in rising to submit the Resolutions of which he had given notice, said, that the subject which had been referred to the consideration of the Committee, appointed at the commencement of the Session, upon the Business of the House, was so important that he trusted that he should not be thought to be unnecessarily or improperly occupying their time if he ventured to enter into some explanation of the proceedings of the Committee, and of the circumstances under which it had been appointed. It would be in the recollection of the House that at the close of the Session of 1847–48, a Session not unlike that of 1852–53, in consequence of the very great pressure of public business and the feeling which was then prevalent, that the forms of the House admitted of some alteration, a Committee bad been moved for by the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. E. Denison), and the important subject of the forms of Parliament had been taken into consideration by that Committee. Their Report was a very brief one, owing to the late period of the Session at which they had been appointed. They recommended certain changes in the practice of the House; but they, however, distinctly stated that they trusted more to the discretion and forbearance of Members of the house in the conduct of business than to the effect of any specific changes which it was in their power to recommend. In one respect, he thought that the confidence expressed by that Committee in the forbearance of Members had been justified. One great complaint of the Session of 1847–48 was the very great length to which the debates had extended, and the great frequency of adjourned debates. Since that period adjourned debates had become of much less frequent occurrence, and much less time was now consumed in debating than had been the case in 1847 and previous Sessions. It was, however, a great mistake to suppose that the delays which had been the subject of complaint had arisen altogether, or even mainly, from the length of the debates; because there could be no doubt, he thought, that they had proceeded more from the actual increase of business and the increased pressure, both upon the House generally and upon individual Members, than from the time which had been occupied in discussion. Perhaps, in proof of that statement, the House would allow him to institute a comparison between the state of business in the Session of 1852–53 and the Session of 1847–48, which led to the appointment of the former Committee on the subject. In the Session of 1847–48 there had been forty-four public Committees; last Session there had been fifty-one. Each of those Sessions was the first of a new Parliament. In 1847–48 there had been twenty-eight Election Committees; last Session there had been forty-nine. In 1847–48 there had been thirty-one Private Bill Committees in groups; last Session there had been forty-three of those group Committees. In 1847–48 there had been 112 Committees upon other private Bills; last Session there had been 119. Altogether there had been in the Session 1847–48 215 Committees against 262 in the last Session. In 1847–48 there had been 255 divisions, and last Session there had been 257. The actual days and hours of sitting, however, had been less last year than in 1847–48, being 100 days, or 1,193 hours, as against 170 days, or 1,407 hours. But, perhaps, the most important fact, as affording an evidence of the increase of their business, was the number of entries in the Votes of the House, and he found that last year there had been 11,378 entries in the Votes compared with 10,412 entries in the Session of 1847–48. Last year the Session, which had commenced on the 4th of November, 1852, did not terminate until the 20th of August, 1853; and he might remind the House that, upon the 6th of August, a noble Lord in another place made use of the expression, that there were forty-two Bills then before their Lordships, and that there were thirty-one coming up from the House of Commons, making seventy-three Bills to be considered in a fortnight. Notwithstanding the number of Bills which had been passed last year and the immense amount of business transacted, he thought the House would bear him out when he said that the transaction of business in the month of August had not been creditable, neither would it prove beneficial to the public. Bills had been brought down from the other House, or sent up to it, in such a hurried manner, that it had been impossible to give them that attention which they deserved. As one illustration of this, he might mention the important measure on the subject of secondary punishments, providing a substitute for transportation, which certainly had not received the attention that its importance required, and which, he ventured to say, would have been a much better Act of Parliament than it now was if it had been properly discussed and considered. It was a consideration of these circumstances which had induced him at the commencement of the present Session to express an opinion, that it would be well for the forms of the House again to be considered by a Committee; and he had ultimately, at the suggestion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), moved the appointment of a Committee upon the subject. In Ole selection of the Members of that Committee, his sole endeavour had been to obtain the assistance of those Gentlemen who, in his judgment, possessed the largest experience and the highest standing in the House, and who were, therefore, the most competent to advise the House upon such a subject. He was bound to say, however, that from the first day of meeting it became evident to him that the majority of the Committee were of opinion that the reforms and changes in the forms of the House ought not to be carried to that extent which had seemed to him, when he moved for the Committee, and which still appeared to him to be, extremely desirable. He was desirous, therefore, to have it understood that he was not responsible for the Report which had been presented to the House. It was not the Report which he had submitted to the Committee; and, in his humble judgment, the reforms in their proceedings ought to have been carried, and might safely and prudently have been carried, to an extent very mach beyond that which was indicated by the Resolutions which he was about to submit to the House for their approval. It was his opinion that the recommendations of the Committee ought to have been carried further than they had been; at the same time, he was desirous of stating that the differences which existed between himself as Chairman, and the Gentlemen who composed the Committee, were only differences as to degree, and not as to principle. He thought that the first consideration which ought to have influenced such a Committee was, as to how far they could best have adapted the forms of the House, so as to enable them to transact the immense pressure of business within reasonable limits as to time, and also in a manner the most complete and satisfactory to the country. He had considered, as Chairman of the Committee, how far the forms of the House were open to improvement and amendment, keeping in view the objects he had mentioned, and had submitted to the Committee an outline of the changes which he thought might be effected. It was the pleasure of the Committee, with a view of considering these proposals, that witnesses should be summoned, and accordingly three witnesses were summoned of high authority and the most competent to give evidence on this subject. The first witness was the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), the Chairman of Committees, and who had for a long period been conversant with the proceedings of the House; the second witness was not a Member of that House, but was a gentleman well known to it—Mr. Erskine May, whose work on Parliamentary forms and usages was looked upon as a standard authority upon the subject; and, lastly, the Committee called before them the Speaker of this House. He did not think that it would have been possible for the Committee to have selected three witnesses more competent than these to give evidence and sound advice to the Committee and the House, and he did not think that he was undervaluing the authority of the opinions of the Gentlemen who formed that Committee, when he said that that of the Speaker was entitled to far more weight, resulting from his great experience, gathered from his having long occupied his present position, and from his having devoted much attention to this subject. At the close of the evidence he (Sir J. Pakington) drew up a Report, and a series of thirty-six Resolutions, embodying the views of these witnesses, but he was sorry to say that the majority of these Resolutions were rejected by the Committee, and he should not have presumed to set up his opinion against that of these Gentlemen, but that he believed that in every one of his Resolutions he was supported by the unanimous opinion of the three witnesses mentioned. He would not trouble the House by going through the whole of these Resolutions, as most of them referred to matters of detail, but would briefly advert to the most important of them—namely, those which referred to the proceedings of Committees on Bills—to the mode of the appointment and numbers of Select Committees—to the proceedings as regarded the question of adjournments, and to the practice, which of late years had grown up to a great extent, of occupying the time of the House by moving Amendments on the Motion of going into Committee of Supply. With regard to the first of these, as to the proceedings of Committees on Bills, two important proposals were made to the Committee— in the first of which he (Sir J. Pakington) had adopted the recommendation expressed by the Speaker in 1848, and since strongly repeated, that upon (into Committee on a Bill it should not be necessary to put the question that the Speaker leave the Chair for that purpose, excepting in the case of Bills going into Committee for the first time; the other proposal which he had adopted, and which was originally suggested by Mr. May, was the proposition that the Committee of the whole House should sit to consider Bills in succession without the necessity of the Speaker resuming the Chair before each Committee. The Resolution winch he should now propose with respect to this was a modification of the plan he had mentioned, and he trusted the House would approve it. With regard to the Select Committees, he had submitted to the Committee that these Committees should be reduced in numbers—namely, from fifteen to eleven Members; that the quorum of such Committee should, as heretofore, consist of five Members; and that the Select Committee should be nominated by a Committee of Selection. Upon these recommendations the Speaker had expressed an opinion that they would be great improvements; and another reason for the adoption of a Committee of Selection was, that so invidious were the debates on the appointment of a Select Committee that the House often agreed to names rather than incur the odium of the disagreeable duty of taking objections to those names. He would at the same time remind the House that last year the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had appealed to hon. Members not to press for the appointment of any additional Committees on account of the difficulty of getting Members to act. The tendency of late years had been to reduce the numbers of Committees. This had been the case with regard to Election Committees, and also Committees on private Bills, and he believed every Member would agree with him as to the advantages to be derived from reducing the numbers of Select Committees, which would have the effect of throwing an increased responsibility on the Members composing the Committees, and give to the recommendations even more weight than at present. With regard to the question of adjournment, he had ventured to recommend to the Committee the plan proposed in 1848 by the Speaker, that when a question was under discussion the Motion for adjournment ought not to be debated, but put at once, and, if negatived, should not be repeated within an hour. The other recommendation which he should submit in a Resolution, which would, he believed, meet with considerable opposition, was, that the House should, as a matter of course, on its rising on Friday, stand adjourned until Monday, and when the House was desirous of sitting on Saturday that might be made the subject of a special Motion. He would now briefly advert to the most important of the recommendations which he had submitted to the Committee with a view of saving the public time—he alluded to the practice of moving Amendments on going into Committee of Supply. He was aware that this, from long Parliamentary practice, had been considered the legitimate moment for bringing forward the grievances of the people, and the plan which he had proposed respected this right. He thought that the present practice deprived them of one of their most important functions, by preventing them from devoting the attention which they ought to the finances of the country and the granting of the supplies to the Crown; and the evidence of Mr. May before the Committee strongly illustrated this abuse and bad practice. That Gentleman said—

"The effect of the present practice I wish to state to the Committee. During the last Session, on twenty-two nights there were Motions and Amendments proposed on going into Committees of Supply and Ways and Means. On all those twenty-two nights Motions were actually made by Members. The whole course of business, as appointed by the House, was consequently disarranged; and from two to twelve notices of Motion were set down on nearly every supply night during the Session. The Estimates are not duly considered in consequence of these continual delays, though the consideration of them is one of the most important functions of the house of Commons. The Session is prolonged by this practice more than by any other cause, and many Bills are sent up late to the House of Lords, or abandoned altogether."

