, in moving that the House agree with the Lords' Amendments, said, he would take that opportunity of ex- plaining their effect. Hon. Members would recollect that when this Bill was read a second time in that House a discussion took place upon its provisions, which were intended to effect two objects. The first of these objects was the winding-up of certain of the affairs of the South Sea Company, a course rendered necessary by the financial operations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other object was to enable the South Sea Company to take the management of trust estates. This latter he believed to have been a most important provision, but he was sorry to say that in another place it had been determined to amend the Bill by striking out all the clauses relating to this object, and to this Amendment he had now to move the House to consent. The South Sea Company assented to the Amendment, but they only did so because they were obliged to wind up their affairs within a specified time.

said, he should give his concurrence to the views expressed by the Member for Kilmarnock, because he always regretted to see unnecessary restrictions placed upon any of our great incorporated bodies.

said, he considered that the House of Lords had done quite right in making the amendments which they had, and he thought it would be very dangerous to intrust any such powers as those proposed by this Bill to public companies.

said, he believed this was the proper moment to move the addition to the Bill of the Instruction of which he had given notice. He regarded this as the most important measure on the subject of law reform ever submitted to the House of Commons, and as embodying all the principles of reform contended for by law reformers during the past twenty or thirty years. Its first and leading feature was the fusion of law and equity, Now this and other principles of the Bill were of general application, as properly bearing upon the Supreme Courts of Law at Calcutta as at Westminster; in fact, proper to be applied to all similar courts throughout every part of Her Majesty's dominions. True it was that the courts of law in India possessed powers of self-reform considerably greater than those held by the same tribunals in England; but then the delays and difficulties in the way of introducing improvements, arising out of the necessity of constantly requiring time for the sanction and approval of the supreme authorities, were so great as to nullify, in great measure, the advantages to be derived from such powers being vested in the Judges. He thought, then, that if they could hit upon a practical mode of arriving at the same result much quicker, it would be wise legislation to require its adoption; and he believed that by the addition of this simple Instruction to the Bill they would have attained that object. The Supreme Courts of India differed in no way either as regarded the character of the proceedings or nature of their jurisprudence from the Courts at Westminster; he could see no reason, therefore, why the same rules should not be applied in both cases. If these rules were good for Westminster, surely they would be equally good for Calcutta. The Supreme Courts were introduced into India by the authority of Parliament, and in opposition to the wishes of the Court of Directors; but, nevertheless, they had progressed satisfactorily, and obtained the approbation and good wishes of all the inhabitants of India who had come under their control. They had adopted all the improvements which had been introduced into the courts of this country in later years, and carried them into effect with perfect success, and if an opportunity existed of making those courts still more useful, that opportunity ought not to be neglected. And he would have I the House to recollect that it was not alone the natives of India that were interested in the introduction of a system of cheap and quick justice into that country—a commercial community of some 2,000,000 of persons, representing what he might call the élite of India, and engaged in transactions to the extent of 40,000,000l. annually, were, if possible, much more concerned in the attainment of that object. And the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) well knew that that great commercial emporium was as I much interested in the proper reform of the Supreme Courts of India as were the inhabitants of either Calcutta, Bombay, or Singapore. He hoped, then, that he should have the support of all anxious for the welfare of commerce, and, likewise, of those who wished well to the native population, whom it was scarcely in their reach to benefit in any other direc- tion than that of giving them the cheap and efficient administration of justice. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control would not oppose the proposition, but that, for the sake of justice in India, he would consent to allow the matter to be considered in Committee.

seconded the Motion. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, that they have power to extend the provisions thereof to Her Majesty's Superior Courts in India."

said, he was happy to find that his hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Perry) approved of the principle of the Bill, for his opinion was one worthy of much weight and consideration. He (Sir C. Wood) was fully sensible of the value of that opinion in reference to the desirability of extending its provisions to India, and although he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion, he did so, not so much because he disapproved of the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as that he objected to the mode in which it was proposed to carry that object into effect. In the very first place, although Parliamentary history afforded precedents for inserting in an Act upon one subject clauses relating to a totally different matter, yet he believed that such a course had never yet been taken with regard to India. All the changes and improvements in the law of that country had been kept in separate and distinct Acts of Parliament, and thus a special code existed relating to a special subject. The present Motion proposed to break in upon that uniformity for the first time, and thus the simple addition of an Instruction in an English Bill would introduce uncertainty and confusion into what had hitherto been plain and straightforward. Again, in the last Session of Parliament it had been a principle laid down and agreed to on all hands, that the internal arrangements of India should be left to India to legislate upon. But here it was proposed, directly in contravention of that principle, to extend a most complicated and minute measure of internal regulation to that country. If, however, it were possible to extend the principles of this Bill to India, without taking the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member, he (Sir C. Wood) would perhaps not be disinclined to overlook those objections. But in truth the very contrary was the fact, and it was perfectly possible to intro- duce into India all such of the principles of this Bill as were applicable to that empire, although the Motion of the hon. and learned Member might not be carried. It was with a view to such a fit amelioration of the law that the Commission, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, had been appointed. The hon. and learned Member found fault, it was true, with legal Commissions, but he should remember that this very measure, of which he approved, issued from such a body. He therefore objected to the proposed course of proceeding because he thought it wrong in principle to introduce, by a single clause, a new code of laws into India. India ought to be legislated for in India, and in his opinion they would stultify themselves by taking the matter out of the hands of the Commission.

said, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw his Amendment. Without entering into the question whether or not the laws of England should be applied to India, he thought that if that was to be done at all, it should be by means of a separate measure. He trusted the measure would not be endangered by the Amendment being persevered with, for he ventured to say it was one of the most important measures that had been introduced for centuries, and in his opinion it was the most important measure of the present Session.

said, he had intended to move the extension of this Bill to Ireland, but he had refrained from doing so from a fear of retarding its progress. He therefore pressed on the hon. and learned Gentleman to follow the same course and withdraw his Motion.

said, he would take the opportunity of stating, that he regarded it as very prejudicial to the public interests to have separate legislation for different portions of the empire in reference to such matters. Indeed, he must confess, paradoxical as it might appear, that on the whole, he infinitely preferred to see Ireland sharing bad legislation with England than that she should occasionally enjoy all the advantages of good measures, when the sister country was not so well dealt with; and for this reason—it was very certain that when anything was wrong in England a remedy was sure to be found, sooner or later; not so, however, with Ireland—there things might be very badly ordered indeed, without provoking the slightest attempt at amelioration. As an instance of the strange working of the present system, he might point out the fact that while he found on the notice paper mention of no less than twenty-five measures, all more or less of a reformatory character, only nine of them were applicable to Ireland; while, in twenty out of the twenty-five cases, legislation might be most usefully extended to her.

said, he wished to state, in reply to what had just fallen from his hon. and learned Friend, that the Bill was only not made applicable to Ireland from an assurance which he received from several members of the Irish bar, that there were differences in the practice of the courts of the two countries which might interfere with such an object. Had it not been for this reason, he should have been anxious to extend the measure to Ireland.

said, he would consent to withdraw the Motion, though with regret.

said, he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the state of the law courts. Nothing could be more filthy or horrible than the Bail Court, or the little Exchequer Chamber. The stifling heat and scanty accommodation in most of the courts made it almost impossible to transact public business in them. The Judges had complained over and over again of this state of things, and he thought it was high time some better accommodation was provided.

said, he would suggest that it would be better to postpone this clause until some information was obtained as to the number of jurors who would be available. At present he was inclined to think that to raise the qualification of jurors, and, consequently, to limit their numbers, would, in many counties, lead to very great difficulties.

said, this clause was the result of a very general feeling among all persons acquainted with the course of things at assizes, that while in the large towns a class of jurors was easily obtained of considerable intelligence, in the agricultural counties there was considerable difficulty in getting jurors whose education and intelligence were of sufficiently high standard to fit them for the discharge of their very important functions.

said, he felt certain that the adoption of this clause, as the Bill at present stood, would lead to considerable difficulty and confusion. As the provisions of this clause were not to extend to the jurors summoned for Crown trials, the sheriff would henceforth have to make up three separate lists of jurors without having any means afforded to him from the document from which he at present made out the lists of knowing what was the particular qualification of each juror. He thought some machinery ought to be introduced into the Bill by which the sheriff would be able to obtain this information.

said, it was admitted on all hands that it was desirable to raise the qualification of jurors. For his part, he thought that a mixture of jurors of different classes would be exceedingly valuable.

said, he would suggest that these provisions relating to jurors should be embodied in a separate Bill.

said, he was of opinion that it would be of great advantage if jurors of a higher class of intelligence were brought to bear upon criminal trials.

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be exceedingly advantageous to employ, to a certain extent, a higher class of jurors in criminal cases. He would propose to omit these clauses relating to jurors, promising at the same time that a separate Bill should be introduced relating to this part of the law.

said, he wished to suggest that in any Bill on this subject regard should be had to the feelings of the great mass of the people, who came within the scope of the criminal law. At present the theory was, that a man should be tried by his peers, and he should be very unwilling to consent to any alteration which would lead to the poorer classes being tried by persons removed from their own condition in life.

said, he must beg to explain that his desire was not that criminal juries should be composed entirely of the higher classes of jurymen, but that there should be a certain mixture: for instance, that country gentlemen, eligible to serve on the grand jury, but not actually engaged in serving, should sit along with their poorer neighbours on common juries. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether there was any prospect of a measure being introduced this Session with regard to the grand juries of the City of London. At present, twelve times a year, there were forty-eight gentlemen summoned, to whom an exemption for three years from serving on common juries was then given, and the effect of this practice was, that the intelligence of the jury list was exhausted, and the juries in the City became little better than those in the agricultural districts.

said, he was not prepared to introduce any Bill on the subject referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman during the present Session. The subject was under consideration in connection with the important question of a public prosecutor, with regard to which he might say—as he was not present when a question referring to it was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) the other day—that he had given to it his most serious and anxious consideration, but he had found it so surrounded with difficulties that he had not been able to draw up such a measure as he should feel justified in submitting to Parliament. If we were remodelling our whole judicial system, the matter would not be so difficult; but to adapt such a new institution to our existing institutions, with a due regard to existing interests, was one of the gravest problems which the Legislature could be called on to solve. So difficult, indeed, I was it, that the present Lord Chief Justice (Lord Campbell) had stated that, the matter being brought under his consideration when he was Attorney General, he had reflected upon it. but he had not been able to satisfy himself as to any scheme for carrying out the desired object. He (the Attorney General) was still seeking about for information on the subject, and he hoped by next Session to have some scheme matured which he might think worthy of being submitted to the attention of Parliament. Without some such insti- tution as this it would be impossible to carry out the object referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—the abolition of the grand jury system.

