moved the following clause—

"From and after the first day of Michaelmas Term, 1854, it shall not be necessary for any person, upon taking the degree of Bachelor in Arts, Law, or Medicine, usually conferred by the said University of Oxford, to make or subscribe any declaration, or to take any oath, save the oath of allegiance, or an equivalent declaration of allegiance, any law or Statute to the contrary notwithstanding."

The hon. Member said, that taking the decision of the House on Thursday night last as a fair expression of its opinion, that a large majority were in favour of opening the matriculation in the University of Oxford to all classes, and that the approval of a majority of the House could not yet be obtained for the opening of the governing body in the University; he had, therefore, deemed it prudent to modify the clause, so as to make it more likely to meet with general approval, for it was his wish that the changes in the University of Oxford should be moulded in concurrence with the general feeling of the House of Commons, for he considered even such an alteration as the present one a great improvement upon the existing state of the University. He had, therefore, modified the clause, and it would now stand, that no person should be required to subscribe any declaration on taking the degree of bachelor of arts; so that students who objected to making declarations, by being allowed to take the degree of B.A., would have some definite object to study for. Students taking the B.A. degree were generally in the position of candidates for fellowships; but here the Act of Uniformity, which required that all fellows of colleges should conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, came into operation, so that, of the Dissenters admitted to the University, the Wesleyan Methodists would, perhaps, alone be able to profit by this clause so far as endowments were concerned, and, with regard to the great mass of Dissenting students, the only practical reward would be the B.A. degree. Still he was quite ready to avow that he considered the privilege which he proposed to confer by this clause was nothing more than an instalment of justice; and, therefore, if the House assented to the present Resolution, he would next Session move for a Select Committee to inquire generally into the subject, and into the nature of the distinctions between secular endowments and those that were purely ecclesiastical. The question was discussed before Parliament in 1772, and shortly after the University of Cambridge altered the old tests to a simple subscription of membership with the Church of England. There were, now, many Dissenters on the books of that University entitled to take a degree who had never been able to do so; and, although petitioned on the subject, the University had shown no disposition to assist them. The adoption of the system of tests almost seemed to have had for its object to ignore the laity, and these regulations in former years appear to have been to make Oxford altogether an ecclesiastical institution. It was highly improper that that great place of learning should take such a position;—the tests that existed there, for the degree of bachelor of arts particularly, were more stringent than in any other University in the world. So far from any great superiority of feeling with regard to religious matters resulting from this state of things, he believed that these tests and barriers had created a sentiment of conceit and pride in favour of their own opinions which was most injurious to the interests of true religion. At the present moment the students were obliged to learn the Thirty-nine Articles off by heart, and also the various Scripture proofs in support of those Articles, for their examination for the degree of bachelor of arts; and if the Resolution he now proposed were agreed to, he took it for granted that the Commissioners and the University authorities would effect some change in this respect. He hoped the example of the University of Dublin would be followed, and the degree of bachelor of arts be opened to students of all religious denominations. A great step was taken by the House on a former night, when they determined on throwing open the outer door of the University;—it would be a still more important step if they followed that up by opening this first degree. The degree of bachelor of arts was the one which the University recognised as the successful termination of a young man's career. And all he now proposed was, that they should allow that degree to be conferred without any test, and that it should be left to the Commissioners and the University authorities to perfect the details which were necessary for the accomplishment of that object. In Oxford itself there were many persons ready and willing to welcome these classes of students, and he looked upon their admission to take degrees as a matter of safety to the Established Church itself, because he regarded that Church as an institution which ought to be in harmony with the other institutions of the country. Municipal and other offices were open to Dissenters without a test, and the Motion he now made was merely the application of the same principle which the Lord President adopted in 1828, when he advocated the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. The degree of bachelor of arts was properly a secular degree, and in former times it merely referred to lay subjects; it was only of late years that it had been connected with theology, the reason being that the divinity students were but ill-prepared for their examination before the bishop. He looked upon the University of Oxford as an institution which had been kept nursed and shut up like a hothouse for the Church, and he considered that letting in a little open air and fresh vitality would be greatly to its advantage. To allow students to take the degree of bachelor of arts in the usual manner would be merely carrying out the Resolution agreed to the other day, and upon that ground he begged to move the introduction of the clause of which he had given notice.

seconded the Motion. He had voted in favour of the first clause proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire the other night, under the influence of a feeling which he believed was shared by a great majority of the Members of that House—namely, that it was not just or fitting—he had almost said that it was a mockery—to call upon young men on their first entrance at the University to subscribe thirty-nine theological propositions, on which it was not in the nature of things that they could have formed any mature opinion. He had voted in favour of the second clause proposed by his hon. Friend with great hesitation, and in opposition to the views of many Gentlemen for whom he entertained the highest respect. He confessed, however, that to his mind the argument had been irresistible, that if you asked young men to run the race of rivalry and competition at the Universities, the rewards of merit ought not to be withheld. There was one consideration which had been very much lost sight of in the course of these discussions, which appeared to him (Mr. Gaskell) to have an important bearing upon the subject, and which materially diminished any apprehension that he might entertain with respect to the practical consequences of this change. To hear some Gentlemen speak of religious teaching at the University, one would suppose that the academical authorities were themselves agreed as to what that teaching should be, and as to the construction that should be placed upon the Articles of the Church of England. But it was perfectly notorious that the direct contrary was the fact. Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, however desirable it might be, was a poor security for Churchmanship. It was impossible to forget the fact that during the last fifteen years the ablest and most powerful opponents of the Established Church had not been members of the dissenting body, but members of the Church of Rome, who had signed these articles at matriculation, and who had afterwards been engaged in tuition within the walls of their respective colleges. If they were to have tests then, what was really required was some stringent declaration from the teacher and not the pupil. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? was the real question—the question most pressing for an answer at the University of Oxford. He (Mr. Gaskell) was by no means sure that the adoption of this measure would not produce a beneficial effect upon members of the Church of England, for he believed it would be the means of reconciling many differences which now prevailed, and concentrating many energies that were now dispersed and wasted. He also believed it would have the effect of bringing many Dissenters within the pale of the Established Church. It was im- possible to listen to such speeches as those which had been addressed to the House during the present Session by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Byng), and by his hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir J. Ramsden), who had spoken for the first time the other night with so much ability and good feeling, without perceiving that there were many Gentlemen in that House, ornaments to the Universities and faithful members of the Church of England, who were earnestly desirous that these restrictions should be removed. And so far from concurring in opinion with an hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Wigram), he (Mr. Gaskell) might be permitted to say that he had rejoiced to hear the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord Stanley), when he had come forward in a manner so worthy of the name he bore, and of the position he held, to give a frank and full expression to his views upon this subject. It was said that this was not the time to legislate, because the University was disposed to apply itself to the work of reform without the intervention of Parliament, and was not disinclined to consider in a fair and liberal spirit the practicability of these changes. He (Mr. Gaskell) at once admitted that that was a conclusive reason against the use of harsh or irritating language towards the University—against the adoption of a tone of taunt or menace—but it seemed to him that the present was the time of all others for a temperate declaration of opinion on the part of the representatives of the people, that this was a concession to public feeling which ought to be made, and an act of substantial justice which ought not to be deferred.

said, he was one of those who had voted without the slightest hesitation for the retention of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, because he had subscribed those Articles himself. When he did so, he had been duly informed of the substance of what he signed. He signed them in the sense in which the University understood them, as the rudiments of the religion of the Church of England. Hon. Members spoke as if no one was prepared for matriculation, and as if these young men of sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen years of age, were not aware of the religion they professed when they made subscription to the Articles; they seemed to lose sight of the Fact that these young men had passed the age at which they were admitted by the right of confirmation to all the responsibilities of members of the Church of Christ according to the religion and forms of the Church of England. It was idle to condemn the requirement of subscription because there were disputes as to the meaning of the Thirty-nine Articles—he should like to know the fundamental religious truth that was not disputed. Why, if the hon. Member for Wenlock were to travel in Germany, he would not go far without hearing of the existence of a First Cause—the existence of God himself—disputed. The first proposition of the hon. Member (Mr. Heywood) had been agreed to by the House, and he (Mr. Newdegate) regretted its decision, but he understood the purport and meaning of that decision. It was this—that the University of Oxford, so far as the educational advantages which she proffered and conferred in all matters of secular import—in literature, in science, and in art—were concerned, should be open to persons who were not members of the Church of England. Well, if that was the determination of the House, it was a matter of very grave import; and he thought that everything which had happened proved how well founded was the intention of the Lord President to introduce this subject in a separate Bill, so that its relations might be fully weighed, and the House come to a calm, deliberate, and well-informed decision on the whole subject. The House also decided on Thursday night, that persons who were not members of the Church of England should not be admitted to the degree of master of arts, because that degree conveyed on their part a right to share in the government of the University. He rejoiced at that decision of the House as some mitigation of the evil involved in their first decision, because the University of Oxford had hitherto been closely connected with the Church of England, and he thought it was not too much to ask that, of three Universities, one should remain in connection with the national Church. According to the proportion of religious creeds and denominations existing in the country, that was not too much to ask. By the denominational returns of the Census recently published, and which was based upon answers which need not have been given, and upon voluntary returns which need not have been made, it appeared that the members of the Church of England attending divine service on a particular Sunday amounted to one-third of the population engaged in public worship on that day. He did think, therefore, that of three English Universities it was not too much to leave one exclusively to the education of that one-third of the population, who not only professed to be members of the Church of England, but attended her service on the day named in the Census returns. To revert, however, to the proposition before the House. The clause before the House was simply the rejected proposal of Thursday last renewed, and the modification of the clause of which the hon. Member for Lancashire had just given notice, was, in principle, the same. The modification was the striking out of the proviso, and the proviso was merely an exception, which explained the stringency of the principle contained in the first part of the clause, and which principle was, that, for the sake of admitting Dissenters to them, the degrees conferred by the University of Oxford should no longer be the same thing that they had been. A master of arts of Oxford was well known for these 300 years to be a person who had passed the full course of University education, based as it was upon the religion of the Church of England—upon Christianity as embodied in the formularies, and according to the Articles of the Church of England—and who was also accomplished in certain other studies which were directed by the University. That, having been what constituted a master of arts, the bachelorship of arts was merely a step towards the attainment of the full honour and capacity of a master. The hon. Member for Lancashire did not now propose to admit those persons who dissented from the Church of England to the full honour, the masterships; but he proposed to let them attain the last step preceding the mastership—that was to say, that not having followed the course of education up to that point which had always been required, they were still admitted bachelors of arts on a footing of equality with those who had pursued the full course of study prescribed by the University. Now, let not the House confuse two matters. Let them not refuse that which constituted a bachelor of arts with this novel distinction intended for Dissenters. The Oxford degrees had always been accepted, and acknowledged distinctions and guarantees for proficiency in certain studies, and for competency in teaching the doctrines of the Church of England. If they wished to constitute a new system of studies at the University, then why not also constitute a new distinction? By not doing so, they were merely creating confusion. He hoped the House would gravely consider—and they had not yet had the opportunity—how great was the change they were about to effect. This was but the first step—this was but the sharp end of the wedge introduced for the purpose of separating the University of Oxford from the Church of England. He objected to the clause because it involved a fallacy, and gave a new and partial interpretation to an old distinction, which created confusion, and was not necessary to effect the object of the promoters of this change, that object being to admit certain persons to a literary and scientific education and distinction, without religious teaching. If, then, the House determined upon having a new system of education in the University, he trusted they would appoint some new distinction in order to prevent confusion between those distinctions which had hitherto assumed the names of masterships and bachelorships of arts, and the practically new distinction they intended to create. He should vote against the clause.

