemplated by the founders of the colleges. The noble Lord also said, that of the three prescriptions which now existed as to the admission of fellows, he proposed to do away with two, and to preserve one. He would not do away, he stated, the prescription which gave certain schools advantages in that respect, but he would do away altogether with the prescription as regarded counties. The only arguments, however, of any force for doing away with any of these prescriptions—and it was that adopted by several of the colleges themselves—was, that by so abolishing them a larger field would be opened for better men to be selected from. But how could the noble Lord suppose that a school which gave two candidates only, for instance, would offer the same field as a county—as Yorkshire for instance? If the county prescription, or the national prescription, was to be done away with, how then could the noble Lord propose to confine it to a school? He would, in connection with this point, ask if foreigners were to be admitted. That was the first question, and the House had a right to know it. Were inhabitants of the colonies to be admitted? Were natives of Ireland and of Scotland to be admitted? These were all questions on which information was required when the subject at issue was the breaking down of prescription. Looking at the measure as a whole, and coupling it with the noble Lord's concluding observation, followed up by the notice given by the hon. Member for North Lancashire to move in Committee that Dissenters should be admitted to the University, he (Mr. Henley) could not but regard it with great apprehensions as a change which ere long would inevitably disconnect the Church of England as a teacher from the University. Hearing the hon. Member give notice of moving the admission of Dissenters in Committee on the Bill, and state that he would call on the Government to support it he (Mr. Henley) could not but conclude that it was the intention and object of the Government, in spite even of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by a necessary consequence of their own proposition, to set up in the University a number of independent halls, which might be Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Presbyterian, or any other form of Christianity. He believed this to be the inevitable consequence of the plan proposed, and he believed, therefore, that it would, in causing the destruction of all religious education for youths, have the worst effect upon the future fortunes and prosperity of this country.

Sir, on my own behalf, and, I am quite sure, on the part of my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) and Her Majesty's Government, I venture to express my satisfaction and my thankfulness with regard to the manner in which this important measure has been received by the House. The tone of the speeches which have been made to-night satisfies me that this subject will have the advantage of a dispassionate and impartial consideration. We have heard two Gentlemen express their sentiments, who occupy prominent positions in what is called Her Majesty's Opposition; but I am bound to say that neither in the speeches of those Gentlemen, nor in any of the speeches which have proceeded from any other quarter, can I trace the slightest disposition to deal with this question as a question of mere party politics. I am confident, Sir, that whatever good can accrue to any one (and I know of no good that can accrue to any one) from mixing up the University of Oxford with the struggles and the contests a party, nothing but unmixed evil can result to the University from the adoption of such a course. Sir, various questions of detail have been mooted in the course of this discussion, and particularly by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; and I am sure that he will excuse me if I do not endeavour to follow him upon those questions of detail, because this is eminently a subject on which I think it is desirable that the House should suspend its judgment with regard to all those matters until each Member holds a copy of the Bill in his hands. The structure of this ancient University is so curious and complex, it has so much of history and tradition within itself, and such infinite variety and diver- sity attached to it, that it is impossible to deal with all its interests justly and considerately, and at the same time to do it in a few general and sweeping clauses. It was, therefore, necessary, in framing this Bill, to endeavour to adapt it in some degree to this extraordinary diversity—thus rendering unavoidable a deviation from that simplicity of form and paucity of provisions in which it is abstractedly desirable that every measure should appear before this House. On this account, and on account of the bearings which the different provisions have upon one another, I hope hon. Gentlemen will consent to wait, for the few hours that must elapse before the Bill will be in their hands, with regard to matters of detail. But several questions have been touched upon that are questions of principle, and to these I wish to advert for a few moments. I will refer to the first of them, merely for the purpose of explaining why I prefer to postpone its discussion, for my own part, to a future period. I mean the important question raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall), which has since been discussed with great ability by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), and to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) just adverted with a serious earnestness and a concern for the interests of the Universities which everybody must respect: I mean the important subject of the admission of Dissenters to the University. Now the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) has given notice, in the course of this debate, that he will take an opportunity, when this Bill goes into Committee, of moving a clause on this subject. Well, Sir, I shall, with the permission of the House, reserve myself till the hon. Member proposes his clause, when I shall be prepared to state, I hope clearly, the reasons which will induce me to meet his intended clause with a negative. For the present, then, I pass on to other questions of great importance. One of these questions is the alleged interference with the independence of the University; and another is the alleged abstraction of a portion of the property of the colleges. Now, as regards the question of interference with the independence of the University and of the colleges, by inviting Parliament to enter upon the task of what may be called compulsory or coercive legislation, I am free to admit that it would be most desirable to leave the University to reform itself, if the constitutions of the University and the colleges had possessed in themselves such elasticity, and such facility of adaptation to the varying wants of the active age in which we live, as would render it unnecessary to come to Parliament in order to meet this exigency. Her Majesty's Government, however, after long consideration—after exhibiting, I hope, no want of patience—have come to the conclusion that the constitution which the University has inherent in itself does not afford those facilities, and have therefore thought it to be their imperative duty to make a proposal to Parliament on the subject. But here we are met by the right bon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and by other hon. Gentlemen, with the doctrine, broadly laid down, that the right course would be to confine ourselves simply to the removal of disabilities, and to leave everything in the hands of the heads of the University and the colleges. Now, in the first place, I must demur-to any doctrine of this kind laid down upon abstract grounds. I cannot admit that there is any right whatever in those who are the life tenants of any corporation whatever to set up a title to the absolute and exclusive management of that corporation's affairs as against the supreme authority of the Legislature. I grant as fully as any man—and I have often asserted it in this House, and am ready to maintain it again—that it is most desirable that the Legislature should practise great reserve and great self-control in the exercise of its interference; but that is a matter of prudence and consideration—a question, supposing the interference to be authorised, whether the occasion for its exercise is an adequate and an imperative one. As to the right, I hold that there can be no doctrine so inconvenient—none of such dangerous consequence—none more certain to produce violent reaction—than to attempt to set up a multitude of divided and independent authorities, each contending for supremacy in the conduct of institutions and the management of property, which owe, if not their being, at any rate their safety and prosperity, to the guardianship of the general law of the land. But this case does not stand merely upon general prudence—it is a case for the interference of Parliament, clearly and conclusively, on grounds altogether special and peculiar. My hon. Colleague (Sir W. Heathcote) has himself stated the case as regards the colleges, which is, that they have not the power to make changes, however desirous they might be to do so; and I venture to say that that case does not admit of an answer. I am not surprised at hearing my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Wigram), where they are so free—for in that University there is only the case of a single college which is entangled in the meshes of the oath which attaches to as many as eight of the most important colleges of Oxford, namely, the oath by which the whole of the governing body of the college directly, or by inevitable implication, are bound to make no change, and to permit no change or alteration to be made, in the Statutes. Why, what would be the use of giving the colleges enabling powers? We should be entangled with questions as to whether Parliament can make an oath void and the like; and supposing some member of the college should think that Parliament possessed no such right, are you ready to enter into questions of conscience, and to tell him that his scruples are idle, and that he must do what you require, whether he thinks so or not; and this too, forsooth, under the notion of preserving their freedom and independence? Well, this is the position in which you place these great colleges; I will not mention them all, but there are amongst them several of the wealthiest and greatest colleges of Oxford, including Magdalen, New College, Brasenose, Corpus, All Souls, Lincoln, and one or two more. Are we to say, when we know that the governing bodies of these colleges are restrained by personal and common oaths from devising any scheme of change, that we will simply pass an Act enabling them to devise such schemes of change, and then think we have done all our duty in the matter? But then my hon. Friend and Colleague (Sir W. Heathcote), who himself put this argument, which I believe admits of no answer with respect to the colleges, stated that, as regards the University, the case is altogether different, because the University, he said, is under no such disability, and the University, with the licence of the Crown, is perfectly free to proceed to make any changes which it may think fit in its own constitution; and, as respects other matters, is free to make changes, generally speaking, in the government and internal condition, without any licence from the Crown. That is perfectly correct; but the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) said, and said most truly, when you speak of a University, who and what do you mean? It might be said that the University had the power of appointing its own representatives and making its views and wishes known through them. Now, they have power whatever, through the Convocation, except that of saying a bare "aye" or a bare "no" to such questions as may be propounded to the Convocation by the governors of the University at Oxford. That is the simple view of the case. It is unnecessary to say that I wish to speak of the governors with every possible respect; there is no man among them who is not respectable in his sphere—a great many of them are able, eminent, and even distinguished—but they are appointed, generally speaking, and almost without exception, by the different colleges to manage the affairs each of their particular college; and the prominent idea in the minds of those who have the choosing of them is that of choosing the managers of a college, and not of choosing governors for the University. The constitution of a college is so peculiar, that almost exclusive power is in the hands of a board of this description, the members of which are almost all chosen for such purposes. It is with great limitation and reserve that you can speak of them as representing the opinions of the University, and which opinions they have no means of bringing before Parliament. I was endeavouring to count them up during the statement of my noble Friend (Lord John Russell), and I think we have had six different constitutions sent up from the University, and all of them recommended on very respectable authority. There are two constitutions recommended by the committee of the board of heads of houses, and two constitutions recommended by the tutors, making four. Then there is a fifth constitution, which was recommended recently by a large body of residents; and there is also a sixth constitution, recommended by the Hebdomadal Board, and in favour of which Convocation had presented its petition. You may say, perhaps, that you regard that as the petition of the University. Then look at the difficulty under which this constitution works. When we speak of the constitution of the University of Oxford, although it is perfectly true that all the members of the Convocation have gone through a certain term of residence, and passed certain degrees, and keep their names on the books, although it is perfectly true that they are invested with the Parliamentary franchise, yet this does not enable every country clergyman, or every London lawyer or Member of Parliament, to exercise practically a judgment upon the affairs of the University, with which he is never conversant, like those who reside in the University, and carry on its work. Now look for a moment at the working of the present constitution. The constitution recommended by the board of heads of houses was proposed in Convocation. Of the whole number of members of Convocation, only about one-tenth part voted for this constitution. But that is not all. While the majority of the Parliamentary constituency, so to call it, voted one way, the immense majority of the working body voted the other way. Of the teaching body of the University of Oxford, there were two to one against the petition which was recommended by the University. I ask, therefore, whether, under such circumstances—I say nothing now of the supremacy of Parliament—it would be rational that we should be such slaves of form, because one-tenth of the whole body met, and there were two to one who voted against a particular measure, as to regard that particular measure as being invested with the plenary authority of the University? But this is not all. I contend that the Government, in making this proposal to Parliament, are standing strictly upon historical and constitutional ground, with reference to the University, and to take the opposite course, as my right hon. Friend suggests, would be standing on ground altogether the reverse. What is the Statute that is now in question? It is one of three in the University which are called the "Caroline Statutes." Now, the University of Oxford, under the governance of the "Laudian code," framed that Statute by delegacy of the Convocation, and, therefore, I take it as being the work of the University itself. So framed, it received the sanction of the Crown. Well, if that was the case with the Statute, no doubt you might fairly say that the precedent should be to let the University frame a Statute, and the Crown give to it its sanction. Now, in the case of the "Caroline Statute," upon which the constitution exists, that was framed under the authority of the Crown, and adopted by the University; it was afterwards inserted in the "Laudian code," but it owed its ori- gin to the Government of the country. That is the point on which I take my stand; and therefore I say it was the business of the Government of the country not to consider themselves precluded from dealing with the formation of such a Statute. The other question to which I wish to advert, is a question which relates to what may be called the sanctity of property—the diversion of certain property connected with the colleges for the purposes of the University. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has applied to that operation the strong name of confiscation; for he says he does not know another. But, however, he went on to limit the application of this term by saying that he did not mean to apply it to any case where you could trace any such purpose in the will of the founder. That would be quite a sufficient justification for the principle of this arrangement, because undoubtedly the most marked and specific cases which this Bill has in view for the application of college property to University purposes are cases where the founder has left most distinct indications of his intentions. These indications are very remarkable. In the case of Magdalen College the founder provided that there should be three lectureships established and paid, and that the lectures should be delivered for the benefit not only of that college, but of the whole University; and that bequest remains, after 400 years, unfulfilled. In the case of Corpus Christi College, the founder did exactly the same thing, and provided for the establishment of three lectureships for the benefit of the whole University; but that bequest has remained until within the last few years unnoticed. At present the governing body of that college, animated by the strongest desire for the reformation of the institution, although entangled by the oath to which I have referred, yet, acting in conformity with the spirit of their Statutes, have offered a munificent endowment for Latin professorships for the benefit of the whole University. But there are other cases proceeding upon the same principle. There were applications from Christ Church College to devote a portion of its funds for the establishment of chairs of divinity, which applications were based upon exactly the same principle. When the House of Commons had before it the Ecclesiastical Tithes and Revenues Bill, you exempted the chapters of Christ Church, on the ground that it was not to be considered as a chapter, but as a portion of the college. It was a portion of the college, but you proceeded afterwards by Act of Parliament to appropriate certain of the canonries of that college for the support of chairs of theology. Why, Sir, that is the very thing which this Bill asks the House to do. There was no provision in that Act for Statutes, because Statutes they had none, but there were college offices and canonries independently of any such obligations. That is the precedent and the principle upon which, on due cause shown, the Government ought to proceed. I do not say that anything rash or violent ought to be done upon this or any other ground; but it is vain to speak of confiscation as applicable to such a subject as the reasonable application of college property not for its exclusive benefit, but for the benefit of the entire University, in common with the college. There is a union of interest between the University and the college—an intimacy of relation and a mutual dependency between them; and, therefore, to use language of this kind in such a case is nothing but a perversion. It was prescribed by the founder of Corpus Christi college in the sixteenth century that one chair should be founded for the Latin and another for the Greek language. That was, Sir, because the study of Greek had just then emerged from the darkness in which it had been buried. And is it not fair to presume that the other founders—that William of Wykeham for instance, who lived a century and a half earlier—that if he had lived then, he would not have made equal provision for that study? Is it fair that the dead letter of the Statute should in this way be allowed to hold good against the common sense both of the Parliaments and the colleges of future ages? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) has said that he is not aware whether the Bill provides for the appointment of professors in the same way as is recommended in the Report of the Commissioners. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman will so soon have the Bill in his hands that I prefer leaving him then to discover wherein the Bill and the Report differ, and wherein they agree, rather than that I should enter into any details upon that subject at present. Sir, the Report of the Commissioners is a document that has been drawn up with the greatest ability, and it has been of the greatest service to Government by a thorough and searching discussion of all those questions that are interesting and invaluable to the Univer- sity. But undoubtedly, in considering the recommendations of that Report, Her Majesty's Government felt it their duty to deal with the subject on their own authority and their own responsibility, and not upon the authority of that Report. The right hon. Gentleman appears to suppose that there is to be on the part of each of the colleges, a fixed contribution of a fifth part of their revenues, for the benefit of the University generally, to be followed perhaps afterwards by a further contribution of a fourth part. Sir, what is really proposed is as follows:—Power is given to the different colleges, subject to the approval of the Commissioners, to make of their own accord a contribution for University purposes, such as for endowing the chairs of professors, to an amount not exceeding a fifth part of their revenues. Therefore, it is not, in the first instance at least, a fifth part of their revenues, but such a sum as they may themselves deem requisite. But if the colleges do not exercise these enabling powers to the satisfaction of the Commissioners within a certain time, then the Commissioners are empowered to act, but they cannot act without limitations. They are not to act at all in the case of those colleges which have less than twenty fellowships. They are not to interfere in the case of any of the poorer foundations, because it is thought it would be hardly fair to deal with them. When they do act, then they are to send under seal their reasons for imposing the burdens which they lay upon the colleges, and the grounds on which they are satisfied that these colleges can make a just provision without prejudice to the purposes contemplated by the founders of each college. Having done that, they are then to declare the amount of the fund which they require from each college, subject to the limitation referred to; but even then they must leave to the different colleges the mode in which they shall supply that fund; and, lastly, in the purposes for which these funds are to be assigned, it is distinctly provided that the Commissioners shall not do so without assigning to each college a reasonable control over the regulation and management of the professorship or professorships to be established. I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) will admit that the regulation is not so unreasonable as he is now inclined to suppose. Certainly no one at Oxford has said that it is unreasonable that the wealthy colleges should make rea- sonable contribution to the needs of the University. They complain that the contribution required by the Royal Commissioners is too much, as in the case of All Souls, where it was proposed that out of forty fellowships twenty should be swallowed up for the founding of four professorships. To the unreasonable amount objection has been taken. But we do not propose so much the abstraction of property from the colleges, as that certain college officers should be appointed to discharge certain duties by means of the funds of the college, the benefits of which will be equally open to them with that of the whole University. Our purpose is quite consistent with the precedents that have been followed within the last few years in the case of the theological professorships; it is recommended by the reason of the case, and I cannot doubt it will be favourably received by the House. Sir, having said much upon the independence of the University and upon the supposed abstraction of property from the colleges which is no abstraction at all, I think it best to postpone any further remarks upon the Bill itself till the second reading, and I shall only say further, that when the Bill comes into the hands of hon. Members they will perceive that in the first clause, which appoints the Parliamentary Commissioners, the names of those Commissioners are left blank, as the Government thought that was the most proper form in which to bring the matter before the House in the first instance; but if the Bill should be read a second time, the names will be stated to the House before going into Committee, and they will be inserted in Committee.

