said, he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department a question with respect to a circumstance which, though not involving a breach of privilege, was fraught with material inconvenience to hon. Members. He believed that there were two modes in which the House and the public might have printed papers laid before them. The one was when papers were printed by order of the House, and then the expense of their publication and their distribution fell under the cognisance of Mr. Speaker. The other was when papers were printed by Her Majesty's command; they were then printed by the Stationery Office, and their printing was wholly out of the control of Mr. Speaker. If the papers were printed by time authority of that House, they were distributed by its officers; but if not, a number of copies were sent down to the library from the Stationery Office, and then distributed to Members. Other parties might, however, obtain such papers before the Members of that House. On the 11th of April a Report from the General Board of Health was presented, and was ordered by Her Majesty to be laid before both Houses. Some days ago that Report appeared in the columns of a morning newspaper; but hon. Members did not receive their copies until some time afterwards. He wished to know how many copies of the Report of the Board of Health were printed; whether the printer delivered out any copies previous to those sent for the use of Members of that House; if so, how many, and by whose authority did that delivery take place?

said, that early in the year the general authority for printing the usual number of copies of the Report of the General Board of Health for official and parliamentary distribution was sent from the Home Office to the Stationery Office, and on the 10th April two printed copies were sent to the Home Office. One of these was laid on the table of that House, and the other upon the table of the House of Lords. But, between the time of issuing the order for printing the Reports and the time of their distribution, the Board of Health applied to the Home Office for 4,000 copies of the Report. The consent of the Home Secretary having been given, 4,000 copies were sent to the Board of Health, which they distributed themselves. He imagined that one of them had reached the paper, in whose columns the hon. Baronet had read it. He (Mr. Fitzroy) was not responsible for any irregularity that might have taken place in publishing documents intended for the use of Members of both Houses before they had been delivered to them. He could only be responsible for the manner in which the order for publication was given, and that was in the usual form on this occasion. He was not able to answer any questions with reference to the manlier in which the Board of Health had distributed the copies sent to them.

said, he wished to know whether the printing of these 4,000 copies formed part of the expenditure of the Board of Health?

said, that he apprehended that it would be included in the general charge for printing Parliamentary Papers. He believed that the expense of the printing in connection with the Board of Health amounted to 20,000l. per annum.

then moved that Mr. G. H. Moore, the Member for Mayo, and one other Member of the House, to be named by the General Committee of Elections, be appointed on the Select Committee in the case of Henry Stonor to examine witnesses, but without the power of voting. When the Committee appointed to investigate this matter met, they found themselves involved in great difficulty with respect to the manner in which they should prosecute the inquiry, because none of the Members of the Committee had any knowledge of the circumstances of the case. The hon. Member for Mayo laid a statement of his case before the Committee, but declined to suggest to them the names of the witnesses to be called, because he considered that by the votes of the House he had no locus standi to act upon or with the Committee. The Committee upon this came to the resolution that it was very desirable that the hon. Member for Mayo should be appointed to serve with them, in order to conduct the case against the parties whose conduct was impugned; and also that another hon. Member, in the confidence of the accused, should be placed on the Committee, in order to watch the proceedings on their behalf. The appointment of such a person they proposed to leave to the General Committee of Elections, in whose selection there could be no doubt that the House would feel every confidence. The course which he now recommended was strictly in accordance with the precedent of the Carlow Election Committee in 1847, when Sir Frederick Pollock and Mr. Serjeant Wilde were appointed by the House to watch the proceedings on behalf of the parties.

said, he thought it would be highly advisable, before the House agreed to the Motion, that they should know who was to be the other Member. Whoever were appointed, both parties ought to be as nearly as possible equal in ability to discharge the duty required of them. He confessed he was surprised that the hon. Member for Mayo, who had moved the appointment of the Committee, had not been made a Member of it: he thought a slight thereby had been cast on the hon. Member.

said, he must deny that the General Committee of Elections, of which he was Chairman, intended to cast any slight upon the hon. Member for Mayo by not nominating him as one of the Members of the Committee. They had done so because they understood that, on referring the nomination to them, the House desired them to select five impartial Members to compose the Committee. If they were now directed to appoint another Member in addition to the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore), merely to examine witnesses, but without the power of voting, they would of course act upon quite a different principle, and would conceive they best discharged their duty by asking the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies to name that Member.

said, that he had no objection to offer to that part of the Motion which related to the appointment of the hon. Member for Mayo. With regard to the other part of the Motion, it was the opinion of the Duke of Newcastle that it was quite unnecessary. The noble Duke would himself be able to state what had occurred with regard to the appointment of Mr. Stonor, and he (Mr. Peel) thought that a tribunal consisting of five impartial Gentlemen, Members of that House, would be quite competent to arrive at a correct conclusion without any other person being nominated to the Committee. The noble Duke was, therefore, perfectly willing that the question should be left to their decision.

said, that the statement of the hon. Gentleman was highly honourable both to himself and the Duke of Newcastle; but still he thought that, in order to assist the Select Committee to arrive at the truth, each side should nominate a Member to conduct their case.

said, he thought the House should beware lest, by appointing Members in the mode suggested, they should throw a doubt on the capacity of the Members of the Select Committee to conduct an inquiry such as the present. After the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, which was highly honourable both to himself and the Duke of Newcastle, he considered it would be highly improper to place any nominee Members at all upon the Committee.

said, that it was perfectly impossible that five men who were entirely ignorant of the facts of a case should arrive at the truth without the assistance of some one who was acquainted with the matter, and was in a position to bring forward evidence and cross-examine the witnesses. He was glad to hear what had fallen from the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, who had, he thought, taken the proper course; but still he was of opinion that in order to have a fair inquiry into this matter, it was necessary that the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore), who could bring forward evidence, should be on the Committee.

said that the House should not consider merely the feelings of the person who brought the accusation and of the persons who were accused. What would be the result of having only one nominee, the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore)? He, being perfect master of his case, would be sure to manage it effectively; and as there was no person to represent the Government, the Committee, who were in a judicial position, and who ought to decide on the facts that were laid before them, would be obliged to fight the battle of the Government in answer to the accuser, who was a member of their own body. Such a result was not at all desirable. It was due to the five Gentlemen who had to perform so difficult and delicate a task, that they should not be placed in this unsatisfactory position. He did not think that they should sanction a sentimental feeling in matters of this kind. Let the accusation that was made in this case be met in the usual manner, and let all means be taken to secure a fair decision, by giving to both sides equal advantages, as far as that could be done. It would, he was sure, be most satisfactory both to the House and the Committee if nominee members were appointed on both sides.

said, that Mr. Stoner himself seemed to have been quite forgotten in the course of this conversation. As his character was involved here, he thought some hon. Member ought to be appointed to act upon the Committee on his behalf.

said, as a Member of the Select Committee, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Committee had hitherto most carefully determined to abstain from doing anything that should in any way implicate Mr. Stoner in the inquiry. The Committee considered that they had nothing whatever to do with that gentleman's conduct, but that they were appointed to inquire into, and report upon, an entirely different matter. Mr. Stonor's friends need not, therefore, entertain the slightest fear that anything unjust would be done in regard to Mr. Stonor. The hon. Member fur Manchester (Mr. Bright) had admitted that there should be on the Select Committee a Member whose duty it was to conduct the inquiry, but, then, in that case, there must also be an hon. Member appointed by the other side, because it was perfectly impossible for any judicial Member of the Committee to cross examine the witnesses with the strictness that was desirable, without exposing himself to the imputation of being a partisan of the accused party. To avoid that he hoped that the house would appoint another Member in addition to the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore). And while he perfectly recognised the feelings which actuated the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, he could not help expressing a hope that he would reconsider his determination, and, by appointing a Member to represent the Government, relieve the Committee from the difficulty in which they would otherwise be placed.