said, that no doubt the proposition had come upon the House somewhat suddenly—the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) said that it was only a quarter of an hour before the House met fur public business that he determined upon the exact shape which his proposition should assume—still, he (Lord John Russell) thought it necessary that the House should come to some determination in pursuance of the clause which they agreed to the other night. The opinion of the Government was, that the two questions of the admission of Dissenters and the general government and conduct of the studies of the University should be kept distinct; but it was the opinion of the House that a clause should be introduced into this Bill for the admission of Dissenters. With regard to the merits of the question, he had never entertained the smallest doubt that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge ought to be open to the Dissenters. It had always appeared to him to be right that persons who dissented from the Church of England should nut be debarred front receiving those in- structions in science, in art, and in literature, which were afforded by those institutions. At the same time he felt that the measure would be very incomplete if they only allowed those persons to run the race, and excluded them from the prize—if it allowed them to study at the University, and debarred them from all those marks of honour and distinction which were the usual accompaniments of success. He, therefore, regretted extremely, when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heywood) proposed his second clause the other night, that it was in such a shape that, when the House divided, it would have been most inconsistent on the part of the Government to have voted in its favour. The distinction which he (Lord John Russell) drew, when addressing the House on that occasion, was, that whilst they ought to enable Dissenters to enter the University, and to derive such honours and advantages as properly attached to the studies there engaged in, they were obliged by the very nature of the institution, as a teacher of the Church of England, to debar the Dissenters from the government of the University and all the offices that pertained to that government. He adhered to that distinction now; and he thought that if they meant to continue the University of Oxford as a teacher of the Church of England, according to the standard of the Church of England, they should enable her to give that teaching in such a manner as to be without confusion and without interruption. He could not, therefore, agree to the second clause proposed by his hon. Friend on a former night. But the hon. Member had now put the clause in an entirely new shape; and what it proposed was, that Dissenters should be permitted to take the degrees of bachelor of arts, law, or medicine, without any subscription save the oath of allegiance. During the short time allowed to him he had been looking to see how the law would stand if such a clause were adopted; and he found that by the Act of Uniformity there was a declaration established, which was afterwards repeated by the Act to which he referred the other day, namely, the 1 & 2 Will. & Mary. This declaration was in these words—"I A. B., do declare that I will conform to the liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by law established." He found also that this declaration must be taken by all masters and other heads, fellows, chaplains, and tutors of or in any college or house of learning or hospital, and every professor and reader in either of the Universities, at the period of their admission. It appeared to him, therefore, that a person could be admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts, law, or medicine, without having any right to succeed to or obtain a fellowship, or to have any part in the government of the University or of any college, unless he should subscribe the declaration he had just read. It was a further question which his hon. Friend (Mr. Heywood) had raised, whether or not there might not be other honours and emoluments that, without disorganising the University, might be thrown open to Dissenters and Roman Catholics; but that was a subsequent matter on which he did not now ask the judgment of the House. Considering the question before the House, in the short time he had had for that purpose, with his Colleagues near him, he had come to the opinion that, as they had adopted a clause legislating upon the subject, which applied to all persons who might matriculate at the University, it was desirable that some mark of honour should be allowed to Dissenters when they entered the University. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Newdegate) said, "If that be your object, invent some new mark of honour to which Dissenters may be admitted;" but it seemed to him (Lord John Russell), on the contrary, that the object which the Legislature ought to pursue, was, that the same marks of distinction which were given for proficiency should be given to Dissenters and to members of the Church of England He thought it would be invidious as well as inconvenient to propose any new mark which only persons who were not, members of the Church of England should receive. Of course this provision, as well as the other, would be subjected in the other House of Parliament to any further examination which that House might think proper; but taking the clause as it appeared at the present moment, he should certainly be ready to vote for its adoption. He trusted the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) would be able to agree to the clause. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the House was taken by surprise by the proposition, and that he was not then ready to consider it, he (Lord John Russell) would not oppose a proposition for the adjournment of the question for a day or two. But he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would he able to give his opinion at once. At all events it was his (Lord John Russell's) intention to support the clause.

said, be thought every word that had fallen from the noble Lord a strong reason against assenting to the clause at the present moment. He begged to remind the House of the extraordinary position in which they were then placed. He thought they had great reason to complain of the course which had been taken by the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood). He by no means charged that hon. Gentleman with an intention to do anything that was unfair. The hon. Gentleman had always been very straightforward in his adherence to and advocacy of this question; and of course he (Sir J. Pakington) could easily understand that that portion of the House who had for years been willing—and were now willing—to admit Dissenters to the Universities, would give their consent to the minor proposition of the hon. Member. But having always felt an honest hesitation to admit Dissenters to the Universities, he (Sir J. Pakington) must protest, as a matter of Parliamentary practice, against being called on, as he was then literally, without an hour's notice, to give his assent to a change which, whether upon full deliberation they might think it advisable or not, must be admitted to be a change of a very grave and serious nature, and one that the House ought not to be required to debate or decide upon without full or fair notice. He thought the course of the hon. Gentleman was hardly justifiable by the rules of Parliament. On a former evening he submitted to the House two distinct clauses. By the first of these the practice of the University of Oxford was to be assimilated to the practice of the University of Cambridge, and upon that ground mainly he believed a very considerable majority decided in favour of the clause of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member then proposed a second clause of a totally different nature. By that clause he would have enabled Dissenters to become members of the governing body of the University; but the noble Lord and the Members of the Government voted against the proposition, and a large body of Gentlemen who were favourable to the first clause were adverse to the second, and it was accordingly thrown out. The matter having been decided, after full discussion, in a House of between 400 and 500 Members, it occurred to him that it was a question of grave and serious import, whether it was a wise or legitimate course to revive the subject during the progress of the same Bill. The hon. Gentleman had, however, adopted a different view. He had put a clause on the paper to the same effect as the one which had been rejected by the House, and they were now called upon a second time to pronounce their decision respecting it. When he (Sir J. Pakington) took his seat that evening, he was informed by a right hon. Friend near him that the proposal the hon. Member had submitted to the House was totally different to that which he had placed on the paper; and if the division bell were then to ring, he believed that a very large proportion of Gentlemen would vote without knowing what was the real question upon which they were giving their decision. He appealed to the noble Lord, then, whether this was a proper course to take. The noble Lord himself said, he had hail but a quarter of an hour's notice of the Motion, and that during that quarter of an hour he had been studying the law upon the subject. He (Sir J. Pakington) had not been able to do even that; and indeed the noble Lord had given them the results of his studies in terms which might will justify the House in not placing implicit confidence in his interpretation of the law. He did not mean to say that the proposition of the hon. Member was one to which he should not give his assent. Upon that point he withheld any declaration. He would not, however, give his assent to a proposal that had been brought before them absolutely without notice. He was by no means clear but that under this clause Dissenters could become the governing body of the colleges. He thought that the proposition was one which should be brought forward in a substantive way, and in the shape of a Bill in the next Session of Parliament. He would not now enter into the merits of the question, which had been submitted to them only upon five minutes' notice, but he would, under the circumstances, give to the proposition a decided negative.

said, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich was taken by surprise by the Motion now before them; because, if the question was not this—if the whole meaning of the Bill be not the introduction (4. Dissenters to the University—he confessed he did not know what the object of it was, from the first moment of the introduction of the measure to the present. He had opposed the Oxford Commission himself because he had a great suspicion that it would have been unfairly constituted; but he confessed that his suspicion was agreeably disappointed, and that the inquiry had been conducted with the most perfect fairness. On the present occasion let the House inquire, why was this Bill brought forward at all? Was it not the universal opinion of all parties that the Universities were not in harmony with the present state of English society? Why were they not? They were so originally. What had happened? Had the Universities themselves changed? No. Well, then, who had changed? The state of society had changed. What was the meaning of the state of society? Had the members of the Church of England changed? No; but the mass of the people had ceased to be attached to the Church of England. That was the altered state of society. [Cries of "No, no!"] Did hon. Members say "No" to that statement? Very well, he would trouble the House with further proof. At the time of the Reformation there was but one Church. All the inhabitants of England were members of that one Church, and the Universities were adapted for this one Church. At the time of the Reformation they all split into many sects. Every one did something peculiar, and therefore heretical, for himself. Since then they had had the Union with Scotland and the Union with Ireland. And he said, and it was a matter which they could not contradict, that the majority of the Queen's subjects were not members of the Church of England. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, that was the fact denied ten minutes ago. Well, then, the Universities were established for the exclusive manufacture of the clergy of the Church of England; and the question was now, whether they were willing to make those Universities places of education for all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. The House had already said, "Yes." Why did they say so? Because the majority of Her Majesty's subjects were not members of the Church of England; anti they must, therefore, alter the constitution of the Universities in such a way as to admit all those religious classes who were now prevented from entering them, to all the advantages which those Universities could confer. It was a monstrous hardship to the great majority of the people that they should be excluded. He would, however, on the present occa- sion, content himself by stating a fact for the purpose of showing the gross injustice of this exclusion. He happened to be in the position of a trustee to a young man of small property, and was consulted by his widowed mother respecting his course of education. Now, he would show how this exclusive system of the University practically bears upon young boys whose parents were deceased. This young man was for seven years at King's College School, namely, from 1842 to 1849, and at every vacation he brought home with him certificates of exemplary conduct. This young gentleman obtained there various prizes, both for classical and mathematical scholarship, which he carried with him to the University of Oxford. When in Oxford, in 1349, he obtained the first open scholarship in his college, and in 1850 he obtained the junior mathematical University scholarship. He took his degree in 1852, and was so notoriously the first man in mathematics in his college, that the tutor advised him to pay more attention to the study of classics instead of mathematics. The young man did so, and the consequence was, that he took a first class in classics and did not take a first class in mathematics, though thou he was notoriously much stronger in the latter than the former. After having taken his degree, the head of his college refused to put down his name as a candidate for an open fellowship, because, he said, his father had been a Scotch Presbyterian minister, although the boy had subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles, and had always attended the Church of England service. And now what was the consequence? Why, in order to support his mother and sister, he was obliged to take a little dirty schoolmaster's office here in London, and to teach musa and dominus to little boys. Was it not, he asked, a disgrace to the head of the college to have so refused this young man? No doubt such a master would have granted much to some titled empty-headed thing, with a gold tassel in his cap. And he confounded the true aristocracy of the literary world with the aristocracy of the civil world. For that confusion he ought to be ashamed. He had always resisted the spurious feverish desire for universal schooling which was prevalent in this country, because it would, in his opinion, be productive of no national benefit, although it might be attended with some particular advantage; but when they had got a combination of the best literary and religious education which Europe could produce, he confessed he was exceedingly anxious to open the doors of the Universities as widely as possible for the admission of every one; and if by any circumstances whatever some individuals were excluded, he was exceedingly anxious that that exclusion should come from themselves, or at least from circumstances over which that House could exercise no control, Now he had a great mistrust for the expression that he continually heard falling from hon. Members—namely, that this proposition would introduce fresh blood, as it was called, into the studies of the University; and he had read with infinite disgust, not very long ago, some speeches made by some who called themselves political leaders—who thought that one column of the Times' newspaper was worth more study than all that Thucydides ever wrote—he suspected that the meaning attached to this expression of the infusion of fresh blood meant the infusion of German theology. He trusted that nothing would ever induce the Universities to depart from their present system of education. They all knew that that education was divided into two parts, one literary and the other scientific. The literary part was conducted through the despised system of Thucydides. The young men were taught to study the earliest records of the human race in a language matchless for its richness, its vigour, and its expression. They were taught by this study that all things most valuable to know could only be had upon human testimony; that they might reject or receive it as they pleased, but that they could not correct it. One kind of education alone might make a man superstitious, the dupe of every designing knave who chose to impose upon him; and therefore to this system of education was most wisely added the study of the sciences, by which the mind of the student was led to know exactly the opposite course, for he there learned to trust nothing that he was told, to despise all authority, and to believe in nothing but that which he could prove himself. It was with the mind as it was with the body. A young man is taught to dance, but he was not expected to stand in the third position in the public streets. Every portion of the body should be equally exercised, and it was only in the same way that the mind could be properly exercised. But some hon. Members were afraid of admitting Dissenters to the Universities; and when they were told that there would be no danger in admitting Dissenters, then they said—"Oh, but it will lead to the admission of Roman Catholics." Well, he heartily wished both Dissenters and Roman Catholics to be admitted; but he was sure that, though the Dissenters would enter the Universities, the Roman Catholics would not. They had been told by hon. Gentlemen of good authority in that House, that Roman Catholics would not come into the University, and he could bring still better authority to justify that conclusion, which was the answer of Bishop Gillies, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Edinburgh, when speaking of the Lord Advocate's Scotch Education Bill. Dr. Gillies said that nothing would ever induce him to submit the Roman Catholic youth to any education that was not carried forward by their priests, and be quoted several authorities to bear him out upon this subject, such as Dr. Lingard and others. Dr. Gillies alleged, as a reason, the perversion of facts by Protestants respecting not only those portions of history which had reference to Roman Catholics, but of the knowledge that was conveyed in such books as geographies, observing that in them he had seen Spain represented as a dark country and England as an enlightened one, whereas the truth was the reverse, in his opinion Spain being the country of enlightenment and England of darkness. He (Mr. Drummond) thought that there were many facts mentioned by Dr. Lingard in his History which the Roman Catholic priesthood would endeavour to suppress, as rather unpleasant truths—such as the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and other things. It was, therefore, plain that Roman Catholics were no inure willing to avail themselves of the Universities than they were to give them the opportunity, and he thought no fear of danger need be entertained on that point.