said, he obtruded himself, on the present occasion, upon the House with great reluctance, but in what he considered the performance of a sacred duty, in order to state those points of the noble Lord's Bill to which he principally objected. He was surprised that the noble Lord should have quoted a passage from Burke with regard to the confiscation of Church property in France in order to justify the confiscation of Church property in England; and he was sure Burke would have been astonished at the use the noble Lord had made of the splendid passage from which he had taken his quotation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the step which the Government had taken might be justified by historical precedents. It might certainly be so justi- fied—not, however, by the precedent of the period of history to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, but of that period

"When England's monarch once uncover'd sat,

And Bradshawe bullied in a broad-brimm'd

hat."

This Bill appeared to him to be, in truth, founded upon a very narrow knowledge of human nature, and upon a total ignorance of the English nature. He was not prepared to say that the government of the University of Oxford might not require alteration, and to one part of the Bill he had therefore no objection; but he would ask whether the assembly which he had now the honour to address was the best constituted body for regulating the mode of education at the Universities? His objection to the Bill was, that it took money which had been given, and could only have been obtained upon one ground, and applied it to an object totally distinct from that for which it was intended. He thought that property given in mortmain stood upon a totally different footing from other property; and if a necessity existed for removing abuses, no one would go further than he would in order to do so, and to carry out those reforms which were necessary for the welfare of the country; but they would never have had this property at all if it had not been for those principles which they now wished totally to ignore. A man born, say in some little village in Northumberland, rose from an obscure condition, and, having no children, was desirous of giving to those who had sprung from the same origin, and encountered the same difficulties as himself, an opportunity of obtaining that education to which he owed everything, but they now wished to take away the benefit of a bequest made with that object from the Northumberland men, to give it to all mankind. Nothing could be more discouraging to munificent endowments than this; for although they might gain a momentary advantage, they would destroy the principle from which all these advantages must spring. Money would never be left to the Universities if it was found that money which had been left them for one purpose was applied to another purpose, whenever it became necessary to remedy an abuse. This was the argument upon which he insisted; and he should have thought himself guilty of base ingratitude, holding the position which he held, and bearing the name which he bore, if he had refrained from expressing his aversion to the principle which the Bill of the noble Lord so far embodied. He concurred with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Blackett) in regretting that the noble Lord had not flung open the Universities to every English citizen, as this would have been a most favourable occasion for adopting a measure which was founded upon justice, and which would have aided so directly the great object of national education. With regard to that part of the Bill to which he had referred, he was obliged, with great regret, because he differed from those with whom he was in the habit of acting, to express his unqualified and entire dissatisfaction.