said, that from the discussion which had taken place, it seemed evident that the House was unanimously of opinion that the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) should be on the Committee, though without the power of voting; and also that the general sentiment of the House was favourable to the appointment of a nominee Member on the part of Government. His hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) had said that, so far as the feelings of the Duke of Newcastle were concerned, it would be more agreeable to him not to be represented upon the Committee by any person, or to be put before the Committee in the position of a partisan. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), however, wished to state on the part of his hon. Friend that he did not desire to insist upon this in opposition to the wish of the House; and if it was the general opinion that a nominee should be appointed on the part of the Duke of Newcastle, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not offer any opposition to this step, although it would certainly be more agreeable to his Grace if a different course were pursued.

said, he begged to ask the right hon. President of the Poor Law Board whether there was anything in the law as it now stood, or in the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners, to prevent the guardians of the poor from giving, if they thought fit, out-door relief to the destitute wife and child of any soldier, sailor, or marine in Her Majesty's service?

begged to say, that there was nothing in the law or in the orders of the Commissioners, as they now stood, to prevent any board of guardians from giving out-door relief to the destitute wife or children of any soldier or sailor on service. He would add that, in the opinion of the Poor Law Commissioners, the same prin- ciple was applicable to the destitute wife or children of militiamen.

said, he would now beg to ask the right hon. Secretary at War whether, six women per company being the number who with their families are by the regulation of the Army permitted to embark with their husbands on foreign service, the Government will object to grant to those of that number who have been prevented from going out on the present occasion by the exigencies of the service, the same allowance of half rations for the women, and quarter rations for the children, which they would have had if they had gone out?

said, he had to state that there was no instance in which any application had been made to continue the issue of half rations to wives of soldiers who had been prevented under these circumstances from going on foreign service. He was of opinion that the best course would be to leave it to the discretion of the commanding officers to say whether it would be for the advantage of the women in question that they should receive half rations, supposing the application to be made.

said, he wished to inquire whether the claim to out-door relief would be held good in the case of wives without children, as well as of those who had children?

said the principle applied in both cases.

said, he begged to ask the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would state the amount subscribed for the Exchequer bonds described as Bond A, payable at par on the 8th May, 1858, up to two o'clock on the 8th instant, distinguishing the amount of subscription payable in money and that payable in Exchequer bills; and whether the deposit of 10 per cent was paid before two o'clock on the 8th instant on the whole amount subscribed, and, if not, what was the extent of the deficiency? Also, whether any subscriptions have been accepted for the Bond B, ending on 8th May, 1859, and for the Bond C, ending on 8th May, 1860; and, if so, to what extent for each description? He would explain in a few words the object of Ids question. The House was aware that the Government, in inviting subscriptions for the late proposed issue of Exchequer bonds, offered to sub- scribers the option between two modes of payment—one in Exchequer bills, the other in money. It was, therefore, very desirable, with a view to determining the financial position of the country, to know to what extent the deposit had been paid up, and likewise what amount had been paid in Exchequer bills and what amount in money. It had likewise been published that the subscription would be received up to two o'clock on Monday, the 8th instant. As the Resolution of the House only ratified what had been subscribed up to that time, it was to be presumed, of course, that nothing further had been issued; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would afford them some information on the subject.

said, he thought that the object of the hon. Gentleman was a perfectly reasonable one, and that he would best promote it, not by endeavouring to answer the question now, but by presenting a return which would give the information in a more exact form than it would now be in his power to supply. It would state what amount was subscribed on Monday, the 8th May, what amount was subsequently subscribed, and what amount had been paid. When he had the honour of addressing the House on Monday night, he was not in possession of accurate information on this point, and he had spoken not quite exactly, having with him a memorandum which had just been put into his hands, and which had been hastily drawn up. The hon. Gentleman would thus see what had taken place with respect to all the points embraced in his question, except as regarded the payment of deposits by a particular hour. He believed that the usual practice was to take the deposit, not to the last hour for receiving tenders, but to the last hour of banking business; and likewise that deposits for small sums were taken on Tuesday morning from parties who had given notice. He thought the hon. Gentleman had not quite correctly stated the effect of the vote of Monday night. He apprehended that the vote of Monday night went to sanction the whole amount of the bonds paid; but that there was a distinct understanding between the hon. Gentleman and himself, that he was not to make any new contract beyond the amount actually agreed upon.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot state generally, then, what the result of the measure is?

could state that, if it were of interest to the house to be made acquainted with it. He could not state precisely the amount paid in Exchequer bills; but 1,600,000l. was the amount tendered for and paid up to the 8th May, and the remaining 400,000l. had been tendered for since. But he would take care that no contract of any kind should be entered into until the sense of Parliament had been ascertained.

said, that he had given notice of his intention to put a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty with respect to the conveyance of the 1st Royals from Plymouth, in the Andes steamer, to the East. The matter was one with respect to which he thought it advisable that no misrepresentation should be allowed to have currency, and he had therefore deemed it right to put the question at once. The statement which had appeared in the public papers with respect to the removal of the regiment in question was as follows:—In the month of April last the Andes, a steamer not of very considerable size—1,200 tons burden—had been chartered for the conveyance of 500 men to the East; that the number of the regiment upon its arrival at Plymouth had been found to be 800; that there were only 500 berths in the vessel, and that in consequence a telegraphic message had been sent up to the Admiralty to know what course was to be taken under the circumstances of the case. Orders were issued thence, it was stated, to the effect that as much accommodation as possible should be provided for the troops, but that the whole number must embark; that the troops had embarked, and that, in consequence of the orders to which he had referred, 800 men, or something above that number, had been sent out of Plymouth without a moment's delay, and commanded to proceed at once to their destination. It was further stated, that, in consequence of no efficient examination of the vessel having been made before her departure, and the bulkhead not having been covered with iron, that portion of the vessel had taken fire, that a very considerable quantity of gunpowder had been placed on board without the usual precaution of a magazine being established, and that but for the determined gallantry of the privates of the Royals, every person in the vessel would have been blown to pieces. A great quantity of gunpowder, it was also mentioned, had been thrown overboard, and the vessel had arrived in a very damaged condition in Malta. It was added that the naval officer there had reported her as being in that condition, and that, notwithstanding that report, she had been ordered to sail with the troops on board her to the East. Such were tile statements which had appeared in the public papers, and he had thought it but fair to submit them to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty at as early an opportunity as possible.

said, that, in consequence of the notice which the hon. Member had given him, he had made inquiry that morning with respect to the subject of his question. In reply to that question he had to state that no complaint whatsoever of an official character had reached the Admiralty, nor, as far as he had ascertained, the Horse Guards, with respect to the matter to which it related. It was perfectly true that the Andes had not been originally engaged to convey so large a number of troops to the East as she had actually taken out. He should, however, inform the House, whose authority it was upon which that number had been enlarged. Sir Harry Smith, the general commanding at Devonport, had been consulted with reference to the increase, and he had given it as his opinion that the vessel in question was perfectly qualified to convey the additional number of men. The commander of the regiment himself had also concurred in that opinion, and that being the case the Admiralty had come to the conclusion that they might safely act upon the information they had received from those gentlemen. Thus much he had to state with respect to the numbers. It had also been deemed advisable that some powder should be conveyed in the Andes. It had been so conveyed, and most unfortunately, owing to the long working of the engine and the stormy weather, a fire had taken place on board. The danger of course had been considerable. The conduct of the commander, the officers, and the men had been, as might be expected, most exemplary; no real misfortune bad occurred; the vessel had arrived in safety at Malta, and had been forwarded, without loss of time, with the troops to the East. He might also be permitted to take that opportunity to state that the conduct of Admiral Stewart, at Malta, had been such as to entitle him to the utmost gratitude. His efforts had been most energetic and most successful.