(who spoke amid some interruption) referred to the University of Dublin, in respect to which, before the Statute of 1793, Roman Catholics were allowed the full advantages of a good education; but they were not able to take degrees, in consequence of the impediments raised against them by the 2 Eliz., which provided, amongst other things, that they should not be at liberty to take degrees until they had taken the oath of supremacy. Dr. Todd, upon this subject, stated that—

"Dissenters and Romanists were admitted to education in the Dublin University, by the free act of the college, long before there was any enactment compelling such admittance. At the present moment there was nothing to compel the heads of the University to admit Dissenters; but as the Irish Dissenters in general were of so modified a kind as not to object to the oath, they have been admitted to degrees without any questions asked. Many Roman Catholics were educated there before 1794, but as they would not take the oaths required by law, they could not be admitted to degrees. It is surprising how few, whether Romanists or Protestant Dissenters, availed themselves of the privileges of the University. Any student who, with the sanction of his parents, attested by his tutor, enters himself as having a religious scruple against conforming to the Church, whether he be a Protestant or a Roman Catholic Dissenter, is excused chapel duties. But all other students resident in the college, or in the city and suburbs, must attend. Practically, the number of Dissenters of either class is so small that this system does not much interfere with discipline. But there have been cases of students entering themselves falsely as Dissenters to escape certain duties."

Dr. Todd then goes on to say—

"with respect to the English Universities, it appears to me very desirable to admit Dissenters to education and to degrees, if it could be done without giving them a power of undermining the Church. In Oxford and Cambridge the M.A. degree gives a seat in Convocation or in Senate, and so confers power. I would not give Dissenters this, nor would I suffer them to be teachers, or office bearers of any kind; and I would not admit them to collegiate corporations. With these limitations I am an advocate for the admission of Dissenters to degrees."

The Statute of 1793 enabled the University to dispense with all oaths except the oath of allegiance and abjuration in the case of Roman Catholics taking degrees. The Statute was the 33 Geo., III. c. 21, sec. 13, and was intitled "An Act for the Relief of His Majesty's Popish Roman Catholic Subjects in Ireland." The following was the provision referred to—

"And whereas it may be expedient in case His Majesty, his heirs and successors, shall be pleased so to alter the Statutes of the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, near Dublin, and of the University of Dublin, as to enable persons professing the Roman Catholic religion to enter into or to take degrees in the said University, to remove any obstacle which now exists by Statute law; be it enacted, that from and after the 1st day of June, 1793, it shall not be necessary for any person, upon taking any of the degrees usually conferred by the said University, to make or subscribe any declaration, or to take any oath save the oaths of allegiance and abjuration, any law or Statute to the contrary notwithstanding."

Now, his (Mr. Napier's) opinion was, though he was desirous that the provisions of the English Universities should be made as wide and as liberal as possible, that this question should not be determined by the legislation of Parliament, but should be left to the Universities themselves to settle. It was his conviction and belief, more especially at the present time, that the rude interference of Parliament now to force those provisions upon the University of Oxford was the most likely means of retarding and defeating the carrying out of that object which he confessed he had as much at heart as any one. The House was here touching upon the most sensitive point of the religious feelings of the University; and unless the authorities there were willing to assist Parliament in carrying out this object which they were now considering, their efforts would be in a great measure nugatory. He had abstained hitherto from taking part in those discussions, because he confessed he was not acquainted with the internal operations of the Universities. He, however, deprecated any interference of this nature with the University of Oxford. He thought they would be acting much wiser, and would much better aid the cause they were endeavouring to promote, by submitting this question to the decision of the University itself. The House ought to leave the governing body of the University under the action of gradual opinion, and endeavour, by the force of public opinion, well expressed, to convince them of the necessity of making a provision for other religious classes to partake of the general benefits of education, which were now confined to the one class. With regard to the present proposition, they ought to consider well what they were about to do. He admitted that the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) had adopted a safer course than what he had originally proposed. But the fact was this, they were beginning to lay a political siege to the University—they were filling the members of that University with apprehensions that this power now sought for, if granted, would be followed by further demands; and that siege after siege would be attempted until the very walls of the University should be dismantled. The proposition now before the House was one in the shape of a compromise. Now he (Mr. Napier) hated those compromises. Whatever they did, let them do it in a straightforward, manly manner. If they thought that the Dissenters were fully entitled to the power demanded fur them, let the House grant it to them at once. He was convinced that the way to treat the Uni- versity of Oxford was to leave this matter to themselves. "Do unto others as you would wish to be done by." If they, the Dissenters, had sole authority in the University, and wished to uphold a. peculiar system of education, would they like Parliament to interfere and to endeavour to subvert the whole principle upon which they acted? The late Sir Robert Peel met the case boldly upon this principle—he said that the system of education pursued in the University must be leavened with the religion of the Established Church of the country. He had heard the noble Lord the President of the Council say the other night that this was not a time, nor was it politic or wise, to mix up this question with the present Bill. He (Mr. Napier) fully concurred in that opinion of the noble Lord. The only thing he disliked in the speech of the noble Lord was his threatening the University, by saying in effect, if they don't do so and so, you should make them do it. Now, he thought that that threat was undignified and uncalled for. He was of opinion that the interference of Parliament was the very last thing that should be resorted to in a case of this kind; and, so far from threatening the University, they ought to do everything in their power to encourage her to effect this change herself. He, however, submitted that it would be impossible to maintain the primary constitution of the University, if it were occupied by Dissenters generally. There might, no doubt, be some Dissenters admitted with the most perfect safety; but if the University were filled with Dissenters, her constitution must necessarily be subverted. The noble Lord seemed to insinuate that the will of the founders would best be carried out by the admission of Dissenters; but it was evident that it was the intention of the founders that those persons who were educated there should be members of the Church of England. But the noble Lord said that the Church of England at that time was the Catholic Church, and he spoke as if there was no other Church at that period. Why, the Church of England was just as much in existence before the Reformation as it was now. It was evidently the intention of the founders that the persons to be educated in the University should be educated as members of the Church of England—and, so far, the will of the founders has been observed. Let them take, for example, the founder of All Souls. If he were alive, he did not think that he would have much sympathy with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, for he was the most formidable antagonist of the See of Rome. The University was first bound to satisfy the requirements of the Church—the University being closely connected with the Church. Then the University was bound to extend its sphere of liberality as largely as it could do, consistently with the maintenance of its principles. But that should not be done by Parliament, but ought to be left to the University itself to be carried out. The House was giving it no opportunity of introducing new elements into its government. This was a mere party boon to the Dissenters, who have availed themselves of their position to put a pressure upon the Government, and of proposing a compromise by what was vulgarly called "splitting the difference," and thereby securing a few stray voters by this modified proposition. He, for one, would say that he had deeply at heart the interests of the Universities; he wished to see them preserved in connection with the Church of England. He wished to see their government carried on in a friendly spirit, conferring their advantages largely and liberally on different classes. He thought, however, that that desirable object would be utterly retarded and destroyed by the interference of Parliament; and on those grounds, and with the very object of following out the analogy of the University of Dublin, and of enlarging the sphere of education, he would resist the present proposition.

said, he was exceedingly thankful for the opportunity the House had thus afforded him (as a new Member) of expressing his opinion upon the question under consideration. Having spent many years in a distant country, he felt himself better enabled to discuss such questions in an impartial and unbiassed manner. Having been an attentive listener to the Oxford University debates, and all other questions that had been brought before the House during the last few weeks, he had been struck with one phenomenon which appeared to him to run through all their discussions—he meant the extent to which religious differences afforded the groundwork of so many of their debates. On one occasion he observed the Dissenters join tile intolerant Church party to press forward an inquisitorial inquiry, which was obnoxious to a small portion of their fellow subjects, the Roman Catholics of England; on another occasion, he found a majority of the House deciding on excluding a still smaller section of their fellow-countrymen, the Jews, from Parliament; and now the turn of the Dissenters had come, and a great party was exercising all its ingenuity, talent, and influence to exclude them from the walls of the University of Oxford, which one would have thought would have been glad to open its doors to all the subjects of the realm without distinction of party and creed. It shocked him extremely to witness this display of intolerant feeling in the nineteenth century which had taken place in England lately. He had left England fourteen years ago for a distant country, and then the country was divided into the two great hostile camps of Whigs and Tories; and on his return, when almost everybody called himself "Liberal," and though there was no real division upon the broad questions of secular politics, yet it was startling, and also humiliating, to find that the character of the House of Commons was more intolerant in religion than the Government of any other portion of the civilised globe. The immediate question before the House was, whether Dissenters, including Roman Catholics, should be allowed to take bachelors' degrees in the first University in the world. Yet it was admitted in one of the clauses of the Bill, and acknowledged also by the opponents of this measure, that the University was a national institution; that nearly 150,000l. a year was obtained by the Universities in direct taxation upon the people; and the sale of Bibles was another source of the revenues of Oxford to which the Dissenters contributed very largely. England was certainly remarkable for the manner in which everybody but the members of the Established Church was denied the rights and privileges that were extended in most other countries to all classes of the community. He would not refer to the case of America, but confine himself to Europe. Even in what were called the most bigoted States, no such exclusion existed. In Prussia the Universities were open to Catholics and Protestants indiscriminately; and the same might be said of the Scandinavian nations. The Catholic countries also admitted Protestants and Jews to their national seats of learning; France viewed all religious classes in the same light; and in Flanders, the most strictly Catholic country in Europe, Protestant and even Jewish professors were to be found holding the highest chairs in the Universities. It was therefore extraordinary that Englishmen, who aspired to be the leaders of civilisation and to teach the nations how to live, should be found treating their fellow-subjects in a manner not much unlike the exclusive castes of India, who proscribed classes of their fellow-creatures as a pariah race, unworthy to live, to eat, or drink, or intermarry with them, or to enter the same schools. In a somewhat similar manner were the Dissenters treated by the Established Church and the governing authorities of this country. They were told by the right hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Napier)—and he regretted that the same sentiment had come from the Treasury bench—that they ought to leave this matter to be dealt with by the University itself, and avoid any rude interference by Parliament with its proceedings. Now, whatever weight this argument might have had at the commencement of the debate, it had vanished into thin air by the progress of these discussions; for they had had the advantage of hearing what were the opinions on this question of the most enlightened Members of that House who belonged to the University of Oxford, among whom were the hon. Baronet the Member for the University (Sir W. Heathcote), the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer), the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and others. Those hon. Members had stated that they were opposed to the admission of Dissenters to the degrees and honours in the University; and when liberal-minded men had so strongly expressed their opinions on the subject in the House of Commons, what could they expect from the authorities of the University? He and those who advocated the introduction of this class thought the time was come when Parliament must speak out on the question. It was not a mere question of detail, but one of bread principle. The details might be safely left to the University to deal with them; and he was sure if that House pronounced loudly that the Dissenters should not be excluded from anything which Church of England men might attain to, the University would carry out with honesty and cordiality all that the law required. It had been argued with great ability by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday night that, if Parliament enforced this clause against an unwilling University, it would be of no effect, because those who were opposed to it on principle would have the task of carrying it out, and it would be in their power to thwart it whenever they chose; but he (Sir E. Perry) would give complete answer to that objection by saying that he had confidence in the good faith and honour of the distinguished men who govern the University, and that if Parliament agreed to the principle, the authorities would give it a fair chance and exert themselves to carry out the law of the land. He bad hoard with delight the observation of the noble Lord the President of the Council, that he embraced this clause in all its points, and that having pronounced on the first clause it would be a want of logic on their part not to follow it up to that conclusion, and he was sure the Liberal party of England would rally round the noble Lord, and by a majority settle the point so that the Dissenters of England should not be treated with any such harsh exclusion as they are now subject to. There was one argument which had been used by the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin, to which he begged to refer. His right hon. Friend ' had asked if the independent Members on that side of the House would be contented with this half proposition, or compromise, as he called it. He (Sir E. Perry) would say frankly, he was met satisfied. He thought it was most unjust that a Dissenter should be treated in any way distinct from individuals belonging to the Established Church. He admitted that the Dissenters might reasonably be excluded from dealing with any question relating to the Established Church; but in every University theology was only one of the faculties belonging to the body. It had no right to play the important part with which Gentlemen chose to invest it. The University of Oxford was not established to teach theology alone, but in order that all the arts and sciences should be taught there by the best professors that could be obtained. Therefore he should oppose all exclusions, except in regard to Church of England theology. He was for advancing to that point, and he should therefore support the Motion.