said, he considered that this measure was a direct invasion of the independence of the University of Oxford, and of the Sovereign, its visitor. The University was an ancient corporation, with full powers of legislating with regard to its own internal regulations, subject to the concurrence of the Soverign, as visitor. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the "Caroline Statutes" as a precedent for the proposed interference, but why had he not recommended Her Majesty's Government to follow that precedent, and to send the Bill to the University of Oxford in order that it might be submitted to Convocation, for then it might have been accepted, as were the "Caroline Statutes," and the independence of the University would have remained uninfringed, and the right of the Soverign, as visitor, would have been vindicated? Instead of consulting the University, the Government had violated its independence in the first instance by the constitution of the Commission, when they ought to have recommended the Crown to visit. The Commission reported, and the University was then in progress to reform itself, but the noble Lord would not even allow the University to give its opinion, far less would he suggest the measure which he was authorised on the part of the Crown to submit to it. Again did he show his determination to interpose the arbitrary authority of Parliament in order by violence to regulate the University, and that determination was now proved by the manner in which he now proposed to deal with the colleges, as well as with the University. The heads and the leading members of the colleges had been consulting as to whether they should not, in accordance with the supposed wish of the Crown, devote the funds of the cor- poration, as far as their power and sense of duty would permit, to the extension of University education; but they were not allowed to act, and their property was to be grasped by a measure of confiscation. Hs felt that the measure of the Government was a flagrant violation of the rights of corporate property. When they thus interfered with corporate property, who could say that private property would be long safe from their interference? He could not sit silent, even at this stage of the Bill, without denouncing the vicious principles upon which it was founded.

said: I rise, Sir, to bring forward the Motion of which I have given notice, that instructions should be issued to Her Majesty's cruisers not to interfere with neutral vessels, carrying goods the property of the enemy, if not contraband of war. Sir, I have thought it consistent with my duty to call the attention of the House at the present time to the question of the rights of neutrality which may be enjoyed by other nations, in case that war with which we are now threatened should take place. A short time since I gave notice of a Motion I proposed to make, that an Address should be sent to the Crown expressing the opinion of Parliament that privateering was not a species of warfare which ought to be sanctioned by the British Government. I did not proceed with that Motion, because I was informed by the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty that he had the subject under his consideration, and that on an early day he would state the views of Government to the House. I have therefore, in this Motion, abstained from asking the House to express any opinion upon the subject of privateering. The subject of my present Motion relates simply to the position in which neutral vessels may find themselves during the coming hostilities. My main object is, that the country should be put in possession of the decision to which the Government must by this time have arrived in reference to the rights of neutrals. If complete silence had been maintained—if no information had been offered to the country upon this most important subject—if the Government had merely said, "It is under consideration, and we shall in a short time be in a position to communicate our opinion fully to the country," then I would have observed silence upon the subject. But we have had information communicated to us through the newspapers of an imperfect character, and it has therefore become absolutely necessary, that no misapprehension may take place, to ask the Government to supply us with full and complete information as to the decision to which they have come on this most important subject. We have had a despatch from the chief of the Foreign Department, addressed to the British Consul at Riga, stating certain views, and explaining the liabilities which merchants would incur by carrying on trade with the enemy. Then in the newspapers of to-day we have a letter from the Board of Trade, addressed to a gentleman in the City, explaining what the consequence would be of certain transactions with Russia, in case of a war with that country. I may be told that if merchants want to learn their liabilities in time of war, they have only to study the law of nations, to consult learned civilians and authors who have written on this subject, and there they will get full information as to their position. But it must be obvious to every one that, after a forty years peace, the usages which might have been adapted to the last war may not be equally adapted now. Opinions have changed—institutions and laws have changed—the mode of conducting commercial transactions has changed—and we all know that that mighty power, steam, has been introduced since the last war, and effected important alterations in maritime communications. I think also that this is a most favourable moment for entertaining the question whether great changes may not be introduced, because we are now in a position which we have rarely been in before. We are on terms of the most perfect amity with France and with the United States of America—two of the most important naval and commercial Powers in the world besides ourselves—and therefore we might probably obtain their assent to such an alteration of international law upon this subject as would be befitting the times in which we live, and as would give liberal scope for commercial transactions in time of war. On these grounds I think this is a favourable moment, by negotiations with foreign Powers, and in the exercise of our own discretion, to endeavour to carry on war with greater respect to private property than has yet been done, and with greater liberty to carry on commercial transactions than has ever before been allowed. I wish to give no opinion on the question, whether the war itself is politic or impolitic—I merely assume, for the sake of argument, that you are in-a state of war, and I ask you to consider whether that war cannot be carried on without infringing, to the same extent as formerly, on the rights of commerce and of private property? I have put the present notice of Motion on the paper for the purpose of cliciting from the Government the decision to which they may have come on the subject. But I do not wish to convey the impression that the Government themselves are disposed to take an illiberal view of the subject, or to have recourse to extreme and rigorous practices without necessity. I give them full credit for being actuated by the desire to take a liberal course, but I thought it necessary to put my views on paper, to show what they are, and which I have authority for saying many gentlemen who are thoroughly competent to judge consider would give satisfaction. I do not ask the House to commit itself to any abstract principle. I do not propose to give up any of our maritime rights. I only ask that special instructions may be given to the officers commanding Her Majesty's cruisers, in the event of war, to abstain, at the present time, from interfering with neutral vessels on account of any goods or property not contraband of war that may be contained therein. This has no reference to the right or power of blockading; that right remains unaffected by the proposal, which only amounts to this—that special instructions may be given that neutral ships on the high seas should not be interfered with by British cruisers on account of ordinary mercantile produce contained therein. I will tell the House why I bring forward this Motion. The Foreign Minister, in his letter to the Consul at Riga, says that unless such special instructions are given, private property in neutral ships, under certain circumstances, will not be respected. He distinctly says it will require special instructions to prevent their stopping neutral ships in time of war, with the view of searching them in order to ascertain whether they contained property in which the enemy may have a direct or indirect interest. I think, in the first place, that such a proceeding as searching neutral ships for enemy's goods is totally nugatory for the purposes of this war. What is the state of affairs in reference to the Russian trade? All the Russian produce, or very nearly all, on the high seas, has been sold and paid for, and all Russian interest therein has ceased. Such, with a small exception, is the course of trade with that country. I have received a letter on this subject from a gentleman largely engaged in the Baltic trade, in which he says:—

"I have consulted about six influential merchants, and I find that the proportion of Russian ownership in goods from Russia cannot be estimated at more than fifteen per cent."

So that the great bulk of the property, the produce of Russia, upon the high seas, is not the property of Russians, but the property either of neutrals who have acquired it by purchase, or of British subjects, who may also have acquired it by purchase. In the first case, as to the neutrals who have acquired the property by purchase, there can be no question, I apprehend, that neutral produce, in which the only proprietary interest is in a neutral, cannot be deemed lawful prize when found upon the high seas in the ships of a neutral, though it may have been bought in a country with which you are at war. Therefore, with regard to all that portion of property upon the high seas which neutrals have acquired by purchase, your power of searching neutral ships would have no effect whatever in producing pressure upon the enemy's trade, because, if you found the produce of Russia in neutral ships, and it had been purchased by neutrals, you could not make it lawful prize. Then there is that portion which is British property. I put it to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, if, at the beginning of this war, Russian produce have been bought and paid for, and in which, therefore, all Russian interest has ceased, and which has become exclusively British property, and it be found upon the high seas, is it fitting that that should be lawful prize? Whether in a neutral or in a British ship, is it fitting that such property should be lawful prize? It appears to me that the whole world would consider it a great injustice if a British cruiser were to stop and detain a ship containing British property which had been bought and paid for before war had been declared, and before there was any enemy, were you to make that property prize. But I am informed that such a doubt exists upon this question in the present state of the law of nations that, unless special instructions be given, which is what I ask, it is possible that such British property may be stopped and detained on the high seas, parties thrown into the Court of Admiralty in this country, and the property be condemned as lawful prize. I do not give any opinion whether this is the law of nations or not; but I feel I am correct in saying it is a matter of grave doubt. Then, would it be right to exercise this extreme power when it is obvious that a Russian having received the money for the produce, and the produce having become exclusively the property of British subjects, to capture and make it prize would have no effect in producing pressure upon Russia, but would only injure the interests of British subjects. These are two of the grounds why I wish the power of searching neutral vessels on the high seas not to be exercised now. Let us ask ourselves, also, whether it is a very satisfactory thing to contemplate the exercise of this power in British cruisers in reference to neutral ships? I am quite ready to admit that it is the settled law of nations—perhaps it may be too strong a word to use, the word "settled;" but I do not dispute that it is the law of nations according to the authority of the most learned men of various nations, with some exceptions—that enemies' property may be taken out of neutral ships, and that the neutral flag does not give protection to the cargo; but it is altogether discretionary in a country whether it will exercise these extreme belligerent rights or not. We make no surrender of the principle—we do not deprive ourselves of the power of exercising those extreme rights whenever we think fit, by not allowing them to be exercised now; but I ask the House to contemplate what may be the course of proceeding, unless the power of searching neutral vessels upon the high seas for enemy's property be undertaken only after the most grave and serious consideration. As I understand, this power is a power given to British cruisers, when war is declared, over all the surface of the globe. Wherever the neutral ship is, it may be searched to sec if it contains enemy's property. Just conceive this state of things. A large American packet arrives at Cowes from the United States, bound to Hamburg. It may have among its multifarious bales of goods some consigned to persons in Hamburg, with the view of those goods being afterwards sent to houses in Russia. There may be a Russian interest in those bales of goods. The commanding officer of one of Her Majesty's cruisers detains the vessel; he says, "I have an interest in certain goods in your ship which are the property of the enemy, and I mean to try my right in a court of law, in order that I may condemn them as lawful prize." The American packet is detained, and all the parties are put to great inconvenience from being kept in a British port until the trial takes place. Suppose it to be decided that these bales of goods were not Russian property, though it appeared there was a primâ facie case for detention, and there is restitution of the property, do you suppose there will not be a bitter feeling left behind if an American ship is brought in, under such circumstances, without compensation, and large expenditure incurred, merely to test the question whether a particular officer has a vested interest in certain property in the vessel? I put this as a case which may possibly happen; and it is to provide against the possibility of such an unfortunate thing as the creation of a bad feeling with neutral and friendly Powers that I call upon the House to take the question into its most serious consideration. I have no doubt that the officers of the Navy will exercise their powers of search with discretion. I do not impute to them any desire wantonly to detain ships without good reason for supposing that enemy's property is on board; but recollect that the officer detaining a ship has a distinct pecuniary interest in the matter. He has, alone, to decide whether it is a primâ facie case for detention; and it may happen that neutral ships might be detained under circumstances that would give rise to feelings of great bitterness, and even to hostility from neutral and friendly nations. I think I have shown that, in this particular war—if war there is to be—the exercise of this power can have no effect upon the enemy, from the peculiar character of the Russian trade. The only effect it can have will be occasionally to give a prize to a few individuals at the risk of creating a bad feeling with great nations with whom we are now upon the best terms. I think, therefore, I have shown some good grounds why, at least, the immediate exercise of this power of searching the ships of friends upon the high seas should not take place. I admit there ought to be a visit, to ascertain if a ship is what she assumes to be, namely, a neutral, and not an enemy in disguise. But I stop there. When the officer has ascertained that there are on board no munitions or contraband of war, and that the ship is really a ship of a neutral nation, I wish to prevent that ship from having her cargo rummaged, her packages and bales broken open in searching whether there may or may not be some portion of the cargo that comes under the description of enemy's property. It appears to me that the Government must consent to this proposition. But I know there are those who attach the greatest importance to this power of taking enemy's property out of neutral ships, because it is said that neutrals might carry on the whole trade of the enemy, and prevent you from putting any pressure upon his commerce, and so stopping his means of accumulating wealth. Is that the case now? I think not. You have the power of blockade, which must produce a material effect. This power relates to ships upon the high seas, and not at all to ships that may have broken a lawful blockade, or may have placed themselves in the position of infringing your belligerent rights, and, therefore, are liable to capture or condemnation. I ask you, therefore, simply to issue special instructions that this right is not to be exercised at once; and I do so because Lord Clarendon says, unless these special instructions are issued, the neutral flag will afford no protection to any cargo, and that the officers of Her Majesty's cruisers will not respect the ships of friendly nations. But I must call the attention of the House, and particularly that of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, to the grave objection there is to the giving imperfect and partial information upon this important subject through the newspapers of the day. There is a letter in one of the papers of this morning, signed by one of the Secretaries to the Board of Trade, which is as follows:—