in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it was very similar to one which he had introduced in 1849, which had been read a second time without a division, but which had not been proceeded with in consequence of the prorogation of Parliament. By the existing Highways Act, the 5 & 6 Will. 1V c. 50, parishes were empowered to unite themselves into districts to which surveyors might be appointed; but very few parishes had taken advantage of that Act. A measure of this nature was loudly called for, for in the county he had the honour to represent, the roads in many parts were very indifferent. He proposed that district surveyors should be appointed, in any district in which the roads were in a bad condition, by the magistrates, with the consent of the commissioner of taxes for the district. The salaries of the surveyors would be limited to 13s. 4d. per mile of road, which would give an average of 60l. a year for each district, towards which each parish would contribute about 4l. The Act would only remain in force until next Session, and if it worked well it might be continued from year to year. He was convinced that the plan he proposed would effect a saving in many districts of as much as 50 per cent, and he therefore hoped the Government would allow the Bill to be read a second time, in order that it might then be referred to a Select Committee.

said, he must oppose the Bill, as he considered it of a very oligarchical character. The hon. Gentleman did not propose to adopt the Welsh or Irish systems, but to form an extraordinary kind of board, consisting of the magistrates and the land tax commissioner of a district, whose powers it would be very difficult to define, but who were to appoint the surveyor, and to determine the amount of his salary, without even asking the opinion of the majority of the ratepayers. He should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, he quite agreed in the opinion of the hon. Member who had spoken last with regard to the Bill. The subject of the general management of highways was a very large one, and they were all aware of the necessity of dealing with it by some general measure; but the attempts at legislation which had hitherto been made had not been very successful, and very few Members of the House were capable of undertaking such a task as that of amending the present highway rates. Every year, as a greater number of turnpike trusts became extinct, there was a greater necessity for legislation, and he hoped that the hon. Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe), who had turned his attention to the subject and bad prepared a measure upon it, would bring that measure before the House. He thought the machinery of the Bill was exceedingly cumbrous and quite novel in principle, and that it would render the expenses of the surveyors much greater than they were under the present system. He, therefore, could not support the Bill, even if he approved its principle, and he considered it so objectionable in its present shape that, if it were not withdrawn, he should vote for the Amendment.

said, he was of opinion that if the Bill was adopted it would give anything but satisfaction to those persons generally who were now charged with the highway expenditure throughout the country, amounting to about 2,000,000l. annually. The most objectionable part of the measure was, that in carrying it into operation the ratepayers were in no way whatever represented. Be had devoted some time and consideration to this subject; and when he was in office he prepared a Bill in reference to it, but he thought that Bill was rather the property of the department to which he then belonged than his own. He felt that a measure of this kind could not be carried through the House unless with the full concurrence of the Government of the day.

said, that the subject was very complex and difficult in its character; and he feared that it would be impossible to work the Bill of his hon. Friend in its present shape. The question, however, was as important as it was difficult, and he thought that the Government should themselves undertake to introduce a Bill upon the subject.

said, he had been surprised to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Fitzroy) express a hope that some private Member of the House would undertake to prepare a Bill upon that subject; for, in his own opinion, that was a duty which peculiarly belonged to the hon. Gentleman himself in his capacity of Under Secretary for the Home Department. He believed it was extremely desirable that some measure should be adopted for the purpose of making the appointment of district surveyors compulsory, and for the purpose of ensuring an effective audit of the highway funds. He did not know a greater grievance in many of our rural districts than the wretched state of their highways. In the county of Northampton many of the roads were hardly passable during a great portion of the winter. He was afraid, however, that the present Bill was too complicated in its machinery to effect what was desired.

said, although he did not approve of this Bill, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Frewen) had done good service in bringing the subject before the House, inasmuch as it had elicited from every preceding speaker an admission of the abuses incident to the existing system, and of the necessity for legislation; and he trusted, between the hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe) and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department, the country would eventually obtain a good Bill for the regulation of highways.

said, that he had received representations from every part of his county with regard to the necessity of some such measure as that before the House, and for that reason he had placed his name on the back of the present Bill. He should not wish to press it, however, if the Government would give some assurance that the matter should be considered and undertaken by them.

said, he hoped the Government would not be so incautious as to give any assurance that they would undertake to deal with this question. They had a sample of such an attempt a few years ago, when Mr. Cornewall Lewis, with great ability and perse- verance, sought to deal with it, but totally failed. If the Government attempted the same thing again, he was sure they would equally fail. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Frewen) need not have told the House that the roads in the county he represented were bad; they were notoriously bad; but that was no reason why the whole country was to be saddled with an offensive Bill like this. So far from being a popular Act, he believed it would be most offensive to the country at large.

said, he could bear testimony to the perseverance and zeal with which his hon. Friend who had just sat down had resisted every attempt to improve the Highways Act. He thought, however, that it would be most desirable if they could pass a good Highways Bill, believing that great economy would in the end be the result, although every attempt had hitherto failed, from what he must call a "mistaken" apprehension of the expense that would be thrown upon parishes by such an amendment of the law. He thought that the appointment of district surveyors would be a great and essential improvement, and he only regretted that the machinery of the present Bill was not such that he could support it.

said, he concurred in what had been said generally in reference to this Bill. They would be all glad to get a good Highways Bill, but unfortunately they could not agree as to what constituted a good Highways Bill. Unless a Bill on this subject could be introduced which had the general assent of those practically conversant with the management of highways throughout the country, he did not think it would work well. He believed the Bill before the House would be generally unpalatable, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon it.

said, a few years ago, acting on the suggestion of Sir James Macadam, he was instrumental in introducing a Bill for the management of the highways in that part of the county of Essex with which he was connected, which had the honour of meeting the approval of Mr. Speaker; and he thought that any general measure on this subject, which contained the elements of that Bill, would have some claim upon the attention of the House.

said, that, in conse- quence of the opposition he had met with, he would not put the House to the trouble of a division, but would withdraw his Bill.

said, he proposed to leave out the words, "Michaelmas Term, 1854," and to insert instead thereof the words, "Hilary Term, 1855." He proposed this change, because hon. Members, on referring to the 18th clause, would find that the Vice-Chancellor had to make up the register on the 10th of September. Now, this it was impossible for him to do during the vacation, when a large number of those of whom the Congregation was to be constituted would be absent from the colleges. He had, therefore, proposed that the election should take place on the 12th of December; then, the register could be made on the 1st of December.

said, that this subject had been well considered by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was of opinion that, as the clause now stood, there would be plenty of time to make the register. It was very undesirable to defer this matter longer than necessary; and, unless stronger reasons than those advanced could be shown for the alteration of the clause, he trusted the Committee would not agree to the Amendment.

in supporting the Amendment, said, that if the elections were fixed for the first day of Michaelmas term, it would cause great inconvenience, by compelling members to return to their colleges at a very unusual time, and if the election practically took place on that day, it would be spoken of as having been slurred over, and give rise to much ill-feeling, which it was desirable should be avoided. Under these circumstances, he confidently appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an alteration of the clause.