said, his anxiety was not for the abolition of the grand jury system so much as to see it modified, and the number of attendances retrenched. Four times a year, he thought, would be sufficiently frequent attendance.

hoped, that if a separate Bill were to be introduced, regulating the grand jury system of England, its provisions would be extended to Ireland also.

said, he wished to explain that the clause now before the Committee proposed to get rid, in all civil causes, of the present anomalous practice of shutting up juries without refreshment, for in future all necessary refreshments and accommodation were to be provided by leave of the Judge. It also proposed that juries should be discharged after twelve hours if they did not agree; and, lastly, that if only ten of the jurors were unanimous, their verdict should be of equal force as if found unanimously by the whole jury.

said, he strongly suspected that if the refreshments were to be found by the public a great deal of the time of juries would be taken up in their discussion rather than in that of the issue which they had to try.

said, he must explain that refreshments could only be had at the discretion of the Judge; and, as jurors were servants of the public, he thought it only just that the public should bear the expense of providing what was necessary for them.

said, he wished to know what was the opinion of the Common Law Commission with regard to extending this provision as to taking the verdict of ten jurymen out of the twelve to criminal cases. It must be remembered that criminal offences were not unfrequently brought into issue in civil causes—such, for instance, as perjury, fraud, conspiracy, and even arson in assurance cases; nay, he had known an assurance case in which the verdict of the jury involved the crime of murder; and there would then be this anomalous state of things, that on the civil side of the court a man might be found guilty on the verdict of ten jurymen, while on the criminal side the unanimous verdict of twelve jurymen would be required.

said, he would readily admit that the clause was not in accordance with the views of the last Commission, who were unanimously agreed in favour of retaining the present system of unanimity in the jury. The provision was adopted by the House of Lords in conformity with the views of the Commission of 1831, who were of opinion that if nine of a jury were unanimous their verdict ought to be taken. The late Commissioners, however, held that such a practice must necessarily lead to general litigation, inasmuch as persons would be much more induced to sue for a new trial in case of any number of the jury having pronounced in their favour. He confessed his own views were most strongly in favour of the latter conclusion; and, therefore, were against the clause as it stood. Still, as the question had been much considered in the other House, he should be loth to disturb the settlement come to.

said, he had intended to have divided the Committee on the clause. He had no hesitation in affirming that to dispense with unanimity on the part of juries would be altogether to overturn the institution of trial by jury. He thought that a provision so important as that ought, at all events, to be made the subject of a separate enactment; and that in so thin a House as that was, sitting to discuss a Common Law Procedure Bill, its discussion ought not to be proceeded with. He objected to so great a change in trial by jury, which was interwoven with all the institutions of the country. However, he agreed in the wisdom of removing all coercion upon juries.

said, he approved of the clause, holding it to be against human nature to secure in all cases the unanimity of twelve persons.

said, he entertained a strong opinion in favour of the necessity of unanimity in the jury. He believed, if the proposed change were extended to criminal cases, it would be found impossible to carry out capital sentences where the verdict of "Guilty" had only been given by ten jurymen.

said, that under the present system the unanimity of juries was only apparent, but if the former part of this clause, which abolished coercion, Were adopted without the latter, there would no longer be any unanimity, either real or apparent. The consequence would be, that juries would be continually separating without coming to a verdict, and parties would be put to the expense of new trials.

said, he objected to the clause as it stood, on account of the anomalous state of things which would result from it. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of London had pointed out, a man might be found guilty of an offence by ten jurymen on one side of the court, while, on the other side, the verdict of the twelve would be required. He hoped that noble Lords in another place would not be so unreasonable as to insist upon this clause.

said, he did not for a single moment suppose that the Bill would be rejected in another place, if this clause were struck out. His own opinion being in favour of requiring unanimity, he should certainly support the omission of the latter part of the clause.

said, he was strongly of opinion that the clause ought not to stand in its present shape. It was impossible, if it were introduced into civil practice, that it should not be extended to criminal cases, and he did not think that in these cases the system of taking the verdict of ten jurymen out of twelve would give satisfaction.

said, he wished to point out to the Committee, that the system proposed to be introduced into the English law had long been in practice in Scotland, and had been found to give universal satisfaction there.

But we have not here the intermediate verdict of "Not proven."

said, he was decidedly for maintaining the clause as it stood. The plea as to the desirableness of securing unanimity on the part of a jury he regarded as an absurdity.

said, that the objection entertained by the people of Scotland was to trying civil cases by juries at all. They were formerly tried by judges alone, and the new system had never become popular, though he believed that one of the chief elements of its unpopularity was the anomaly which it created between the civil and criminal practice with regard to this very point of taking the verdicts of juries.

said, he regarded the clause as the most beneficial feature in the whole Bill. Let them adopt it, and they would no longer have to witness the spectacle of jurors being starved into unanimity by the dogged obstinacy of stout men in top-boots, whose mastication was as tough as the leather from which their boots were made.

said, he could not come to the conclusion that the ends of justice would be furthered by the adoption of the clause.

said, it was his decided opinion, if the clause were adopted, that the verdict of a jury would no longer be worthy of the same respect in the public mind.

said, he objected to the Judge who presided being the party to decide as to whether a person should be sworn or not; he thought that this decision ought to be left to a man's own conscience. He should move also, as to this clause, that the word "religious" be omitted, and the word "conscientious" inserted.

said, he was inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, for he considered that no man ought to be allowed to sit in judgment on another man's conscience.

said, he thought the clause would act well as it stood; if, however, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark were pressed, the best form of raising the question would be to move to omit the word "conscientious" and insert the word "religious."

said, hon. Members appeared to be splitting straws about expressions, and he could not understand what conscientious scruples could exist except such as were founded on religious feeling.

said, that this clause of the Bill had been most carefully considered, and by intermeddling with the wording of it, which had been adopted with every desire not to wound the feelings of any parties, the Committee would destroy the effect of the whole measure.

said, he wished to call attention to the sytem of stamps upon bills of exchange and promissory notes, which he considered required considerable amendment, particularly as to their being refused as evidence under certain circumstances in courts of law, such as, for instance, a bill being drawn for a larger amount than the stamp would carry. This might be altered, he suggested, by imposing a fine in such cases, and, upon payment of the fine, allowing the bill to be received as evidence.

said, that that subject was rather a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than himself, and he feared the hon. Member would find that there were a good many fiscal difficulties in the way. He would, however, consider the subject.

said, he should move the omission of the clause. In this clause the appeal was given to the party decided against as a matter of right, while by Clause 36 it was given on certain conditions. Owing to these circumstances he believed the 35th clause would be inoperative.

hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not persevere with his Motion. He was sure that the omission of this clause would not meet with the approbation of the judicial authorities in another place, and would imperil the measure.

said, he was so anxious for the adoption of this valuable measure that he would not press his Motion.

said, he was desirous of putting a question to the noble Lord the President of the Council of which he had not given notice. If, however, notice were required, he would defer the question till another day. He wished to know whether any treaty or convention had been signed between Austria and the Porte with regard to the occupation of the Principalities by Austrian troops? Whether, in case such a convention had been entered into, the treaty had been communicated to Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether there would be any objection to lay it upon the table? He also wished to ask whether the intelligence, which had been very freely circulated, that the Emperor of Russia had accepted the ultimatum of Austria, had been confirmed, and whether the retirement of the Russian troops from the Danube, with a view to the evacuation of the Principalities, was, according to information received by the Government, in consequence of an understanding come to between Austria and Russia?

In answer, Sir, to the first question of my noble Friend, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have received information that a convention has been signed between Austria and the Sublime Porte for the occupation of the Danubian Principalities by Austrian troops in any case, either whether the Russian troops shall have quitted the Principalities, or whether they shall seek to remain there—that is to say, if the Russians have voluntarily left the Principalities, the Austrian troops will occupy them; and if the Russians should refuse to quit the Principalities, the Austrian troops will enter those Principalities for the purpose of driving them out. That is the effect of the treaty; but we have not at present an official copy of the convention which has been signed, and therefore I cannot promise yet to lay it upon the table of this House. With regard to my noble Friend's second question, which relates to any intelligence that has been received by Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Emperor of Russia having consented to the ultimatum of Austria, I have to state that no official information of that nature has been received by the Government. The last time that I saw the Austrian Minister he informed me that no answer had yet been received at Vienna; and I suppose, unless subsequent information has arrived, that no answer has yet been received.

Sir, I wish to ask the noble Lord if this country is any party to the convention, which he states has been concluded between Austria and the Porte?

It is a con- vention between Austria and the Porte, and this country is not a party to it.

said, he would beg to ask the noble Lord if he would lay on the table of that House a despatch on the subject of the Treaty of Adrianople, which had been laid on the table of the House of Lords?