"Gentlemen—In reply to your letter of the 24th of February, requesting to be informed whether, in the event of war between this country and Russia, Russian goods imported from neutral ports would be considered contraband, or would be admissible into England? I am directed by the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade to inform you that, in the event of war, every indirect attempt to carry on trade with the enemy's country will be illegal; but, on the other hand, bonâ fide trade, not subject to the objections above stated, will not become illegal merely because the articles which form the subject-matter of that trade were originally produced in an enemy's country.—I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, J. EMERSON TENNENT."

It appears then that an indirect trade with the enemy is illegal; bat that a bonâ fidedirect trade with him is legal. What is a bonâ fide direct trade? Suppose a Russian merchant sells his produce to a neutral in Russia, and that neutral brings the produce to a neutral port in Prussia, and there sells it to a British merchant. The British merchant trades with the neutral. Are we to understand—inasmuch as that would be an indirect trade with Russia, because the neutral had previously bought it from the Russians—from this letter that this is illegal, but that if the British merchant had bought the produce directly from the Russian himself bonâ fide, it would be legal? I cannot understand the meaning of this letter. It appears to me that it attaches liability to indirect trade with the enemy, but that trade with the enemy, if it is bonâ fide, may be legal. What an argument is this letter for caution in the right of search? Who is to say that the property of a neutral found in a neutral ship, which he has acquired by purchase in a country with which he is entitled to trade, because he is a neutral, may not, under such a doctrine as this, be called an indirect trade, as it may be assumed that the neutral is going to sell the produce to a British subject? What difficulties may not arise from the exercise of this right of search in consequence of doubts as to what is legal or illegal trade. It appears to me that no proposition whatever can be more clear, as a matter of natural justice, than the idea that the property of a neutral, which he has acquired by purchase himself directly, can by no possibility become lawful prize; yet I should infer from this letter from the Board of Trade that this is a species of indirect trade—namely, to buy property through a neutral from the enemy. In a former debate upon this very subject, some years ago, the then Lord Chancellor of, England laid it down as a monstrous and unjust proposition that—

"England should consider as enemies' property such goods as having formerly belonged to the enemy, had since been acquired by, neutral nations."

Therefore, I think it would be impossible to lay any hold whatever upon the property purchased by a neutral of the enemy, and that the doctrine of the indirect trade being illegal and the bonâ fide trade legal is unacknowledged, and calculated to mislead persons engaged in commercial transactions. The proposition I have taken the liberty of making consists of two parts. In the first place, I ask you not to exer- else the power of searching neutral vessels for the purpose of finding enemies' property; and I also ask you to consider the policy of entering into treaty stipulations with the United States of America and other foreign countries willing to entertain the subject, that free ships shall make free goods, and that the neutral flag shall give neutrality to the cargo. I propose, not that you should bind yourselves to agree to such a treaty stipulation by assenting to this Motion, but merely that the Crown should direct its Ministers to consider the policy of such a measure. I believe there is very good ground for considering at the present time the policy of entering into a treaty with the United States and other foreign countries, in order that free ships may make free goods. I believe, and I speak upon the authority of the ablest writers in the United States on this subject, that the Government of that country is willing, and always has been willing, whether in time of war or in time of peace, to enter into such a treaty. If England enters into such a treaty with the United States, you will grant to the United States this privilege—that the neutral flag of the United States shall be respected when England is at war; and you will obtain from the United States a similar privilege, that when the United States is at war, the neutral flag of England shall be respected. Thus, in entering into such a treaty stipulation, England obtains as much as she gives. Remember, we are not now in the position with regard to the United States that we were half a century ago. It might be a matter of less importance to receive the privilege of neutrality from other States in those days than at the present time. It is possible that the United States may, unfortunately, be engaged in war with some powerful country. Your ships will then enjoy the privilege of neutrality, and will not be interfered with in their lawful callings; and in the same way, if the treaty I suggest existed now, the ships of the United States would not be interfered with in the carrying of ordinary mercantile produce. I will here read a short passage from a distinguished writer in the United States upon this very question which we should enter upon even if there were no probability of war. The question is one which this House may entertain in time of war as well as in a time of peace; in fact, it has nothing to do with the present position of the country. It is a question of universal policy which may be en- tertained at any time. Chancellor Kent, the great American jurist, says—

"It has been the desire of our Government to obtain the recognition of the fundamental principles consecrated by the treaty with Prussia in 1785, relative to the perfect equality and reciprocity of commercial rights between nations, the abolition of private war upon the ocean, and the enlargement of the privileges of neutral commerce. The rule of public law, that the property of an enemy is liable to capture in the vessel of a friend, is now declared on the part of our Government to have no foundation in natural right, and that the usage rests entirely on force. Though the high seas are a general jurisdiction common to all, yet each nation has a special jurisdiction over their own vessels; and all the maritime nations of modern Europe have at times acceded to the principle that the property of an enemy shall be protected in the vessel of a friend. No neutral nation, it is said, is bound to submit the usage, and the neutral may have yielded at one time to the usage without sacrificing the right to vindicate by force the security of the neutral flag at another."

So that although this eminent writer admits that it is the law of nations, yet he clearly puts forth the strong wish there is on the part of the Government of the United States to contract treaties with all countries that are willing to enact that as between themselves free ships shall make free goods. Now, I propose that Her Majesty's Government should consider this proposition. I do not wish to trouble the House with copious extracts, but I will take the liberty of reading one more—["Oh, oh!"] I know this may be an unpalatable subject. It is with great reluctance that I go into it; but, I contend, it is becoming a Member representing a great commercial and manufacturing interest to call the attention of this House to these important facts. More than that, when I say that this proposition will be seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall), I say it is entitled to the consideration at least of this House, and that it is one which Parliament ought to entertain. One of the most eminent and strongest supporters of the doctrine, that by the law of nations there is no doubt a neutral flag does not protect enemies' property, is Lampredi, an Italian writer, who nevertheless says:—

"It is to be confessed that it would be a generous maxim, and favourable to the neutrality as well as to the freedom of trade, that the friendly flag covers enemies' property, not contraband of war. It would be desirable that all great nations, without exception, would agree to extend in favour of trade their moderation up to this point; but it must be permitted, also, to an impartial man, to question whether such nations as might feel inclined not to follow this maxim are infringing the primitive law of nations, and, therefore, commit an injustice, if they continue to seize the property of enemies found in neutral ships, if they have not bound them by special treaty to refrain."

These are two great authorities, both of whom distinctly declare it to be the law of nations that enemies' property is liable to capture its neutral ships, but both take the opportunity of expressing, in emphatic language, how desirable it would be if the great nations would agree by negotiations to get rid of this fertile source of wars and contentions. The question of the rights of the neutral flag has already involved this country in war. It involved this country in war not only with the United States, in connection with other questions, but also with the Northern Confederacy, who ranged themselves together in 1780, for the express purpose of an, armed neutrality to defend the security of the neutral flag. I do not know whether it may be in the recollection of the House, but I may just mention that the first Power that ever made a treaty to the effect that free ships made free goods was the Ottoman Porte. Turkey was the first Power that entered into such a stipulation, but since that period every great Power in Europe, England among the rest, has, by deliberate treaties, sanctioned this principle. I, therefore, give you not only great authorities for adopting treaty stipulations that free ships shall make free goods, but I also give you the authority of precedent, and of those precedents which will have the greatest weight—the treaties of your own country, in former times. Such treaties were entered into a century and a half ago with Portugal, with Holland, and, at a later period, with France; and, I believe, the time has now come when the great nations of the world should be inclined to consider a general negotiation upon this important subject. I, live in hopes that we shall hear from Her Majesty's Government that such treaty stipulations are under consideration with the United States of America, with France, and with other countries; and, I am sure, if they can succeed in obtaining this great good for mankind, they will also deserve and receive the gratitude of the commercial classes of all countries. I hope, in conclusion, that Her Majesty's Government are about to proclaim, in some public manner, the decision they may have come to upon this most important subject. I have just been told that the noble Earl the Foreign Minister has announced in another place some such intention. I, therefore, per- haps, shall be considered; under these circumstances, to have said sufficient to indicate the views I entertain myself; and it is only from the duty which I feel I owe to those I represent that I have ventured to intrude these remarks. I feel sure that no apology is due from any Member of this House when he acts from a sense of public duty; and I repeat that, unable now to explain fully all my views, in consequence of the promise from Her Majesty's Government in another place, I shall not feel myself precluded, when these proclamations make their appearance, from endeavouring, if they fall short of the principle which conscientiously believe to be the only safe, one, from calling the attention of Parliament once more to the, subject.