then called the attention of the House to the Resolution of the 1st day of June—

"That on a clause being offered in the Committee on the Bill, or on the consideration of Report, or Third Reading of a Bill, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman do desire the Member to bring up the same, whereupon it shall be read a first time without Question put, but no clause shall be offered on consideration of Report or Third Reading without notice."

The hon. Member's clause, as he had moved it, differed from the clause of which notice had been given; it had, in fact, been amended that very day. When an hon. Member wished to make a proposition it had been generally understood that one day ought to intervene between the giving of the notice and submitting the proposition to the House. According to the rule of the House, therefore, there had not been notice given of the clause.

asked whether he could amend the form of his notice, his proposition having been amended.

said, that the hon. Member had made a material amendment in his clause since he had given notice. If all the Members of the House consented to accept it there could be no objection to propose it. But if one hon. Member objected, that notice would be insufficient. The proper course would be that the further proceedings with the Bill should be postponed to a particular day, and that the hon. Member should give a new notice.

desired to know if it would be in the power of any other Member to move an Amendment on that clause without notice, if he should think it would be desirable for the House to adopt such Amendment; or whether the rule with respect to the alteration of a clause applied only to the Member who had given notice of it.

considered it was perfectly clear, according to the rule of the House, that no Member could offer any clause to the House without giving due notice of it, consequently no clause could be read a second time unless notice was given of the proposition before it was offered to the House. The House reserved to itself the right of amending the clause after it was read a second time, but they were not yet arrived at that stage, nor could they arrive at it unless due notice was given of the clause according to the orders of the House.

said, that in the present condition of the question the only course open to him was to propose the adjournment of further proceeding with the Bill until his hon. Friend had given due notice of his clause in the amended shape in which he wished to put it. He would therefore move that further proceeding with the Bill should be adjourned to Thursday; and he would ask the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) to take the debate on the Motion of which he had given notice on the Friday instead of Thursday.

said, that he believed there was a desire on the part of the House that the bars and impediments which prevented Dissenters from availing themselves of the educational advantages of Oxford should be removed. He thought the hon. Member for North Lancashire did not intend to propose all Amendment which would interfere with the government or the endowments of the University. [Mr. HEYWOOD: Yes, with the government.] But all he wished to ascertain was, whether the hon. Gentleman intended to bring up the clause on Thursday in its present shape, or in any amended form. He (Mr. Walpole) asked the question because he thought they should endeavour to come as nearly as possible to an agreement on this subject, instead of entering into a long discussion.

was desirous to consult the feelings of the House on the clause, to frame it so as to represent the wishes of the majority. He was himself, however, satisfied with it as it stood. As regarded further amendment, there was one bachelorship which had been omitted, but he thought there would be no objection on any side to its inclusion—namely, the bachelorship of music. With the exception of that inserted he should leave the clause as it stood.

said, there were very important Irish land Bills fixed for Thursday, and he hoped the noble Lord would not throw any impediment in their way.

said, it was most important that the Bill before the House should be proceeded with as early as possible. He had thought it would be done with that evening, but he could not let it go beyond Thursday.

said, there seemed to him no reason why there should be any prolonged discussion on the Amendment. The principle of salaries was a clear one. There was, however, another question behind it, respecting which several hon. Members had given notice of Amendments. The hon. Member for Antrim, for instance, proposed to strike out of Schedule B all salaries and allowances now chargeable in lieu of fees of office surrendered by the present holders; the hon. Member for the University of Dublin proposed to exclude from the operation of the Act all offices holden for life, or during good behaviour, and all offices the salaries of which were fixed by Statute and charged on the Consolidated Fund; while the hon. Member for Cork proposed to secure the rights of a number of present holders of offices. He did not perhaps agree in the views of all those Gentlemen, or admit that the title of an office-holder was in any way prejudiced by the voting of his salary; but, at the same time, he thought it had been the general practice of the Government and Parliament to rule every doubtful question of this kind in favour of the title of the office-holder. He did not, therefore, think it would be worth while to occupy the time of Parliament in debating a question of that sort, and he proposed to move a clause on the third reading of the Bill, which he hoped would substantially meet the views of different Gentlemen who had given notice of Amendments. The offices which involved the discharge of judicial functions properly so called, irrespective of present or future holders, would nut be removed from the Consolidated Fund by the Bill, if they were now on the Consolidated Fund. As to offices that were not judicial, but held for life or during good behaviour, and the salaries of which were charged upon the Consolidated Fund, he proposed that they should remain on the Consolidated Fund during the incumbency of the present holders. That was a concession which would meet the objection at which mainly those Amendments were aimed, and he trusted it would be satisfactory to the Gentlemen who proposed to move these Amendments. They would postpone in seine degree an important object of public policy, namely, bringing salaries of this description under the constant notice of Parliament, and that most important step could not be taken so long as they remained on the Consolidated Fund.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Youghall (Mr. I. Butt) not being competent to move the re-committal of the Bill, as he had given notice, in consequence of having spoken on the debate, it devolved on him (Colonel Dunne) to do so. The object of the Motion was to leave out of the Bill all those offices which were judicial in Ireland; so that the holders might not be subjected annually to capricious objections in Parliament. A further object was to put in other names to those which were already in the schedules. The objection to the Bill as it stood was, that certain situations, not judicial, and certain salaries, had been capriciously left out of it. One of these was the office of Commissioner of the Board of Audit, and he (Colonel Dunne) could not see why, when the Board itself were included, the Commissioners' salaries should not be subjected to periodical revision by Parliament. Another office omitted was that of Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland. There were also the Clerks of the Hanaper, of the Crown, and of the Peace. A large number of offices should be put into the Bill besides those included; and as the whole schedule required further consideration, he moved the re-commitment of the Bill.

was sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given way on the Bill. A vast number of salaries in England and Ireland were dealt with by the Bill without a word of objection. All the objections came from Ireland, and he was nut surprised, because he had witnessed on all occasions in that country a grasping desire to get hold of the public money. Only the Judges should be independent of the Crown and of Parliament, but the salaries of all other officers should be brought under the consideration of the House every year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in his (Mr. Williams's) opinion, stultified the Bill by the course he had taken.

said, all that was desired was, that justice should be clone to the Irish officials. He suggested that the clause should be so framed as to do injustice to no holder of office, whether for life, whether during pleasure, or whether by patent. All he said was, that the schedule did not carry out the principle which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to regard.

said, that the exemption of existing interests from the operation of this Bill would not reconcile him to the proposed insertion of many offices in the schedules. He thought that no offices of a freehold character, or which were held during good behaviour, should be subjected to the uncertainty of an annual Vote in Parliament; but that the salaries of those holding them should, like the salaries of judicial officers, still remain charged upon the Consolidated Fund.

moved, "That the Bill be recommitted." This Bill consisted of two parts—one transferring the salaries of certain officers from the Consolidated Fund, and rendering them subject to a vote of that House; and the other subjecting to a similar ordeal the salaries of the officers engaged in the collection of the revenue. Now, with respect to the latter part of the Bill, no objections had been raised; but there was considerable opposition to the former portion, and the changes which the Government had already made in the schedules showed that it still required much consideration and discussion. What he would propose, therefore, was, that the Bill should be divided into two portions. The one which was not objected to could then be immediately sent up to the House of Lords, through which it would be passed in a few days, because that House could not alter it without a breach of the privileges of the Commons; and the revenue Estimates, which were now waiting its passing, could then be at once brought before that House. They could then fully discuss the other and less unobjectionable part of the Bill.

said, that he had no doubt that the reasons urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman in favour of the recommitment of this Bill were entirely satisfactory to his mind; but nevertheless he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not admit their validity. Indeed, he had never heard a Motion made which was less consistent either with the facts or the arguments by which it was supported. The great object of the hon. and learned Member, according to his own statement, was to avoid delay, and in order to attain that, he proposed to throw out a portion of a measure which had now reached very advanced a stage in that House. The hon. and learned Member talked of the great objection of including two incongruous subjects in the same Bill; but he did not oppose it on that ground on the second reading, in Committee, or on the bringing up of the report. It was said that there must be further discussion, because the schedules had been altered two or three times. This statement, however, was quite inaccurate; the schedules had not been altered, although, no doubt, some modifications of detail had been made to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen who had raised objections; and yet, after the Government had evinced their anxiety to disarm this opposition, hon. Members came forward, and asked that the Bill should be recommitted, and the field of discussion opened afresh. He could not admit that there was any incongruity in the objects of the Bill. On the contrary, he should have thought that he was neglecting a public duty, if, when he was rearranging the charges for the collection of the revenue, he had not taken the same opportunity of also bringing the charges upon the Consolidation Fund under the annual revision of Parliament. Indeed, the importance of the Bill in relation to the former charges was but trifling in comparison with its value as regarded the latter; because the charges for the collection of the revenue had always been under the effective control of the Treasury, while those upon the Consolidated Fund were removed from the control either of the Treasury or of that House. The effect of that was seen in the existence of such cases as that referred to on a former occasion, when a person had continued to receive, until the present time, the salary for an office that was abolished in 1827. These were the kind of cases that induced him to think that the salaries of such offices should not be placed upon the Consolidated Fund, He had endeavoured, in regard to the details, to meet the objection of every hon. Member, in so far as he could without sacrificing the principle of the Bill. That principle was a very broad and plain one, and it was one from which he was sure the House would not flinch. The recommittal of the Bill would throw back to a serious extent that part of the Bill which he looked upon as practically the most important, and therefore he could by no means consent to such a proposition.