said, that the first day of term had been inserted in the Bill under the impression that it would probably be more agreeable to the existing authorities of the University, whose powers were to be transferred in the October term, that such powers should virtually and practically cease before the vacation rather than that they should continue to hold them for a few days during the ensuing term, and then transfer them. The Government had addressed a letter to the Vice Chancellor, and requested him to be so good as to consult the Hebdomadal Board on the subject, stating that the Government would be glad to name any portion of the term agreeable to them, provided that the first clay of term was objected to. A very courteous answer was received, stating that the Hebdomadal Board was sensible of the attention paid to it by Government, but begged to decline naming any clay on which the power of the Hebdomadal Council should commence. From this he gathered that the Hebdomadal Board entertained no desire to part with its authority on the first day of term, and he would, therefore, propose that the clause should be altered, and that the election should take place on the fourteenth day of term, at which time there would be a full attendance of the members of the University.

said, that it would be necessary for the Committee to go back, as they would find that, by a previous clause, the powers of the Hebdomadal Board were to cease on the first day of Michaelmas term. The question they had now to consider was, what would be the most convenient time for the election to take place, and he would suggest that it should do so either at the end of Michaelmas or the commencement of Hilary term.

said, he thought that some difficulty might arise from the election being made upon one day by all three sections; some of the members of the council might be elected by more than one section. He proposed to provide against the difficulty by adding the words "on or before," there would then be no necessity for all the elections taking place upon the same day.

said, he had no objection to offer to the proposal, but could not consent to extend the period for the election beyond the 15th of October, as he thought it most important that a term should not be lost, as it would practically be, if the old Hebdomadal Board remained in office without the power to carry out the new regulations.

moved the substitution of the 14th of October for the 10th of September.

said, he had no objection to name the 24th of September as the day before which the register should be prepared and published.

said, the clause threw a very onerous and difficult duty upon the Vice Chancellor, and he hoped the matter would be reconsidered by the Government.

said, he thought the Vice Chancellor would have no difficulty in performing this duty, which he would, no doubt, discharge in a manner perfectly satisfactory. If the Bill had retained the clause that non-resident persons should be qualified to be members of Congregation in respect of their having held certain offices for a length of time, the task imposed upon the Vice Chancellor would have involved a great deal of trouble; but as the matter now stood it was plain, presuming Congregation to remain as it was, that the register might be prepared without any difficulty.

said, he saw in the Bill no remedy for any person who might complain of being omitted from the list of the Vice Chancellor.

in reply, said, that the Commissioners would have power to amend the proceedings of the Vice Chancellor. He must say that he thought they were becoming too minute in their discussions upon the Bill. It was perfectly well known in the University who were residents, and he hardly thought it possible the Vice Chancellor could omit from his list the name of any person who ought to be included.

said, he was one of those who thought it was not advisable to make too minute regulations in that House; but they must recollect that they had taken upon themselves to interfere, and it was their duty to put their Bill in a shape that would work. According to his interpretation of the Bill as it stood, he did not think the Commissioners would con- sider themselves entitled to entertain an appeal by any gentleman who might complain of his omission from the list of the Vice Chancellor. He believed, in fact, that there was no appeal provided for in the Bill.

said, he doubted very much whether there was any necessity for giving an appeal, because the register, though a great convenience to the University, would not be conclusive at all as to the rights of parties. When they came to the 18th clause, it would be necessary to define the persons entitled to vote very correctly.

said, he would like to have the opinion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General upon the question raised by the last speaker, whether the register would or would not exclude parties from being members of Congregation. If the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge was correct in his interpretation of the Bill, the proposed register would be all but useless.

said, that, unless some alteration was introduced into the 18th clause, any person who came within the meaning of that section would be entitled to vote as a member of Congregation, even though his name might not be included in the list of the Vice Chancellor.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he meant by the words "without prejudice to the rights of Convocation in the making of Statutes?" As the Bill was drawn, Convocation did not seem to have any power to make Statutes; it could only accept them or reject them.

said, Convocation must be an assenting party to any Statutes which might be made for the University. The object of the clause was simply to prevent the Hebdomadal Council from arrogating to itself, under the authority of the Act, any power which, by the present constitution of the University, ought to belong to that which was really the supreme legislative body.

said, the question now raised was the rights of Convocation. If he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer right, this new body, Convoca- tion, although it was not to elect the Hebdomadal Board, was to have every proposal of that Board sent through it to Convocation. Moreover, it was to have the power of debating, of amending, or, if it chose, of rejecting all such proposals; so that, in reality, nothing emanating from the Hebdomadal Council could by any possibility reach Convocation without the consent of Congregation. That was a power to which he most decidedly objected, because it was completely contrary to the constitution of the University as it had hitherto existed. The Bill, in fact, created an oligarchy composed of residents, which was to interrupt the legitimate action of Convocation in legislating for the University as it had always done. As, therefore, the powers of Convocation were nullified by this Bill, he thought the proposal of the hon. Member for North Lancashire was consistent with sound sense.

said, the idea of Congregation was perfectly in unison with the ancient practice of the University. The practice in ancient times, when the roads were impassable and access by non-residents was extremely difficult, was, for the resident masters to legislate for the University. If, therefore, Congregation under this Bill was to be an effective working body, it seemed to him undesirable to enable a large body of country clergymen with the present facilities of travelling, to come up and paralyse the powers of Congregation. He begged to move that the words "and Convocation" be omitted at the commencement and close of the clause.

said, he was quite sure the hon. Member had not rightly apprehended the meaning of the clause. The authorities to make Statutes in the University consisted of Congregation and Convocation conjointly; and the hon. Member had made the error in taking the words "rights of Congregation and Convocation" as if they meant the separate or respective rights, whereas they meant the joint rights of Convocation and Congregation. In other words, it intended to express that the Hebdomadal Council should have power to make regulations for its own proceedings with the concurrence of the Statute-making part of the University. The rights of Convocation and Congregation conjointly required that they should concur in making Statutes. If the Amendment were adopted, it would give a power subject to the right of Congregation in voting Statutes, whereas Congregation had not the exclusive right; it would consequently render the clause unmeaning.

said, he wished to have Convocation limited to its political powers, namely, the right of sending Members to this House, and electing a Chancellor and High Steward as representatives in the House of Lords. He thought it would be very much for the benefit of the University that Convocation should be deprived of the right of making Statutes.

said, he did not concur in the scorn with which the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) treated Convocation. Though he was not inclined to favour their prejudices, it was impossible any one acquainted with the literature of the country could speak disrespectfully of country clergymen, and he believed they had more knowledge of the world than resident tutors who had just taken their degree. It would be difficult to select a class more incorrigibly ignorant of the affairs of the world, than the young men who had taken their degree and resided ten years in Oxford, and it was a great advantage to mingle with them those who had had more opportunities of knowing human nature.

said, he believed that, practically, the Statutes would be made, as the hon. Member for North Lancashire desired, without the interference of Convocation. In nine cases out of ten Congregation would settle the matter, but it might be desirable that in the tenth case Convocation should come up and apply a corrective to the views of the residents. He thought Convocation and Congregation would work well together under the provisions of the Bill, and he hoped the Committee would not listen to the hon. Member's plan for destroying Convocation altogether.

said, he understood the hon. Member for the University of Oxford to say that, generally speaking, they could trust to Congregation, but a great occasion might come which would interest all the world, and then they would want the addition of Convocation. He was afraid that the Convocation could not exercise any power in the tenth case to which the hon. Baronet had alluded, if Congregation made use of the veto given by the present Bill, and thereby annihilated Convocation so far as the particular proposition was concerned.

explained that what he meant was, that in nine times out of ten Convocation would be satisfied with what Congregation did, but if on the tenth occasion Convocation were not satisfied, there would be the opportunity of checking Congregation, and on that ground Convocation ought not to be destroyed.

understood, then, that on the tenth occasion it might be desirable for Convocation to exercise their power.

They might if they liked.