said, that in seconding the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member, for Manchester, he must thank him for the clear and explicit manner in which he had brought the question before the House. He entirely concurred in the sentiments which had fallen from his right hon. Friend, and he could not conceive how Her Majesty's Government, or any hon. Member in that House, could object to them. He, was the more anxious to express his concurrence in them because he had heard it stated that the interests of the shippers of goods were at variance with the interests, of the British shipowners, and more particularly in that branch of the question brought under the consideration of the House by his right hon. Friend. For himself, he must say he could conceive no such thing. He could imagine that, as a literal matter of fact, whatever tended to give facilities for the conveyance of goods in neutral vessels, might be detrimental, to some extent, to, British shipowners; but he considered that a very narrow-minded view of the question, and one which he was sure would not for one moment be entertained by the great body of the shipowners this country. Upon every ground of equity, British goods and produce should have the same protection as British shipping. He regretted that his right hon. Friend had not gone into another and a very important branch of the question. It might be in the recollection of the House that he (Mr. Horsfall) had put a question to the noble Lord the Member for London, about a fortnight ago, as to how far the treaties of this country with foreign nations, or the measures which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to adopt, were such as would give protection to British commerce? To that question the noble Lord replied that it was a very delicate and intricate subject; that it was necessary to communicate with other nations upon it; but that the matter was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Horsfall) had not put the question in any factious spirit, and he expressed himself satisfied with the answer of the noble Lord. Not so, however, with other hon. Members upon both sides of the House, and it was somewhat quaintly said upon the occasion, by a Gentleman from the opposite side, who had had some official experience, that "everything was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government." He was willing, notwithstanding, to believe that the noble Lord was sincere, and all he desired was a clear and explicit statement of the views of Her Majesty's Government, not only upon the question submitted to the House by his right hon. Friend, but also upon the larger and more important question of privateering. The noble Lord said most truly that the question was one of a delicate and intricate nature, and he (Mr. Horsfall) was quite prepared to admit that it was; but at the same time it was one in the right and speedy solution of which the whole population of the country was deeply interested. Increased expenses were already placed upon the shipping, and it was too well known that whatever increased the cost of import increased the cost to the consumer. He maintained, therefore, that the question was not one of interest to the manufacturer and merchant alone, but was also deeply interesting to the whole population of the country. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to state in the course of the evening, or else to give en assurance that they would state shortly, the course to be adopted for affording protection to the commerce of the country. He held in his hand a Report laid upon the table of the House containing a copy of a letter written by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, which he thought was a most valuable document, and gave some evidence, at least, that Her Majesty's Government were in earnest. He alluded to the letter of Lord Clarendon, addressed to our diplomatic and consular agents abroad, informing them that Her Majesty's Government had entered into treaties with France for the purpose of affording mutual protection to the ships and subjects of both countries. That valuable and important document, which he readily accepted as the prelude to further treaties for the protection of commerce, said in the first line—and it seemed to convey some censure upon Government—

"The time has now arrived when it is incumbent upon the two Governments to prepare for all the contingencies of war."

The complaint now made was, that we were not prepared for all the contingencies of war. If the prospect of war had been one of recent origin, if we had been at peace yesterday and at war to-day, it might have been different, but when the prospect of war had been advancing with a slow but a sure and steady step for the last six months, he thought the House might reasonably express some disappointment that long ere this Government had not taken some clear and decided steps, or, if they had taken them, that they had not informed the country what those steps were, and what they intended to do. He had presented that evening a petition from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce in some degree bearing upon this subject, which prayed that the House would enact a law to prevent any British vessel from being fitted out as a privateer, and also that Government would be induced to enter into a treaty with the United States and France with a view of putting a stop to privateering on the principle laid down by the United States in their war with Mexico in 1846. He hoped enough had now been said upon the point to which the attention of the House had been called by his right hon. Friend, and also upon an equally important branch of the subject—privateering and letters of marque. Whatever course other nations might adopt, he trusted this country would set a noble example, worthy a great and Christian country, and determine to fit out no vessel as a privateer.

I think, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject has undoubtedly raised many very important questions, and yet, important as those questions are, the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion has shown that such a declaration as that required by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester would be insufficient, inasmuch as the very important subject of privateering is altogether omitted in the proposal for an Address. I can only say, as I have said before in answer to my right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall), that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, not, as my right hon. Friend supposes, by referring to the law of nations upon the subject, to leave parties to make out from that law what their course should be—but it is the intention of Government, having for some time considered the various bearings of the case, to advise Her Majesty to issue, in some shape or other, a document which shall declare the policy of the Government upon these questions. But I trust that my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Liverpool will see that a document of this kind requires very great care; that there are questions of principle, questions of precedent, questions of policy, and questions of law, which are all involved in this subject. And there are not only these questions, but, amid the contending precedents and high authorities in former wars by which the course of the Government has been decided, the very wording of any such document will require especial care; and any mistake from an incautious style of expression of a particular document might lead to a misunderstanding with France, with the United States, and with the neutral nations of the north, that might be of the most serious consequence. Therefore I think that Her Majesty's Government are not to blame for giving the utmost care and deliberation to this question. Hostilities have not yet been entered into, and before they are entered into a statement of the views and policy of Her Majesty's Government will be made, and that declaration cannot be now long delayed, and will be very speedily produced after it is made. But I trust that the House will not call upon the Members of the Government to explain, more especially in speeches in this House, the policy that will be pur- sued by the Government under such very serious circumstances.

said, he was glad the question had been brought forward, because certainly what had been said by Lord Clarendon as Minister for Foreign Affairs, and what had emanated from the right hon. President of the Board of Trade were totally and entirely at variance; and therefore it was absolutely necessary that the commerce of this country should be placed on a proper and sound footing, that they might understand exactly what were the intentions of the Government on this subject. He would only say two words after what had fallen from the noble Lord—let them not be governed in this matter by old and antiquated notions. They had now adopted fairer and sounder notions on commerce; and when they imported to this country 13,000,000l. worth of Russian produce, he would put it to every Gentleman, that they did not import those 13,000,000l. worth of produce for the benefit of Russia, but because they wanted it, and exchanged for it produce of their own. For every pound's worth of goods which they prevented from coming into this country, they would stop a pound's worth of their own manufactures from going out of the country. In the same proportion as they would prevent the imports of Russia from coming into this country, they would injure and prejudice the manufactures of their own country. He rose more particularly to call the attention of the Government to this point, and he earnestly requested they would take it into consideration. He trusted they should soon have their decision; and that it might be clear and specific was the only reason why he had risen to say these few words.

said, it had beet stated by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that hostilities had not yet commenced, and that, before hostilities should commence, he would state the course the Government would pursue; now, what he (Mr. T. Baring) wanted to know was, whether it was the intention of the Government to delay the declaration of their views until there was a declaration of war. He could assure the Government that a great injury was inflicted upon trade by this delay; for every day, under present circumstances, it created uncertainty in all commercial transactions, and as to the course a merchant must pursue. He thought, when so much time had elapsed, and when war had been -expected for a long time, Her Majesty's Government were rather tardy in making up their minds as to what they would do. They heard that something was to be done in some shape or other, and at some time or other, but no assurance was given when the declaration was to be made, and when the doubts which now prevailed might entirely tease.

I can only say that I think it will be necessary to communicate with France on the subject; for, though the views of the Government are decided, it is necessary, with respect to France more especially, to state what our views are, and see whether they are agreeable to the Government of France. That is only one circumstance that I mention; but there are other circumstances with regard to the effect of certain words to be used. When Her Majesty's Government are ready to make the declaration, they will consider the interests of commerce, and will not delay the declaration any longer than they can help.

said, he could understand the reason why the noble Lord might not wish, or might not be prepared, to state anything explicitly, on the first part of his right hon. Friend's Motion, and why the House might rest content until, perhaps, the promised declaration was made; but the noble Lord had omitted to notice the latter part of the Resolution. His right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) had expressed his desire that Her Majesty's Government should enter, or attempt to enter, into treaties with the United States on the subject there referred to, and of course that was not a matter to be postponed. His right hon. Friend had said most truly, and he (Mr. Bright) thought he had good means of knowing, that the United States would have been heartily glad to co-operate with the Government of this country in establishing (as he believed their co-operation would establish throughout the world) the great principle that was laid down in that Resolution. There was one thing, however, which the House ought to bear in mind, and he said it more especially, because the noble Lord had not said a word in favour of any portion of the Resolution—the noble Lord had certainly said nothing against it, but he had said nothing in its favour—and that was, that the noble Lord had not given the slightest idea of the course the Government would pursue. He (Mr. Bright) hoped they would take a wise course, and that they would agree to the principle of the Resolution which had been submitted to the House. It was not to be concealed that the opinion of the country was very different from what it had been at any former period. He was one of those who could never see any justice in what was called the law of nations on this subject. He could not see why the ship of a neutral should not be considered to be in the same position as the freehold of a neutral, or the absolute territory of a neutral. The property on board of a neutral ship should be as sacred from the intrusion of cruisers as the property of a neutral on shore. But the law on this subject had been made in all times by the powerful maritime nations, and they made the law, not with regard to what was justice, but with regard to what served their own objects in the war in which for the time being they were engaged. They should bear in mind that England was not now the only great Power at sea. The tonnage of the United States was approaching rapidly in amount to the tonnage of this country, and in twenty years hence, in all human probability, would far exceed it. That which they had been able to do at former times—whether it was just or not—they would not be able to do in time to come, and if the United States were disposed to arrange this matter by some permanent settlement with this country, the Government would be neglecting the true and permanent and future interests of this country if they were not willing to enter into the treaty which his right hon. Friend had proposed. He had been always aware that the dangers that environ this Eastern question were dangers that did not end in the East, but which might spread to the West. And at that moment that which pressed upon his mind almost as much as the war which apparently was about to commence was the quarrel which must inevitably spring out of the maintenance of that which hitherto had been considered the law of nations upon this subject. It was not to be expected that the United States people would tolerate that which he was quite certain the people of this country would not tolerate for one moment from them. And if it should so happen that the course the Government would take would leave the cruisers of this country at liberty (and that that liberty should be acted upon) to seize and detain American ships, and confiscate the property in them, there was no diplomacy that ever had been imagined that could keep this country from a war with the United States, and he was sure it might happen that this struggle which seems now impending, instead of being confined to any portion of Europe, might spread over two hemispheres. For the sake of maintaining what he believed to be in itself radically and originally unjust, they might find this country involved in dangers and calamities equalling any of those that had been experienced at any former period of their history. He said this merely because he was unwilling that the question should be shirked or blinked in any way. If the Government were not aware of its importance—but he could not doubt that they were fully aware of it, and he entreated of them to give the subject their most serious consideration. It had nothing to do with the policy of their past proceedings with regard to Turkey or Russia. He could look to this question—never having expressed an opinion upon it before—as impartially as any man; and looking to the position which they occupied with regard to the United States, and to the fact that their ships and the ships of the United States were on every ocean and in every creek, be would say that the Ministers who would allow such a peril as that to continue, and would not take measures to avert that peril from them, would not be worthy of the confidence of that House or of the country. He therefore begged that the noble Lord, though he had not said a syllable in favour of the Resolution of his right hon. Friend, would allow him to believe that he was in favour of this principle, that the Government would consider it favourably, and that in their Proclamation they would give as much facility to commerce as was possible, if hostilities should break out.