The right hon. Gentleman in the Chair stated that he thought the practice of making Motions on going into Committee of Supply had been carried to a very inconvenient extent. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), after expressing a similar opinion, added that the practice had the effect of interfering with the due consideration of the Votes in Supply, and he suggested that these Amendments should be got rid of altogether. The result of the present practice was, that, though Committees of Supply stood on the paper for particular days, no one could tell when they would come on for discussion. These occasions had, in fact, become the refuge of the destitute, and were often laid hold of by Members who would have no other opportunity of bringing forward questions, some of which, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, might be important, but for the sake of many of which Members could not be induced either to make or to keep a House. He regretted that the Committee did not approve the plan which he had submitted for their consideration. The only two recommendations which they had adopted were—first, that which referred to the consideration of public Bills in Committee in succession, without the necessity of the Speaker resuming the Chair on each Bill; and the next was that which related to the adjournment of the House from Friday till Monday. He hoped, however, that the Resolutions he now intended to move would be adopted by the House, and that they would be found in no small degree an improvement in the mode of conducting the public business. He would now beg to move the following Resolution, being the first of the series of which he had given notice:—

"That it be an Instruction to all Committees of the whole House to which Bills may be committed that they have power to make such amendments therein as they shall think fit, provided they be relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill; but that if any such amendments shall not be within the title of the Bill, they do amend the title accordingly, and do report the same specially to the House."

said, he would not take up the time of the House by going into the many questions which the right hon. Gentleman had raised, but would confine himself strictly to the Resolution before the House. He was most anxious to do anything that would expedite the business of the House, provided it was consistent with their public duty and the regularity of their proceedings; but, with regard to this first Resolution, he must say that he thought it of great advantage that the title of a Bill should agree with the subject-matter of that Bill. If the Resolution were agreed to, a Bill might go into Committee and come out a totally new measure. Who was to be the judge as to whether the matter was or was not relevant to the Bill? If it was the Chairman of the Committee, the duty would be a most difficult and invidious one; and if it was to be the mover of the Amendment, they would have him talking half an hour or more to show its relevancy, thus causing a greater loss of time than by the present method. References had been made to the House of Lords, as to their practice of altering the title of a Bill after amendments had been made, but he did not think the proceedings of the House of Lords in such cases were at all applicable to the House of Commons, or such as they should follow. He thought they should a bide by the old plan of moving an instruc- tion to the Committee. Unless, therefore, he saw reason to change his opinion, he would be inclined to move a negative to the first Resolution now proposed.

said, he thought there was a great deal of justice in the observations just made by his noble Friend. By this change a Bill might go into Committee in one shape and come out in another. He regretted that the Committee did not go further in their recommendations of reform, and especially that they did not propose a reform in the mode of appointing Select Committees. He was satisfied that, till they got these Committees appointed through the agency of the Committee of Selection, and their numbers reduced, they would never work satisfactorily.

said, he hoped that the House would confine its attention to the question before it, and not enter upon any question that would be certain to open up a large field of discussion.

said, objection had been taken to the proposal of Amendments not in harmony with the title of a Bill; but this was only to be done in Committee, and ample opportunity would be given in the subsequent stages of considering the effect of all such alterations. It often happened that, in Committee, some Amendment was suggested that would be useful, though it might be at variance with the title of the Bill, and then it was too late to move an instruction. As to the question of who was to judge of the relevancy of an Amendment, he presumed that that was a duty which would devolve on the Chairman.

said, he did not think it a matter of much importance whether the Resolution was passed or not; but he was rather opposed to the change, as he did not see any absolute necessity for it.

said, he thought the time gained to the House by this change would be very trifling, and for such an object it was not prudent to part with one of the securities that the House now possessed for knowing the real nature of what was going on relative to a Bill.

said, the observation that the alteration was not very important would apply equally to the greater part of the Resolutions. This was one of a series of recommendations made by the Speaker to the Committee of 1848, and he considered that it was but reasonable that clauses should be consistent with the title of the Bill in which they were in- troduced. He did not think the objection taken to this Resolution by his noble Friend (Lord Seymour) a very sound one; and, as he thought the proposition of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) an improvement on the present practice, he would give it his support.

said, he did not see how this change would expedite the business of the House. There was very little inconvenience felt from the present practice, as it was not a common thing to have an Instruction moved to a Committee. He considered that the right hon. Baronet only did his duty in bringing forward this Resolution as Chairman of the Committee, although he could not agree with the spirit of it. It appeared to him, also, that there was another measure which had been entirely disregarded by the Committee in their Report, and that was a Bill on the, subject which had been proposed by Lord Derby in 1848.

said, he considered that the real question to be considered was, what was the best mode of economising the time of the House, and he was very much disappointed in the tone and the extent of the Resolutions which had been proposed by the right hon. Baronet. If there were one question more important than another, it was that of the Estimates, which were often put off till midnight, and most of them this year had not been voted until after one o'clock in the morning. These Estimates amounted to about 26,000,000l. or 27,000,000l., and of these, owing to the hurry and the late hour at which they were discussed and brought forward, nearly 17,000,000l. had been already voted, it might almost be said, without any discussion at all. The best course would be to send the Report back again to the Committee, and let it be reconsidered.

said, he would refer the House to the Report of 1848, in which it was recommended that hon. Members should confine themselves as much as possible to the immediate question before the House. The question before the House at this time was, whether the form of business should be altered? There was a difference as to the mode of proceeding now and in 1848, and the rule of progress had been adopted, which precluded any Instruction being moved, except on the first day of going in to Committee. Consequently, unless an Instruction were moved on that single occasion, there was no other opportunity of introducing new matter, and Members were driven to the inconvenient course of putting off Amendments to the Report or the third reading. Those considerations had weighed with the Committee, and he should certainly support their recommendation.

said, although he did not consider the matter of any very great importance, he nevertheless felt it his duty to press it, having been recommended by such high authority to do so. He considered a Committee the proper arena for detailed discussion as to the progress of a Bill, and that the fewer Amendments which were introduced on the third reading the better.

said, he was quite indifferent as to whether the Resolution was carried or not, inasmuch as he thought it of very little consequence one way or the other. He merely rose to say that he hoped the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) would not insist on the time of the House being taken up in dividing on such a question.

said, he also must appeal to the noble Lord not to divide the House against this Resolution. He did not know that any great practical advantage would be derived from it, but there appeared to be some force in the argument that Amendments had better be discussed in Committee than on bringing up the Report or on the third reading.

said, he had no desire to offer any needless opposition, and, in deference to the recommendation of his noble Friend, would consent not to divide the House upon the question.

said, he would now bring forward the fourth Resolution.

said, he wished to move, that after the word "offered" should be inserted the words "in a Committee or," and that after the word "Speaker" should be inserted "or Chairman."

said, he took exception to the whole Resolution, on the ground that it was found convenient, upon a new clause being brought up, to ask for explanations; and, upon the question of second reading, to discuss the clause, whereas this Resolution would in future prevent Members speaking upon the clause more than once.

said, he thought they should not encourage the practice of adding clauses to a Bill on the third reading, and he would suggest, therefore, that the Resolution should be made to apply only to new clauses in Committee.

said, that in bringing up a new clause on the third reading of a Bill, five questions were put, and until the first two questions, that the clause be brought up and read a first time, were put, no one could know what it was they were about to discuss. It was only proposed to get rid of any debate on those first two questions, and there would still remain the three questions that the clause be read a second time, that the clause be read a third time, and that the clause be added to the Bill, upon all of which discussion might take place.

would suggest that no clause should be allowed to be proposed on a third reading without a day's notice.

said, he was of opinion that the practice of bringing up a clause on the third reading was highly objectionable, because, if any important alteration were made at that stage, they never had the Bill printed in its altered form, and there certainly ought to be one period in the passing of a Bill when the Members would have the whole Bill before them with leisure to Consider it.

said, the right way was to have a Standing Order, that no clause should be brought up on a third reading unless notice had been previously given and the clause printed. Amendment proposed, after the word "offered," to insert the words "in the Committee on the Bill or." Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Another Amendment proposed, after the word "Speaker," to insert the words "or the Chairman." Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

said, the practice was invariably to read a clause a first time, before discussing it, and this Resolution would only make the rules of the House conform to the practice. With regard to the objection to bringing up clauses on the third reading, he would move the addition to this Resolution of the words— "and that no clause shall be offered on the consideration of Report or on third reading without notice."

said, he presumed these words were intended to include Committees of Supply and Committees of Ways and Means, and that on the Report of those Committees being brought up, no Member would hereafter be entitled to address the House. He was one—though he believed it was heretodox to express such an opinion—who considered it legitimate to discuss the general policy of the Government upon bringing up the Reports, as well as upon going into Committee of Supply or Committee of Ways and Means. He did not think that these matters ought to be discussed entirely with reference to a saving of time. No doubt, if his (Mr. Gibson's) steward brought him his accounts, it would save time if he were not to investigate those accounts, and were to refrain from expressing any opinion upon his manner of conducting his business; but he threw it out for the consideration of the House whether it was fitting that they, as guardians of the public purse, and, therefore, having the control over the public policy, should part with an occasion like this for discussing the conduct of the Government of the country. He thought it was not right that they should do so, and would move the introduction of words exempting Committees of Supply and Committees of Ways and Means from the operation of the Resolution.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had attached a degree of importance to the alteration proposed by the Committee to which it was not entitled. It was rather for the personal convenience of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Chairman of Ways and Means, that he should not be kept waiting at the bar while a discussion was going on upon a question of general policy, but should be permitted at once to bring up his Report, ample opportunity being afforded for discussion, such as the right hon. Gentleman desired, upon the question which would immediately follow, "That the Report be read a first time."

said, his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) would have full opportunity to examine the accounts and criticise the conduct of his steward, notwithstanding this Resolution; and it was not necessary that the third person—the servant of the steward, who brought the books—should be kept waiting for an hour, or an hour and a half, before he was permitted to lay them on the table.

said, he still must contend that they would be parting with an opportunity for discussion, if they allowed the Resolution to pass, but he would not press the matter to a division.

said, he had some doubt that the effect of this Resolution would be to mix up the discussion of different subjects together in a very confused manner.

said, he wished to know what was to be the course of proceeding with regard to the Committee on Bills which stood in different parts of the paper? Were the Committees which stood low in the paper to be brought up, and precedence given to them over second readings, which stood between them and the first Committee?

said, the intention of the Resolution was to give the House power at any time to select a certain number of Bills, and refer them to be considered together in Committee on the day following—at a morning sitting most probably—so as to relieve the Speaker from the necessity of taking the Chair between each Bill to receive the Report as was now the custom. The case put by the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) did not apply to the Resolution; for, of course, then the Bills would have to be taken in the order in which they stood on the paper. It would always be in the power of any hon. Member to object to a Bill being taken into consideration in this way, and then it would go into Committee by itself just as at present.