said, he had not the slightest wish to throw difficulties in the way of the measure, but he thought it was absolutely necessary that the Bill should be recommitted, in order that it might receive the full consideration to which, from its importance, it was entitled. After justifying the lateness of the opposition now offered to this measure, on the ground that he and others were, until recently, unaware of its contents, and supposed it to refer simply to the charges incurred in the collection of the revenue, the right hon. Gentleman called the attention of the House to an instance of the injustice with which Ireland was dealt with by it. By this Bill it was actually proposed to place upon the Consolidated Fund the salaries of the taxing officers of Scotland, which were not now upon it; while it was proposed to remove the salaries of similar officers in Ireland, which were now so secured, from that fund, and to subject them to the uncertainties of an annual Vote of that House. It was proposed to include in the operation of this Bill many patent offices, the salaries of which were fixed by Act of Parliament. Now, he thought that salaries which had been so fixed ought not to be changed by anything but another Act, and should not be placed at the mercy of a Resolution of one branch of the Legislature.

opposed the Motion. The whole of the present opposition to the Bill had arisen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer having unfortunately yielded to the request of some hon. Members, that the Masters in Chancery might be withdrawn from the schedules. His acquiescence on that occasion had encouraged other claimants for various exemptions, and amongst these the Irish Members had certainly been the most unfortunate. He certainly could not see why they should object to the salaries of the Irish legal officers being placed under the revision of Parliament, for past experience of the manner in which the House had exercised its authority with respect to the official salaries which now came under its annual revision was quite sufficient to show that no one would object to them without good reason. And if there was good reason for objecting to them, he could not see why the Irish Members should wish to withdraw them from Parliamentary control.

said, this Bill had been smuggled through the House in such haste that there had been no opportunity of calling attention to the case of the holders of Irish offices, who would be very unfairly dealt with under its provisions. An object which had hitherto been concealed now appeared to be really the most important that was aimed at—that of repealing several Acts of Parliament, by which the holders of these offices were placed on the Consolidated Fund. He protested against the manlier in which it was attempted to hurry the measure through, and hoped that his hon. Friend near him would press his proposition to a division.

should be sorry if the House went to a division on the supposition that this was only an Irish question. He thought it very objectionable that the salaries of revising barristers in England and Wales should be removed from the Consolidated Fund, and made the subject of an annual Vote of that House. Equally or more objectionable would it be to deal in this way with the clerks and other officers attached to the judicial establishments of Scotland. Another class was that of Irish officers holding their situations during good behaviour, who would have the same right to complain.

observed, that the principle of subjecting the salaries of offices held during good behaviour to an annual Vote was by no means new. It had already been acted upon in the case of the officers of that House, in conformity with an Act passed some tune back; and if hon. Gentlemen would look at the Estimates for this year, they would find that some of their highest officers appeared upon them in this way. A great many concessions had already been made on the present Bill, and the present Motion seemed to show the inexpediency of ever making concessions.

said, he did not think the Government had made any concession at all. He would wish to see the subject referred to a Select Committee, but mean while would give his support to the proposition of the hon. Member for Youghall.

rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the conduct of the late Governor of New Zea- land, in delaying and partially frustrating the new constitution granted to that Colony. The hon. Member said, it was with very great reluctance he impeded the progress of the regular business of the House, even for a few minutes. If the circumstances he was about to relate had affected this country, he was sure there would be sympathy enough; but, as they concerned only a distant Colony, he was well aware that it was necessary for him to entreat the indulgence of the House while he detailed them. He was free to confess that several years' close study of colonial affairs had brought him to the deliberate conclusion, that it was absolutely impossible for any Imperial country to govern distant dependencies with justice. If any country could do so, it was England, for England had a love of freedom and a respect for the rights of citizenship; but, nevertheless, he found, that whoever might be Minister, by some sort of fatality he was sure to fall into the same regular course of tyranny and injustice towards the Colonies. The selfishness of human nature, rendered it hopeless that the right of distant fellow citizens should be guarded for them at home. During the last few years, it was true, our colonists had struggled into the recognition of their constitutional rights, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), during his tenure of office as Colonial Minister, had the merit of fully recognising those rights in the case of the inhabitants of New Zealand, and likewise of recommending Her Majesty to give up the disposal of the Crown lands to that. Colony. In doing that, he had not only given them that which they had looked for, but he had added the, grace of a voluntary favour from Her Majesty, which had increased the attachment of the Colony towards the Crown, and the confidence of our fellow-citizens in New Zealand towards this country. Now, that being the case, what should be said of the executive officer who had chosen to place himself in obstruction of the enjoyment of those constitutional rights—who had placed himself, with respect to the further favours promised in 11cr Majesty's way—and had arrogated to himself, by a bold assumption of Power, the popularity which, if he had obeyed his instructions, would have belonged to his Sovereign? He would not occupy their time long in stating the circumstances which, he believed, justified him in saying that nothing less than this had been the conduct of Sir George Grey—Sir George Grey had been accustomed to autocratic rule in New Zealand—and that he had ably carried out, as he (Mr. Adderley) believed; but having been accustomed to the old tyrannical régime which was now being everywhere abolished, he had not only felt a repugnance towards the promised constitutional government, but had feared the censure of its constituents, and had resolved in his own mind to quit the Colony before that constitution came into full play. He would first show how he had contravened altogether the spirit of the Constitutional Act introduced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, and passed in 1852. The House would recollect that that Act provided that there should be both Provincial Councils and a General Assembly, but that the General Assembly should be the primary body, while the Provincial Councils were to be little more than mere municipalities discharging delegated local functions. He recollected this distinctly, because he had endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to get this order of things reversed. He had preferred the American precedents, which starting with local municipalities, grew up into central powers. But although the house had refused to concur with him in the view which he had taken at that time, Sir George Grey had taken upon himself to contravene the spirit of the Act by first allowing the Provincial Councils to come into play, while he had avoided altogether calling together the General Assembly, which Parliament had undoubtedly intended should have the foremost place. Let the House look for a moment at the dates, and they would see the animus with which the Governor had dealt with the new constitution. The Constitutional Act arrived in the Colony in December, 1852. The proclamation of that Act took place on the 17th of January. 1853, which was exactly six weeks after the arrival of the constitution—so that the Governor had taken the full limit of delay which the law allowed him in that first step. The writs for the election of members of the General Assembly were issued on the 17th of July,1853, which was exactly six months after the Constitutional Act had been proclaimed; so that here again the full limit of delay had been taken advantage of by Sir George Grey; and finally Sir George Grey left the Colony on the 7th of January, 1854, up to which time no meeting of the General Assembly had been convened, although the writs had been returned. When the right hon. Gen- tleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) put some questions upon this subject to the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and had addressed the House at considerable length upon it some few weeks ago, the first point to which he had alluded had been this delay, extending, as he had already pointed out, to the utmost limit which the law allowed. The answer of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary fur the Colonies was—that the Governor had had full work to occupy him during the whole interval that had elapsed—that he had had a great deal more thrown upon him than usually devolved upon Colonial Governors, the introduction of a new constitution—and that he (Mr. F. Peel) was only surprised that he had been able to get through it all, so as to be in a position to take the necessary formal steps within the time which the Act of Parliament prescribed. But how did this excuse tally with the fact? Suppose the summons for the meeting of the Assembly had been issued at the same time with the writs, so that the Assembly might have met contemporaneously with the return of the writs—that would have saved some time. But he would not put a hypothetical case. He would prove first out of the Governor's own mouth, and afterwards by the testimony of the colonists, who were competent witnesses of the fact, not only that it was possible, but that he himself had first expected that the Assembly would come together in one-half the time. When this constitution first went out, the Governor was himself interested in convening new Provincial Councils; he had then, for his own purpose, to make arrangements with respect to electoral districts, and polling places, and returning officers, and a great many other matters of detail connected with the conduct of the election; and vet, when he had all this to do, the time which he himself thought necessary for the return of the most distant county was not to exceed ninety days. When expedition was the object, ninety days were quite enough; but when the animus was delay, three times as long as that was scarcely sufficient for the purpose. The intervals in the one case were six months each; the intervals in the other case were six weeks; although when he took the shorter time he would have had some excuse for delay, because at that time he had really some original work to do, and some first arrangements to make—electoral districts to mark out, and polling places to assign; whereas, in the other case, the electoral districts had been formed, and the polling places assigned, and the work was ready to his hand. The Duke of Newcastle, in a despatch dated the 8th of March, 1853, had referred to these arrangements made under the provisions of the local Act, and had expressed a hope that, although those arrangements would of course be superseded by the Act of the Imperial Parliament, "they might still be rendered in some measure subservient to the purposes of the more recent enactment." But now, having made good his statement out of the Governor's own mouth, he would see what the colonists said—because, although the hon. Gentleman opposite, who had now discharged with great ability for some years the duties of his present office, was entitled to the highest respect, it was not inconsistent with that respect to say that the colonists themselves were still better acquainted with the circumstances of their own country. Four of the Provincial Councils—those of Nelson, Wellington, Canterbury, and Otago—had sent in memorials upon this subject, but he would refer to two of them only. The Provincial Council of Wellington, with their Speaker at their head, had addressed a memorial to Her Majesty, dated January 6, 1854, in which, with the kindest feelings towards the Governor, they stated that the Governor might have had good reasons for the course he had pursued, but that those reasons were utterly unknown to them, and that they were all, without exception, unable to discover any valid cause for the delay which had occurred in bringing the constitution into work; while the Provincial Council of Nelson took upon themselves to state, in a resolution, that the delay was not justified by any reasons which could have prevented the meeting of the Assembly. Both the colonists, therefore, and the Governor, had proved his point; but he would proceed to prove by a still more significant act of the Governor himself, what his own expectations were. He had felt some time before that there must be some, delay in calling the Assembly together, and that there must be some appropriation of revenue in the meantime. The Act gave the power of appropriating revenue in the meantime to the old Legislative Council; and it was the Governor's own act to call that Council together again, and to obtain an appropriation of revenue up to the 30th of September, 1853, that being the time at which, accord- ing to his own words, the new Legislature would be ready to meet. There could be no doubt, at all events, as to what were the intentions of the framers of the Act; for Sir John Pakington, in his despatch transmitting it to the Colony, had instructed Sir George Grey to use all possible expedition in putting its provisions in force; and, by way of showing what expedition he intended him to use, he had told him to select at once the nominee portion of the intended General Assembly without waiting for further instructions from home. What would the House say when he stated that thirteen months after these instructions had been received by the Governor, not a single nomination had been made? He had, further, reason to believe—although, as it was not in the blue books, he could not quote it—that the opinion of the right hon. Baronet was fully sympathised with by his successor, and that that successor had given Sir George Grey to understand that he was not to leave the Colony until he had met the General Assembly. He had good grounds for expressing this belief; but if the hon. Gentleman opposite contradicted it, he had no document to prove it. Having made out, as he believed, the statement with which he had started, that the animus of the Governor had been delay, and that he had determined that the new constitution should not come into play until he had left the Colony, he would proceed to refer to one or two distinctly illegal acts which had been committed while this resolution of delay was being carried out. The first of these illegal acts was his continuing to appropriate money after the 30th of September, after the old Council, for the last time convened, had finally separated, without having any authorised body by whom this could legally be done. When this question was last before the House, the hon. Gentleman opposite had denied that Sir George Grey had appropriated a single shilling. He said that he had merely handed over the surplus of revenues to the Provincial Councils. But even supposing such to have been the case, by what right or authority did he hand such surplus over? Sir George Grey had no more right to hand that surplus over to the Provincial Councils than he had to appropriate it himself, or to spend it in his own family. The Act was clear and distinct upon the point. The power of appropriation was vested, before the General Assembly was formed, in the old Legislative Council, and was to be transferred to that Assembly as soon as it should be called into existence; and it was only after this power of appropriation had been exercised by the General Assembly that any surplus which might remain was to be handed over to the Provincial Councils. The object of this provision, no doubt, was, that the General Assembly should be called as soon as possible into play. But the next point to which he would allude struck him still more strongly as a gross violation of the law, tending not only to deprive the colonists of New Zealand of their rights, but to deprive the Queen of the grace of a gratuitous favour, while the Governor had grasped to himself, or to his office, the popularity which belonged to Her Majesty. The disposal of the Crown lands was given by the Act to the colonists, and at the close of the clause by which this gift was conferred there was a provision introduced, which was absolutely necessary under the circumstances, and which gave to the Governor an ad interim, power of doing anything that might be necessary in reference to the disposal of those lands, until the General Assembly should come into full play. Sir George Grey had taken advantage of this ad interim power to issue an elaborate series of regulations, completely revolutionising the whole system of land sales in the Colony. He professed to have issued those regulations in conformity with the powers conferred upon him by the Act; but his was certainly the freest translation of an Act of Parliament that he had ever seen. And let it be borne in mind that this was the question of greatest interest in the Colony—that it was the very first question which would have been submitted to the General Assembly—yet the Governor, reckless of the consequences, whether to the colonists or to Her Majesty, had by his own act forestalled irrevocably any expression of their own opinion upon the subject—had so taken it altogether for ever out of their hands, and had practically rendered nugatory and a mockery this great boon, and this singular favour which Her Majesty had granted to New Zealand. He called upon the right hon. Member for Droitwich to defend his own Act, which he considered could only be done if a proper construction were put upon the right hon. Baronet's letter of July, 1852, in reference to this question, by supporting the view of the question which he (Mr. Adderley) was then taking. But he had reserved the most monstrous act of the Governor for the last of his list. The Supreme Court of the Colony had been appealed to upon the subject of this last assumption of power, and decided against the legality of the Governor's acts, and had granted an injunction, which, although its legal operation was confined to Wellington alone, had in reality a much more general application, extending, in fact, to all the settlements established by the New Zealand Company. Sir George Grey had not scrupled to set aside the injunction of the Supreme Court in the Colony, to hold up his highest judge to defiance and contempt, and had proceeded with the illegal land sales. He had promised that he would not go into any other points, and he would only further trespass on the House to say that he did not think a Governor who had so acted, who had shown such an animus towards a liberal constitution, was fit to be promoted from New Zealand to the Cape, where the constitution was more liberal still, and where, if possible, more discretion was required even than in the Colony of New Zealand itself. In conclusion, and in support of the views he had taken of the conduct of Sir George Grey in the government of the Colony, he would refer to the words of the Duke of Newcastle himself, which he would quote, because they were of greater weight than any he could offer to the House. They alluded to another act of Sir George Grey, upon which he would not enter further than to say, that whereas constitutional Acts distinctly gave the New Zealand Company a certain proportion of the proceeds of the land sales, the Governor of New Zealand had taken on himself, contrary to the provisions of the Act of Parliament, to withhold that payment. The Duke of Newcastle, on the 30th of December, 1853, wrote to him, expressing his regret that he had determined not to pay, in obedience to his (the Duke of Newcastle's) commands.