I beg to say, that Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the great importance of the question. They are as fully aware of its importance as the hon. Gentleman himself; but I do request of the House—what I am sure it will concede—some days of forbearance, and we shall then be able to acquaint the House with the decision we have come to.

said, be begged to call the attention of the House to the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies when, on a former night, the appointment of Mr. Stonor to a Colonial Judgeship was under discussion. He had thought he was not justified in stopping the House from going into Committee of Ways and Means by a specific Motion; but, so far from being satisfied with the statement made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel), the affair appeared to him to be darker, more mysterious, and more inexplicable than ever. The hon. Gentleman stated that when an application for the office in question had been sent to the Colonial Office by Mr. Stonor, he also sent in a package of testimonials, but that the package had passed unexamined by the clerk under whose hands it came, and by himself. He (Mr. Moore) did not insinuate a doubt that, when the hon. Gentleman said that, he stated the truth as he believed it to be but it appeared to him (Mr. Moore) to be utterly impossible that the Under Secretary for the Colonies could have stated the whole truth of the case, for unless there was something behind the question which the House did not know, and which the public did not know, it would amount to this: that Mr. Stonor having sent in testimonials to the Colonial Office, they escaped observation altogether, and he was appointed to the office of a Judge merely because he had written a letter to say he would like to be so appointed. Now, that was utterly impossible, and if the testimonials which he had sent with his application were not examined, the public had a right to know on what ground, if not on that ground—and on what recommendation, if not on that recommendation—he was appointed. He (Mr. Moore) had reason to believe that this gentleman was appointed, he would not say by the Duke of Newcastle, or by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, but by an influence that unfortunately had the ear of the Duke of Newcastle. That was the influence from which the appointment had proceeded, and the appointment was made, not in ignorance of the corrupt practices or in spite of the corrupt practices of this gentleman, but because of his corrupt practices—because he had handed over to the hon. Gentleman now Member for Sligo, and then a Junior Lord of the Treasury, an influence which he had obtained in Sligo during the election of 1853, through the corrupt practices for which he was reported. Under these circumstances, it was his (Mr. Moore's) intention to make a specific Motion on the subject, to the effect that a Select Committee should be appointed to take into consideration the appointment of Henry Stonor to a Judgeship in the colony of Victoria, the said Henry Stonor having been reported to the House by a Committee of the House to be guilty of bribery at an election for Sligo in the year 1853.

said, he thought that when all the Members of the Committee were not satisfied of the actual guilt of the individual, though a majority did carry the reproval, the Government had gone almost beyond what he should have expected. They came forward and declared that they were not aware at the time of his appointment of the charge against this individual, and they had cancelled the appointment. That being so, it did appear to him that it would be in the highest degree beyond anything he had ever known to take the course suggested and he, therefore, hoped the hon. Gentleman would reconsider his Motion.

said, he could not avoid expressing very great astonishment at what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume). He thought some explanation was due to the House by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, for having led the Government into a grave and reprehensible course, by which a great and lasting injury was inflicted on the gentleman who had been appointed to this office. Why was Mr. Stoner appointed? The hon. Gentleman admitted that it was not on account of his legal acquirements, or for any professional reason, because he stated he did not open the paper in which the recommendations of Mr. Stoner were contained. He asked the House to remember what this dereliction of duty on the part of the hon. Gentleman had done. It had taken Mr. Stonor from an honourable profession, in which, if he (Mr. French) understood rightly, he was earning an income of 1,000l. a year, and he had placed a stigma upon his name. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) admitted that on Mr. Stonor's part there was no concealment whatever, that every information that could be required, not as to his legal capability, but as to this particular act attributed to him, Mr. Stoner had fairly and openly laid before him. Was that the way the duties of a public office should be performed? Was it right that official and judicial appointments should be made without inquiry? Is it right that even the common duty of looking over the papers entrusted to his care should not be performed? He believed that in the case of all legal appointments the papers were laid before the Attorney General; why was that dispensed with in this particular case?

I beg to say that is not the case.

said, he was not endeavouring to attach any blame to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He blamed no one but the Under Secretary of the Colonial Department. The question to be decided by that House was not only the personal one in relation to Mr. Stoner, but whether an hon. Member of that House, who had, according to his own statement, neglected his duties and brought lasting discredit on the Government, should be permitted to retain the office which he now holds.

said, that after the pointed reference made to him by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he might be excused for restating the circumstances under which Mr. Stonor was appointed. That gentleman had addressed a letter of application for the appointment in question to the Colonial Office, and he accompanied that letter with a packet of testimonials, and that packet also contained a printed paper referring to the Resolution of the Sligo Election Committee. The letter of application referred to the testimonials which were sent into the Office, though it did not refer to the printed paper which was put with these testimonials; but it further stated that these testimonials had been given him by persons in the highest position in the profession of the law—by the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, by Vice Chancellor Stuart, and by other persons not perhaps quite so eminent as these, but still of high standing in their profession. It might be an omission on the part of the Colonial Office that they had not examined these testimonials for the purpose of verifying Mr. Stonor's statement, as to the parties from whom they came; it was certainly an oversight, which was to be regretted, but some apology, perhaps, might be found in the laboriousness of that Office, and in the impossibility, with all the diligence and industry which any person could employ, of always guarding every approach by which an occasional error might be committed.

said, he was sure that the hon. Gentleman who had just explained his conduct had dealt with the House in a spirit of perfect sincerity; but that matter concerned the administration of justice, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that while he entertained the most perfect respect for him, he had heard his speech of the preceding day with great pain. Was he to understand that the Members of a Government, who were preeminently distinguished for their administrative ability, when they came to consider the claims or the qualifications of an individual who was to decide on questions of property, liberty, and life, never condescended to read the papers which had been sent in to them relative to those claims or qualifications? If the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Office was so much engaged that he could not perform that duty, could he not transfer it to the eminent and able person who represented the Colonial Department in that House? And what was the vindication of his own conduct which had been offered by that hon. Gentleman? He had got a package containing certain papers; but was he (Mr. Whiteside) to understand that the Lord Chief Justice of England and other Judges had certified in favour of a gentleman who, abandoning the practice of the bar in his own country, had inflicted on Ireland his talents in the trade of corruption? Was he to understand that a gentleman who had been convicted of bribery by a Committee of that House—["No, no!"]—who had been convicted of bribery by a Committee of that House, because the majority of that Committee was the Committee—who had frankly—and he would give Mr. Stonor credit for that frankness—who had frankly forwarded to the Colonial Office the certificate of his conviction, but which certificate they had not read—was he to understand that that gentleman had been appointed under such circumstances to a high judicial situation? Incapacity and ignorance had frequently been inflicted on the bar in Ireland, and they had frequently been inflicted on the Colonies; but he had hoped, that, in addition to incapacity and ignorance, the Government did not intend to inflict on the Colonies likewise men skilled in the work of corruption. In his humble opinion—and he gave that opinion with the most entire respect for the hon. Gentleman—the fact that a man could be appointed a Judge without even a clerk in the Colonial Department having noticed the documents containing his testimonials, afforded the severest censure that could be pronounced upon a Ministry that was said to contain all the administrative ability of the country.