said, he was of opinion that the course proposed would limit their powers of observation of the progress the business was making, and that the transit from one Bill to another would be less distinctly marked than it was under the present system.

said, he also thought that the proposed alteration would tend to produce confusion. As he understood the proposal, all these Bills were to be referred in a lump to a twelve o'clock sitting. Now, he wished to call the attention of the House to what it did last year, and what he hoped it would not do this year, with regard to twelve o'clock sittings. From a return which he had obtained from the officers of the House, he found that, last Session, on fifteen days that the House sat at twelve o'clock it also sat after midnight. The average length of each of these sittings was fourteen hours twenty minutes; two hours and forty minutes being the average number of hours beyond midnight, giving not less than thirty-nine hours fifteen minutes of sittings beyond midnight for the whole fifteen days. Now, this might be all very well for the Government, who could go through the business by relays, but it was too much for the Speaker and himself as Chairman of Committees. Still worse was it for the officers of the House —particularly the clerks in the Journal Office and the Public Business Office. The clerks in the Journal Office were obliged to stay for at least an hour after the House rose, and they were expected to be at work again by ten or half-past ten in the morning. There certainly was a limit to human powers, and he hoped the House would have a little mercy on its officers.

said, he should support the Resolution. He did not believe it would lead to confusion, and it certainly would relieve the Speaker, rather than increase his labours. With regard to his hon. Friend who had just spoken, he thought the good feeling of the House would always induce it to interpose for his relief, when the labour was becoming too severe.

said, he wished to know what was to be done when a division in Committee took place, and it was found that there were not forty Members present, or when any other cause arose of the Chairman having to leave the Chair, and summon the Speaker? He confessed he could not see his way clear as to the working of these Resolutions.

said, he thought the Resolution would tend greatly to facilitate business and to save labour to the Speaker. With regard to Bills "in progress," the practice now was for the Speaker to leave the Chair as a matter of course, and when the House resumed, if the next Bill were "in progress" he left the Chair again in the same manner, and so on through all the Bills that were in this stage. If this Resolution were adopted, all this loss of time would be saved; and, with regard to those Bills which were not "in progress," it was only meant to apply to those about which there was no objection, for if any Member opposed their being referred to this general Committee, his objection would be fatal, and the Bill, of course, would then be referred to a separate Committee.

said, that if the Resolution were agreed to considerable inconvenience might arise. For instance, a Bill of some importance in Ireland—the Dublin Carriage Bill—slipped through a second reading at a time when many Irish Members interested in the matter, believing that the Oxford University Bill, which preceded it, would have occupied more time in Committee than it did, upon the night in question were absent. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Grogan) had now a notice upon the paper to move that the Bill be committed this day six months; but if the Resolution of the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) were agreed to, he would be unable to move it.

said, that in such a case as that alluded to by the hon. Member for Dublin the Bill would not be referred to a general Committee.

said, he would now move the next Resolution, which related to the adjournment of the House from Friday to Monday. As the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had expressed an intention of opposing this Resolution, it might, perhaps, be desirable that some statement should be made of the views of the Committee upon it. ["No, no!"] If the House objected to hear any explanation, of course he would not proceed with any further remarks.

said, he thought it would not be doubted that this was the most important of the Resolutions which had been submitted by the right hon. Member for Droitwich. Though a Member of the Committee from which these Resolutions had been reported, he had been unable to attend its deliberations in consequence of being upon another Committee requiring his attendance almost every day, or he should have objected to this Resolution, as he intended to do now. He was not sanguine enough to suppose that, if he had attended the Committee regularly, he could have prevented the adoption of the Resolution, but he thought he could have brought forward some strong reasons to induce the Committee to hesitate before they adopted it. Every hon. Member would desire that the business of Parliament should be proceeded with as rapidly as was consistent with the proper transaction of public business, but, at the same time, he thought they ought to be cautious how they gave up any of those occasions upon which they could "pull up" the Government a little now and then. Of course, sitting upon the same side of the House as Government, he could not be supposed to be hostile to them; but, upon whatever side of the House he sat, he should hold the same opinions. Indeed, were the impossible circumstance ever to occur of his becoming a Member of a Government, he should continue to hold the opinion he entertained at present, that it was highly desirable for the executive officers of the State sitting in that House to be aware that there were occasions when observations could he made criticising their conduct, stimulating them to that which was good, and holding them back, if possible, from that which was evil; and at the same time it should be remembered that while this operation was being performed upon the Government of the day information was often communicated to the public. If it were necessary, instances could be referred to of occasions when discussions on this particular Motion of adjournment on a Friday of considerable importance and interest had taken place. The House had already, upon going into Committee, given up several opportunities of discussion, and a strong case should be made out before they proceeded any further in that direction. Almost every Session for the last few years Government took up a larger number of days for the transaction of Government business, and hon. Members found that, from some cause or other, the business of the House was gradually becoming more Government business than that of independent Members. If he was not mistaken, the noble Lord the Member for London had this year requested, with more pertinacity than before, that the number of Government days should be still further increased, and yet, though so much time had been given up to Government, the noble Lord must acknowledge that, in reality, less of Government business had been transacted this year than in previous Sessions. He had a great dislike to change for the sake of change, and in this particular case he appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to take a true Conservative view of the question, and let well be well, unless strong reasons could be given for an alteration. It could not be asserted that the privilege possessed by independent Members had been abused, for he found that last Session only five instances had occurred of a discussion having taken place on a Motion for adjournment on a Friday which this Resolution was intended to prevent. Upon one of these occasions the attention of the House had been occupied for about an hour on a question put by himself—a question of considerable interest at the time— relating to the Government of India, to which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had given him a not very pleasant answer. The right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty—who was smiling at this statement—knew that the subject was one with respect to which the Government was in considerable difficulty, and which was discussed at meeting after meeting of the Cabinet, in reference to the propriety of proposing immediate legislation or of postponing it. It was, therefore, he thought, not unreasonable that he should put the question which he had put to the noble Lord, and should take up the time of the House for fifteen or twenty minutes in stating his reason for putting it. Upon another occasion, some years ago, he remembered the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) when in opposition, bringing forward a discussion relative to the foreign policy of the country upon a similar Motion. Indeed, the noble Lord the Member for London, in this very Session, upon art occasion which he thought would become historical, when the noble Lord was under the necessity of withdrawing an important Bill relating to the representation of the people, availed himself of a similar Mo- tion for bringing the question forward. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to deny the accuracy of the assertion of the hon. Gentleman.] At any rate the statement was made upon a Motion for adjournment, and was just as irrelevant as any other statement which might have been made. The instances he had now adverted to would, he thought, show the convenience of the House possessing, at least once a week, an opportunity in which a Member of the Government, or any independent Member, could originate a discussion upon any important question. He did not believe, if the change proposed by the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) were effected, the public business would be expedited. According to the present custom, there were two modes by which incidental discussions could be brought forward—one on a Friday, and the other on a Motion moved by any hon. Member for the adjournment of the House. The one proceeding was regular so far as the Motion for adjournment from Friday to Monday was concerned, but the other was altogether irregular, it not being intended that the Douse should adjourn, but the Motion being merely made to afford an opportunity for discussion, and being then withdrawn by leave of the House. A case occurred recently where he had had occasion to find fault with certain statements made by a Cabinet Minister at a public dinner. He had intended to bring the matter forward on the regular Motion for adjournment on Friday, but had postponed it till Monday, in consequence of a request being made to him to that effect, the Minister in question being unable to be present on the Friday. He accordingly moved the adjournment of the House on the Monday following, but he thought it would have been preferable to have brought on the discussion on the Friday rather than move that the House adjourn, when he did not intend that it should adjourn, and when he knew the question of adjournment would in reality not be taken into consideration at all. If the Resolution were agreed to hon. Gentlemen would be constantly rising to move adjournments, and the transaction of public business would be much more retarded than if the privilege at present possessed were continued. Upon the grounds he had stated he objected to the Resolution, and he should divide the House upon it.

said, he opposed the Resolution as an attempt to deprive independent Members of an opportunity of questioning the policy of Government. A system of encroachment upon the privileges of independent Members had now been going on slowly, but steadily, during the last twenty years. All the opportunities which hon. Members had of originating discussions had been taken from them, and it was now proposed to deprive them of their last and sole resource. If the Resolution were carried, the danger would be that independent Members would be continually moving the adjournment of the House.

said, he objected to the Resolution, because he thought it interfered with the opportunities which independent Members possessed of discharging their duties to their constituents, and as Members of that House. It really appeared as though Ministers, and those who had contracted Ministerial habits by having filled high offices, were desirous of preventing independent Members from being heard at all, or of taking any past in the proceedings of the House. If such a Resolution as this was to be carried, he thought the right hon. Gentleman who proposed it was bound to show that the existing practice had been abused, and that it was productive of inconvenience. He (Lord D. Stuart) was in a position to show that it had not been abused, or that it had been productive of any inconvenience. During last Session only three discussions occurred on this particular Motion being made. The first, and most striking instance, was that of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), when he drew the attention of the House to the India Bill. The debate on that occasion did not interfere with the business of the House, for the Jew Bill was afterwards discussed, and a division took place, and the House adjourned at a quarter past twelve. On the second occasion the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) constituted himself for the time the Secretary for the Treasury, and moved that the House adjourn until Monday, and made a speech on the affairs of India, which was answered by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell). That debate did not last more than an hour. The third instance was that in which the hon. Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) called the attention of the House to the Six-Mile Bridge affair, and the noble Lord gave his sanction to the proceeding of the hon. Member. In the course of the present Session the right had not been abused. During the Derby Administration there were only two occasions on which debates took place on the usual Motion for adjournment, on one of which the debate occupied a very short time, and on the other the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department made a long speech. For himself he could say that, if this Motion were carried, he should avail himself of any opportunity which the forms of the House allowed him to bring before the House any matters of urgent importance to which he might consider it his duty to advert.

said, he must entreat the House to consider what they were now asked to vote. Independent Members now possessed few opportunities of bringing forward Motions. He had seen a great curtailment of their privileges, and he doubted whether it would be for the advantage either of the Ministry or of the public to increase these restrictions. The power of speaking upon the Motion for the adjournment of the House from Friday to Monday had not been abused, and the matter had better be left to the discretion of hon. Members.

said, he could not vote against this Resolution without explaining that, as a Member of the Committee, he had disapproved the proposition. The Resolution was passed when he was not present, or he should have divided the Committee upon it. He had always considered this as a popular privilege, and he thought that upon the whole it had been exercised very much for the public advantage, and that its abrogation would give occasion to much inconvenience in the conduct of the public business. He did not look upon legislation as the whole, or even the chief, business of the House. The House of Commons was the exponent of public opinion, which it sometimes led and sometimes followed, and the country would not be satisfied unless its representatives had legitimate opportunities of discussing the opinions and feelings of the public out of doors. There could not be a more legitimate occasion of doing so than this old habit of moving the adjournment of the House on Friday. He could not remember any instance in which this privilege had been abused, while he could recall to mind many instances in which it had been exercised for the public advantage. He could not, therefore, support this Resolution.

said, he thought it impossible to force this Resolution upon the House. Having, as Chairman of the Committee of 1848, taken an interest in this subject, he had received a letter from the late Sir Robert Peel, who said he very much feared that, without the general concurrence of the House, a mere alteration of rules and a curtailment of the opportunities which independent Members possessed would not effect the desired end. Sir Robert Peel said—

"If I tell a talking bore in the House of Commons, 'You are an intolerable nuisance, and you shall only have fourteen opportunities of wasting the time of the House instead of nineteen,' I am afraid I should not diminish by one-fourth his means of annoyance. I should probably only give him a new arena for the exercise of a perverse ingenuity in showing how the remaining rules may be evaded."