If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member will move for the production of the despatch, there will be no objection to produce it.

said, in that case he gave notice that he would move that it be laid on the table.

said, he begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government had arrived at any decision in reference to the newspaper stamp question with the view of carrying out the declared opinion of that House?

said, as he understood the question put by the hon. Gentleman, it was, whether the Government at the present time intended to bring in any Bill to give effect to the Resolution which was come to by that House upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Milner Gibson). The Government were not prepared to bring in such a Bill; and it would perhaps save the hon. Gentleman some trouble if he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) now stated that, when they were prepared to do so, the Government would take care to give due notice of their intentions.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just given an answer to a question from an hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lucas) which he could not understand, and which did not correspond with the reply given to a similar question on a former day. If he correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman, he stated that the question of the newspaper stamp was not under the consideration of the Government with a view to legislation, and that the Government had decided to set at nought the Resolution of that House. ["No, no!"] He certainly understood the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to be, that the question was not tinder consideration, and that when it was he would give notice to the House. Now, what the right hon. Gentleman stated upon a former occasion was, not only that the question was under consideration, but that it was under special consideration. It was only because he had been led to believe that the Government would undertake the matter that he had been induced not to proceed with it. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the House were to understand from the answer just given that Government had no intention of legislating upon the subject.

said, he was quite sure from what the right hon. Gentleman had just stated, that he had not heard the answer given to the question of the hon. Member for Meath, or he could not by any possibility have placed the construction upon it which he had done. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not retracted or qualified one syllable of what he said on a former occasion. What he then stated was, that the Government had requested the Attorney General to take the matter into consideration, with a view to ascertain the state of the law. He was asked to-day if the Government had come to any decision upon the subject, and, in answer, he stated that they had not, and that when they did due notice would be given to the House.

said, in rising to move the introduction of the clause of which he had given notice, he thought that it was very well adapted to the Bill they had before them, which appointed a certain number of Commissioners, who were to act for four years; and the time which it took to obtain a degree at Oxford, as he proposed by his Resolution to enable Dissenters to do, would be nearly coincident with the term of the Commissioners' powers. After the expiration of the four years, if Parliament thought proper, the question could be again dealt with if necessary. The object of the clause was to render the University a national institution, and he thought such a proceeding would have a tendency to create a kindly feeling between the different religious denominations of the country. However necessary it was for parties entering the Church to subscribe to religious tests, he could not see that it was either just or requisite to compel the laity to subscribe to them.

said, he begged to second the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, with whom he felt it an honour to be associated in prosecuting the object he had in view. He hoped the House would consider the position in which the question was now placed by what had already occurred. The House had granted to the Dissenters the same advantage as they enjoyed at Cambridge, namely, admission without the oath; and by this Bill they had also sanctioned private halls. The clause of the hon. Member was, therefore, only the natural and necessary corollary which would give completeness to the measure. Civil disabilities on account of religious distinctions were inconsistent with the spirit of the nineteenth century; and he rejoiced that the house had decided upon placing the stamp of that spirit upon this Bill by a majority of ninety-one on a former night. The singular moderation of his hon. Friend's proposition was its best claim to the favour of the House. If, however, it should be opposed, he hoped that it would be supported by such a majority as would not only secure its passage through that House, but would see it safely to its journey's end. Clause (From and after the first day of Michaelmas Term, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four, it shall not be necessary for any person, upon taking the degree of Bachelor in Arts, Law, Medicine, or Music, in the University of Oxford, to make or subscribe any declaration, or take any oath, save the oath of allegiance, or an equivalent declaration of allegiance, any law or Statute to the contrary notwithstanding)—brought, up, and read the first time.

said, he could not agree to the proposition of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood). The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said, that this was a very moderate proposal; but he had forgotten that the hon. Member who brought forward the clause had indicated now for the first time, that the period for taking bachelors' degrees being for four years, the Commission would come to an end at that period; and that the question could then be reconsidered. ["Hear, hear!"] It was quite plain by the cheers that there was no mistake upon this point. Therefore, when his hon. Friend (Mr. E. Denison) called this a moderate proposal, he would remind him that the candid and manly statement of the hon. Member for North Lancashire placed the question in anything but a moderate light; for it was evident that it was the ultimate intention of the supporters of this clause to go the whole length of the original proposition. The University of Oxford had been lulled to sleep on this question of the admission of Dissenters by the assurances of the Government at the commencement of the discussion that no proposition of the kind would be included in this Bill. No member of the University had the least reason to suppose that any matter of this sort would be considered in relation to this Bill. The University was now taken entirely by surprise. It was true every Member of the Government spoke strongly last week in favour of this measure, but they voted against it. The whole power they brought to bear against it was about forty Members. He did not think that that showed a very great stir upon the part of the Government to oppose the measure on that occasion. They were told that, all religious disabilities having been removed, the University should be as open as any other place. But what did that involve? The University being a place of national education, must therefore cease altogether, as a University, to be a place of religious education. He should like to know how the examination upon the truths of Christianity, and the distinctive teaching of the Church, was to be continued under such circumstances. In the separate colleges they might teach what they pleased, but, so far as the University was concerned, unless she set herself against the State, and by her Statutes and regulations made the present measure of no effect; if she acted in accordance with the proposed law and framed her examination so as to enable all persons to be included within them, she would cease to be a religious institution altogether. The principle involved was by no means a trifling one, but, if he saw the way clear to the University of Oxford remaining a teacher of religion consistently with such a clause as this, he should not oppose it. As yet, however, no one had attempted to point out how that was to be effected. For his own part he believed it to be an impossibility, and, believing it to be an impossibility, though he got but a single person to follow him into the lobby, he would divide the House upon it. The question was one of the greatest consequence. The majority of persons who now sent their children to Oxford, did so because they knew they would be trained up in the principles of religion, and he did not think that, for the sake of a minority who might go there, they had any right to knock up the existing system, and that they would knock it up by the clause under consideration to him was quite apparent. It had been stated in the course of the discussion on this Bill, that one-half of the population consisted of Dissenters from the Established Church. He (Mr. Henley) doubted the accuracy of that assertion. Hon. Members, no doubt, founded their statement upon the fact that half the people who attended divine service on a given day were not members of the Church of England. But the hon. Member for North Lancashire must know as well as he (Mr. Henley) that a very large portion of the population went nowhere, and it was the duty of an Established Church to look after those who did not look after themselves. An established Church was always, in a certain sense, a missionary Church among that large portion of the people who, unfortunately, paid no attention to their religious duties at all. It was a violent assumption to say, therefore, that half the community did not belong to the Established Church. His objection to the clause, then, was that it would occasion the University, as contradistinguished from the colleges and halls, to cease to be a place for religious instruction; and believing that it would produce great mischief, and destroy that which was the most useful part of the University system, he begged to move that the clause be read a second time that day six months.

, in seconding the Amendment, said, the hon. Member for North Lancashire had truly stated that his object was to get rid of the religious education of the laity of the Church of England, and he proposed to do this by abolishing the requirement that they should sign the Articles of the Church or be examined upon them. The intention of the clause was not merely that the Dissenters should not be required to subscribe the Articles of the Church of England, but that the laity of the Church of England should not be required to understand, subscribe, or agree to them. The hon. Member had observed, historically and correctly, that subscription to these Articles had become a regulation of the University during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. That was one of the fruits of the Reformation, and it marked the period when the University was by this regulation brought into accordance with the church of England, as then reformed, and became truly Protestant. He begged the House, there- fore, to remember that it was a Protestant test which had hitherto been required from the members of the University of Oxford that they were now called upon to abolish. The recent history of the University did not prove that it ought to be the object of sincere members of the Church, or indeed of sincere Protestants of any denomination, to remove Protestant tests or teaching front that institution. And this he thought was a good reason why the House should not permit subscription to and examination in the Thirty-nine Articles to be abolished. It had been objected, in the first place, that members of the University at matriculation should be required to sign those Articles. It was now proposed that they should no longer be examined in the substance of the Articles on taking their degrees, or be called upon to sign them at that or any subsequent period. Now, as a sincerely attached member of the University of Oxford, and having viewed with much pain the dangers to which she had been exposed by the Tractarian movement, he deprecated this object most heartily and with serious apprehension, because he saw that the House, in its anxiety to provide for the admission of Protestant Dissenters to the University, without considering both sides of the question, was about to remove the Protestant safeguards of the University, and that at the very period when it was known such safeguards were doubly requisite. He was glad the proposition had been stripped of the pretence that examination in the Articles was any longer to be required of members of the Church of England, from which their competitors in other branches of learning were to be exempt, and that the proposer of the clause clearly indicated that he expected the Commissioners would compel the University to abandon the examination of any of her members for bachelors' degrees in the doctrines of the Church of England if this clause were adopted. He was glad it had been declared that it was the intention of the clause that the lay members of the Church of England should no longer be educated or examined, so far as the University regulations had force, in the doctrines of religion—the doctrines of the Church of England. It at once, he repeated, stripped the proposition of the pretence of being consistent with the continuance of the University as a great educational institution in connection with the Church. The measure was, in fact, the commence- ment—and only the commencement—of a plan which was designed to sever the connection at present subsisting between the University and the Church; for the hon. Member (Mr. Heywood) had clearly indicated that this was but an instalment of his whole object, which whole object was to place Dissenters and Roman Catholics, equally with members of the Church of England, in the government of the University, by admitting them to the degree of masters of arts, and, as far as it could be accomplished, to reduce the system of the University of Oxford to the system which prevailed in the University of London, wherein there was no religion taught, no religion acknowledged, and no distinctive connection maintained with any Church.

said, one observation had dropped from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and also from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), which required a moment's notice. Now, it was the intention of his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) and the Government to support the clause of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood), and he, for his own part, should deliberately join in giving that vote, in the full conviction that, as matters now stood, and after the unmistakable expression of the will of the House, he was doing that which was best for the interest of the University of Oxford itself. The wishes and intentions of the hon. Member for North Lancashire were no doubt entitled to be heard with all respect, but he would venture to observe to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that this clause could not in any authoritative way fix the House of Commons to those views. The right hon. Gentleman said that after the House had passed this clause, it would be impossible for the education of the University to continue a religious education. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was bound to say that, if that were true, nothing would induce him to vote for the clause. But he found nothing in the clause to prevent the University from doing that which the right hon. Gentleman said it would not be able to do—namely, to administer, as she had heretofore done, a religious education to the children of the Church of England. No doubt it would be necessary for the University, in order to give full effect to the decision of Parliament—if Parliament adopted the decision—to adapt her own rules and regulations to the purposes of Parliament with regard to the admission and training of persons of other religious persuasions. It would be the duty of the University to address herself cheerfully and carefully to the performance of that task, and he had no doubt that to the duty she would so address herself. But as to religious education, he ventured the confident opinion that it would continue to be given there as heretofore, and that the construction which the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had put on the clause —with respect to its effects, and the character of the education given at Oxford, and generally of the undergraduates—was a construction which was not justified by the clause itself. He might add that it was a construction which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) would be glad to find would not be justified by the results.

said, he was of founder's kin to one of the Oxford colleges, and yet he was to be excluded from any governing power in the University. So far so good, and he had no objection to that. The Universities had become great national institutions in connection with the Church of England, and he for one did not demur to being excluded from all governing power in those of Oxford and Cambridge. He differed, however, from What had fallen from an hon. Friend of his the other day, as to its being a matter of indifference to those who professed the ancient faith of the land whether they were excluded by religious tests or not. He might agree with him in thinking that there was no advantage to be obtained at either University which might not be too clearly purchased by the sacrifice of the faith they professed, but he did not concur in the opinion that there was danger of young men who went to the Universities losing their faith by contact with the members of the Established Church, or of having their religious principles in any way weakened by availing themselves of a University education. He should vote with great satisfaction for the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heywood), but, while he did not complain of the restriction in question, he must say he wished that the principle should be extended to the Irish Universities, and that, as they had excluded from the governing power of the national Universities in England persons who did not profess the religion of the Church of England, so they would also exclude from the government of the Irish Universities those who did not profess the national faith of that country—taking care that the governing body should alter their rules and Statutes in such a manner that persons of a different religion might have the opportunity of obtaining an University education in their colleges. He also wished seriously to submit to hon. Gentlemen, members of the Church of England, whether it was right that an oath should be imposed at all on anybody in the University? He understood that at present, on taking a degree at Oxford, young men were required to call God to witness that—

"No foreign prince, prelate, or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, either ecclesiastical or spiritual, in Her Majesty's realms, dominions, or country."