Precisely so; and his position was, that they could not, whether they liked it or not, if Congregation exercised the veto which this Bill gave them.

said, he must remind the right hon. Baronet that the Hebdomadal Board as it now existed would cease, and the Hebdomadal Council would be elected by Congregation, and therefore not likely to come into collision with it. When the Hebdomadal Council proposed a measure, the question would be, whether Convocation should allow it to pass almost formally in Congregation, or should come up and overrule what had been done. The Hebdomadal Council emanating from the Congregation would be identified in feeling with them, and the difficulty arising under the present system would rarely happen under the new one.

said, he thought the hon. Member for North Lancashire had discovered a blot in the Bill, namely, the extreme inconvenience which sometimes arose from the exercise of their powers by Convocation, not on the tenth or extraordinary occasion, which interested the whole world, but on points which more concerned the resident body, and the body of tutors more than any one. For instance, the Statute introducing the study of modern science and modern literature was carried by three to one in the Tutors' Association, and once, if not twice, thrown out by Convocation. He could confirm the statement of the hon. Member that Congregation was not a new body, though its powers had been assumed by Convocation and legalised by practice.

said, he thought it rather singular that the two hon. Members for Newcastle and North Lancashire should have to go to the dark ages to justify the constitution of Congregation. As to the tutors being more competent judges than Convocation there were abundant proofs of their possessing only that half knowledge which was more perilous than ignorance itself, when applied to the affairs of the world. During the time the Tractarian strife was at its height, those who rescued the tutors from the act of folly they were committing, were those despised country clergymen.

said, he believed that those hon. Members were right in saying that Congregation was a very old body, and formerly possessed much larger powers than at the present time; but the error they committed was this—that they forgot, what he had several times stated in that House without being contradicted, namely, that the Congregation never was co-existent with the Hebdomadal Board. When the Hebdomadal Board was called into existence Congregation sank into comparative insignificance. There never was in the University what it was now proposed to create, namely, three co-ordinate branches of the Legislature, and this Bill did not propose to restore Congregation. For instance, in those days Congregation had the initiative power with regard to legislation. It was recommended by the Commissioners that the initiative powers should be restored to Congregation conjointly with the Hebdomadal Council, but this Bill did not give that power; neither did it destroy the Hebdomadal Board. On the contrary, it remodelled and reconstituted it under the name of the Hebdomadal Council. Therefore they were not restoring Congregation; they were retaining the Hebdomadal Board, which was called into existence in opposition to Congregation.

said, that the right hon. Baronet assumed that no one was prepared to contradict him, because he had made statements without contradiction. He begged to enter his protest against being held to agree in the views of the right hon. Baronet, even though they were not contradicted at the time. He thought the right hon. Baronet had gone a good deal beyond the record when he stated that this initiative power formerly belonged to Congregation, and he certainly did not know how the right hon. Baronet founded, or proposed to show, that the functions of the Hebdomadal Board rested formerly with Congregation. But he submitted that at the moment they were not discussing the functions of Congregation. The hon. Member for North Lancashire had raised a question of principle which might be fairly raised under this clause. He wanted to cut off the power of Convocation, and that was the question before the Committee, to which it would be convenient to direct attention. He confessed, though he felt that Convocation was ill constituted to discharge a great many functions important to be discharged, yet he did not wish to see the franchise of Convocation diminished. The right hon. Baronet thought this Bill did virtually diminish those privileges. That was a question which he should be perfectly ready to argue at another opportunity. What he wished now to say was, that he could not consent to sever the link which united many Members of that House, for example, with the working body of the University of Oxford, and he was quite sure the hon. Member for North Lancashire could not induce the Committee to extinguish the rights at present possessed by Convocation.

said, as a non-resident member of the University of Oxford, he was happy to hear such high eulogiums passed upon that body, though he thought the less they interfered with the internal regulations of the University the better. He freely admitted that the opinions of Lord Harrowby and Lord Ellesmere, and such men as he saw around him, would be advantageous upon any question; but they must remember the same railway train that carried them down would carry down six times as many other men armed in the triple mail of obstinacy, ignorance, and prejudice upon the immediate point under consideration, who would quite overwhelm their influence. He remembered the excitement with re and to Dr. Hampden, and he believed nine out of ten of the non-residents who attended Convocation never read one word of what Dr. Hampden had written. He remembered similar excitement in order to check the Tractarian party. On one occasion, Mr. Williams, fellow of Trinity, was candidate for the professorship of poetry. The cry of Tractarianism was raised against him, and that proved fatal to his claims, though theological opinions did seem of little importance in the professor of poetry, particularly in Oxford, where the standard of taste was formed upon Horace, and Homer, and Virgil—persons who had never been considered to be very sound Protestants. He did not wish to see the action of the non-resident members done away with; hut he thought the internal affairs of the University could be regulated by the resident members much better than by those who only came up once in five or six years, without having anything like continuous association with the University.

said, he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Haverfordwest (Mr. Philipps) objecting to Convocation because it had opposed the Tractarian movement. He, on the contrary, thought this one of the greatest services ever rendered to the country by any constituency. But if this Bill passed, and a like occasion were to arise, Convocation would not be able to act again in such a manner, as the resident members would have the power of assembling in Congregation and forbidding the meeting of Convocation. Yet this was what the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer called "enlarging" the powers of Convocation. He contended that Congregation could prevent Convocation meeting to discuss any particular question, and that the Bill would thereby place a complete bar to the action of Convocation. He was radical enough to respect the opinions of such a constituency as the University. It was the fashion to abuse Convocation—to talk of it as a turbulent mob—a set of ignorant, half-starved curates. If they looked, however, at the composition of Convocation, they would find among its members a great part of the talent of the bar, a great part of the talent and piety of the Church, many members deemed to be worthy of a seat in that House, and a great many who had seats in the upper House. That was the body which, for the sake of faction, and placing the whole power in the hands of the residents, they were about to disfranchise. He did not believe it deserved to be disfranchised, and that was the reason why he objected so strongly to the Amendment.

said, the Government deprecated the annihilation of the functions of Convocation as strongly as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who had just addressed them, and he begged to invite attention to two considerations. First, the Charter granted to the University of Oxford was to the Chancellor, masters, and scholars; and therefore all masters whose names were on the books were corporators, but the only franchise they had was the power of voting as members of Convocation. The effect of the Amendment would be to leave the masters an integral part of the corporation of the University, and yet say, in a most inconsistent manner, that they should exercise no power as corporators within the University. The other consideration was, that if they struck off the power of non-resident masters to attend Convocation, they would deprive them of all interest in the University, and the practical consequence would be that the names on the books of the different colleges would be much diminished in number. That was a consequence which he should deplore, and he had no doubt, as every consideration of expediency and legality negatived the Amendment, the Committee would unanimously come to the conclusion that these words should remain as part of the Bill.

said, that, as a member of the University of Oxford, he could not hear the language of the hon. Member for Haverfordwest (Mr. Philippe) without entering his protest against it. He was sorry to hear the hon. Member so led away by his zeal for this Bill as to speak of the majority of Convocation as armed in the triple mail of obstinacy, ignorance, and prejudice. The expression was most unjustifiable.

said, lie had been very considerably misrepresented. He most distinctly disclaimed any intention of applying these terms to the general character and attainment of non-resident members. He had been objecting to persons acting either on one side of a question or the other without previously making themselves acquainted with all the circumstances—citing the case of Dr. Hampden as an instance—and he had taken particular care to limit those expressions to the views and conduct of those persons with regard to the point at issue. If a man went up to pass sentence upon writings which he had never read, or of which he had only read garbled extracts, he conceived it was perfectly justifiable to say that his conduct with regard to that point was marked by "prejudice, obstinacy, and ignorance."

said, that when they were told the Articles were understood in a non-natural sense, it did not require very attentive consideration before the non-residents could make up their minds that such doctrine was mischievous, and ought to be suppressed.

hoped, for the credit of the Committee, they were not going into this wide field of discussion. Matters of this kind only perplexed and wearied, and drew away their attention from the point under consideration. When the hon. and learned Member for Leominster spoke of the theory that the articles were understood in a non-natural sense, he was entirely unjustified in applying that to the University of Oxford.

had heard that theory was so stated.