The experiment of restrictive rules had been tried in the United States, but it appeared upon the debate on the Nebraska Bill that the Deputy Speaker had abridged the period allowed to each speaker from one hour to half an hour, and would not "give any Gentleman the floor" unless he engaged not to move an Amendment. He concurred with the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) in opposing this Motion.

said, he did not think it expedient to propose any Resolution at all restricting the opportunities of debate, unless with the general concurrence of the House. At the same time he did not think that the proposition which had been assented to by the Committee was at all unreasonable, since it was founded on a desire to forward the public business. With regard to the practice, he would admit with the hon. Member for Manchester that there were few occasions on which the Motion for the adjournment on Friday had led to much discussion, and that, with scarcely an exception, the topics brought forward might be said to come under the description of urgent subjects. The proposal, however, was founded upon the danger becoming greater every day of an influx of observations and speeches which would take up the greater part of the time of the House on Friday. There had been this year several notices upon the adjournment of the House on Friday, on one subject and the other, as if it were intended to make of Friday a regular day of notice of Motions. That had not been the case as yet, and if the privilege were abused it would always be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) or any other Member to propose the Resolution. He therefore ventured to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better to withdraw the Resolution, seeing that it did not meet with the general concurrence of the House.

said, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that this Resolution ought not to be pressed upon the House in the face of so much opposition. There were nine Members of the Committee present when this matter was discussed, including the noble Lord himself, and this Resolution received the unanimous assent of the Committee. He must deny that the present Resolution was an encroachment upon the privileges of Members. He would rather say that the practice of raising subjects of debate upon the Motion for adjournment on Friday had been a gradual encroachment upon the forms of the House. He believed there had been no instance of this practice until two years ago, when an hon. Member brought forward a Motion of which he had given notice a week before. This example had been followed by other hon. Members, and there seemed to be a danger that Friday would be regarded as a Motion day, when all sorts of irrelevant subjects of discussion might be brought forward. On one evening this Session an hon. Member had given notice of his intention to bring forward a particular subject on the Motion for the adjournment of the House on Friday, and after it was disposed of four other subjects were brought on without notice. He hoped there would be no unnecessary encroachment on the time given to the Government, but for the present he would withdraw the Resolution.

said, the introduction of the practice alluded to was very recent, and might lead to great inconvenience. Until 1848 discussions were allowed every night on the question of the reading of the Orders of the Day, but upon the recommendation of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that practice was discontinued. It was of the greatest importance that the House should know what questions were to come before it on any evening, but by the practice which had grown up, the House might be taken by surprise, and Members of the Government might be called upon to answer statements to which they were wholly unprepared to reply. The hon. Member for Manchester had on one or two occasions taken advantage of formal Motions, and made a long speech for which hon. Members were totally unprepared, and of which they had had no notice. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) would retain the Resolution in his mind, in order that it might again be proposed should there be any disposition on the part of hon. Members to abuse the privilege.

said, he had only once this Session spoken on the Motion for adjournment to Monday, and that was upon an occasion on which a noble Lord had made a statement relative to his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) which he no doubt now wished he had not made. He had also only spoken once upon this question last Session.

said, he wished to move an Amendment to allow lodging-houses (subject to the licence of the Vice Chancellor), as well as private halls, to be opened for the reception of students. He believed it was part of the ancient constitution of the University that the respectable resident householders should be allowed to receive students as lodgers, and he conceived that such a course would be extremely advantageous to the poorer class of students. He believed that at one time there were no fewer than 300 hostels or lodging-houses open in Oxford. But the great recommendation of his Amendment would be, not that it was a return to the ancient system, but that it would be the best way to enable poor students to obtain a University education. The Commissioners recommended this system in their Report, and some of the most valuable witnesses who appeared before the Commissioners were in its favour, among whom he might cite Professor Vaughan, Professor Wall, Rev. Mr. Patterson, Sir Charles Lyell, and the Rev. Mr. Jowett. But, while he recommended the opening of these halls, he was not in favour of the establishment of what was called poor halls. He thought the separation between rich and poor was already too great in this country, and he thought the climax of that separation would be reached if they were to open halls expressly designed for poor students. The best system, in his opinion, would be to allow the students to lodge where they pleased, as was done in Scotland. No evil resulted from the sys- tem there, and he did not see why any evil should be anticipated in Oxford. He was aware it might be said if these lodgings were allowed young men would be subject to greater temptations, but he thought the richer class of students would be well taken care of by their parents, who would place them either in a college, with a private tutor or with some professor, who would look after their moral conduct and assist them in forming religious habits, while the poorer class of students would not. from their narrow circumstances, be liable to encounter the temptations referred to. They had evidence as to the poorer students in the Scotch Universities, many of whom were obliged to return home in the recess and work at farm labour, in order to enable them to come up next Session to attend college. He could cite cases in which many young men and good scholars had so betaken themselves to honourable labour in that manner, and the Report of the Commissioners, in mentioning the fact, stated truly that young men, trained in such a manner as that, were capable of going through great hardships and difficulties. He thought some such system of lodging-houses might be well adopted at Oxford—of course under the security of the licence of the authorities. It might be objected, if they did so, they would injure the colleges; but he believed it would largely increase the number of students in the University, and whatever tended to have that effect would in the same proportion increase the influence of the colleges. By refusing to adopt such a suggestion they were really not following the recommendation of the Commissioners; but, believing as he did, that by making such a provision both the University and the nation would derive great advantages, he should move to insert the words "resident householders" in the clause.

said, the speech made by his hon. Friend tended in some degree to forestall the discussion on the clause as it stood, upon which, though he feared he could not anticipate the unanimous consent of the Committee, he hoped to get a large majority. The hon. Member proposed to go back, without modification, to a state of things which existed at a remote period. But it was a dangerous thing for one age to imitate, or, if he might use the word, to ape the manners of another on the ground of precedent, without first ascertaing that all the circumstances of the two cases were alike. He for one was not prepared to recommend the establishment of the ancient system of the University in its full freedom. That was a state of things which belonged to a turbulent period, in which ideas of discipline were of a different character, in which there existed a religious discipline exercised by an ecclesiastical system. No such system existed now, but, notwithstanding the strength of that ecclesiastical system, when it was in full power, the Universities were among the most turbulent places in the whole kingdom. At that time frays and fights, attended with bloodshed, and tending to disturb and break up the peace of the whole city and neighbourhood, were of frequent occurrence, and, although he did not mean to say that would be the precise effect of his hon. Friend's Amendment, the immediate result of its being carried would, he had no doubt, be that the corporation of the city of Oxford would make a considerable addition to its police force. The case of the Scotch Universities had been quoted by his hon. Friend, but he thought such an argument was inadmissible, from the habits of the country, for he said it to the credit of Scotland, the power of individual self-control was far greater there than in England, and it was most dangerous to say that, because a certain system was tolerable in Scotland, it should be introduced wholesale into England. They proposed going as far by the Bill as they dared with a due regard to the question of discipline. The discipline of the University and colleges, even at the present moment, was doubtless far from perfect, but it was a real system of discipline, and it exercised a very salutary and beneficial control over the conduct of young men, which he felt convinced the Committee would not assume the responsibility of breaking down. Now, he would ask the Committee whether they thought the Amendment was compatible with the maintenance of this system of discipline or not? The Bill proposed that members of Convocation of a certain standing should of right, provided they conformed to strictly legal statutory conditions, be entitled to open their residences in Oxford as private halls for the reception of young men, who would, to all intents and purposes, fully enjoy the privileges of the University. He thought the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) would admit that that was a material, though he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) felt satisfied that it was a safe variation from the existing system. The Bill provided that a person should have this right provided he conformed to certain conditions, to be fixed by the University, with regard to his standing and other matters, and the 41st clause of the Bill laid down certain regulations with regard to the government of these private halls and the instruction and discipline of the students residing therein. This provision ensured to the University the means of restraint and control over the persons to whom the privilege of establishing private halls was granted, for the University could strike those persons off the books, could deprive them of their degrees, and could require guarantees for the proper conduct of their houses. The Amendment of his hon. Friend would, however, enable any person to open a lodging-house for students in Oxford, without any guarantee that the person opening such house was qualified in any degree to superintend or to be responsible for the morals and discipline of the students who resided with him. It would, in his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) opinion, be most unsafe to go so far beyond anything now existing either at Cambridge or Oxford with regard to the lodging-houses for students. His first objection to the Amendment was, that the persons to be authorised to open lodging-houses were not presumably qualified by character, position, or acquirements, to exercise any moral influence over the young men; and his second objection was that the restrictions which were applicable to members of the University who would be enabled to open private halls under the Bill would not be in the slightest degree applicable to the owners of ordinary lodging-houses. Even in the case of the Scotch Universities, he could not conceive that any person who chose to go and live in Edinburgh or Aberdeen would be entitled to open his house as a private hall for the reception of students. He really thought it would be much better to say to every lad of sixteen or seventeen years of age who was sent to Oxford, "You may look after yourself, and be the supreme guardian of your own manners and morals," than to resort to the delusion and imposture—he did not use the word offensively, for he was sure the hon. Member for Dumfries meant nothing of the sort— of investing with certain powers of discipline over the students persons who were altogether unfit for such a trust.

thought that his hon. Friend who proposed to restore the University to what he considered its original condition could scarcely be aware of the violent contests which, under that state of things, constantly took place between the members of the University and the townsmen. One of the extracts with which he had met thus described the morals of the time—

"In unâ autem et eâdem dome scholæ erant superius—prostibula inferius. In parte superiori magistri legebant; in inferiori meretrices officia turpitudinis exercebant."