He would ask whether hon. Members thought that was an oath which ought to be taken either at Oxford or elsewhere. Ought not the existence of the fact that such authority was notoriously obeyed in this country to be sufficient to prevent it from being taken? From the time of the Reformation down to the reign of George III., such an oath might properly have been taken; but if he could show that by an Act of Parliament spiritual obedience to a foreign potentate had been made legal, and that successive Acts of Parliaments had recognised that legality, and the status of individuals created by such authority, he submitted that no conscientious man, aware of such facts, could or ought to take such an oath. It was fitting, when they were dealing with the oaths which certain parties should be required to take, that their attention should be called to their own Acts passed within the last fifty years, and which were wholly inconsistent with the plain meaning of the oath in question. Since the passing of the Acts of the 13 & 14 Geo. III. c. 35, and the 21 & 22 Geo. III. c. 24 (Irish), by which "Popish bishops" and all the rites and ceremonies of the Catholic religion, including, of course, the conferring of holy orders by "Popish bishops," were legalised, and of the 18 & 31 Geo. III. (English), to the same effect, priests in holy orders of the Church of Rome had been so far recognised by the laws that, though British subjects, they could not sit in that House or serve on a jury; and how could persons swear that the foreign prelate under whose authority such priests were inducted had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this realm? It could not be denied that the Romish priests were inducted by bishops who derived authority from the See of Rome, and which bishops had stated to the House the manner of their appointment and the nature of the Bulls under which they were appointed. Only a few years ago a Commission, authorised by the Act of 7 & Vict., had issued relative to pastoral superintendence in Ireland, to which archbishops and bishops of the Romish Church were nominated, and Protestant archbishops and bishops of the United Kingdom had the liberality to become members of that Commission, and actually trustees of charitable donations and bequests in favour of archbishops and bishops, and their successors, appointed by Papal Bulls to pastoral superintendence in the realm. He hoped, after the statement he had now made, somebody would quiet his conscience on this point, by stating something which would justify this Protestant Legislature in imposing oaths on the youth of the country that were inconsistent with the obedience recognised by their Acts of Parliament of a certain class to foreign spiritual jurisdiction; and that the governing bodies in the University—that of All Souls, for instance, from which he was excluded because the Statutes of the founder had been violated—would have the goodness to take the matter into their consideration, and ascertain whether such an oath could consistently be taken.

said, he understood that those who voted for the clause intended that the persons with whom the government of the colleges and Universities should rest should still be members of the Church of England. It appeared to him, however, now that the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles was abolished, that the protection remaining would be of an imperfect character. That protection consisted only in that passage of the Act of Uniformity which required a declaration of conformation to the liturgy of the Church of England. This guarantee, in practice, amounted to nothing, for Dissenters, and even Roman Catholics, might conform to the liturgy of tile Church of England, though they would not subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. In fact, there was nothing in it which might not be conscientiously conformed to by either; and, therefore, there was nothing which precluded either from holding fellowships, and thereby from participating in the government of the University, as well as sharing its patronage, and taking part in the instruction of its youth. There was nothing, likewise, to prevent Roman Catholics from becoming professors under the circumstances, and so of exercising an enlarged influence over instruction in the University. He thought that this was not what the House intended, and he would therefore move a proviso which would have the effect of giving the same protection that existed at present against any one not a member of the Church of England holding office in any college. At the same time, he was quite willing to leave the whole matter in the hands of the University, and if they thought it right to qualify the present oaths in any way, he thought they should have power to do so. Amendment proposed, at the end of the clause, to add the words,

"Provided always, that no person taking such degree shall be capable of holding any office, station, or emolument involving any duties or powers of government, administration, patronage, or instruction within the University or Colleges respectively, without having previously subscribed such oath and declarations as by the present law and usage of the University would have been required to he taken and made by him at any time or times previously to or at his taking the said degree; so that this present Proviso may be altered by any Statutes duly made by the University,"

said, he must decidedly object to this proviso. He had been censured for not giving more notice of his clause, and now here was a proviso, which was in fact an entirely new regulation, brought forward without any notice at all, The degree of B.A. conferred upon a graduate no station, power, or office whatever in the University. The only emolument that he could obtain was by acting as a private tutor if he was clever, and that it was now proposed to deprive him of unless he signed an acknowledgment of the Royal Supremacy in the most extreme form in which it was received in the days of the Stuarts, and an affirmation of belief in the entire Prayer-book and the Thirty-nine Articles. He thought that was perfectly monstrous. He thought the admission to fellowships was even now too much restricted by the provision that those who held them should sign a declaration of conformity to the liturgy of the Church of England. He understood, indeed, that the practice of making such a declaration was very much disused at Oxford. He was glad of it, and hoped that they would not again revive it.

said, that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Wigram) by this proviso proposed to add to the stringency of the Act of Uniformity, seeming thereby to imply that that Act was not sufficiently restrictive, and that further tests were requisite. He should certainly oppose any such proviso.

said, he would recommend his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wigram) not to press his Motion. He (Mr. Walpole) had voted in the minority on the last division, because he was anxious that the University should regulate its own proceedings; but, if he had been asked to give his vote simply upon the clause, he would have regarded it merely as a consequence of the clauses which had been previously agreed to by the House, and as completing the education to be given to Dissenters, believing that under its operation they would not be admitted to any share in the government of the University. As it had been said that this clause was only regarded as an instalment of something to be hereafter demanded, he wished it to be distinctly understood that his reason for not opposing the clause was that he considered it as a settlement of the question. He would venture to say that, whenever the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) brought forward a proposal for giving Dissenters either a right to trusts and endowments which were intended for others, or powers with regard to the government of the University, he would meet with an opposition which would effectually prevent such a proposal from being carried into effect.

moved the following clause—

"That no Member of the University who shall have matriculated after the 1st of December next shall be allowed, on account of his rank, to pass his examination or take his degree sooner than another Undergraduate."

said, that, looking to the merits of the clause, there could be no doubt that persons should not be allowed, on account of their rank, to take degrees sooner than other undergraduates, and as the clause would not affect persons now at the University, who had gone through a part of their studies, he did not think there could be any objection to it. The clause had formerly been objected to on the part of the Government as proposing to do by Act of Parliament what the University might itself accomplish. He considered that the clause in its present form was quite reasonable in itself, and he would therefore give it his support.

said, he must admit that he was not friendly to the clause. He had no desire to curtail the period of education for persons of rank at the University. It was now open to every nobleman, who thought fit to do so, to go through the ordinary course for a degree, and there had been many instances in which noblemen who were distinguished Members of the other House had gone through the ordinary course for degrees, and had been successful in carrying off prizes at the Universities. He thought, however, that the clause would deprive the University of a power which he considered that it ought to possess; namely, that of granting degrees to persons of distinction who had deserved well of their country. That was a power which had always been exercised by the University, and he would be sorry to see it abolished by a Resolution of that House.

said, that a very experienced member of the University of Oxford, the Rev. W. Hayward Cox, in the course of his evidence, recommended that commoners should have the privilege of taking degrees within the same time in which degrees might be taken by noble-men. Mr. Cox said—

"It is my impression, founded on the experience of a quarter of a century, that a great portion of the extravagance, indolence, and ignorance, which prevail among students at Oxford, is traceable to the insufficient occupation absolutely imposed on candidates for degrees during the three years and a half of necessary residence. That such a protracted period is not, in point of fact, essential, is recognised by the privilege conceded to the nobility and the eldest sons of baronets, &c., of proceeding to their degrees at the commencement of the twelfth terns from their matriculation; and I have no hesitation in recommending the abolition of this privilege, by rendering it common to all candidates for ordinary degrees. I believe that at University College, and other colleges which are under an improved administration, it has even been found practicable to send successful aspirants to the highest academical honours into the schools, at the same period."

said, he did not think the clause would in any degree interfere with the power of the University to shorten the term of residence, if the governing body thought fit to do so. The clause might, however, interfere with the right of the University to confer honorary degrees, and he would suggest that words should be inserted reserving that power to the University.

said, that the clause contained nothing which could have that effect.

said, he wished to move to add the following words at the end of Clause 18—"Heads of colleges and halls, being professors, shall vote only for heads of colleges or halls." The House had on a former evening decided that heads of colleges should elect the heads of colleges who were to form part of Congregation; that professors should elect the professors; and that heads of houses should not interfere in the election of the deputies from Convocation. It seemed, therefore, requisite to the logical completeness of the clause, that die House should agree to the addition he now proposed to make.

said, that neither he nor his Colleagues entertained less objection than formerly to a sectional, as compared to a general constituency. As, however, the House had adopted a sectional constituency, he thought they ought to be consistent, and adopt the proposal of his hon. Friend.

said, he would now move to add to Clause 29, the additional words of which he had given notice. Amendment proposed, at the end of Clause 29 to add the words— "Residents shall be taken to mean persons whose residence within the University for twenty-four weeks during the twelve months next before the first day of the current or next preceding Michaelmas Term, shall have been verified by the declaration in writing of all persons claiming to vote or act as such residents, or in such other manner as the University shall from time to time by Statute appoint." Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

said, he objected to the provision. He thought it would be much better to leave it to the University itself to make regulations upon this point.

said, it would be far better to leave the definition to the University.

hoped the proposal would not be adopted, as it had, by common consent, been left to the University to define the meaning of residence.

said, he was under a contrary impression. He would, of course, much rather the question was left to the decision of the University, and he should withdraw his Amendment.

said the definition was necessarily left to the Vice Chancellor pro hâc vice, as the elections had to take place before the Congregation could be constituted.

said, he wished to make an addition to the clause with reference to interests specially saved or protected by the Bill. Amendment proposed, at the end of Clause 29 to add the words—

"And the words 'existing' and 'enjoyed,' when used with reference to interests specially saved or protected by this Act, shall not extend to or include any right or claim which at the time of passing this Act may be in practical disuse."