"I cannot discern," he said, "either in your present despatch, or in any former despatch which you have addressed to me on the subject, any reason to justify you in adopting the resolution thus directly to disobey the orders of Her Majesty's Government. Whatever the justice of the arrangement, it has the force of law. To refuse to act upon it, therefore, is not merely to disobey the orders of the superior executive authority, but it is to resist the law itself; and it is but too easy to foresee the advantage which may be taken by persons eager to find excuses for a similar course, on future occasions, of the step thus deliberately taken by the Governor."

Was there ever a severer censure pro- nounced by a Colonial Minister on a Colonial Governor than that which he had now read—telling him, in fact, that he had disobeyed, without excuse, the orders of his superiors, and had set the most mischievous example to others? He would only ask the House whether the officer who had so acted as to have brought himself under that censure was one who ought to have been continued in his office, and still more, whether he ought to have been selected for immediate promotion?

would not reply to the prefatory observations of the hon. Gentleman's speech; and, being anxious not unnecessarily to take up the time of the House, and delay the entering upon the question of Supply, would confine himself solely to what the hon. Member had brought personally to reflect upon the conduct of Governor Sir George Grey. The hon. Member had, of course, used his own discretion in reviving a subject which had already been fully discussed and disposed of by the House; and knowing that the answer which he had then made was in exact and scrupulous conformity with the facts—believing that that answer contained a complete vindication of Governor Grey's proceedings, and not finding anything new in the hon. Gentleman's speech, except the very last point to which he had alluded, he did not think that any sufficient reason had been afforded for delaying the Committee of Supply. He must say he had been astonished to hear Sir George Grey represented as having long been accustomed to exercise undivided rule, and become wedded to autocratic power, and his having consequently endeavoured to prevent the colonists of New Zealand from getting the benefit of free institutions. Was the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Bill which was passed through Parliament to give them free institutions was framed, except in one particular, by Governor Grey himself; and that it was to him that the colonists were indebted for the constitution which Parliament had granted them? But the hon. Gentleman had told them that, when Parliament conceded the boon of the constitution, Governor Grey had stood in the way of their receiving it, and was the principal person who prevented the Colony deriving from it those advantages which Parliament desired to extend to it; and he had endeavoured to make out his case by stating that he had postponed to the latest period that he possibly could, without directly vio- lating the law, the several steps which he was required to take towards bringing the constitution into operation. He did not proclaim the constitution, it was said, until the last day of the six weeks that were allowed him, nor issue the writs until the last day of the prescribed period of six months; and he had evidently formed a fixed intention to leave the Colony without having convened the General Assembly. But the hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten, by the line of argument he had adopted, that when Parliament gave the Governor of a Colony a certain discretion with respect to time, and the Governor proceeded within the time limited by Parliament to do what was required of him, it was hardly fair to question the exercise of his discretion, or to ask why he had not proceeded on this day rather than on that. The constitution of New Zealand had been brought into operation in the Colony as soon as Parliament had intended it should be; and it was impossible that the Governor could proceed with the writs with greater speed than he had done, consistently with due consideration of the variety of parties and interests in the Colony. He had had thrown upon him the determination of all those matters of detail which were usually left, under similar circumstances, to a representative body in the Colony, and the whole responsibility of making the necessary arrangements devolved upon him alone. He did not think it was possible for Sir George Grey to determine such points as the boundaries of provinces and of electoral districts, the number of members of the Provincial Councils and of the General Assembly—the apportionment of those members fairly among the different provinces, the determination of the manner in which the electors were to register their votes, and in which those votes were to be revised—where were to be the polling places, and who were to be the returning officers, in a less time than he had taken to do it. He had completed them within about two months; but it took about three months more before the electoral roll was finally completed, and as soon as he knew who the electors were to be, he issued the writs for the elections. It was impossible to have the elections until the electors were known. The hon. Gentleman had charged Governor Grey with having delayed the summoning the Assembly until the writs had been returned, and stated that he might have issued the summons together with the writs. By the Act he was obliged to wait until in possession of the returns to the writs; but as soon as he was in possession of those returns in a complete form he took measures to convene the Assembly. The last return from the most distant settlement, which was 800 miles from the capital, was not received until about seven days before he quitted the Colony. He might, indeed, have convened the Assembly within these few days; but as he was about to transfer the government to a successor, he felt that the responsibility of that measure ought to be left to the officer who would have to preside over its deliberations. This was, in his (Mr. F. Peel's) opinion, a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman's complaint of Sir George Grey's delay in bringing the constitution into operation. The hon. Gentleman had charged Sir G. Grey with haying allowed that portion of the Act which regarded the Provincial Councils to take effect while he postponed the meeting of the General Assembly. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Provincial Councils were summoned by the superintendents of the provinces, who were on the spot and had no difficulties to encounter; but it was impossible for the Governor to convene the General Assembly sooner. Many members of the Provincial Councils had been also elected to the General Assembly, and they could not attend the Provincial Councils and the General Assembly at the same time. The hon. Gentleman said that the Governor had postponed the choice of the nominee members for thirteen mouths; but till the elections were over it was impossible to make any choice, because many of the persons he would have nominated might have been elected. With respect to the appropriation of the revenue, he (Mr. F. Peel) should repeat his statement that Sir George Grey had not of his own authority appropriated any revenue—he had followed the direction of the Constitution Act, which provided that any surplus revenue not required by the General Assembly should be placed at the disposal of the Provincial Councils—Governor Grey found that about one-third of the revenue would be required for the purposes of the general government, and he placed the remainder at the disposal of the Councils, who expended it in their different provinces. He (Mr. F. Peel) differed entirely from the hon. Gentleman with respect to Sir George Grey's conduct on the land question. George had given the Legislature of New Zealand power to dispose of the waste lands of the Crown in that Colony; but till the meeting of the General Assembly it continued the powers vested in the Crown and delegated by it to the Governor. Immediately after the Act passed the then Secretary for the Colonies (Sir John Pakington) conferred the fullest powers on the Governor, and in subsequent despatches urged him to exercise his powers and bring the question to a settlement before the new Assembly met. The hon. Gentleman had referred to some proceedings in the Supreme Court; but he (Mr. F. Peel) was not aware that any injunction to stay the sale of land according to the Governor's proclamation had ever been issued. Sir George Grey was unable to give him on that point that full information that might have been desirable, as he had been absent from Wellington at the time of the proceeding. He (Mr. F. Peel) believed, however, that if any injunction had been issued, it was confined to the land in the immediate district round Wellington; it had no reference to the waste lands of the Crown in New Zealand generally, and did not proceed beyond prohibiting the final alienation of it. The reason assigned for the abandonment of the proceedings could not be correct; for no one who knew Sir George Grey would believe that he was capable of suspending a judicial officer because he had acted to the best of his judgment in the discharge of his duty. Lastly, the hon. Gentleman had impugned Sir George Grey's promotion to the governorship of the Cape. That was one of the last appointments made by the Duke of Newcastle before he quitted the Colonial Office, and no appointment was ever calculated to lead to consequences more honourable to the officer who obtained it, or more advantageous to the country. When Sir George Grey first went to New Zealand, the native question was most embarrassing; but by his influence over the aborigines, and the confidence he inspired them with, and his knowledge of their habits, manners, and intitutions, he had succeeded in reconciling them to British rule. The native question was now the most important at the Cape. We had succeeded in conquering the Kafirs, but it was too expensive a game to keep them in forcible subjection. We must endeavour to attach them to our rule. He believed that the best chance of stopping the drain on the resources of this country, and restoring tranquillity to the Cape, lay country, the agency of Sir George Grey. Strong comments had been made on a despatch addressed to Sir George Grey. He adopted that despatch; but still he thought the appointment the best that could be made. The Secretary of State had felt it his duty to write that despatch because the Imperial Parliament having imposed the debt of the New Zealand Company as a charge upon that Colony, he felt bound to enforce the payment without discussing the justice of it. He took an Imperial view of the question; Sir George Grey, being on the spot, took a. colonial view, and hesitated to carry out his instructions till he was certain that the Home Government had acted with a full knowledge of all the circumstances. He quitted the Colony before he received any further instructions. Had he remained, no doubt he would have obeyed them.