By whom?

By the same Mr. Williams to whom the hon. Member for Haverfordwest referred.

If the hon. and learned Member had heard it said so of Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams ought to answer that; but Mr. Williams was not the University of Oxford. He was bound to say he believed the hon. and learned Member was entirely in error. That most improper expression of opinion, he knew, had been ventilated. It had been much ventilated by a gentleman who had no connection with Mr. Williams, except that their names both began with a W—Mr. Ward.

said, he must defend the character of Mr. Williams, That gentleman had no doubt written several tracts, but in them he had never ventured beyond the bounds of fair speculation allowed to persons who had signed the Articles of the Church of England, and those who supposed that he had any tendency to Romish doctrines greatly mistook both Mr. Williams and his writings. He thought it right to say so much in defence of a man who was most unassuming in all the relations of life, who was distinguished as a scholar, and who, as an exemplary parish clergyman, had gained the respect and esteem of all who know him.

said, he was perfectly aware that Mr. Williams had no Romanising tendencies, but he had named him, on being called to do so, as he had read these tenets in his writings.

said, this discussion would be perfectly endless, if it were allowed to degenerate into personalities. He had no sympathies with the feeling in favour of the non-resident members of Convocation, and what he should like to see was the establishment of Congregation on as wide a basis as possible, which he was certain would consult the interests of the University much better than Convocation did.

said, he would suggest that this discussion should be postponed till they came to the 24th clause, when it could be more properly raised.

said, he agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down, that it would be far better to take the discussion as to whether Convocation should be retained, and, if retained, whether it should be modified in form, upon the clause which specially referred to that subject.

said, he would assent to that proposal and withdraw his Amendment.

said, that this clause enacted that the Congregation should be composed, among others, of the following persons—

"The Tutors of Colleges and Halls and other officers engaged in the discipline of Colleges; all Masters of Private Halls; all residents who, though not actually holding any of the aforesaid qualifications, may have held one or more of them at any previous time for three years and upwards; and residents qualified in respect of study under this Act."

said, it would have been a great advantage to the Government if they had heard the opinions of the Committee generally upon this question, because, though the judgment of his hon. Friend was no doubt entitled to great weight, and though the Amendment was not a vital matter, still the Government preferred the Bill as it stood, and that because it was an attempt to form a body that did represent the aristocracy, in the best sense of the University—that was to say, its mind and intellect and working power. His hon. Friend had alluded to the exclusion of private tutors. Now, he believed there were few private tutors who would not be included in the Congregation, under the head of those who declared themselves—as the private tutors might most conscientiously do—resident in Oxford for the purposes of study. He certainly thought the private tutors ought to be in Congregation, and he believed the Bill as it stood would admit them. But there were two other classes whom the Amendment of his hon. Friend would admit—the parochial clergy and the chaplains of colleges. Now, of the parochial clergy in Oxford he wished to speak with the greatest respect. He knew them to be pious, diligent, and laborious; and he believed there was no village, town, or city in the kingdom that was better attended to. But the object of Government was to give Congregation the character of a body that should stand in immediate relation to the working business of the University, and therefore he believed it would be desirable that the parochial clergy, who had no necessary connection with the University as such, should not be members of it. They were going to call the Congregation into existence to exercise most important functions, and they thought it better to compose that body with very considerable strictness, and not to include persons in that body except very good reasons could be shown for it. He could not find any reason in favour of including the parochial clegy. Then, with regard to the chaplains of colleges, their number, he believed, was rather short of twenty, and they were still less qualified, ex officio, to be members of Congregation. Most of them had been educated through the medium of certain eleemosynary foundations. Within his knowledge many of them were excellent men, and some of them were able, learned, and accomplished men; but, then, those of them who were learned and accomplished men would come into the Congregation as students or as tutors of the University. But there was a considerable number of them who were chaplains only. He must confess that he was not prepared to say that that class, con- sidered as a class of chaplains, was in that capacity entitled to become members of Congregation. He had no fear at all that the constitution of the Congregation would produce a conflict of classes in that body. He believed it would be composed of men on whom the signs of party conflict in that House would operate very feebly. The principle upon which the Congregation ought to be based was, that it should represent the intellect and aristocracy of the University, and include within it the whole studying and the whole teaching body of the University. The Government had endeavoured to frame the provisions of the Bill to that end. At the same time they were perfectly inclined to listen to the suggestions of hon. Members if in any way the Bill could be improved.

said, he wished to ask what was the precise intention of his hon. Friend in substituting merely the words "all residents?" His right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had, the other evening, defined residents to mean those who victualled and slept at the Universities—those who had victum et cubile there. He wished to know whether his hon Friend confined his Amendment to those parties who were included in that definition?

said, that he included in the word "residents" not only those who lived within the limits of the University of Oxford, but those who resided in the City of Oxford. There were other classes who might also be included in the terms of his Amendment. With respect to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some of the persons who were intended to be included in the Amendment would be qualified to belong to the Congregation by virtue of their being students or private tutors, he (Sir W. Heathcote) must observe that that would entirely depend upon whether the House would approve or not the qualification in respect of study. It seemed to him to be a form of qualification calculated to lead to a good deal of difficulty. It was not a qualification which he should like to take. He desired to use words that would include the persons to whom he alluded, whether they were qualified by study or not. In answer to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst, he had to say that he intended persons who had resided within the boundaries of a college for twenty-four weeks of the previous year.

said, he would suggest that the object would be satisfactorily attained, and the very desirable principle upon which the clause was framed secured, by giving the privilege to all those who were actually engaged, more or less, in the great business and end of the University, by inserting the words, "residents qualified in respect of study and teaching." The addition of such words would make the clause comprehensive enough to include all who contributed anything to the object and purpose of the University.

said, he would put it to the Committee whether it was not complicating the Bill, and introducing invidious and ungenerous distinctions, to exclude the smaller classes, whose disqualification for taking part in the business of the University, he must say, had not been established to his satisfaction. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had narrowed the classes of those residents qualified in respect of study by excluding the parochial clergy and chaplains of colleges from Convocation. With respect to the former, he thought that they might be usefully introduced, as being a distinct class from the non-parochial clergy living in colleges. As to the latter, he could not agree in the reason assigned for their exclusion. It was said that they represented the eleemosynary element, and that they were disqualified by that circumstance. Now, he thought that the eleemosynary element ought to be represented in the University. Independently of this principle, to which he attached importance, the chaplains of colleges filled most important and honourable offices—offices which had relation to the ends of the University. On these grounds he contended that the introduction of these two classes into the governing body could not be mischievous, whilst it might he useful. If harmonious action were desired, it would be far better to include all the residents, and exclude none; but if a large number were excluded besides chaplains and parochial clergy, a large proportion of fellows of colleges must be among them—those who were not expected to take out certificates of study. He did not think these fellows were unworthy to become members of Convocation. Whether they took out certificates of study or not they were worthy of the franchise, and he demurred to the principle involved in the proposed change. He would much rather go back to the old principle, which was more likely to give satisfaction and to ensure the smooth and easy working of the Bill.