He found, in a writer of considerable authority, an account headed, "De Infortunio inter Scholares et Laicos Oxonienses," which described "Maximus conflictus, plures vulnerati, viginti occisi, duravitque dictus conflictus quasi per duos dies," the conflict being eventually stopped by a religious procession. Sir William Hamilton, a very able writer in the Edinburgh Review, said—

"The Nominalists and Realists withdrew themselves into different 'burse-bursch,' whence they daily descended to renew their clamorous and not always bloodless contests in the arena of public schools. Thus Ingolstadt, Tubingen, Heidelberg, Erfurth, were divided."

Henry, in his History of Great Britain, also said—

"The Universities of England were frequently disturbed and almost ruined by violent quarrels among the scholars, or between them and the townsmen. In the quarrels among the scholars, the southern English, Welsh, and Irish commonly formed a party against the northern English and Scots. Many of the members of both Universities, being desirous of avoiding both these quarrels, retired to Northampton, A.D. 1260, and began to form a new University. Thirty years afterwards the University of Stamford began, and terminated in the same manner."

He (Mr. Phillimore) thought there was a desire to restore things to their original condition without at all considering what that condition was, and he conceived that the clause, both as it stood, and as it would be altered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries, would certainly disregard that order without which a University must fail to effect its main object. For his own part, he never passed through a German University, which was a public pest, without congratulating himself that the English Universities were conducted in a different manner. He did not dispute the amount of attainments occasionally acquired in German Universities, and which enabled men to apply themselves to critical studies, but the object of our Universities was to qualify men for the duties of active life, and in the noble lan- guage of Milton, to fit them to perform skilfully and magnanimously all the offices of peace and war. He considered that the high feelings and the sentiments of honour instilled at our Universities into the minds of English gentlemen, were mainly attributable to that system of discipline which, he believed, this clause would tend to destroy, and he should, therefore, feel bound to offer it his opposition.

said, he had no objection to the clause as it stood, except that he did not think it went far enough. He believed it would tend very materially to facilitate the access of poor students to the University, and that any provision which relaxed the present college monopoly would lead, if not now, at all events in future years, to the solution of the difficult question respecting the admission of Dissenters to the Universities. He would, therefore, vote for the clause, although he would do so more willingly if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) were adopted. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) objected to the Amendment, mainly on the ground that it would relax the discipline of the University, but he (Mr. Blackett) would remind the Committee that the proposal of the hon. Member for Dumfries was fully approved by the Royal Commissioners, including some of the most eminent men in the University. With the example of the students of University College and King's College, London, before them, there was certainly no fear that if they agreed to this Amendment we should have a revival of the tumults which characterised the Universities in the middle ages.

said, that as the opinion of the Oxford Commissioners had been referred to, he hoped the Committee would without dispose of the question with bearing in mind the opinion of the Cambridge Commissioners, for they had given it their matured and deliberate consideration; and their opinion was, that the introduction of any such system would be fatal to the discipline generally of the University itself. Reference had been made to the state of things which prevailed at Cambridge; but he begged to observe that no such system was to be found in existence there. The system at Cambridge amounted to nothing more than this—the masters of colleges had, in their discretion, the power of giving liberty to the young men to reside in the town, under such restrictions and conditions to secure discipline as they in their judgment might think it necessary to impose. By requiring a regular return to be made every morning of the hours at which the young men in lodgings came home on the previous night; by requiring them also to attend chapel in the morning, and to be present at the halls in the colleges, as effective a discipline was preserved amongst these young men as amongst those who were resident in the colleges themselves. The measure proposed by the hon. Member for Dumfries, therefore, would introduce a system to which the system now established at Cambridge would not bear the slightest similitude. He thought hon. Members might put it to themselves whether they would like to incur the responsibility of sending a young man to a University conducted upon a system under which they would have large bodies of young men resident in the county town of Oxford, not subject to any system of discipline whatever, but merely governed by such good sense as they might upon the whole possess at the age of seventeen or eighteen years. He trusted the Committee would reject the proposal.

said, he was most anxious that every means should be adopted for extending the privileges of the University, but though he would have great satisfaction in supporting the clause, he could not give his assent to the Amendment. He wished at the same time frankly to declare that one of the principal reasons which induced him to support the clause was his earnest desire to see Dissenters admitted to the Universities. It appeared to him that the system of independent halls would eventually afford facilities for obtaining University instruction to those who dissented from the doctrines of the Church of England, but he thought it was most desirable for the moral welfare and discipline of the students that, at the age of from sixteen to eighteen, they should be subjected to more adequate supervision than could be exercised over them in lodging-houses. He doubted whether students who took lodgings in Oxford would be better situated, in point of expense, than those who lodged in the colleges, and he believed that if they lived together in independent halls, they would live at a cheaper rate, and that a greater spirit of emulation would be excited among them with respect to learning than if they lived apart from one another.

said, he concurred in much that had fallen from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart), but he hoped that he would withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Committee to proceed to a discussion upon the main question involved in the clause. If the clause was agreed to, it would he very easy then to attain the object of the Amendment by adding a proviso. The advocates of the present system talked of the discipline of the college as if it were perfect; but it only amounted to this, that a student, whether in or out of a college, might amuse himself up to twelve o'clock at night—at least, this was the case in the college to which he belonged—by paying a small fine to the porter. The Cambridge University Commissioners stated that there was better discipline kept up among those who resided without than among those who resided within the college; and the reason for this was obvious. If students resided in a college, they remained up in their own rooms, gambling and drinking and doing what they pleased up to two or three o'clock in the morning; but, if they lived in separate apartments, they were obliged to break up their orgies at an earlier hour. He thought that the University of Dublin was a model of what a University ought to be, and he appealed to the hon. Gentleman who represented it to state what had been the results of the system which was there in force? At that University residence was not compulsory, but any one who could pass a competent examination was entitled to take a degree, and he hoped that the Committee would adopt the principle, with respect to Oxford, that private halls ought to be established.

said, he also would recommend that the Amendment should be withdrawn; but he differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman in thinking that we ought to be guided, with respect to the University of Oxford, by the precedent of the University of Dublin. The resident members and tutors of the University, who were the best able to form an opinion upon this point, considered that the number of persons belonging to or unconnected with the University who wished to alter or modify the present system by allowing a number of the students to lodge with the townspeople was very inconsiderable, and they did not express an opinion in favour of any such change. He was of opinion that the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ewalt), if carried into effect, would destroy the moral and spiritual discipline of the University.

said, he should sup- port the Amendment, which he considered was a first attempt to do justice to a large class of Her Majesty's subjects—the Dissenters—who, although they were now excluded from the University, ought not to have their liberty of conscience unnecessarily interfered with. It was only by the erection of places of residence upon a new principle that the evil of keeping constantly in the same routine could be obviated, and fresh blood infused into the University. We had no reason, in these civilised times, to apprehend the occurrence of tumults such as those which had formerly taken place, and he would refer to the example of Edinburgh to show that the alterations proposed would not produce any ill effects. He believed that the present system of college discipline did not affect the morals of the students, but merely kept up an ecclesiastical monopoly and encouraged prejudices which ought to be relinquished.

said, a great principle was involved in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, but he objected to it upon several grounds, for he believed it would altogether break down the University discipline, although he did not think there was much to apprehend with respect to rows and tumults, for the fact was, that these things were not now in fashion—their day had gone by. The case of the University of Edinburgh, to whom the hon. Gentleman who spoke last had referred, did not bear at all upon the question now under the consideration of the Committee, for in a large town like Edinburgh the number of members of the University bore no proportion to the number of inhabitants, just as in London no one knew anything about the members of the University of London, for if they got into a row they were taken to a police office like other people. In Oxford and Cambridge, on the contrary, the members of the University formed a large proportion of the inhabitants of the town. Much better order prevailed now than was the case thirty years ago, and the habits of society had improved there as well as elsewhere, but he certainly looked forward with apprehension to the breaches of good order which might be committed if this proposition were carried into effect. At present, if a student jumped into a farmer's corn-field, for instance, and did any damage, the farmer directly asked, "What college do you belong to?" And he answered to college A or college B. The person who asked the question felt that he was speaking to a gentleman, and if he deemed it necessary to seek a remedy, he knew where to find him. But if the reply were to be merely "I am Mr. A. or Mr. B., and I belong to the University of Oxford," the person would say, "There are some four or five thousand gentlemen in the University of Oxford, and I will keep you in custody until I can make sure of whom you are, for looking for Mr. A. or Mr. B. in the University of Oxford, is like searching for a needle in a bundle of hay." He saw no object in the hon. Gentleman's Motion, except to enable any person, whether Jew, Christian, or heretic, to open one of these houses, and he should therefore oppose it, as he thought that, although the proposal in time Bill was bad, the Amendment was a great deal worse.

said, he should cordially support the Amendment, and he thought there was no force in the illustration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because a member of the University could be traced just as well if he resided at the house of some respectable tradesman as if he belonged to a college.

said, he wished to ask whether it was intended that the Vice Chancellor was to have the entire power of granting or withholding licences, without reference to any other person? If so, it would appear to be a very great power to place in the hands of one individual.

said, that the intention of the clause was to give to the University the fullest possible power of laying down by Statute fixed conditions of qualifications, without which there should be no title to a licence; but every person who was possessed of those qualifications would be entitled to require one from the Vice Chancellor, who would, therefore, be merely a functionary to grant the licences under certain conditions.

said, he did not think that the clause, as it stood, embodied that view. It should be so altered as to make it clear that nothing was to be done by the Vice Chancellor except in accordance with the regulations of the Statute.

said, he thought that some discretionary power ought to be left to the Vice Chancellor, who might other wise be called upon to license persons of immoral habits or notoriously dissolute lives.