said, he was not surprised that the hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) should have brought this subject before the House, after the manner in which the Under Secretary for the Colonies had on a former occasion answered his (Sir J. Pakington's) questions with regard to the conduct of Sir George Grey, in bringing into operation the new constitution. He had put these questions to the hon. Gentleman in consequence of certain rumours which had reached him of the conduct of Governor Grey in relation to the elections in New Zealand—conduct, if those rumours were true, not at all creditable to the Governor, and certainly not in accordance with the intention of the Government by whom the Constitution Act was passed. He had put his objections in the form of a set of questions to save the time of the House, and he did not think the answer he received amounted to a complete vindication of Sir G. Grey; but he felt unwilling to take any further steps an officer whose general merits as a colonial Governor he estimated so highly. Sir G. Grey had been absent for fourteen years as Governor, first of South Australia, and then of New Zealand; during that period he had performed many important services to the Crown, and merited the approbation of the Sovereign and her Ministers; and it was, therefore, with the more pain that he felt himself compelled to speak in unfavourable terms of some part of his conduct. He would confine his observation entirely to his recent conduct in New Zealand. With regard to the sale of land and the injunction, the the re-hon. Gentleman could not be aware of the contents of the printed papers, as Sir G. Grey himself stated that an injunction had been granted. He thought that Sir G. Grey had acted indiscreetly, and that he had set a most dangerous example and precedent in disobeying the injunction of the Supreme Court; and he (Sir J. Pakington) believed no circumstances could justify a Governor in such a course. He regarded his conduct in the disposal of the lands with great disapprobation. When he (Sir J. Pakington) sent out the instructions giving a temporary power to dispose of land, he had no intention of giving greater power than might be necessary to prevent public inconvenience and to simplify the duty of the Assembly. He was not prepared to refer accurately to the despatches, as he did not expect the discussion would have come on that evening, but by referring to his despatches it would be perfectly clear that the then Government had no intention that he should exercise the powers given him in such a manner as to deprive the Assembly of the important privileges granted to it by the Constitution Act. He could not approve of the long delay in convening the Assembly; the intention of the Government in passing the Act was, that the Legislature should be convened as soon as possible, and the instructions sent out were to that effect. Sir G. Grey, however, waited till the very latest day allowed by the law before he issued the writs, and up to the day he left the Colony—thirteen months after he received the Act—he took no steps to convene the Legislature. The delay was the more to be blamed as he had called into existence the local councils that could not properly carry on their functions till the Legislature was constituted. Again, he did not think Sir G. Grey justified in leaving the Colony until he had put the Constitution into operation. When the Constitution Act passed, the Government then in power decided, after much consideration, that, instead of sending out a new Governor to commence the constitution, it would be better that Sir G. Grey should remain in New Zealand for that purpose; but as the usual period of colonial service had almost expired in his case, it was arranged, to meet his wishes, that leave of absence should be given to him as soon as be had put the new constitution into action. He thought, also, Sir G. Grey's conduct was open to censure when he committed the illegality of appropriating the revenue by his own authority. There was another point which he could not pass over without some notice, and that was the recent election of Lieutenant General Wynyard, the Commander of Her Majesty's Forces in New Zealand, to the post of Superintendent of the settlement of Auckland. This gentleman, it appeared, held the anomalous and incongruous position of being Commander of Her Majesty's Forces, and, at the same time, acting Governor and President of one of the settlements. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Grey), whom he now addressed for the first time as Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he would give his sanction to such a combination of offices as this? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would lose no time in intimating that the officer in command of the forces in New Zealand was not to be considered as eligible for the office of Superintendent, still less that his election should be obtained by such means as had been resorted to in this instance; for he was informed that Lieuteant General Wynyard's election had been secured by the votes of his own soldiers and the military pensioners in the colony, persons who were under his own control and authority.

said, that after the full and satisfactory statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. F. Peel), he would not enter upon the details of this question, more especially as he was not possessed of the full information necessary for that purpose. With regard to the last point stated by the right hon. Baronet, he might say that he knew nothing whatever of the circumstances of Lieutenant General Wynyard's election to the office he held as Superintendent. He might say this much, however, that he thought the office which he held as interim, Governor was inconsistent with the subordinate office of President of Auckland. He thought the offices incompatible; and in these circumstances he had no doubt Lieutenant General Wynyard would see it his duty to resign the subordinate office which he held. With reference to what had been said as to Sir G. Grey having improperly left the Colony, he had to state that he left it with the full sanction of the Duke of Newcastle, and not till he had made all the preparations that were necessary for bringing the constitution into full effect.

said, he was not present when the Vote was taken for Bermuda, or he would have called the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Governor had been absent from his post when the island was desolated by a violent fever. In six months the Governor had been changed half a dozen times. Such a state of things was most injurious to the public service. Great blame attached to the Colonial Office for allowing the Governor to be absent at such a period; and he suggested that a civilian was not a proper party to hold an appointment which might require military experience. The Governor ought to be a naval officer, and he should not be permitted to absent himself from so important a post. He wished to know why the Governor of Bermuda should receive a salary of 1,500l. a year, whilst the other Governors received only 1,200l.?

asked whether accounts had been received of the increase of cholera in any of the West India Islands? He had heard that it was now prevailing in Barbadoes. He hoped attention would be given to the subject of the appointment of medical inspectors for the West Indies—an office first appointed by Earl Grey, which had been attended with great benefit. During the time he (Sir J. Pakington) held the office of Colonial Secretary, a medical inspector was sent to the West Indies, and he had since seen a despatch of the Duke of Newcastle, stating his opinion that it was desirable to have such an officer in order to promote sanitary regulations there, but declining altogether to provide funds for such an object. Now, he (Sir J. Pakington) thought it was a mistake to call upon the Colonies to pay all the expenses of medical inspectorship, as our naval and military forces stationed there enjoyed the benefit of it. It was of the greatest importance that the mother-country should take steps for the promotion of sanitary improvement in the Wrest India Colonies.

said, that in Jamaica measures had been taken to check the progress of the epidemic; and, though they had not asked for an inspector, instructions had been sent. out by the Board of Health, and every information which could be of the least use to prevent the spread of disease. A few years ago two medical inspectors had been sent to the West India Islands, and they had been the means of doing much good. The Board of Health had had the benefit of their experience in the suggestions which had been sent out. At the same time the suggestion should receive consideration; but he thought it right that, if the Colonies called for medical inspectors, they should bear a portion of the expenses.

observed, that in the Colony referred to by the hon. Member for Brighton there was a large military force, and in the absence of the Governor the senior officer was the most fit person upon whom the command should devolve. With regard to the sickness in Bermuda, he might state that the Treasury had placed a sum of money at the disposal of the Governor for the relief of the sufferers.

objected to the charge of 3,500l. a year towards paying the salary of the Governor of Jamaica. The charge was a new one. The people of Jamaica, too, made their own laws, settled their own tariffs, and the mother-country had no more advantage there than any other country; and he thought, under these circumstances, that they ought to pay their own Governor. He moved that the Vote be reduced by this amount.

said, the charge was not a new one, because it was voted last year, and was the result of an engagement by which this country undertook to pay 3,500l. a year for three years, in consideration of the Legislature of Jamaica consenting to alter the constitution of the island. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

said, it was unreasonable that the people of this country should be bled to pay salaries in Jamaica which the people of Jamaica were well able to pay; but he supposed the bargain was binding.

asked why the sum of 600l., usually included in this Vote, in respect of the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand, did not appear in the Estimate on this occasion? The Bishop of New Zealand was appointed to his present office about thirteen years ago, and the rev. Prelate had since attracted the good-will both of the Europeans and natives in that Colony, and indeed of all with whom he was connected. He might say that no dignitary of the English Church ever performed the arduous and important duties devolving upon him in a more able and exemplary manner than the rev. Prelate had done. The salary he received from this country was 600l. a year, and that sum they had been accustomed to see included in this Estimate every year, until this occasion. The Bishop of New Zealand, on entering upon his present office, of necessity abandoned his country, and relinquished the valuable preferment he previously held at home. Yet, notwithstanding, he (Sir John Pakington) had been informed that the rev. Prelate had received a communication from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, apprising him that the income he had hitherto received from this country was at an end. He (Sir John Pakington) thought he should be neglecting his duty if he was not to call on the Government to explain the circumstances under which the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand had been omitted from this Estimate.

said, although he had not the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with the Bishop of New Zealand, he was ready to bear testimony to the great respect in which the rev. Prelate was held among all denominations of Christians. He could conscientiously say that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to imply any want of esteem towards the rev. Prelate in the omission to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that this was the first year in which that omission was made; he would find that last year Parliament voted nothing in respect of the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand. The facts were these:—This Vote had been frequently objected to in this country. It was alleged that the revenues of New Zealand were gradually increasing, and increasing so rapidly as to afford the prospect that in a short period the Colony would be able to bear the whole expenditure of its own civil establishment without aid from the mother-country. In 1852 the Estimate was reduced to 10,000l.; that included 600l. as the income of the Bishop of New Zealand, which was altogether objected to on general as well as particular grounds by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams). In the course of the next year, when the Estimates were again under the consideration of the Duke of Newcastle, the Vote was reduced to within a fraction of 5,000l., and the appropriation of that sum of 5,000l. did not comprise one shilling for the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand, whilst there was appended to that Estimate a distinct pledge that the house should no longer be asked to vote money towards the civil expenditure of New Zealand. Under these circumstances, that Vote did not this year appear in the Estimates. He had no doubt the Legislative Assembly of New Zealand would in future willingly make provision for the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand.

thought there was ample time to have had a communication with the colonists, to ascertain whether they were willing to provide for the salary of the Bishop before it was struck out of the Estimates, and that it was the duty of the Secretary of State to take care that the rev. Prelate should not in the interval be left without an income, which he (Sir J. Pakington) was afraid had not been done.

bore testimony to the generous manner in which the Bishop had voluntarily foregone a considerable part of his revenue with the view to extend the episcopacy of the Australian Colonies, an object which was dear to his heart.

said, he did not think at present that the Colony of Western Australia was capable of taking on itself the whole charge of its civil establishment, but there was a probability of its being in a position to do so in the course of another year.

said, he thought a great portion of this expense might be dispensed with. The actual number of persons now emigrating through this machinery formed a small portion of the emigration from the United Kingdom. He had no objection to the employment of proper persons for the protection of emigrants in the ports of embarkation, but he did not see any occasion for retaining a staff which expended 600l. a year in postage. He thought the whole staff ought to be abolished, and that the expense ought to be limited to the employment of officers in the different ports to look after the safety of the passengers.

said, that the Board was not engaged in the promotion and encouragement of emigration, but that its chief use consisted in giving information to persons in different parts of the country who wished to emigrate, in protecting the emigrants against frauds, and investigating cases of abuse. Another important part of its duty related to taking up emigrant ships. It was very easy to object to the Vote in Committee, but if a disaster occurred at sea, the Government were blamed for not having taken proper precautions, which they could only do through the medium of responsible and efficient officers.

thought that as the public lands had now been generally surrendered to the Colonial Governments, such a charge as this ought not to be made against the revenue of this country.

said, it had been elicited at the inquiry before the Committee on Emigrant Ships, that the Government emigration officers in the various ports, whose duties were very arduous, only received 208l., per annum, while some of the clerks of the Emigration Board had 500l., a year. He thought it well worthy of the house to consider whether the emigration officers were sufficiently paid.

understood that the Emigration Board acted as agents. He hoped this Vote would not be brought forward again.