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

said, he thought the definition suggested by his hon. and learned Friend would give rise to more doubt than it would remove. The words "in practical disuse" were very vague, and he would suggest that in their stead should be employed the words "actually enjoyed within such a period."

said, he also objected to the vagueness of the words "in practical disuse."

moved to add to the end of Clause 34 a proviso. The object of this proviso was to mitigate what he still believed would be the injurious working of this clause, which was added to the Bill on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer). With regard to scholarships and exhibitions, the words would leave the clause as it stood, and would touch only the fellowships. The fellowships stood upon a different footing to the studentships. When the colleges were originally founded, they were not intended to be the great teaching offices of the Universities, from which the Universities were to draw their scholars, but offices of residence and study in the colleges. Now, however, the country expected from the colleges the University education; and though they had private halls, it was to the fellows of the colleges they had to look for the conduct of that education. The question was, whether the Bill, as it originally stood, did not sufficiently provide for the protection of the interest of the schools. Power was given to the colleges to propose reforms, and if they did not, then the Commissioners had the power, and an appeal was given to the Privy Council. That would have been a sufficient protection to a school like Winchester, which was supposed to have a right of succession to New College; but, under the clause introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman the decision as to whether there should be any reform or not was left not only to the governing body of New College, but also to the governing body of Winchester, who would have to decide whether New College should still be a close college for the boys of Winchester or not? But was this governing body of Winchester School, a body so practically acquainted with New College or with the wants of Winchester School, to be intrusted with this duty? It was composed of ten clergymen, one of whom only took any active part in the affairs of the school, two others permanently resided in Winchester, and the other seven were never heard of there, and these were the persons who, under the hon. and learned Gentleman's clause, might nullify the purposes of this Bill and nullify the judgment of the Commissioners. As an illustration of the working of the present system, he might refer to the case of Winchester and New College; of the close fellowships there were no less than four vacant at this moment, because no persons tolerably fit had been sent up by the school to fill them. He called upon them not to deliver the governing and teaching body in the University into the hands of bodies which would be totally incompetent to perform the functions intrusted to them.

said, he considered it very unfortunate that the proposed Amendment had not been inserted in the Votes earlier, as many hon. Gentlemen had formed the opinion that this Amendment was not intended to be persevered in. The Amendment was entirely opposed to the principle of the clause to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. The principle of his clause was, that schools were as much entitled to the emoluments and endowments connected with those schools as the colleges to the endowments and emoluments of the colleges. Now, the parties appointed to carry out the new Act were persons in no way interested in the schools—their purposes were entirely academical, and had reference only to academical objects. It could hardly be expected that persons would pay any due regard to the rights and interests of schools whose powers were so exclusively limited to academical objects. The whole rights and interests of the schools, except for the clause which the House had adopted, were to be dealt with by a side-wind, and were to be regarded as haying merged into academical interests. It was not correct to describe fellowships and studentships as teaching offices, though he admitted the heads of colleges were generally selected from those bodies. If the effect of the clause was that it would force upon colleges such a number of fellows and students as could not furnish a proper body of tutors, that would be a serious objection. But such would not be the effect of the clause, and care had been taken by several Amendments to guard against possible objections of this character. To show how groundless was alarm on account of this clause, he would refer to the cases of Pembroke College and Balliol College, and scholars from Abingdon School. He begged to say that in no case would the college be left without a sufficiently well-qualified tutorial body. With respect to the scholars from Abingdon School, the college had the power of placing the qualification to emoluments as high as they pleased. This would be a sufficient safeguard for the college. If they could not get boys from Abingdon School who came up to their own standard, they then could throw open the fellowships to all the world. Some thought, in giving the powers he had permitted to the college and the Commissioners, that he had gone too far; but he had been anxious to meet all objections, and to do away with all grounds for complaint or fear. It had been said that appeal could be made to the Privy Council for the preservation of the rights of schools. But the Commissioners would be guided only by the Bill, and the Bill totally ignored schools. It was purely and exclusively a University Bill. His point was, that colleges should not have the only voice in respect of continuing or otherwise fellowships attached to schools. The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment- on Christ Church and St. John's Colleges would be more extensive than the right hon. Gentleman appeared to conceive. The effect of the Amendment would be to take the three great schools—Winchester, Merchant Taylors', and Westminster, out of the operation of the clause. This he objected to. He thought the House ought not to trust to the way in which a particular body of persons would discharge a particular duty. The House ought to legislate upon general principles when legislating on such an important subject. If the Amendment was carried, it would possibly tend to impair the value of these great schools as educational institutions. It was not right to leave these three great schools dependent on the caprice or prejudices of particular persons or colleges for endowments and emoluments winch had been enjoyed by those schools since their foundation. There was no sound principle for submitting the interests of these great schools to the judgment of colleges. Again, if the Amendment was now conceded, they could not refuse next year to legislate in the same way for Eton. The right hon. Gentleman had gone on the supposition that it would not be right to intrust the governing body of these great schools with the power of deciding whether it would be for the advantage of the schools, or otherwise, that endowments and emoluments which they enjoyed ought to be abolished. Now, in reply to this, he would refer to the character and composition of the governing bodies, and to the way in which they had throughout discharged their duties. A reference to the scholars elected to the en- dowments would establish the accuracy of that assertion. He trusted that Members interested in the different schools throughout the country, and more especially the Members for Scotland, with reference to the Snell Exhibitions attached to the University of Glasgow, would not forget that the principle for which he was contending was a principle of which they had had the benefit, but of which they would not have the benefit if they followed the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had declared that he considered the principle of the clause altogether mischievous.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) had, on a previous occasion, carried a Resolution, the effect of which was, that two-thirds of the governing body of any school might put a veto upon any regulation of the Commissioners for the abolition of preferences in the nomination to any exhibitions, scholarships, fellowships, or studentships, and now it was proposed to modify that Resolution. But, in his opinion, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have saved himself much circumlocution if he had proposed to enact that, in cases of preferences to scholarships, fellowships, studentships, or exhibitions, no alteration should be made in the present system. It would have been much shorter to do so, and the effect would have been precisely the same as that of the present proposal; and he should deal with the subject as if such had been in reality the proposition. It was the inclination, and, no doubt, it might be the duty, of the governing powers of schools to refuse, upon any consideration, to allow the emoluments to which they considered the schools to be entitled to be taken away. They were not bound to adopt cosmopolitan or national views upon the subject; but, on the contrary, as their duties were narrow, so their views would be narrow, and they would be influenced by local interest. He objected to the principle of the hon. and learned Gentleman that these fellowships and emoluments belonged to the schools alone. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to regard the school as everything, while in his mind the college was a mere appanage; he treated the school as the mother-country, the college as the colony, but such was not, he thought, a correct view of the case. The colleges of Oxford constituted the University, and it was from fellows of colleges that the governing body of the University was supplied, and also the tutors. If, therefore, those fellowships were bestowed upon those schools, or awarded upon any consideration other than that of merit, no surer method could be adopted of keeping down rising talent, and the case might happen, as he had known it to happen, of a young man being compelled to listen to lectures from a person inferior to himself in knowledge. He looked upon colleges as great corporations, and surely they ought to be allowed to choose their own members. The hon. and learned Gentleman had likewise said that he would allow the Commissioners to raise the standard of merit in the case of persons coming from close schools, and, if the regulations they made were not complied with, that then these fellowships and studentships might be considered open; but he could not imagine anything worse than that it should go forth that any such arrangement was contemplated by that House. It appeared to him that the creed of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, "Let us have ignorance if we can, but if we cannot have that, then let us have merit;" but that was surely not a principle upon which the education of the country could be carried on. The case of Balliol had been referred to, but how had that college, during his own recollection, risen to the high rank in the University it now held? It was simply because the fellowships had been given to the best men in the University. With regard to Winchester, he could tell the House what Winchester was when he was acquainted with it. It was said now that boys of the ages of eight, nine, or ten years were to be admitted according to merit, and so the merit of a boy of that age would be sufficient to decide his position for life. In his time there was no question of merit at all, it was entirely a matter of interest; and relationship to persons dead for hundreds of years, or the possession of influential friends, was of infinitely more importance than merit. There were two effects generally attendant upon fellowships—a good and a bad effect. The good effect was, that they made a man work, and the bad effect, that when a person had obtained a fellowship it prevented him working. In the case of a boy who chance of a fellowship was decided at fourteen or fifteen years of age all stimulus to future exertion was withdrawn; and that was not the only evil. It might happen that, in order of merit, four or five commoners were superior to boys on the foun- dation, but the boys on the foundation were appointed to fellowships, while the commoners were left to get on in the world as they best could, so that, in point of fact, the principle inculcated was, that industry and merit were very good things, but that interest was a great deal better. That was the practical lesson which he had learnt at Winchester, and was what had fallen to his share. The effect of that system was, that boys from the school, when they be- became undergraduates, had more facility for cultivating society, and they made the University very agreeable; but he found that, in many cases, the habits of economy which they acquired were not suitable to the station they were afterwards called upon to fill. Another bad effect of the system was, that a boy was thrown among a certain number of associates, both at school and college; if these associates were good ones, so much the better; but, if not, from the circumstance of the boys from one school going to the same college, he could not change his set when he arrived regard the University. With regard to the alteration proposed to be made in the admission of boys to Winchester, he could only say that he was glad for his own sake and for that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and of his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Cardwell), that no such change was made in his time; for, if it had, they would have been elected to the foundation, and then have gone to New College, and been all three ruined. He hoped that the House would bear in mind that the question really was, whether they would do those boys on the foundation of these schools the irreparable injury of making their fortunes for them before their minds were developed. It was also to be remembered that thirty-five writerships in the East India Company's service had been thrown open to public competition, and that they were of greater advantage to a young man than a fellowship of Oxford, and every means ought to be employed to preserve at Oxford as much talent as possible. That was not to be done by the principle of close fellowships, but the system which had in other cases worked so well ought to be introduced at the University, he meant the system of free and open competition.