said, that by the 41st clause it was expressly provided that the University should by Statute fix the terms and conditions of granting licences, and that that Statute would bind the Vice Chancellor. No rule could be more explicit.

said, that there was a want of responsibility in this case, and yet that there was no discretion. He thought it better to vest the granting of licences either in the Hebdomadal Board or the Chancellor, and then it would be the duty of the Vice Chancellor to inquire into the character and position of the persons applying, and to report upon them to the Board or the Chancellor. As the clause at present stood, the duty cast upon the Vice Chancellor would be a very invidious one.

said, he saw nothing at all invidious in it. His duty would simply be to certify that the persons applying for licences were possessed of the qualifications which were required by the 41st section.

said, he wished to move, its an Amendment, in lines 14 and 15 to leave out the words "as a private hall." The clause proposed to destroy a system which had hitherto worked most advantageously, and to revert to one which had been tried before and failed. There was no real want of accommodation in the University at present. There were about 100 rooms vacant at the present moment. It might be said that this accommodation was within the reach of richer students only, and that it was desirable to provide accommodation for students of a poorer class. This plea, by the way, was inconsistent with the enactment which followed at a short distance from the present clause—namely, that which took away from poor students all the preferences at present accorded to them on the ground of indigence. After all, however, the system of private halls was not likely to prove as economical to poor students as the existing system. Masters of arts, who were to be at the head of these private halls, would generally be married men, and no doubt could be entertained that they would live by the students. Perhaps there was no place in which lodging accommodation was so cheap as in the University of Oxford. Take the college in which he had the honour to be educated—Christ Church—as an example. There time rent of rooms ranged from eight to fifteen guineas a year; and for the latter sum a student could get as handsome a set of rooms as he could obtain in London for 100l. For these reasons, then, it might be doubted whether private halls would afford any advantages to students in respect to economy. unless, indeed, the persons placed at their head should be zealous theological partisans, and be inclined to forego pecuniary considerations from a desire to make converts. The strongest objection to private halls was founded on their tendency to impair the moral and spiritual discipline of the University. No security was taken that the master of arts should have the proper moral qualifications for being the head of a private hall. Then, again, no provision was made for the appointment of a successor in the event of one of these heads of private halls dying or retiring. Was there to be a recurrence to the old and free system which had formerly been tried and failed, as was stated by the Commissioners themselves? The mode of extending the University recommended by Convocation on the 23rd of May last was infinitely better adapted to effect that object than the system which the present clause would establish. it was recommended, on that occasion, to enlarge the power of the Vice Chancellor to permit students to reside with their relatives and other approved persons in the town, under certain regulations; to permit college halls to annex houses to themselves on certain conditions, and to authorise the establishment of independent halls under special regulations. Strictly speaking, the last recommendation was rejected for the present on merely temporary grounds; but there could be no doubt that it would ultimately be approved. As the additional accommodation thus recommended would be provided out of the college funds, the arrangement, on economical grounds, would be more favourable to students than that proposed by the Bill. The reference which had been made to the University of Durham was not in point, for the private halls there were the speculation, not of private individuals, but of the University itself. The clause before the Committee was open to the suspicion of being intended to let in Dissenters by a backdoor. On the 27th of April the noble Lord the Member for London said that those who advocated the admission of Dissenters to the Universities would stand on better ground after the Bill passed, because, in consequence of the establishment of private halls, it would not be imperative on Dissenters to do any act which would offend their consciences. This was not a straightforward way of meeting a great and important question which would effect a fundamental change in the University of Oxford; this question should be fairly met and considered. They ought not to have it said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his Friends, on the one hand, that they left the question of the admission of Dissenters untouched by the present Bill, and then have the noble Lord turning round to his Friends and saying, "Support this Bill; the 26th clause contains an admirable provision to pave the way for the admission of your sons to the University—this clause will be the means of introducing so much laxity of discipline and of theology that in a period of five years the most zealous advocates of the Church of England will not desire to keep up the present exclusive system." This was not the way in which the question ought to be met; it was opening a backdoor for the admission of Dissenters, who, on their part, would, if they were to enter the University, rather do so after the question had been fully and fairly discussed. The hon. Member for Dumfries had cited the Commissioners as authorities in favour of permission being granted to the students to reside in lodging-houses, but in opposition to such authorities were the opinions of Archbishop Whately, the present Vice Chancellor, and the Cambridge Commissioners, who were decidedly opposed to such a system. They said that there would be danger of men of loose morals setting up halls, with great laxity of discipline. Thus the Archbishop deprecated and denounced the very system to be established by this measure. The present Vice Chancellor of Oxford was a great friend of University extension, but he had expressed a similar opinion, asking what could prevent any adventurer, irreligious and unprincipled, from opening halls under such a system as that proposed by Government? The Cambridge Commissioners had reported against the proposition, stating their opinion to be that it was the extension of the collegiate system, and opening the door to the largest number of students, rather than to such a measure as the present, that the friends of University extension ought to look. The proposed system was one condemned by the highest authorities—it was a recurrence to a system which had been tried and had failed; a system which would lead to evils as great in another form—a system which, for three centuries past, the Universities had abandoned, and to which he hoped the House would not recur by adopting the clause in its present form. As the proposition contained in this clause was objectionable in itself, and not sanctioned by the authorities of the University, but condemned by those high in authority, he trusted the Committee would not sanction it.

said, he should oppose the Amendment. The 28th clause stated the qualifications and conditions of licensed masters, and gave the University full power of meeting the cases and difficulties mentioned by the hon. Member for Durham.

said, he was desirous of stating that the issue raised was not a convenient one, as the omission of the words proposed would not affect the substance of the arrangements; and, as a matter of arrangement, he did not care whether the words were omitted in the present clause, as they could be inserted in the following clause, in which the qualification of the licensed master was defined.

said, he should support the Amendment, as it appeared to him that the question as to the admission of Dissenters had not been fairly raised by the present clause, and that the attempt to admit them by a backdoor was not a statesmanlike way of dealing with the question, but a mere subterfuge. He could not conceive means by which the discipline of the University would be more effectually broken up than by these private halls, for the enforcement of discipline depended much more upon the colleges than the University. He was quite certain that if anything would destroy the feeling of equality which prevailed in the University system, it was the new system which they were about to introduce. He did not believe that it would afford the advantages to poor students, which the endowments of colleges, aided by the greater economy of providing for larger numbers, enabled colleges to extend to the indigent. Nor did he believe that by this means the commercial and mercantile classes would be induced to send their sons to pass several years at the University for education, since they were usually required to commence practising and learning by practice the primary elements, together with the detail of business, at the very age when a University education commenced. One fact, however, was sufficient to determine his vote, and, he thought, ought to decide the opinion of the Committee; and it was, that several of those, who were distinguished members of the University, and who were officially connected with its teaching—men, who, having been poor when themselves students, had obtained their education by the aid afforded to them from the endowments of the colleges, and by the college system of instruction, had come forward and had given evidence, based on their own experience, against this proposal. Among those who had thus at some sacrifice of private feeling endeavoured to inform those with whom the decision of this question would rest, stood honourably prominent Mr. Gordon, of Christ Church. Thus those who by interest, by position, and by connection were best qualified to judge how to promote and extend the advantages of the University among the middle and poorer classes were of opinion that it was not by means of private halls that those advantages could be obtained.

said, he had an Amendment to propose. It was to strike out certain words in the clause. The clause ran thus:—

"It shall be lawful for any members of Convocation, upon obtaining a licence from the Vice Chancellor, to open his residence for the reception of students, who shall be matriculated and admitted to all the privileges of the University, without being of necessity entered as members of any college or existing hall."

The words he proposed to leave out were these—"admitted to all the privileges of the University without being of necessity." Those words appeared to him to involve the principle of the clause. He had forborne hitherto taking any part in the discussion of this Bill, because, belonging as he did to the sister University, he did not consider himself competent to express any opinion as to the amendments which the system pursued at that University required, it being a system entirely dissimilar from that which was adopted at the University which he had the honour to represent. Nor should he, on the present occasion, have taken any part in the debate had he not believed that, by proposing to establish by law a new course of education at Oxford (such as this clause would do), there was an implication that a similar principle ought to be applied to the University of Cambridge. Had it been proposed that the University of Oxford should have the power in itself of deciding upon the institution of private halls, or upon the admission or non-admission of the system of such halls, he should not have had a word to say upon the question. If there were any value in the changes which had been made in the governing body of the University, it had become so much more popular in its nature, and comprised within it so large a majority of those who were best qualified to express an opinion either as to the University system or as to the college system, that the question as to how far private halls might be allowed might be well left to the discretion of that body. But that course not having been adopted, and fearing, as he did, with reference to the University he represented, the great danger to its discipline which this clause would necessarily effect, he felt himself compelled to move the omission of the words which constituted the very essence of the danger which he apprehended. Judging from the discussions which had taken place upon this subject, both in that House and elsewhere, it would appear that Gentlemen had come to those discussions with a feeling that the University and the colleges were necessarily antagonistic. But his view of the case was essentially different, and he believed that the prosperity of the University was dependent upon the united efforts of the University and the colleges, each in their proper sphere contributing together to form the character of the and educated and trained by their conjoint labours. That, however, was not the feeling of those who were favourable to the present clause. It was not the feeling, he feared, of the Commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the state of the University of Oxford; for those Commissioners had evidently proceeded on the assumption of that antagonistic principle. They had suggested, as a remedy for what they considered to be the defects of the existing system, three several propositions. The first was to establish affiliated halls connected with the colleges; the second was to establish halls under some kind of limited collegiate control; and the third was, that there should be independent small private halls, under the control of a master of arts, licensed and qualified as had been before recommended. With respect to the first and second propositions he had no objection whatever to offer; but he was decidedly opposed to the proposal of separating from collegiate discipline and instruction the members who were permitted to go to the University. It seemed to be the object of the Commissioners, as stated in their own Report, to open one class of private halls for no- blemen and gentlemen of large fortune, and another for a class much poorer than that which at present resorted to Oxford. Now, what was the principal advantage of a collegiate education as at present conducted? It was that moral discipline which was exercised within the different colleges, where men of all ranks and orders in society moved on a footing of equality. Meeting on a perfect footing of equality in the colleges, assembling to-gether at certain periods, attending the same lectures under the same instructors, and meeting daily in the college hall and college chapel, they acquired that degree of intimate connection and friendship which was essential to the formation of their character. What would be the situation of these different classes when they came to rank themselves in separate bodies under separate and independent masters? Each would be confirmed in those opinions and habits which were most adverse to a union with a class distinct in itself. If there was anything in England which it was desirable to encourage, it was union among the different classes of society, that the rich might be taught to know that the poor had feelings and qualifications which entitled them to rank among the highest, and that the poor might learn to appreciate the merits of those on whom they might otherwise look with envy. Some persons appeared to imagine that extravagance and dissipation were the only vices against which it was necessary to guard; but there were vices of a meaner class which were apt to affect the lower orders of society if educated in separate institutions, and which were as dangerous and as fatal to their moral character and to their usefulness in the world, as were the extravagance and dissipation of those of a higher rank than themselves. He very much feared that the tendency of this clause would be to embitter the differences between the different classes of society, and to foster in both of them the qualities which, of all others, it was desirable that neither of them should possess. Of the fifty-two gentlemen who were examined before the Commissioners upon this particular point, nine of them expressed an opinion in favour of private halls, twenty-seven expressed an opinion against them, and fifteen expressed no opinion at all. It has been said that the tutors approved of the system. Well, of the seventeen tutors who were examined before the Commissioners, only four approved of the plan, while thirteen dissented front it. It was, therefore, rather singular that in the paper published by the Tutors' Association, they recommended the establishment of private halls; and that the Rev. Mr. Lake, one of the ablest tutors in Oxford, who was not only a member of the Association, but one of the Committee by whom its constitution was drawn up, had expressed himself strongly against the establishment of private halls, on the ground that any system of superintendence, either morally or intellectually, would in them be impracticable. The simple question, then, for the House to consider was, whether they would give a Parliamentary injunction to adopt a particular course with respect to education in the University distinct from that which had hitherto prevailed, breaking up that system of collegiate discipline which was alone effective for the purpose of producing moral restraint, or whether they would leave the matter to the decision of the University itself, which must be supposed anxious for the extension of education, and which had now, under the present Bill, obtained a constitution so framed as to give to every element in the University, whether belonging to the University or the colleges, its due weight and consideration. He held it to be essential to order and discipline that a system of this kind should not be adopted in the University which he represented. He might remind the Committee that the Commissioners for inquiring into the University of Cambridge stated, he might almost say in affecting terms, the reasons which induced them altogether to repudiate as highly dangerous a system of this nature. He had no objection to the imposing on halls or lodging houses any control which might be thought necessary; but their connection with the colleges he held to to be essential to the moral and religious training of the students. Men were not sent in early life to a University merely to acquire knowledge, but also that, by means of moral and religious training, they might be fitted for the religious of after life. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.