said, he concurred with the views of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hoped he would adhere to the proposed alteration in the clause. It was his conviction that it would work well.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer). The new governing power should, as far as possible, include every influential class in the University, so that it could not be said that it was confined to any one or two. He therefore suggested that the provisions should be extended to all non-resident members. By this means, when those members returned to the University, from time to time, they would exercise large influence, and bring the benefit of past experience to hear upon the actual state of things.

said, he did not think the views expressed on this question by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were sound. They would leave the Act open to a loose construction. Half the persons who passed through the University became working members of the Church of England; why should they be excluded, who could bring to bear upon it the weight of their practical knowledge of the work of the Ministry? With regard to the chaplains of colleges, there was great force in the argument that they represented the eleemosynary principle, and their presence must be of great use in relation to the wants and feelings of the class who had been assisted in their education. He desired to see every class in the University represented. The wider the representation, the greater the efficiency of the University.

said, the Bill, as it now stood, included all officers of the University, all persons engaged in tuition in the most general sense, and all persons engaged in the discipline of it. All persons who were bonâ fide teachers were included. He could perceive no element or condition that was excluded. With regard to the two classes proposed to be excluded, be must observe, in relation to the parochial clergy, that simple residence in that character in Oxford gave them no connection with the University. They had no connection with it necessarily, and they were not within the rules implied by the institution of the University. As to the chaplains to colleges, he concurred that the eleemosynary element was necessary in the governing body; but he submitted that it would be sufficiently represented there without the inclusion of these classes.

said, he had always deemed it to be a great anomaly in the management of the University that the chaplains should be held to be an inferior class. That, however, was practically the case. In fact, in consequence of their poverty, they were not looked upon as in a position to associate with gentlemen. As an instance of what the operation of the clause under these considerations would be, he might observe that it would exclude, if passed as it then stood, the son of his hon. Friend opposite (Sir T. Acland), one of the first physicians in Oxford, from a right to be a member of the governing body of the University.

said, that the proposed exclusions were both ungenerous and offensive, and he hoped they would not be passed. Under them the poet Gray would have been excluded from the governing body; and if the clause was carried, as proposed, such instances would occur over and over again.

said, he must submit that at no time could it have been contemplated to include the two classes now under discussion. It was not, however, for the Government to prove their disqualification; it was for the other side to prove their qualification for the privilege. The Government, in his opinion, had put the whole case upon an intelligible principle, when they said that everybody actually connected with education should be included. This established some distinct relation to the University. Now, in what relation did the parochial clergy stand to the University? They had no relation to it except that of mere residence in the town; and being merely casual residents, they could have no claim to the privilege. As to the college chaplains, the question was not whether having received eleemosynary assistance was a disqualification, but whether that principle was not already represented. He contended that it was, by several members who had received their education by that means. No qualification could be sounder than that which had been adopted by the Government—that those who took part in the government of the University should stand in some function or other in relation to its studies.

said, if the hon. and learned Solicitor General was right in the opinion which he had expressed, that to be a member of Congregation ought to be a distinction, he was entitled to ask upon what ground, by excluding those whom it was admitted this clause would strike out, they undertook to pronounce them unworthy of such distinction? He had heard but two reasons assigned. It was said that a portion of the persons excluded were parochial clergy; but he would bring to the recollection of the Committee that some of the best bishops on the bench had been found, like Cincinnatus at the plough, discharging the duties of parish priests. With respect to the chaplains of colleges, and the allusion which had been made, in connection with their case, to the recipients of eleemosynary education, he would beg to remind the Committee that in the University of Cambridge a very large body of the most distinguished men in the University had risen from that very class. It used to be held that every man was entitled to a vote, unless it could be shown that he was unfit to exercise it; but now hon. Gentlemen were for excluding every one who could not make out a clear right and title by the most indisputable testimony. Was it worth their while, for the sake of excluding so small a body, to plant the germ of future dissent? If they wished their new constitution to work harmoniously, they should admit every gentleman who had passed through the University, had acquired a degree, and, from one circumstance or another, was resident within it, to exercise his share in determining how the University should be governed.

said, he was inclined to vote for the Amendment. The parochial clergy of Oxford must have a very good knowledge of what went on in the University, and great sympathy with it, and for these reasons would make very useful members of this proposed Congregation. With respect to the chaplains of colleges, he should be very glad if placing them in this position might have a tendency to put an end to that which, when he was at Oxford, had made a very painful impression on his mind—the ungenerous system of proscription—for he could call it by no other name—to which the servitors were subject, the servitors being the class from which the college chaplains were generally derived. He thought that the qualifications proposed by the clause would be found inconvenient and complicated; and he saw no practical danger and great practical good in allowing all residents to be members.

said, it seemed to him, that, although the practical effect of the proposed Amendment would not be considerable, there was a difference of principle between that and the clause as it stood, which ought to have some weight in the discussion. The difference of principle was this—that what the Government proposed was to give the power of election, and of taking part in the regulation of the University, to those who were engaged in the proper business of the University—the business of teaching and study. Now that appeared to him to be a very important distinction, because what they were proposing by this Bill to do was to reform the University of Oxford, and to reform it for the purposes of education. Now, whatever might be said with respect to the clergy resident in Oxford, or the chaplain of colleges, there was no question whatever as to their character or ability involved in the present discussion. It was simply a question with reference to their fitness to perform a particular duty, regarding them as a part of the legislature of a place intended to be a place of education. Now, looking at the matter in that point of view, he confessed he did not think that the resident clergy of Oxford had any immediate connection, as such, with the teaching of the University. The clergy of London were a very distinguished body of men; there had at all times been among them some of the most distinguished clergymen of this country; and according to our present mode of travelling it would be exceedingly easy for them to go from London to Oxford, so that they might very well give their votes there, but no question had been raised as to their being allowed to do so, because they had nothing to do with the teaching of the University, and he did not see that a vote ought to be given on account of the circumstance of residence at the plate where education was to take place. With respect to the chaplains of colleges, and to the observations which had been made by his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Labouchere), he considered it a reproach to the University that there should be any circumstances existing tending to degrade men who attended the studies of the University, and whose minds and feelings were as sensitive as their own, and to keep them in an inferior position. He should be very glad to alter these circumstances; and he hoped, for the sake of the University itself, that such a state of things as his right hon. Friend had described would not be very long continued. But he was unable to admit that this was a reason why the college chaplains should form part of this body unless they were engaged in teaching. And he thought that some other means might be found of raising the class referred to, besides that which was now proposed. The principle upon which the clause was framed was a very clear one. It was to give the legislation of the University to those who were engaged in the business of the University, and who were acquainted with all its affairs. The words which the Government proposed to add "engaged in teaching or study" would include all who had a fair claim to be included; and, although he did not think the adoption of the Amendment would very much change the character of the Bill, he was sure that upon principle it would be much more consistent to leave it as it now stood.

said, he would admit that the principle was important, but he thought the noble Lord had very much narrowed it. As he understood the matter, the Congregation would have power to make Amendments in all the Statutes proposed by the Hebdomadal Council, not only with respect to tuition, but with reference to other matters in which the University was greatly interested. Now, if that were true, he thought it a great principle to be established, that they should bring to bear, on so small a body as the Hebdomadal Council, as great an amount of influence as possible, from members who took an interest in the affairs of the University generally, as much as the tutors, who were specially engaged in teaching. No doubt, if this were carried out to the full extent, it would include all the members of Convocation. Why, then, was it proposed to limit it to the resident members? Because they knew what was going on, and all the circumstances connected with the case to be decided, and could not be brought up to give a party vote, and to interfere with the decision which had been arrived at by those upon the spot. That being the case, they ought not to exclude any members resident in the University, because these must be supposed to take as much interest in the affairs of the University as those who were engaged in teaching. Thinking, therefore, that the Bill as it now stood would disqualify persons who were quite competent to frame Amendments to the Statutes and laws to be proposed by the Hebdomadal Council, he did not think it would be just to these members of the University that they should be subject to such a disqualification.