said, that the greater number of the arguments used by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had been anticipated and answered by the hon. and learned Member for Ply- mouth. The hon. Member had argued on the supposition that it was desired to keep up the emoluments as they at present existed, but all that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Palmer) wished to maintain was existing rights. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth would leave it open to the colleges to form the most stringent regulations with respect to University distinctions. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) said, that the governing body of schools had not large cosmopolitan views. He hoped the hon. Gentleman did not mean that Oxford was to be actuated by cosmopolitan views at the expense of others. With respect to Winchester, it was known that the authorities of the school had a plan under consideration for giving greater competition among themselves for admission to New College, and there was nothing in the clause to prevent the authorities of New College making any stronger regulations they might think fit to ensure application and industry on the part of the youths of the college. What he contended for was, that Winchester should not be deprived of the powers of sending its scholars to New College, and that the advantages it enjoyed should not he diminished.

said, he had not intended to speak on the present question, but he felt bound to state that his views had changed since he entered the House. He had entertained a strong feeling as to the schools being quite as important as the rights of the University itself. He had voted in favour of the Resolution of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. R. Palmer), but the debate that evening had convinced hint that he would not be justified in perpetuating abuses which were proved to exist. The character of those endowments had entirely changed. They had been intended to advance men in life, but now persons went to the University so much younger, that they had already started in life before they got the benefit of them. He thought that the claims of Christ Church had not been fully attended to in the Bill; it was left in a very anomalous state as regarded its connection with the schools, but he felt bound to give a vote contrary to his former one.

said, that the hon. Member for Kidderminster had assumed that the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth was equivalent to one which should propose to retain, without any modification, the preferences and privileges of schools in their entirety, as they at present existed. But it was quite as open for those on that side to assume—in spite of the modifications and checks proposed—that the object of the Bill was to sweep away all the endowments of the University, or to remodel them according to their own wish. He thought that the argument of the hon. Member for Kidderminster was more in favour of the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) than of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member said, that they must look to the colleges for the governing body of the University, but the hon. Gentleman had not alluded to the new halls, and did not say whether they were to have anything to do with the governing body. With regard to Balliol, it had been stated that an actual bargain existed, and there was much force in what the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth said with respect to that college. With regard to Jesus College, he would observe that the authorities hoped to confine it to all the schools in Wales, and therefore those Gentlemen who were so fond of competition would not let in a Scotchman or Englishman, but they stuck to Welshmen altogether. Then as to Pembroke College, it was originally founded for the school at Abingdon, and it would not be quite honest to throw overboard the trust created, and leave the school out of consideration. After all, the clause must rest upon the ground, that where there were two parties concerned, they could not leave the regulation of the whole affairs in the hands of one, and not give the body equally interested a part of the control. The preamble of the Bill had been altered without notice. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had struck out the most important words—words which had reference to the intentions of founders; and, in its present shape, the Privy Council would not take much notice of the founder's intentions. Altering the preamble without notice ought not to have been done. He should vote against the Amendment.

said, that from the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, he should be inclined to say that it was directed against the Blundell School, at Tiverton, of which he was a trustee, and its connection with Balliol College. The scholarships belonging to that foundation were always filled up, and they finally issued in two fellow- ships at Balliol, which fellowships were precisely aimed at by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. This certainly affected the interests of Balliol as a place of education. There were ten or twelve open fellowships in that college; and the two remaining ones were filled up by the men sent front Tiverton. And, on this subject, he could assure the House that the trustees always endeavoured to have the competitors at the examination classed according to their merits before they passed for selection. The provisions of the trust required that the trustees should have regard to merit, and to the condition of those whose parents were least able to afford the expenses of education. This was done; and the boys were divided into three classes, so that the trustees were enabled to fulfil their duties according to the intentions of the trust. If the right hon. Gentleman would leave the school alone, he did not deny that some improvement might be made in the arrangements with Balliol College; but he protested against the funds of the school being applied to the endowment of open fellowships. He objected, also, to the sacrifice of one of the fellowships. He believed the adoption of the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be detrimental to the interests of the school which he had referred to, and to the opportunities which a local school afforded for stimulating young men to exertion.

said, it appeared to him that the state of the question was this—the House having decided distinctly, and by a not inconsiderable majority, in spite of the opposition of the Government, in favour of the clause moved by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, they were now undoubtedly taken by surprise by a Motion which would substantially destroy the effect of their previous decision, with one very unimportant exception. That exception was the Snell exhibitions; but he hoped that hon. Members from the North would not, in consequence of that exception, be induced to depart from a principle which they had upon a former occasion supported. It might be a successful artifice, and be an ingenious device worthy of a great statesman, to take such means of securing a majority; but he would sooner be in the smallest minority that ever divided that House, than attempt to obtain the end by such means. He had listened with considerable surprise to the very flippant tone in which the hon. Member for Kidderminster had treated the question; but he observed with regret that from the beginning to the end he did not make a single allusion to the principle of justice which was involved in the question. All that his speech amounted to was, that it was convenient to take the money of these schools. Every consideration of justice and feeling, every consideration to which a court of justice would listen, was entirely put aside by the hon. Member. He begged to remind the hon. Member that no nation and no community gained by a direct disregard of the principles of justice, and if they set an example of this sort it might not possibly stop with these confiscations which were now proposed for their convenience. The time might come when such a precedent, employed in worse days, and with a more mischievous spirit, might be productive of the most fatal consequences. There was not a single argument, however, which had been used by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Palmer) in which he had not been anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman in 1850, when he opposed the Commission. At that time he particularly dwelt upon the fact that examination was often a fallacious test; yet now he put forward a successful examination as a reason for sweeping away these school foundations and every obligation connected with them. He said, too, at that time, that greater injury could hardly he inflicted upon the poor than by the noble Lord's measure; yet here he was himself inflicting that injury. He (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) trusted that in spite of artifice and sophistry these institutions would be maintained intact and inviolate. He trusted that the House of Commons would not consent to maim and mutilate those noble institutions which Cromwell himself had spared. He trusted that institutions which had survived the civil wars would survive tricks and artifice in the House of Commons. He trusted they would survive the machinations of which they had to-night had an example. He would entreat the right hon. Gentleman, in words that he well knew were familiar to him, to return to his former opinions and preserve the connection between these ancient foundations and the University—

"Lift not thy spear against the Muses' bower;

The Great Emathian conqueror bade spare

The house of Pindarus, when temple and tower

Went to the ground; and the repeated air

Of sad Electra's poet had the power

To save the Athenian Walls from ruin bare."

said, it was his intention to support the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition.

said, he should repeat the vote which he had given the other night in favour of the clause, as proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer)—although, if anything could have induced him to alter that vote it would have been the kind of appeal made by the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore), who seemed to imagine that the Scotch Members required to be shamed out of taking a course which he (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) had held up to reprobation. They needed no such inducement; and although he entirely acquitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any attempt to lure the Scotch Members into giving their votes in support of the present proposition, he felt that the principle involved now was the same as had been moved when the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had first brought this subject under the consideration of the House; and although Scotland was now safe, he still considered it his duty to take the course which he had.

said, he was desirous of calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to some late proceedings of the Baltic Fleet, and as he could ask for explanations now with as little interruption to public business as at any future time, he would take that opportunity of doing so. Communications had been made to him by persons in whom he had the fullest confidence, and statements had also been made in the public papers, relative to the proceedings of a portion of the British squadron in the Baltic, and if the information which he had received, and the statements to which he had alluded were not correct, he should be very glad to have them contradicted; but if they were correct, he thought the circumstances which had taken place were inconsistent with the professions of the Government, as they were certainly considered by persons who were anxious that this war should be carried on with vigour against the Russians to be highly impolitic. It was on these grounds that he thought the House was entitled to ask for an explanation from the Government; and he begged to state that he did not rise with the slightest desire to cast any reproach upon Admiral Plumridge, or the officers of Her Majesty's squadron, who, no doubt, in anything which they had done had been guided solely by a desire to perform strictly their duty, and had deviated neither to the right hand nor to the left, but had been actuated solely by that which always characterised the officers of Her Majesty's Navy—a steady adherence to the path which duty pointed out to them to take. He put this question, therefore, to the First Lord of the Admiralty, with the view of obtaining an explanation of the policy, for which he presumed the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues were responsible, and not with a desire to throw odium or reproach on those who, he had no doubt, might have, in the course of this war, very painful duties to perform. Now the facts, as he was informed, were these: —There was a small town in the Gulf of Bothnia, called Uleaborg, which was a purely commercial place, and which, when visited in the course of the present month, by three of Her Majesty's vessels, was found to be in a perfectly defenceless state, not having a single fortified place, nor any munitions of war. Deputations from the inhabitants went out in a boat to communicate with the Admiral, and to ask him his intentions, and they informed him, at the same time, that they were entirely defenceless, and threw themselves upon his mercy. In order, however, to be accurate, he would read the exact statement which had been submitted to him:—

"In consequence of the events at Brahestad, a deputation was sent out to the enemy to ask what was his object, and to inform him that we were quite defenceless, and threw ourselves entirely on his mercy. In answer, we received five copies of a proclamation in the English and Swedish languages to the following purport:—

"'The English Admiral will not molest or injure private persons or their property. He only intends to destroy the castles and defences, shipping and property of the Emperor of Russia. So long as the inhabitants continue peaceably within their houses they will be protected, but should they offer assistance to the Russian troops they will be treated as enemies. The English Admiral desires that the women and children be sent out of the town.

"'HANWAY PLUMRIDGE, Rear-Admiral.

"'H.B.M.S. Leopard, at Uleaborg, June 1.' Hereon the deputation remarked, "That they had in this case nothing to fear, since they had neither soldiers, fortresses, nor contraband of war.' But the Admiral answered, You have a large store of tar, deals, timber, ships building, and materials for constructing them. These shall be burnt.' The deputation answered, "That all this was private property, and in no respect intended for warlike purposes; that a great part of the deals were English property, and that several young merchants who were building ships had received advances from England to assist them in their undertakings and in their shipments of tar.' The Admiral answered, 'If Englishmen have property here, that is not my concern, and I can't help it. I am sorry for it, but I must fulfil my duty. In ten minutes I shall begin operations.'"