said, he differed, not from the principles laid down by his right hon. Friend who had just moved the Amendment, but from the manner in which he had applied those principles to the consideration of this subject, which was one of real difficulty and some anxiety. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman, and with his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mowbray), in the principle that they ought to maintain at Oxford the essential characteristics of the present University system as there administered; and especially on two grounds —first, of that being a resident University, and secondly, of all its residents being governed on a system of religious and moral discipline. Nothing, certainly, could be further from truth and justice than to represent this as a sort of subterfuge for seeking to introduce Dissenters to the University. That question would be fairly raised by the hon. Gentleman who had given notice of his intention so to do: and it was unfair to attempt its discussion in an incidental way, in considering a subject with which it had no necessary connection. He, therefore, contended that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn) had confounded things essentially distinct in their character and their practical tendency; and a more striking proof of that could hardly be afforded than by the circumstance that he had cited evidence laid before the Royal Commissioners for which, as he (Mr. Roundell Palmer) read that evidence, there was absolutely not the slightest foundation. In point of fact, those who had read that evidence might have observed that the subject of private halls was nowhere distinctly or specifically touched upon from the beginning to the end of that evidence. The Commissioners were totally silent upon that point throughout; and they did not even notice it as forming one of the plans which came under their consideration. The Commissioners did not touch the subject; they gave no opinion in its favour; and they gave no opinion against it. It was a very remarkable circumstance, too, that Mr. Lake was himself not only one of the members of the Tutors' Association, who recommended the plan of private halls, but, he believed, one of its most active members. The want which those private halls would supply was this —the present colleges could not accommodate more than from fifteen hundred to two thousand men, with the utmost extension of which they were capable. He would ask the House to test the sufficiency of the existing system by a familiar illustration. When railways were first introduced he could imagine that the persons attached to the old system might say, people would never afford the expense of travelling by railways, that the country did not want them, and that the stage-coaches were not half full. The truth was nothing more than this—that the existing system in the University had suited itself to the particular wants of a particular class of persons, and that class was necessarily a limited class, from the peculiar nature of the system; and the other classes whom the existing system did not suit felt themselves practically excluded from it, and did not attempt to press into it. The present collegiate system had many and great excellences; it was excellent in itself, and it would be a great pity to destroy it; but, in point of fact, it was an aristocratic system, not wishing to use the word in any bad or invidious sense. It had also some of the inconveniences which must attend on such a system, especially that of the habit of expense. Hon. Members ought never to forget that when the sort of expense was mentioned of which the country complained, it was the habit of unnecessary and extra expense which the aristocratic system of the colleges and the difficulty of introducing a proper system under that traditional system must necessarily perpetuate. Now, in the private halls the whole system of expenditure would be regulated on principles of domestic economy by the master, and the atmosphere by which they would be surrounded would check rather than encourage extravagance. Besides, it appeared to him highly probable that in a large proportion of those halls there would be absolutely a better discipline than in the colleges; for in the colleges, after all, giving them credit for all their merits, what were their guarantees for discipline? They were very slight indeed; the liberty was extremely great; and the guarantees chiefly consisted in the moral example of the tutors, and in the better class of young men whom they attracted. The 31st clause provided for the maintenance of worship and religious and moral discipline; and he really did not share in the feeling or the belief that such persons as the University thought fit, as a class, to intrust with the responsible duty of presiding over these private halls, would be less willing to discharge that duty, and less capable, for the moral benefit of the students, than the authorities in the colleges. For those reasons he was strongly of opinion that it was worth while to try this system; they might, at the same time, try their affiliated and independent halls, but he could not believe that they could attain any other system at once so elastic us this would be, so capable of meeting the demands of the country for University education, and also so likely to secure good discipline.

said, he felt great regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth had thrown his weight into the scale of the Government on this occasion. Up to that time he had been the only Member who had defended the principle of private halls; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would explain the advantages expected to be derived from these private halls, and the grounds for believing those advantages would outweigh the obvious and grave objections to them. He considered this to be one of the most anxious parts of the present Bill, and one which gave the greatest alarm to those who took a sincere and lively interest in the discipline of the University. This being so, he wished to know why it was considered necessary to press the subject so irksomely upon the attention of the University at the present time? and thus to give assurance to that feeling of animosity against the authorities of the University which he had previously described as being but too evident throughout the whole scope and tone of the measure. It was important to consider what the University of Oxford itself had done. In the course of the last month the University had passed a Statute on this very subject, after long notice, so that the Government, when they introduced this Bill, must have been well aware of the intention of the University. That Statute. consisting of four parts, had been considered by Convocation. Three of its parts had been unanimously adopted, and the fourth, for the establishment of independent halls, was rejected, not from any objection to the proposal itself, but only because there was a difference of opinion as to the mode of appointing the principals of those proposed halls. He submitted that the Statute, as it now stood, in some respects went further towards extending the benefits of the University than this proposal of the Government, though it avoided those dangers to the discipline of the University which must be the result of this plan. As an evidence of what was really the opinion of the efficiency of these private halls, he would refer to a pamphlet which was familiar to most Gentlemen in that House, and which, although written by an anonymous author, was known to be from the pen of a most eminent authority, he meant the pamphlet that appeared under the title of Notes on the OxfordUniversity Bill, in which it was clearly shown what difficulty there would be to bring the discipline of the University to bear upon the studies of young men at those private halls, and how, in fact, the expenses incurred in those places would most probably not be less than those at present incurred. If this were so, it would overthrow the great argument in favour of these halls, which was, that the expenses in them would be materially less than those at the colleges and halls at present existing; an argument which was contradicted by the opinion of almost every one who really knew anything about the University and collegiate system. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had stated to the House that it was only a minority of the Tutors' Association, four out of seventeen, who approved roc these private halls, but he had not stated to the House the very strong opinion that some of them had expressed on this subject, to the effect that such a system of halls would admit as candidates for scholars men of every variety of character, who would hold out to students all kinds of immunities as to collegiate discipline, which might conduce to win the favour and secure the good will of young men attending the University. He confessed he thought that such a consequence would be much more likely to result from this provision of the Bill than that charitable individuals would be found, who, merely from philanthropy, and with no hope of gain and advantage, would press forward to become presidents of these private halls. Knowing well what the feeling of the leading members of the University was upon this subject, he could truly say that they viewed the institution of these private halls with the greatest alarm and the most serious disapproval, that they thought such halls would materially lower the character of the University, and that nothing could be more fallacious than to suppose that the establishment of the halls would tend either to increase the scope and utility of the University, or in any way advance those liberal notions which the present Government professed so deeply to venerate and propound.