could not avoid expressing his surprise at the course which had been taken by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore), who had stated to the House what he (Mr. Bowyer) said to him in the strictest confidence. He should not have made that statement to the hon. Member unless he had believed that it would have been treated as strictly confidential; and he made it also in the fullest belief that Mr. Stonor was innocent, and that he had been unjustly—that was, erroneously—convicted by the Committee. Had he believed him to be guilty of the offence imputed to him, he (Mr. Bowyer) would have done nothing to screen him. But believing him to be innocent, he was desirous that he should not have an accuser of the ability and ingenuity of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore), who would be sure to make the best of the evidence against him, and might possibly induce the House to assent to his conclusions. He believed that under these circumstances he was quite justified, according to the practice of Parliament and the feelings of every honourable man, in saying to the hon. Member, "I beg you not to speak against my friend." On coming into the House the other evening he heard his name used by the hon. Member for Mayo; but he was not aware of the full extent of what he said. The hon. Member on that occasion made use of some unjustifiable expressions about "pouring water on a drowned rat." Now his learned friend, Mr. Stonor, was not a drowned rat; for, though he admitted that he had been guilty of indiscretion, he still believed that he was innocent of the offence of which he had been convicted by the Committee. Had he been aware of the circumstances under which the hon. Member for Mayo addressed the House on the previous evening, he (Mr. Bowyer) should have then addressed it in a manner very different from that in which he did. He then believed that the hon. Gentleman had then spoken merely in vindication of himself—[Mr. MOORE: Hear, hear!]—and he consequently gave him full credit for not having, without necessity, repeated what he (Mr. Bowyer) said to him in confidence. He understood that the hon. Gentleman had been compelled by the House to disclose what he had disclosed. But he found that this was not the case. By the course which he had taken he had placed him (Mr. Bowyer) in a most unpleasant, and his friend Mr. Stoner in a most unjust position; and of this he thought he had a right to complain. How did the case against Mr. Stonor now stand? He had placed the whole of his case plainly before the Government, making not the best, but the worst of it. He knew from Mr. Stonor that he was not appointed, as was supposed, by the influence of a Lord of the Treasury who was returned for Sligo, but in consequence of his reputation, of his qualifications for the office, and of the recommendations he received. In what position was he now placed? He was previously in receipt of a considerable income from his profession; he had abandoned this, sold his property, and had sailed to a colony. He was not a man in easy circumstances; his brother, who was in a lamentable state of health, and his mother, were dependent upon him. He had abandoned his prospects here, believing that the Government were thoroughly cognisant of the whole circumstances affecting him. He was certain, from the intimate relations that existed between himself and Mr. Stonor, that he would not have accepted the offer had he thought there was any doubt that the Government were cognisant of the circumstances in which he stood. Mr. Stonor had spoken to him of the generous manner in which he had been treated by the Government; he said they had not considered the finding of the Committee final, but had gone into the merits of the case, and considered the evidence, and that, having done so, they had come to the conclusion that he had been erroneously convicted, and that the finding of the Committee ought not to be a bar to his employment under the Crown. These slips would happen; but he certainly thought this case showed that a good deal of that reform of which they heard in the civil administration of the Government was wanted. When he found that an important judicial office in a colony was bestowed without a due examination of the documents affecting the person who applied for it, he thought he might fairly call for some change in the mode by which persons were appointed to responsible offices under the Crown. He never knew a harder case than this. Here was a whole family ruined by the neglect of the Colonial Office. It was all very well for official men to say they had made a mistake. It was easily explained in that House, and there were plenty of men to cheer them when they said they had made a mistake, and were sorry for it; but it was a serious matter for those who were affected by the neglect. He would not have referred to this subject had he not heard a notice of Motion by the hon. Member for Mayo, which looked like a fresh attack on Mr. Stonor. [Mr. MOORE: No, no!] He appealed to that hon. Gentleman whether he had not done enough in vindication of what he thought to be right; and whether he should not now cease from any further attacks on Mr. Stonor. The hon. Member had ruined a man and ruined a family. The hon. Member had already enough to answer for in this matter.

, in explanation, said, that a very grave personal imputation had been made against him. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said that he had broken confidence with him. When was that confidence entrusted to him? Why, on those very benches, with several Gentlemen sitting round, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) speaking in as loud a tone of voice as he had done while addressing the House. On that occasion he told the hon. Gentleman that he intended to expose what he believed to be the real state of the case. The hon. Gentleman requested him not to speak, and he did not do so. Subsequently the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies taunted him with having sat silent, and he then said that he had been requested not to speak. Upon this, several hon. Gentlemen called upon him to name the person by whom he had been so requested, and it was under these circumstances that he did so.

said, that the question before the House was not so much as it affected Mr. Stonor, but as it affected the Government. He could not from the first help being struck with surprise how the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies could have sanctioned the appointment of a person who had been convicted of bribery by a Committee of that House, and whose conduct had been canvassed in debates carried on in his presence. [Mr. F. PEEL said, he had not heard the debates with reference to the Sligo election.] At all events, the conduct of Mr. Stoner was perfectly notorious; and yet in the course of a few months this conduct was overlooked, and he was appointed to be a Judge, and to take part in the administration of justice. As it was, he felt for Mr. Stonor, although he had quitted the practice of his profession, for the purpose of taking part, and a corrupt part, in the Sligo election. ["No, no!"] Was the House prepared to acquiesce in the finding of the Committee? He was surprised, the other night, to hear the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies impugn that decision; but he was followed by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Divett), whose experience in these matters was so great, and he told the House that he came to the conclusion that Mr. Stonor was guilty in this matter, with as little hesitation as he ever felt in a similar case in his life. He (Mr. Maims) was not then aware that Mr. Stoner had actually sailed for the colony; but that being so, he must say that he participated in the feelings of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer). Mr. Stonor was gone out. He was to be recalled. If so, how was he to be indemnified? How was reparation to be made to this injured gentleman for the mistake of the Secretary and Under Secretary of the Colonies? How could they replace him in his practice, and his family in the same position as before? He was recalled, stigmatised, and degraded. If the Government had performed their duty of perusing a document sent for their perusal, all this would not have occurred, and in the course of years, by devotion to his profession, Mr. Stonor might have removed the impression this transaction had made, and at a future time received an appointment without question. The injury to Mr. Stonor was irreparable. But it was advisable the attention of the House should not be withdrawn from the real point. The Government had made great professions—and he had given them credit for those professions—of a desire to repress corruption in every form. If it turned out that the Government had been party to appointing a gentleman to a judicial situation with the full knowledge that that gentleman had himself been engaged in bribery and corruption, what would the House think of those professions to repress these corrupt practices? And now they had heard from the hon. Member for Dundalk a statement which required explanation from the Government. The hon. Member for Dundalk stated that the Government had not only read the document Mr. Stonor sent, but had read the evidence taken before the Committee.

explained, that what he had said was, that Mr. Stonor left England under the belief that the Government were fully cognisant of the offence alleged against him. Mr. Stonor was no doubt mistaken. He (Mr. Bowyer) was quite certain her Majesty's Government were not cognisant of the circumstances.

said, he understood the hon. Gentleman to have stated that Mr. Stonor said the Government had perused the evidence. It appeared that Mr. Stonor did not say that, but was under the impression that the Government had considered his case and come to a conclusion in his favour; and he was reminded that the expression which the hon. Member (Mr. Bowyer) used was, that "the Government had taken a generous view of the matter," and had given Mr. Stoner this judicial appointment. The Under Secretary for the Colonies stated that two of Mr. Stonor's testimonials were from the Lord Chief Justice of England and Vice Chancellor Stuart, but he had not stated whether those testimonials were read. If the Secretary of the Colonies could not read them—if the Under Secretary of the Colonies could not read them—still, could no gentleman in the Colonial Office be found to read and examine those testimonials, and report upon them? The matter was incredible, and the House should pause before coining to a conclusion that, under these circumstances, the appointment of Mr. Stonor was made without some representation having been made which induced the Government not to examine into these testimonials. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) stated his impression that Mr. Stonor was appointed because he was guilty of these practices, and as a reward for engaging in them. Could it be possible that the Government, having a knowledge of the circumstances, purposely abstained from perusing the documents before Mr. Stonor's appointment? He meant no disrespect to Mr. Stonor, for whom he felt very sincerely, but he thought that this was a fair opportunity to state his impression that the honours of the legal, as of all other professions, ought to be given to those who fairly earned them in arduous prosecution of their calling, and not to those who merely took a particular part in any election or other party proceedings. He trusted the House would not be induced to adopt the view of the hon. Member for Dundalk. He trusted they would regard this, not as a question between Mr. Stonor and the House, but as a matter affecting the proceedings of the Government; and, taking that view, that the House would insist upon investigation, to get at the bottom of the transaction, and to ascertain why it was that Mr. Stoner was appointed; and he hoped the Government would then consider how they could make reparation for the obvious injury Mr. Stonor had suffered at their hands.

said, he regretted to witness the altercation that had taken place. He supposed that because it was St. Patrick's night the Irish Members indulged in a disturbance. He thought Mr. Stonor had received punishment severe enough, and he was not one who had ever endeavoured to extenuate cases of this sort. He had always thought such persons should be dealt with severely, and he thought Mr. Stonor had been dealt with severely, being probably ruined for life. He should like to know if hon. Gentlemen would be so zealous if similar occurrences were brought home to all in that House? The hon. and learned Member who had just sat down felt very much hurt at the reflection on the legal profession, but he would ask him if there were not some in high position in that House, and some members of the bar elsewhere, who had been guilty of conduct as atrocious as that of Mr. Stonor. They had the word of the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, on his own part, and on the part of the noble Duke who presided over that department, that they had no knowledge of this transaction at the time they made the appointment, and, therefore, believing men when they stated such to be the fact, in his opinion they ought not to pursue the matter further. He was satisfied justice had been done, and that the House had vindicated its own honour. He might shortly have to bring a similar case before the House, when he might have to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with him in hunting down one who used to sit on their own side for conduct as censurable as that of Mr. Stonor.

said, surely the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) did not seriously imagine he was turning away the attention of the House by a perfectly irrelevant, and, as an Irish Member, he must say a perfectly unwarranted, observation. If the hon. Gentleman intended to combine some atonement with the charge, he had perfectly succeeded, inasmuch as he had proved that the privilege of irrelevancy on St. Patrick's day was not confined to Irish Members. An observation more savouring of personal bitterness and party feeling he certainly had never yet heard than the last observation the hon. Gentleman had addressed to the House. It was not a question of hunting down Mr. Stonor, but of finding out where was the gross neglect, or worse than gross neglect, which placed Mr. Stoner in the false position described by the hon. Member for Dundalk. He (Mr. I. Butt) rose, as he took some part in the matter last year, not for the purpose of hunting down Mr. Stonor, but to call the attention of the Under Secretary of the Colonies to a specific fact. Last year the writ for the borough of Sligo was moved for as a matter of course. He had felt it his duty to oppose its issue. A debate arose in that House, and, in the course of his observations, he read the Resolution of the Sligo Election Committee, which stated that an alderman of the borough of Sligo was bribed by the payment of 103l. by Henry Stonor. The statement was rather remarkable and novel. An alderman had been bribed. A discussion followed. Some Gentlemen, among whom was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, also took part in it, and referred to that Resolution. There was a division, and in that division, upon the Motion of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Under Secretary for the Colonies was found voting. He asked that House, and the country would also ask, where was Ministerial responsibility, if a Minister of the Crown, representing a department of the Government, not taking part in a discussion, but voting in the division, was thus to shelter himself by saying he knew nothing of what was discussed in the House of Commons—he knew nothing of the question on which he voted? On another occasion a friend of Mr. Stonor brought forward the case of Mr. Stonor, and the question was discussed, though he certainly did not see the name of the Under Secretary for the Colonies in the division; but where, he asked, was Ministerial responsibility, if Ministers were to say they knew nothing, of what was discussed in the House of Commons? He could understand if the hon. Gentleman had said he was asleep—he then could, as he said, understand it. But he could not accept such an excuse from so acute and so wakeful a Gentleman as the Under Secretary for the Colonies; there was only one Minister who might just now be entitled to urge it. [A Laugh]. If a Gentleman was present in a debate, and took part in a division, he ought not to turn round and say he knew nothing about it. If any one said the Committee were not justified in the Resolution to which they came, what would be the position of Election Committees of that House? Elec- tion Committees were sworn to discharge their duty, and it was casting a slur on their decision if the Government appointed persons to situations who had been reported by name to have been guilty of bribery. He hoped the hon. Member for Mayo would persevere. It was not for the purpose of hunting down Mr. Stonor. It was the Government that had hunted Mr. Stonor down, by appointing him without reading his testimonials, and revoking that appointment the moment censure was cast upon him. In justice to the colony, and in justice to that House, they ought to know upon whose recommendation Mr. Stonor was appointed, and how it was that a slur was cast on the Committee by appointing a man to a judicial office against whom they had reported. That Report incapacitates Mr. Stonor from office, and yet at this moment he may, perhaps, be sentencing somebody for bribery. But this he would say, that if that of which he was accused was his misfortune and not his fault, it incapacitated him from office.