With the proclamation nobody could find fault, for it was entirely in accordance with its principles that property should be respected, and that, unless the exigencies of the war required it, it should not be interfered with; that, in fact, there should be no wanton interference with private property. But, in respect to this private property, he was informed that information was given and evidence taken — for he understood that officers had landed and had seen and judged for themselves—that it was entirely commercial in its character, and was intended to be shipped for this country. He was told that not a particle of that property belonged to the Russian Government. There were no gunboats building; there were no gunboats built. A great part of it was unquestionably English, and had probably been bought and paid for before the declaration of war, for it could not have been removed earlier in consequence of the ice. That being the case, and it being the property of an enemy, of an Emperor of Russia, according to the practice of war the Emperor of Russia was much more likely to have seized it than themselves. He was told that, in point of fact, there was a considerable quantity of tar there which was the property of parties in London who had contracted with the Admiralty to supply tar for the use of Her Majesty's dockyards; and was intended to have been delivered from part of that supply. He was informed that the parties who had undertaken this contract apprised the Government of this country that they had bought and paid for the tar, but that it was at Uleaborg, in Finland, and unless some licence or permission were granted, to allow it to be brought through the blockade squadron, the contract could not be fulfilled. He understood the answer was, that though no licence could be given, yet if neutral vessels were sent to Ulea- borg to fetch the tar they would be allowed to pass unharmed through the squadron, and to bring the tar home for the use of Her Majesty's vessels. So that instead of burning the property of the Emperor of Russia, they burnt what was wanted by, and what would have come into the use of Her Majesty's Government. If he was wrong in this, he should be happy to hear it contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman. But if this tar was under contract to be delivered to our Government, its destruction by Admiral Plumridge's squadron would give rise, without doubt, to a case of compensation; and the British public would have claims made upon it similar to the Danish claims for the loss of the property destroyed. Now, he questioned the policy of making these attacks upon private property in small defenceless villages on the coast of Finland. England could have no object to gain in exasperating the population of Finland, the trade of these ports being almost exclusively carried on with this country. No doubt the laws of war would justify such a proceeding, if it could be shown that the exigencies of war required it; but such a case of necessity had yet to be made out. He had received a letter from a gentleman in the City, engaged in the Baltic trade, an extract from Which he would read to the House—

"According to the accounts I have received from Finland, the English landed at Uleaborg, a defenceless place, without meeting any resistance. They immediately set fire to six new merchant vessels on the stocks and one just launched, then to all the ship-building materials, and afterwards to the entire stock of goods lying at the wharves for exportation, consisting of a large quantity of timber and deals, and from 17,000 to 20,000 barrels of tar, as well as to eight ships afloat in the harbour. At Brahestad the English, equally unresisted, burnt five merchantmen on the stocks and six afloat, also 1,000 dozen of deals, 8,000 barrels of tar and pitch, and various other things, including a quantity of corn and salt, the whole estimated at 400,000 silver roubles. To the best of my belief, nearly all, if not the whole, of the property destroyed was private property—some of it British. This destruction of property can only affect the Russian Government and its power of carrying on the war in a very indirect and remote way. It will act much more directly on ourselves, for, of the 30,000 barrels of tar destroyed, the greater part would have found its way to our own dockyards and shipowners, who will not easily get supplied with this article elsewhere; whereas, under present circumstances, Russia wants none, or only such small quantities as she can readily and speedily obtain at home. To talk of this store of tar and deals as being contraband of war is therefore the acme of absurdity, and it is clear that, contrary to the professions of our Government and of Admiral Plum- ridge himself, that private property should be spared when the exigencies of war did not demand its destruction, it has in these cases been wantonly and unnecessarily destroyed."

Our men and officers exposed their lives in the performance of acts of war, from which, if successful, there was no gain, and which would not hasten in the smallest degree the ultimate conclusion of hostilities. Finland could hardly be said to be a part of Russia, for it had been annexed to Russia after a strong resistance from the Fins. Such proceedings, therefore, could only give offence to the Finlanders, and also to the Swedes, who were our best friends. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) wished to guard himself against being supposed to reflect, in any way, upon the naval officers concerned in these transactions, because he believed that they had only acted upon their instructions. All he asked from the Government was, that they should vindicate the policy they had pursued in the circumstances which he had brought under the notice of the House.

Sir, I was not exactly aware that the right hon. Gentleman intended this evening to go into so much detail on the subject which he has brought under the notice of the House; and I therefore did not bring down all the despatches with reference to this subject. They only arrived this morning, and tomorrow they will be published in the Gazette, and then the House and the public will be better enabled to form their opinion upon the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded. But he has relieved me from any difficulty upon one head, which indeed would have been a difficulty of a most oppressive character, namely, if he had impugned the conduct of the British officers and gallant men who were employed on the service now in question. The right hon. Gentleman says, and says very truly, that those officers and men have executed their duty honourably, and have faithfully obeyed their instructions, and are not open to any censure whatever, so far as the authority presiding over naval affairs is concerned, in the conduct which they have pursued. Any blame attached to them attaches to the Government and to those who employed them, and not to the officers and men themselves. Now, Sir, I know not that it is expedient, as the matter now stands, that I should offer any elaborate defence with reference to the instructions given for the destruction of Russian property. We all knew that it is among the other objects of war to burn and destroy the property of the enemy; and although the right hon. Gentleman says that Finland can hardly be called a part of Russia, yet for the last twenty years at least that has been a sad reality, and Finland has been treated by Russia the same as Riga, or any other part of her territories on the opposite shore of the Baltic. And then, with respect to the articles to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, namely, cordage, timber, tar, and the other articles destroyed on this occasion, the House must be aware that with regard to Sweden and Denmark we have treaties of neutrality in which certain articles are specified, which even with reference to neutrality are held to be contraband of war; and the very articles which were in this instance destroyed are so enumerated in these treaties, and in our treaties both with Sweden and Denmark. While these countries preserve their neutrality, they are prohibited from conveying to the enemy timber, cordage, pitch, and tar, which were the very articles We have destroyed in the enemy's ports; and had they been found by British cruisers proceeding from Denmark or Sweden to any Russian port, even by the law of nations, apart from these treaties, they could have been dealt with as contraband of war. Now, I think I cannot do better than quote from the despatches of Sir Charles Napier, which we received only this morning, giving a summary of what had been done in the Gulf of Bothnia.

"I beg leave to inclose Admiral Plumridge's report of his proceedings in the Gull of Bothnia from the 5th of May to the 10th of June, by which Lordships will observe that he has destroyed forty-six vessels afloat, and on the stocks, amounting to 11,000 tons; from 40,000 to 50,000 barrels of pitch and tar, 6,000 square yards of rough pitch, a great number of stacks of timber, spars, plank and deal, sails, rope, and various kinds of naval stores to the amount of from 300,000l. to 400,000l., without the loss of a man.

Now, that is the first operation of our squadron. It has been said that we have been unsuccessful in destroying the Russian fleets. Well, but Russia has not afforded us any opportunity of doing it. We have to deal with an enemy who has boasted that the Baltic and the Black Seas are to be regarded as his own lakes. We have entered those seas with our allies, the French, and given the fleets of the enemy opportunities of meeting us on many occasions with a superior force; but they have skulked and remained in their harbours. We have offered battle upon fair terms, but that they have declined. Whilst we have occupied the enemy's seas his fleets have not ventured to appear either with his ships of war or merchantmen; and we have been driven to the alternative of visiting their ports and destroying their merchantmen upon their own shores. This we have done to the extent described by Sir Charles Napier. The despatch proceeds to state that—

"Admiral Plumridge has had to contend with innumerable rocks and shoals incorrectly laid down in the charts, and met the ice up to the 30th of May; nevertheless, though several of his squadron have touched the ground, I am happy to say they have received no damage that he is not able to repair with his own means. The Rear Admiral, their Lordships will observe, speaks in the highest terms of the captains, officers, seamen, and marines, and particularly of Lieutenant B. P. Priest, the first lieutenant of the Leopard, an old and deserving officer; and Lieutenant Hammet, his flag-lieutenant."

As relates then to the success of the operation, we have it that 11,000 tons of the enemy's ships have been destroyed, and from 300,000l. to 400,000l. worth of his property. Now it is said that a portion of this is British property. No doubt. It is impossible to make war with a foreign Power with which for a very long period we have entertained the most amicable relations and carried on a most extensive commerce, without inflicting very considerable injury on our own merchants. But this is among the great evils attendant on war itself, and if you are really to inflict injury upon your enemy, it is impossible, at the commencement of a war, with a sudden rupture of commercial relations occurring, to avoid entailing some incidental evil of the same kind upon your own countrymen. But the right hon. Gentleman said there was a blockade; he has been misinformed—there was no blockade at Uleaborg. [Mr. M. GIBSON: I did not say that there was.] The right hon. Gentleman said he understood that an application had been made to the Board of Admiralty with respect to the export from Uleaborg of certain pitch and tar which was intended to be delivered under contract to the English Admiralty, and that a request was made that a licence should be granted by which the blockade might be avoided.

Allow me to explain. What I said was, that I understood that the parties, fearing there might be a blockade, and being under contract to deliver tar for the use of the British dockyards, asked that, in the event of there being a blockade, they might have a licence to pass the blockading squadron; and that intimation was given them that licences could not be granted, but that if neutral vessels were sent to Uleaborg for the goods, care would be taken that they should be allowed to pass without let or hindrance.

At all events that confirms my statement that there was no blockade, and by agreement between France and England, even if there had been one, no licences could have been granted. But according to the law of nations, for a certain time before a blockade is instituted, ships that have taken in cargo and been laden before its institution, would be entitled to pass without molestation and without damage. Now this is a case in which the squadron visits the enemy's ports for the purpose of destroying his property and inflicting on him what is, under the circumstances I have stated, a very material and serious injury to him. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, said that there were no preparations of a warlike character at the ports he had named, and no property belonging to the Government of Russia there. Now the House must remember that the fleets of Russia declining the conflict in the manner I have described, we have been threatened with a swarm of gunboats, which were in course of preparation, in order to inflict injury upon our larger ships in shallow water, and in those narrow seas. As a measure of precaution Sir Charles Napier most wisely determined upon visiting all the ports where he thought these gunboats might be taking shelter, or in the course of fitting out. I hope the House will allow me to read extracts front despatches received to-day from Captain Giffard, detailing the operations of his crew at various places. The first is from a letter from Captain Giffard, of Her Majesty's ship Leopard, dated of Uleaborg, the 4th of June, 1854—

"From the enemy having sunk all their shipping, it was found that no vessels could be rendered serviceable to embark any of the valuable property without great loss of time, and it was burnt without a murmur or thought of prize-money."