said, that he did not consider a very fair use had been made of the opinions which he had expressed on the institution of these private halls. He had, on the introduction of the present measure, stated why he wished to stand and adhere to this portion of the Bill; and the views which he had then expressed were the same as he entertained at the present time; namely, that it was most desirable that a larger number of persons, by means of this Bill, should receive the advantage of a collegiate education, and that parents should have an opportunity of giving their sons the benefits which the University extended—at present to only a limited number of students. If this were the opinion nut only of himself and other Members of the Government and the House, but also, as he believed, of the community at large, it was indubitably the duty of Parliament to see how best such opinion could be met. It was proposed that persons who were householders at Oxford, well known, and well approved, should be called in to assist in this object, and the subject had in every way received the most serious consideration of the Government in all its bearings and importance. The system at present in use at Cambridge had been also considered, under which it was very well known that there were many men living out of college and in lodgings who were but in a very slight measure under the control or influence of the colleges to which they professedly belonged. What the effect of such a system was, however, any one might form an opinion for themselves, by reading the evidence of Dr. Pusey on this subject. These means, then, being inconvenient or questionable, the only resource left was the establishment of private halls, which possessed at once most of the advantages and supervision of the present colleges and halls without the necessary entailment of such expenses as were at present all but inevitably found to be attendant upon them. That some system of curtailment was necessary, and could be effected, was made manifest and proved by the testimony of Mr. Colley before the Commissioners, from which it appeared that at Durham the whole expense of a person going through the course of his collegiate career, obtaining his degree, and taking holy orders, amounted to only about 300l.; while at Oxford the very lowest sure at which a degree could be obtained, reckoning all attendant expenses, was upwards of 800l. This difference was so great that it must have considerable effect on the choice made by a parent of the University to which he would send his son. The question was one not for young men, but for parents. It would, no doubt, be a great temptation to a man of moderate means to send his son to Oxford, if be was sure of finding there a hall where there would be no rivalry of expenditure such as prevailed in the established colleges, presided over by a person respectable in character, of well-known attainments, and well able to maintain its discipline. It was said, however, that if there was a man who would open a hall for gay, thoughtless young men, they would naturally flock to such a place, and the general morality and discipline of the University would be weakened; but those who used this argument forgot that it was not generally young men themselves, but parents and guardians who made choice of colleges; and there would be no temptation to those to send their sons or wards to halls of that description. He thought that if they succeeded in establishing these halls they would have obtained their object of extending the benefits of the University of Oxford without impairing its morality or discipline. He must confess he thought there were evils connected with the University education which neither this nor other legislative enactments which would be entertained by that House would be likely to overcome. There were evils which belonged to the manners of the country, which allowed so much liberty to young men, that it would be very difficult by any discipline to prevent that extravagant and luxurious living which young men of fortune led at our Universities. Much mischief, he believed, was done by their example, and he wished it were possible that these young men of eighteen or nineteen could be kept under more effective discipline in this respect. With regard to the admission of Dissenters, it had always been said that they could not be admitted to the University, because if they were entered at colleges, and distinguished themselves there by their ability, they must naturally obtain a share in the government of their colleges, and thus discord would be introduced in the internal discipline and arrangement of the University. Not being admitted, therefore, into colleges, and there being no other places for them to go, they must continue to be excluded altogether from the University, but if these halls were established, the objection would no longer be good, and the Dissenters might be admitted to them without any of the evil consequences which were anticipated of their admission to colleges. But then it was said, this was admitting them by a backdoor, and that could not be allowed—rather a strange objection from those who had before objected to Dissenters being admitted at all to the honours and emolu- ments of the University. The result was, however, that at whichever door they sought to admit Dissenters, back or front, hon. Gentlemen opposite were for slamming it in their faces. He was of opinion—and it was no new opinion of his—that Dissenters should be admitted to the University. He believed the University of Oxford was fitted to diffuse great benefits in the mode of education all over the country, much more extensively than it did now, and, as the proposition contained in this clause was one of the modes in which these benefits would be more widely extended, he hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge.

said, that he objected to this clause, in the first place, because they had not left it with the University, who were by far the best judges, to decide what was the best method of extending the blessings of University education, consistent with the promotion of an efficient system of discipline. This objection would have had great weight with him at any time; but when they recollected that before this Bill was introduced, the Universities were actively engaged in promoting a scheme for the extension of University education and for bringing it within the reach of the lower and middle classes, that they were trying to do away with the extravagant expenditure, which was one of the great banes of the University, and that they had already passed a Statute which enabled them to do this to a great extent, he did think it was not fair to force upon them a plan against which they protested as interfering unduly with the collegiate system. With respect to the opinion which the colleges of Brasenose and Christchurch, amongst others, had expressed in opposition to the establishment of private halls, he would quote the following expressions of the Chancellor of the University, which, he said, expressed the opinion of the heads of all the colleges in the Universities:—

"It appears, indeed, by the Report and evidence, that to the general admission of students unconnected with colleges and halls very strong objections exist."

Thus they had both the Universities and the colleges resisting this plan which the Government were forcing upon them; and still we are told that this is an emancipating measure. He would now call their attention to another object which seemed to him to be fatal to the clause. It was proposed by the 28th and 29th clauses to throw open the endowments and emolu- ments connected with the several colleges, to be competed for by all the students of the University; and by this clause masters of arts were enabled to take pupils who were unattached to existing colleges and halls. The consequence would thus be, that those persons who were not attached to any existing college or hall, and who did not contribute to any, would have open to them the emoluments and endowments of all. There was no necessity for doing what was proposed. If they did do it, they would be doing that which was opposed by the authorities of the University, and which was considered not only by the authorities of the University of Oxford, but by those of the University of Cambridge also, extremely detrimental to college discipline. Seeing, then, that there was no necessity for this change—that the object which they had in view—the extension of University education—might be obtained without it—he trusted that the Committee would not sanction the proposal which the Government had made.

who rose amid loud cries of "divide," said, he wished to state in a very few words why he should feel it his duty, notwithstanding the weighty observations of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn), to vote for the experiment proposed. When he looked at the growing population and the growing wealth of the country, and yet saw that the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge did not matriculate more than between 900 and 1,000 students in the course of each year, it appeared to him clear that there must be a vast number of persons desirous and able to provide such an education as those Universities would give, who were, unfortunately, deterred from doing so by something in their present condition. And when he observed also what had been urged upon the other side, that some of the colleges were not at present full, it appeared to him that they not only wanted more room, but some variety and some change. He believed, also, that they had not yet had pointed out to them what the want really was, and that the only way to ascertain it was to give freedom to persons who would endeavour to supply that want for them. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had referred to a certain Statute recently passed at Oxford, as a reason why this experiment should not be tried. That Statute suggested a choice of two or three alternatives, and it contemplated the establishment of halls very much like these, except in one particular. It would facili- tate the lodging of the students in private houses in the town, which he thought was by no means an improvement. He thought that the facilities which this clause would afford would lead persons to establish houses with different views, upon different principles, and calculated to meet different descriptions of wants. Wants of different descriptions there might no doubt be—some of wealthy persons, some of poor persons, and some—which he thought had not been alluded to in the debate—of persons who might wish to give their sons an education at the University at an earlier age than they could do if they were obliged to put them into colleges with young men of twenty or twenty-one years of age. He thought that houses might be opened for these—beginning perhaps at the age of sixteen—in which a strict domestic discipline might be maintained, and which might be found very beneficial. For these reasons he thought it highly desirable that some such experiment should be tried, and, in doing it, he did not admit that they would be trying the experiment of "unattached students," alluded to by an hon. Friend. He thought it would be something very different from that. It would be the fault of the University, in making the necessary regulations, if it were not something very different from that; and, feeling that the objections of his right hon. Friend who had spoken in favour of the Amendment failed in their application to the case, he should give Ids vote for the clause.

said, that, before the Chairman reported progress, and while the House was yet full, it might be well for him to state that the Government proposed to make considerable alterations with regard to the remaining parts of the Bill. The discussions which had taken place on comparatively easy points involved in the measure showed the very great length of time which would be occupied by discussing in detail the numerous clauses which remained. He did not propose at present to enter into any explanation or discussion of the clauses proposed to be substituted; but he would say in a few words that they proposed that the Commissioners should have certain power which, if the colleges agreed to, or unless they dissented from them to the extent of two- thirds, should enable the Commissioners to enact certain Statutes in regard to the colleges. The clauses which he proposed to introduce for that purpose were four or five in number, and the whole of the remaining clauses in the Bill would be fourteen altogether, including all those that were retained, so that the whole number of clauses in the Bill would be forty-two instead of fifty-eight, and sixteen clauses of very great detail would be omitted. It was not his intention now to state the plan proposed, still less to discuss it, until the clauses proposed were printed. What he now proposed, therefore, was either to add these clauses, omitting those that were to be left out, and going into Committee on the Bill afresh, or, if that course should not be thought convenient, to give notice of the clauses, to have them printed, and to let them wait until Monday week, when the Government would propose to consider the Bill again. Perhaps the most convenient course would be to go through the remaining clauses and recommit the Bill, printing all the Amendments already agreed to by the Committee. When the Committee went into the Bill again, there would be an understanding that those parts already discussed would not be rediscussed in Committee, of course reserving hon. Members the right to move Amendments upon bringing up the Report. He should now propose that the Chairman do report progress, and that they should go into Committee on the Bill to-morrow pro formâ.

said, he understood that, generally speaking, the Commissioners were to have power under the Bill of making alterations in the University and the colleges, unless the colleges commenced those alterations themselves. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether a longer period was to be given to the Commissioners to make these alterations, and whether more alterations were to be made than those shadowed forth in the Bill? It would be reasonable, he thought, to have the Bill put into such a shape as that the House should be enabled to judge of it as a whole, and then that they should resume with those parts at which they had left off.

was understood to say that the Commissioners would have an extension of time allowed them.

said, that the great objection he had always made to the Bill was that it did not leave sufficient freedom to the University or colleges, and he wanted to know whether, by the proposed alteration, a greater or less amount of freedom would be left to the University and colleges?

said, he thought they could hardly enter into a discussion of that point until they saw the actual clauses that were to be introduced. He understood the noble Lord proposed to recommit the Bill on the following day, to insert new clauses, and leave out the clauses which he meant to omit, and he (Mr. Goulburn) thought that would be a most convenient course for the House to adopt. All he hoped was, that care would be taken to reprint the Bill so that they should have it as soon as possible after recommittal, and not be driven to examine it within a day or two of the actual discussion.

said, he thought it would be convenient if the noble Lord would give an answer himself to the question of his right hon. Friend. The noble Lord was aware of the nature of the clauses, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, who answered for him, was not aware of them.

was afraid he might be misleading the right hon. Gentleman if he gave a positive answer to his question. He would say, however, as to the clause with respect to the University, and as to the clause respecting the colleges, that in his opinion greater liberty would be given to the colleges, but the right hon. Gentleman might complain hereafter if he misled him.

hoped that due attention would be paid to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge. They were now asked to consent to alterations in this Bill which, in point of fact, would make it a new Bill; and the noble Lord wished them to go into Committee on the Monday after the recess; but that was scarcely fair, for as they would separate the day after to-morrow, it was not likely they would have the Bill before they separated, and it would not be reasonable to ask the House to go into Committee on so early a day as had been named by the noble Lord.

I propose, then, to take the Bill on Thursday se'n-night, instead of Monday week.

said, he understood that by the proposed alterations the powers of the Commissioners were to be enlarged, and begged to ask if the noble Lord would reconsider the composition of the Commission.

We propose to make an addition to the number.