Sir, I shall not enter into a discussion as to what are the rights and privileges of the Government in dealing with any case; but the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has thought proper to remind the House that Election Committees act under the obligation of an oath, and has signified his opinion that there is something highly improper in acting against the decision of such a Committee, though carried only by a majority of one. Now, I beg to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, in answer to that observation, that it often happens the decisions of juries given upon oath are, notwithstanding, daily set aside by the judges of the land. As to the conduct of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore), who has had the good taste and high spirit in my absence, and without the slightest notice given to me, to endeavour to found accusations affecting my honour and character, I say it is most unjustifiable and indefensible. He has ventilated that which I now tell him to his face is a slander and a libel.

The hon. Member for Sligo has made use of an unparliamentary expression. It is impossible for this House to listen to him. He must immediately retract it.

I bow with the utmost respect, and at once retract the word slander, but I say that that which the hon. Member for Mayo has stated of me is a libel, for which there is not a particle of foundation. The hon. Member for Mayo having stated behind my back and in my absence that the appointment of Mr. Stonor was made at my instance, and as a reward—[Mr. G. H. MOORE: I never said anything of the kind.] I am not at all surprised at the retraction by the hon. Gentleman. He is entitled to every indulgence at my hands, because I know he lives upon the circulation and invention of the most unfounded statements for political purposes. The hon. Member for Mayo is in the constant habit of making statements without a single particle of evidence to sustain them—

The hon. Gentleman is again out of order. I really must request him to be more careful. He must retract the expression which he last used.

I retract, Sir, the expression; but I repeat that I am not at all surprised at finding the hon. Member prepared to stand up in his place in Parliament, and, after having most deliberately reflected on my conduct and my name, in the presence of many of the Friends who now surround him, retract those reflections. Having given this flat and unqualified denial to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and having challenged him to the proof of the assertion, and which he has now thought proper so instantaneously to withdraw, I shall now resume my seat.

Sir, I must again beg to explain what I really did say. What I said was, that I believed that Mr. Stonor was appointed to the situation which he lately held in consequence of having transferred to the hon. Gentleman opposite that interest in the borough of Sligo which he had obtained by corrupt practices. That was what I said, and I believe hon. Gentlemen will allow that that was what I said.

in the chair.

said, he would now move the Resolution of which notice had been given.

said, he really did not see why they should stop at 100l. The property of the country was most inadequately taxed, for he believed it was double the sum at which it was assessed; and he thought, therefore, that there ought to be as few exemptions as possible. Besides, the Government had been urged to go to war by the people of this country, and he was anxious that those who had got up public meetings for that purpose, and who at present escaped the doubled income tax, should be brought within its reach, so that they might at least be made anxious to bring the war to as early a conclusion as possible. He would, therefore, beg to bring forward the Amendment of which he had given notice.

said, he was not sure whether the Amendment which his hon. Friend had proposed would carry into effect the object which he had in view. As he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) read it, it would, indeed, carry down the tax from incomes of 100l. a year to incomes of 60l. a year, and between 60l. a year and 150l. a year it would raise it one-half, or from 5d. to 7½d.; but he thought it would leave the tax on incomes above 150l. precisely where it was at present, at 7d. in the pound. So that incomes below 150l. would pay 7½d. in the pound, and incomes above 150l. only 7d. That, however, he believed was not his hon. Friend's meaning. His intention was fairly to raise the question whether the income tax should be carried down to incomes of 60l. a year, and whether incomes between 60l. and 100l. should be treated and taxed in the same way as incomes between 100l. and 150l. That was a very important question—a question upon which he should not like, at this moment, to give a conclusive opinion; because, if we were really to look forward to a war, with respect to which they all knew that, when it was once begun, no man could venture to predict anything of its extent or its duration—he should be reluctant to cut himself off, or to cut off from that House, any source of taxation not absolutely wrong in itself, however great might be the difficulties connected with it. At the same time he must say he thought it impossible to overrate the difficulties attending such an extension of the income tax as was now proposed. It was not until last year that the income tax, generally speaking, was levied at all upon persons living upon weekly wages; for although there were a few persons in the receipt of such wages whose incomes exceeded 150l. a year, they were most of them lodgers, and if any of them paid it was only one here and there. The measure which the Government took last year, of carrying down the income tax from a limit of 150l. a year to a limit of 100l. a year, was a measure of great importance and of great boldness; but it was also a measure of no inconsiderable difficulty. It had made it necessary for the Commissioners and those who were concerned in the collection of the tax to deal rather extensively with the labouring classes, and he had already said the difficulty of dealing with the labouring classes in a matter of this kind was immense. They could only be got at through their employers or the occupiers of houses. He had no doubt that employers would generally discharge any duty which the Legislature might impose upon them; but this would be a task of so invidious a character that it would necessarily be unpalatable, and he should not like to impose it upon them without some strong necessity. With respect to the occupiers of houses they would have great difficulty, and even where they succeeded, there would be strong objections on the part of the persons thus got at to pay the tax unless they could be quite sure it was levied with equality. It could not be levied with equality, because where one would pay, five or six would slip through their fingers. They had not yet quite collected half a year's income tax under the altered state of things introduced last year; let them at least see the effect of that great change before they ventured upon anything further. The utmost they expected from the extension of the tax then determined on was an addition to the existing resources of 250,000l. a year, and he was satisfied, that the measure now proposed would not produce so much, or nearly so much as that. He would put it to his hon. Friend whether—considering all these circumstances—considering, also, that persons in receipt of weekly wages were not those to whom it was most likely to be convenient to pay a direct tax half-yearly—it was worth their while to introduce a new inquisition and new machinery, which would make the law extremely odious and extremely onerous, and interfere with the liberty and the comforts of large portions of their fellow-subjects, for the sake of so small a result. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

said, he was strongly convinced of the importance of making the burden which would be caused by this war fall as far as possible equally. He should leave the question in the hands of the Committee, but should not be satisfied until it had declared its opinion by a division.

said, he considered the question was of too much importance to be disposed of after five minutes discussion, at twelve o'clock at night. He did not think they would do well, in the face of the country, to come to so hasty a decision. The hon. Member would have an opportunity of renewing his proposition during the progress of the Bill through the House if he should think it right to do so.

said, he had no objection to allow this stage of the measure to pass, if it were understood that he should have that future opportunity. He had been anxious his opinion should be known, and he hoped the House would not let the Bill pass without coming to a decision on the question.

said, be considered that the question was far too important to be proceeded with at midnight, and be should therefore move, as an Amendment, that the Chairman report progress, and obtain leave to sit again.

said, he was sorry that he could not agree to the Motion of his hon. Friend without taking the sense of the Committee. If the House of Commons had made it their duty to search out in vain for a number of new sources of taxation, and had had experience of the effect of the income tax as it at present existed for a whole year, it might be a question of grave debate whether they should carry the tax lower down or not. They had already reduced it to incomes of 100l. a year; but sufficient time had not elapsed to show what would be the result of that measure.

said, that he had supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, in the hope that he would be induced to withdraw it. After the present Amendment, there was another one upon the paper, so that it was clear that they could not advance to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that evening. On Monday week last the right hon. Gentleman had made his financial statement, and last Monday they were to have had an opportunity of discussing its merits. No such opportunity, however, had been afforded, the day having been occupied first in reviewing the conduct of three Members of Her Majesty's Cabinet, and afterwards upon a question of Greek politics which had been introduced by one of the warmest supporters of the Government. In consequence, no discussion had taken place upon the financial proposition of the Minister. It had been fixed again for that evening, but the whole of their time had been occupied by another important subject which had been introduced by the Government. The proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one of the most important that had ever been brought under the attention of that House. It was quite impossible to go into it at that hour, and he thought it desirable that they should close their proceedings at once.

said, he would suggest, if they were to divide, that they had better do so upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, which was a perfectly plain proposition, to extend the tax to incomes of 60l. a year.

said, he should be disposed, under the circumstances, to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume); but as they had not yet had a year's experience of the last great financial experiment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it. They should first ascertain the effect of placing the tax upon incomes of 100l. instead of 150l.; and the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so cogent, that we should see the tax as it at present stood in full operation before ex- tending its area, that he should now vote for the Resolution.

said, he must acknowledge the force of that argument, and would withdraw his Amendment.

Sir, in the observations which I made this evening I understood you were under the impression that I had made use of the word "lie." I am extremely anxious to state to you and to the House that I used no such word in the observations which I addressed to the House. I was under the impression that in using the phrase "slander and libel," you might possibly conceive that I was not warranted in using the word "slander," and therefore I withdrew that word, confining myself to the word "libel." But I assure you, Sir, no amount of provocation would ever induce me, in your presence, and in the presence of this House, to use the word "lie."

said, he was certainly under the impression that the hon. Member had made use of the word "lie;" he was glad to find such was not the case.