said, that he proposed to add a proviso to his clause, in consequence of the Resolution to which the Committee had come on a former evening. According to the Bill as it originally stood, all the three classes of which the Hebdomadal Council was to be composed were to be elected by the same constituency. The Committee had, however, resolved that the heads of houses and the professors should elect their own representatives at the board, and that being so, he thought they ought not also to take part in the election of representatives of the third class—members of Convocation, and thereby exercise a double privilege. He should, therefore, move the addition of these words at the end of the clause—

"Provided that the persons who shall from time to time be included under the second and seventh divisions hereinbefore mentioned as Heads of Colleges and Halls, and as Professors, shall not be entitled to vote in the election by the Congregation of the members of the Hebdomadal Council."

said, ho did not know that there was any objection to the insertion of these words, but the right hon. Gentleman ought to have given notice of a proposition of this kind, so that the Committee might have an opportunity of seeing its bearing.

said, the proposed addition was the natural result of the Motion which had been carried the other night, and ought, therefore, to be supported by the Committee.

said, he would suggest that in a complicated Bill of this kind they ought first to go through the clauses, and then proceed to consider the Amendments. It was totally impracticable at a moment's notice to get up a discussion of this kind.

said, the Government would certainly not wish to do anything which might be considered to take the Committee by surprise, and the proposed addition should not, therefore, be pressed now, but should be printed and laid before the Committee.

said, he was by no means prepared to say that he opposed the Motion. It might be a fair and right one. All he said was, that the Committee ought to have notice of it.

would suggest that the proposed proviso had better be incorporated in the section which related to the six members of Convocation.

said, that this clause provided for the due publication in Congregation of "Statutes" made by the Hebdomadal Council. He thought, however, the word "Statutes" was not sufficiently extensive, and he, therefore, proposed to add the words "or other act or ordinance requiring the consent of Convocation." He also doubted whether the proviso reserving the present powers of Convocation would be sufficient to invest them with the new powers created by this Act, and he, therefore, proposed to add at the end of the clause, "and if accepted by Congregation shall be afterwards submitted to Convocation for final adoption, as a Statute, Act, or Ordinance of the University."

said, he would not oppose the first Amendment of the hon. Baronet, though he believed it to be unnecessary; but he must object to the latter.

said, be should be sorry to see the proposed alteration accepted, since it would have the effect of imposing a cheek upon the political franchise exercised by this body corporate. It was as though the inhabitants of a town, who wished to petition Parliament, were to be prevented by the town council, and told that they should not do so. This was no academical question affecting the position of the "aristocracy of intellect," but it was simply a question of a political right and franchise. He feared it would give to Congregation the power of preventing the University from petitioning on any subjects on which the opinions of Congregation were at variance with those of Convocation.

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman took the right view of the case. But he confessed that he doubted very much whether that was to be regarded as a practical restriction upon the privileges of the University. The fact was, that Convocation was now very much fettered in its power of expressing an opinion, for it could only debate in Latin, and had no power to suggest amendments on any proposition laid before it. It was now proposed to constitute Congregation on a pretty broad basis, including all those who took part in the business of the University. To them would be given the power of discussing in English, and of entertaining amendments, and, therefore, he thought that upon the whole the privileges of the University would be extended and not diminished by this Bill.

said, that the effect of the Amendment would be to deprive the University—that great constituency which had returned the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself to that House—of the power of petitioning that House, or of expressing an opinion and praying the concurrence of Parliament in its views. It would give such a power to the Congregation that Convocation would be able to do absolutely nothing without its consent. For a Government which professed to be Liberal, and for a representative of the University thus to endeavour to stifle the expression of opinion by the most enlightened constituency in the kingdom, was a circumstance that filled him with astonishment.

said, that the indignant remarks of the hon. Member were founded upon two assumptions, both of which were unfounded. For, in the first place, Convocation never had the power of petitioning except through the medium of the Hebdomadal Board; and, in the second place, the present Bill would not increase the control which was now exercised over the proceedings of Convocation, but would simply vest in the hands of the Hebdomadal Council and the Congregation, instead of in those of the Hebdomadal Council alone.

said, that he must repeat his objection to this Amendment, because it would have the effect of putting a fresh check upon the exercise of a political franchise; for the right of petitioning, which members of Convocation now enjoyed, must be regarded in that light. They might just as well say that the aldermen and liverymen of the City of London should prevent that great constituency from petitioning, as that an oligarchy of some 300 members should stop the expression of its opinion upon political subjects on the part of the whole University.

said, that no man could have so little interest in stifling the opinions of the constituency of Oxford as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had thrice been returned by it by large majorities. He did not see how this clause could be regarded as narrowing the powers of the University. At present the University of Oxford was governed by an oligarchy, and the proposal was to substitute a liberal aristocracy in the place of it. It was a measure, in fact, for enlarging and enfranchising the constituency.

said, that while the hon. and learned Solicitor General had stated that the words which he had proposed would not vary the meaning of the word "Statute," his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) thought that they would do so in a way which he (Sir W. Heathcote) did not intend. As in the one case, then, the alteration would be useless, and in the other it would be noxious, or would effect what he did not desire to effect, probably the best thing for him to do would be to withdraw the words.

moved to insert after the word "promulgated," in line 19, the words, "in the English language," so that the Statutes passed by the Hebdomadal Board might be promulgated in the English language.

said, he would move to add at the end of the clause the words, "And if accepted by Congregation shall be afterwards submitted to Convocation for final adoption or rejection as a Statute, act, or ordinance of the University," with the view of rendering the meaning more clear.

said, he wished for some further explanation as to how the functions of Convocation would be affected by this clause.

could only say that the Bill directed the Congregation should elect certain members of the Hebdomadal Council. The members of Convocation were all pointed out and specified in the clause, and he thought it would be loss of time to discuss principles already adopted.

said, that instead of making any innovation, they were returning, by the enactments of the present Bill, to the original foundation of the academic constitution. He must deny that there was any innovation in the powers conveyed by this clause, and considered that the governing power could not be more properly lodged than in the teachers of the University.

trusted his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) would press the question to a division, for all they asked was not to fetter the University, when it had done nothing to prove itself unworthy of the freedom it had enjoyed these 400 years.

said, he considered that the question involved in this clause was, whether, when the Hebdomadal Council had determined to originate any measure, the Congregation should be enabled to put a direct veto upon such measure, for as the clause stood such a power would be left in the hands of Congregation. In his opinion the best plan would be to omit the clause altogether.

said, he thought the clause, by establishing a debating society in the University, was not likely to promote peace and harmony among its members. He would suggest that, as the Hebdomadal Council was to consist of twenty-two individuals, if there should be an equal division upon any question, and eleven were found on each side, the business of the University would be brought to a dead lock.

said, that the governing body of the University had hitherto consisted of twenty-six members, but there never had been an equal division of thirteen against thirteen. He considered that there could not be the least doubt that it was right to give legislative functions to the Congregation. Looking at the composition of the University of Oxford, which included so many able and working men, he thought it impossible that any system could be satisfactory which placed the whole legislative power in the hands of a small body consisting of twenty-two members. if they wished the University to work satisfactorily, they must make provision for the real discussion of measures which proceeded from the initiative board. If such provision was not made, the whole power of the University would be concentrated in one-third part of the heads, one-fourth part of the professors, and one-thirtieth part of the residents of the University. This power must be given to Congregation or to Convocation, and he thought that Congregation, as representing the working part of the University, and including men of great knowledge and experience, was the body to which it could most properly be committed.