thought the emigration officers were by no means overpaid for the duties they performed, and that the staff was insufficient. In his opinion, the Emigration Board should be consolidated with the Board of Trade, and ought not to be dependent on the Australian Colonies for its payment; it should be a Government department, and control everything connected with emigration.

said, he would take the opportunity of putting a question to the noble Lord the President of the Council with reference to the Act of 1845, which was generally termed the "Brazilian Act." At the time that Act was passed, the present Premier was Foreign Minister under the Government of Sir Robert Peel, and stated, both in writing, and in speeches in another place, that he should lie extremely glad when the time should arrive at which it would be in his power to repeal that Act. The Committee would recollect that it was an exceptional matter, and was considered a temporary provision for the suppression of the slave trade at Brazil; and he wished to ask the noble Lord what was the state of our relations with Brazil, and whether the time had not arrived for the repeal of that Act? He asked the question on the ground that the Committee of last year reported that the slave trade was abolished, that the policy of the Brazilian Government had undergone a change, and that stringent laws had been passed for the purpose of putting down all attempts at the renewal of the slave trade.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) and the House must rejoice that the slave trade had been put down in Brazil; and they must not forget that this had been effected by our not passing over infringements of treaties, by our passing the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, and enforcing penalties upon those who carried on the trade in Brazil, and by the great vigilance and watchfulness of our fleet on the coast of that country. These had been among the means which had brought about the suppression of the trade, but he did not see that it followed as a logical sequence that we ought therefore to give up the means which had proved so effectual. Among these was the Act in question. No doubt, if, after a number of years, we found that no slave trade existed in Brazil, we might then reconsider this Act; but, although there had been several attempts made to negotiate a treaty on this subject, he had been informed by those best acquainted with the subject, that no stipulations had been proposed which would at all effectually supply the place of the means which were to be found in this Act. Our relations with Brazil were of the most friendly nature, and he was assured by the Minister of Brazil in this country, that the slave trade had been given up by all the respectable inhabitants of Brazil, who wished the present state of things to continue. He (Lord John Russell) thought that it would, under these circumstances, be unwise in us, by repealing this Act, and indulging vain expectations that the slave trade was entirely rooted out, to give an opening for the renewal of those horrible scenes, the occurrence of which had now happily ceased.

had been very sorry to hear the observations of the noble Lord, which he hoped would not reach the other side of the Atlantic. He had the authority of Lord Truro for saying that this Act was a most flagrant violation of the law of nations, and he believed it had a tendency to exasperate every Brazilian who had a regard for the independence of his country. Such an Act could not, in his opinion, have any beneficial effect in the direction of which the noble Lord had spoken. The Brazilian Government was probably, looking at its administration and the state of its finances, one of the most respectable in the world; public opinion in Brazil was in favour of the abolition of the slave trade; and he believed that no one acquainted with that country had the slightest suspicion that that trade would be revived. Under these circumstances, he could not see anything more proper than that the Government of this country should undo what was a very questionable Act, when it was done for the purpose of establishing the relations between the two countries on a more friendly footing. He did not like the noble Lord's idea of holding this Act over the Brazilian Government as a security for its good behaviour.

must say that this Act was passed on perfectly justifiable grounds. We had a perfect right to make the law. Brazil had in 1826 signed a treaty by which the Government of that country bound itself entirely to abolish the slave trade; but from 1826 down to a comparatively recent period, nothing whatever was done by the Brazilian Government to put down the slave trade; 50,000, 60,000, and even 70,000 negroes had been brought into Brazil every year, and sold publicly in the streets of the town, without the slightest attempt on the part of the Government to interfere and prevent the violation, not only of the treaty, but of laws passed in execution of that treaty. Then came this Act, passed, he believed, in 1845, but which was not attempted to he carried out till 1850. The hon. Member for Manchester said, "Public opinion in Brazil had changed, and the Government took the earliest opportunity, after public opinion enabled them to do so, to put down the slave trade." Why, nothing of the kind took place. The Brazilian Government was composed of persons favourable to the slave trade, and nothing would have induced them to put it down except the coercion which the English Government enforced upon them by the execution of the provisions of the Act of 1845. There was undoubtedly a small public opinion getting up on the subject in Brazil. In every country there is that feeling among men not actually engaged in the commission of crime which induces them to look upon crime with detestation; but that feeling in Brazil was perfectly powerless, in consequence of the great influence which a few slave dealers exercised over the Members of the Government and of the Legislature. But then came this Act. We put it in force in the summer of 1850. A great sensation was produced. Immense indignation was expressed, especially by those whose traffic in slaves was prevented by the operation of the Act; and cries were raised of violation of independence, infraction of national rights, and so forth. The Brazilian Government then said, "If you will suspend the execution of this Act, and discontinue seizing our slavers and carrying them off for condemnation or burning them on the coast, we will ourselves put a stop to the slave trade." Well, our Minister at Brazil and our Commander on the coast took them at their word. They said, "We will suspend the operation of the Act—we have no orders to do so, but we will take the responsibility upon ourselves, if you fairly do what you have promised," What followed? In three or four months after that the slave trade went on as bad as before; and then our Minister at Rio was obliged to say to the Brazilian Minister, "You have entirely broken faith with me; you made certain engagements which you promised to fulfil in the event of our not continuing our operation to suppress the slave trade; our suspension is at an end, and the orders we have received from our Government must now be obeyed." For a certain period of time, the execution of these orders accomplished its purpose. The Brazilian Government found that the slave trade would not be tolerated, and then they set to work in good earnest, gave orders to their agents to do what they ought to have done twenty-five years sooner, and at the end of a couple of years our system had entirely succeeded, the result being that, he believed the slave trade was now practically extinct. Well, now, how stood the case between the English and Brazilian Governments in regard to that? Why, he said that we have conferred the greatest possible benefit upon the Brazilian nation. The slave trade was carried on only for the advantage of a few overgrown capitalists, who made rapid fortunes in the horrid traffic; but a great number of small capitalists were ruined by it—the nation was demoralised by it—the people were degraded by it—all improvement was stopped by it. Every abomination which the human imagination could conceive was gradually spreading through the whole country. What effect had been produced by the execution of the Act? It had put a stop, at least to a great extent, to the demoralisation and to the abominable crimes which previously prevailed. The capital which used to be employed in buying these wretched negroes, and spreading desolation through the whole of the interior of Africa, was now employed in internal improvements. The Indians were gradually becoming valuable for the purposes of agriculture, and the whole tone of the country was changing for the better in consequence of this cessation of the slave trade, which was the effect of the Act which the hon. Member for Manchester was so eager to repeal. He could only say that if the Act were repealed we should be doing the greatest injury to the Brazilian people which it would be possible for us to inflict upon them. He did not say that the time might not come when—after a long series of years, when the slave traffic shall have wholly ceased—they might seriously consider that question; but at the present moment, when only the other day one of those slave dealers arrived in this country to invest here the profits of his iniquities in Brazil—when the recollection of these crimes, which he believed were not so much perpetrated by Brazilians as by Portuguese settled in Brazil, was so recent in the minds of all—he said it would be an act of madness if the British Government were to do anything which would have the effect of encouraging the revival of the detestable trade in human beings.

agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester that public opinion had had more to do with the suppression of the slave trade in Brazil than the Act in question, otherwise how did it happen that an Act which could not be enforced for about twenty years was so easily put in operation at the end of that period? The truth was that the execution of the Act was at last forced upon the Brazilian Government by public opinion. The treaty with Spain for suppressing the slave trade in Cuba had produced no effect whatever, for the simple reason that there was no public opinion to enforce it; and he contended that but for public opinion in Brazil the same thing would have taken place there.

thought that the hon. Member for Manchester laid rather too much stress upon the sensitiveness of the Brazilian people. He trusted that, as the Spanish Government seemed now determined to put down the importation of slaves into Cuba, the squadron upon that coast would be maintained in a high state of efficiency. It had recently been reduced, but he hoped it would be increased to such an extent as to be enabled to cooperate in the most effectual manner with the Captain General of Cuba in his attempt to put an end to the horrible slave traffic. It did not appear that the Brazilian, Government had been anxious for the repeal of the Act of 1845, and he hoped the Act would be maintained in force till there was some further security for the suppression of the slave trade.

said, the House and the country were greatly indebted to the noble Lord the Home Secretary for his unwearied and successful exertions to suppress the slave trade, and thought they could do nothing less than leave the further prosecution of the matter in the hands of a Minister who had already done so much.

said, it had been reported that the Russian prisoners captured on board merchant vessels by our cruisers bad been set at liberty, on condition that they would not serve against us, and were permitted to accept service on board British merchantmen. He wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if that rumour was correct; and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain who were the prisoners who were to be put into the building which was to cost so much money to the country?

said, it had appeared to the Government that whilst Parliament was still sitting preparations should be made for the reception of prisoners who might be captured during the war. He had stated, when he proposed this Vote on a former evening, that in the last war there were three or four large buildings for this purpose in different parts of the country, and one in Scotland; that they had all, however, been since pulled down or converted to other uses, and that, therefore, other preparations were now necessary for the reception of prisoners of war. An opportunity had recently presented itself to the Government for purchasing a prison of considerable size at Lewes, in the county of Sussex, for this purpose; and as the price was very reasonable, he had struck a bargain with the owners, and Parliament was now asked to defray the cost. At Constantinople, also, with the consent of the Seraskier and the Admiral, preparations had been made for the reception of prisoners of war—not so much of sailors as Russian soldiers—to the extent of several hundreds. It was quite true, with reference to a considerable proportion of the commercial sailors who had been captured, that their parole had been taken, and they were offered permission to enter the British merchant service upon the condition they should sail to the south and west, but not return to the Baltic or the Black Sea. Some had accepted this offer, and already a considerable number had been liberated. No expense would be incurred in regard to these prisoners of war that could be avoided, but the Government had felt it necessary to make some provisions for their reception, and to defray the cost of their maintenance. The sum, therefore, now asked for was only 20,000l. altogether, including 5,000l. purchase money for the gaol; whereas, in the course of the last French war, he believed the cost of prisoners amounted to 1,000,000l. annually.

wished to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the risk caused to our own soldiers and sailors by the non-observance of proper regulations on board of the transport ships. He would not enter into the unfortunate case of the Europa, but it was perfectly obvious, from the report of Captain Carnegie, and other documents, that the loss of that noble soldier, Colonel Moore, was to be attributed to the fact that he would not leave the troopers, and that they remained on board because there was no boat to take them away. He (Mr. Otway) had made a voyage to the antipodes himself, in one of these ships, and could state that from the day that the vessel lost sight of land till it sighted Australia the long boat was filled either with sheep, cows, provender, or lumber of one kind or another, instead of being kept ready and available for the passengers in cases of casualty. Now, he would suggest that the Government should require from every officer sent out in charge of a transport, before he was entitled to his pay, to sign a certificate to the effect that during the whole of the voyage the long boat (which would contain a great number of troops or passengers) had not been used for the stowage of cattle, provender, or any description of lumber. The officers and troops ought also to be told off in parties, each to a particular boat, to which they could have recourse in case of fire or other accidents; and, if such was done, such lamentable catastrophes as those that had occurred, especially to the Amazon and the Europa, would be prevented.

thought it was useless to pay money for a building to hold prisoners of war when we had ships in ordinary, and should vote against it if the Committee divided upon it.

also considered that large floating prisons might be got ready at very little expense for containing prisoners of war.

asked if any offer had been made by Russia to exchange the officers and crew of the Tiger for prisoners captured by us?

said, that no official report had yet been received, or any arrangement made on the subject to which the hon. and gallant Member had referred. He had stated a few evenings ago, that there was a 74 ship at Sheerness for the reception of prisoners of war taken in the Baltic; and at Constantinople there was a hulk for the same purpose.