The next is a letter from Lieutenant B. P. Priest, of Her Majesty's ship Leopard, to Captain Giffard, of that ship, dated May 30, 1854, off Brahestad—

"Burnt on shore and totally destroyed—namely, four large vessels building and nearly complete on the stocks, the largest being about 500 tons burden, and pierced for six guns; three detached stores of timber, fit for building ships of large scantling; two detached storehouses, containing some thousand barrels of pitch, tar, and oil, a large number of them marked with the Imperial crown. I was very careful not to damage the private houses; at the same time I satisfied myself, by personal inspection, that there was no contraband of war within those storehouses, which were situated within the immediate vicinity of and inside the town, which I did not destroy. Two large stores on the outskirts of the town were found to contain flour; these were not destroyed, as I had reason for supposing it to be private property. All the officers placed under my orders vied with me in preventing unnecessary alarm to the inhabitants; and feel it to be my duty to report the alacrity, great steadiness, and good conduct, shown by all the officers and seamen employed on this service."

A letter from Lieutenant N. Graham to Captain Giffard, of Her Majesty's ship Leopard, dated off Uleaborg, June 2, 1854, states—

"I then searched the village on the adjacent island; but finding no stores contraband of war, I re-embarked, and proceeded in search of three schooners, of which information was obtained from the pilot."

A letter from Lieutenant B. P. Priest, addressed to Captain Giffard, of Her Majesty's ship Leopard, dated off Kemi, June 9, 1854, states—

"Having taken possession of the town, I found the storehouses had been cleared out, and their contents conveyed across the barrier to the Swedish territory, and that the inhabitants had destroyed the barracks and public buildings. The purpose for which I had been despatched having been thus completed, I therefore returned on board, after being twenty hours in the boats. Every officer and man behaved to my satisfaction."

The last is from Lieutenant George Lloyd to Captain Giffard, of Her Majesty's ship Leopard, dated off Kemi, June 9—

"I proceeded yesterday, with the boats under my charge, up the Kemi River, on the banks of which, and on the adjacent islands, I burnt eighty stacks of timber (covering about two miles of ground), and the hull of a vessel of about eighty tons burden. A quantity of timber, not fit for ship-building, was spared at the request of the inhabitants."

Well, I should detain the House unnecessarily if I went more at large into these despatches, which, as I have already said, will be printed in the Gazette of to-morrow night. They will bear out my assertion, that the officers, to the best of their judgment, only sought articles that were contraband of war—that they only destroyed that which they found afloat and ashore, which they had positive orders to destroy —that according to the rules of war that destruction was not only justified, but it was their duty to effect it, and I must say that the position of British officers and seamen will be hard indeed if they are ordered to use their utmost efforts, both by sea and land, to inflict the greatest injury upon the enemy, and then, when they have done their duty, they are to be met in this manner. Admiral Plumridge and his squadron have in the most gallant and exemplary manner encountered peculiar difficulties. They entered a sea almost unknown and never traversed before by our ships of war. All the lights were extingished—all the buoys taken up—they had no pilots and no charts. Up to the 1st of June the ice was not all broken up; and yet in the short space of three weeks, with all these difficulties to contend with, and frequently running the ships aground, and yet extricating them again, with the best seaman-like qualities, from their danger, with comparatively a very small loss of life indeed, and without having killed a single civilian, or committed any acts of plunder, not having the slightest regard for prize-money, and having still inflicted so much and such heavy injury upon the enemy, I say it will be hard indeed, if, at the commencement of a war involving immense difficulties and sacrifices, it shall be related to our gallant officers and seamen that the first notice taken of their conduct in the British house of Commons partook of the character of censure. I ask, Sir, why is this particular indulgence to be shown to this enemy? What has been the policy of the British Government with respect to him? What are we to understand to be the wishes and the feelings of the people of this country upon this point? We did commence this war by exercising peculiar forbearance, and Admiral Dundas, having it in his power to destroy the city of Odessa, yet spared that city — he attacked only the batteries. There has been something like censure even cast upon him for his forbearance, and I must say, that I myself may now begin to partake of that feeling. A flag of truce was fired upon, and a British ship of war having by accident run ashore in a fog, immediately art immense multitude of Russian soldiers with batteries and red-hot shot bore down and fired upon that stranded vessel; so that I cannot say that any particular forbearance is now due to such an enemy. Whether they be Fins or whether they be Russians, we have offered them battle on the open sea and upon fair and equal terms, and they have declined it. They sink rocks in the channels, and approaches to their harbours, for fear of our reaching them, and every way obstruct our access to them. Well, I say, if they will not meet us on the open sea, we must visit them in their own homes, and teach them that a war with England is not to be engaged in with impunity. I myself and my Colleagues also should certainly be much embarrassed if it is to be thought that this House discourages proceedings like those which are not of a marauding character, nor for the purpose of obtaining prize-money, nor without reference to the feelings and losses of unoffending persons, but where there has been an honest desire to make the enemy of this country feel the power of the force with which that enemy is now contending by fair and legitimate means. I, for one, am not prepared to check the pursuit of such a course; and I hope and believe that in so acting I and my Colleagues will not violate either the feeling or the sentiments of the people of England.

said, the House having heard the statement of his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson), and the explanation of the First Lord of the Admiralty, he trusted he should now be permitted to call their attention to a subject with regard to which he had placed a notice on the books —namely, the recent changes in the Ministry. Before doing so he could not help expressing his regret that his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) had by a somewhat unfair proceeding prevented him from introducing the subject earlier in the evening. The course which he (Lord D. Stuart) was now taking was entirely constitutional, and agreeable to Parliamentary practice. It was true that such discussions had generally been raised on an entire change of the Administration, and on this occasion it might be said, that there had only been partial changes in the Administration. The changes which had taken place, however, affected the position of six or seven Gentlemen holding high office under the Crown, of whom five or six were Cabinet Ministers. They had occasioned the addition of one Gentleman to the Cabinet; they had made it necessary that there should be two Parliamentary elections; they had conferred an office of great dignity and trust upon one Member of the Cabinet; they had placed another Mem- ber of the Cabinet in a situation of less importance than that which he held before; they had created an office hitherto unknown to the Constitution; they had considerably altered the position of another Cabinet Minister; and they had deprived the Government altogether of the services of one right hon. Gentleman. He thought no person could have felt anything but pleasure at seeing that his noble Friend the leader of that House, had received a new mark of approbation and distinction from his Sovereign, and for his part he should have rejoiced if he had received a still greater mark of distinction by being called to the first post in Her Majesty's Councils, for he was satisfied that even his political opponents must feel that, from his distinguished career, great abilities, and high personal character, he would confer dignity upon any office, however exalted, rather than receive it. If the noble Lord who had lately held the office of President of the Council was contented in the prime of life and the vigour of age, and with the ability of which he had given proof, to surrender his place and to retire to what had been described as a sinecure office by the right hon. Gentleman who had just left it —if Lord Granville were satisfied to retire into the easy somnolent chair of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—and thereby to elbow out the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Strutt)—all he could say was, that the country would wonder at his taking a post so little suited to his abilities, and he wished that in going to Lancaster he might only be on his way to a better place. He (Lord D. Stuart) must say, the House and the country had a right to expect some explanation why the right hon. Gentleman, who had always discharged his duties satisfactorily, had been treated with so little consideration and in a manner which was very discouraging to those who placed their services at the disposal of the Government, for he thought it would be admitted on all hands that the right hon. Member for Nottingham had received what in common parlance might be described as very scurvy treatment. An addition had been made to the Cabinet in the person of the right hon Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), a Gentleman of great administrative ability and of high character, but of whose appointment he must say that, looking back to his career, when he filled a subordinate place in the Colonial Office, it did not appear to him a fortunate appointment. On the contrary, he saw in it an illustration of the truth of the saying, that, in the present Government, the parts had been so cast that all the square men were in the round holes, and all the round men were in the square holes. It was perfectly possible to feel confidence in men filling some situations, when that confidence could not be felt, if they filled others, although they might be in the same Ministry; and that brought him to another point—the removal of the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle), who filled the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, to make way for the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey). He thought the creation of a Minister of War, when they considered what his duties and the attributes of his office were, would materially affect the position of the right hon. Gentleman who held the office of Secretary at War (Mr. S. Herbert), and who would not hereafter find himself in so independent or important a position as that which he now filled, and which was the head of a department. The explanations of the noble Lord the leader of the House were not very precise on that head. He did not say what changes were to be made, what offices were to be amalgamated, and what were to be left separate; but it seemed natural to imagine that, after the appointment of a new War Minister, the office of Secretary at War would not be one of so high a rank or confer so greet dignity, and still more natural that it should he assimilated to that of the Secretary of the Admiralty, and that the appointment of a new Secretary of State should involve that of two under Secretaries. This, at all events, was clear, that either the Secretary at War must be placed in a subordinate situation, or that there would be two heads of the War Department. The House would bear in mind that war was to be carried on by sea as well as by land, and if the new Minister of War was to have authority over the First Lord of the Admiralty, and to direct naval as well as military operations, which, for aught he knew, would be the case, then there would be seven Gentlemen holding high office under the Crown whose position would be affected by these changes. It was a remarkable fact, in connection with the Ministry of War, that matters had been so arranged by the Government—he supposed by Lord Aberdeen—that the whole conduct of the war was intrusted to the hands of Gentlemen belonging to one particular section of the Cabinet, that section to which the Premier belonged himself. The Minister of War (the Duke of Newcastle), the Secretary at War, the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), and the right hon. Gentlemen the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir James Graham), were all Peelites, to say nothing of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had also, in financial matters, a good deal to do with the conduct of the war. But in all these changes that which was incomparably of the most importance, and which alone was necessary, was the appointment of this new Minister of War. The attention of the country had been fixed on the subject for a length of time; and he did not hesitate to say that that which had given to the subject its greatest interest was the confident expectation that when a Minister of War was created the office would be confided to no other than the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston). That had been the expectation, the hope, of this country and of all the friends of this country—that had been the dread of all the enemies of this country. If the noble Lord the leader of that House had come down and moved a new writ for Tiverton, and had informed the House that Viscount Palmerston had accepted the office of Secretary of State for the War Department, that announcement would have been received with loud cheers from that House, which would have echoed throughout the country, and, wafted from the shores of the Thames and of Great Britain, would have met with a hearty response at the Danube and the Vistula, in the Black Sea and the Baltic. In saying this, he did not mean for a moment to speak with any want of respect for his noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle. He hoped he should not be accused of that. He declared most sincerely that nothing could be further front his intention. He acknowledged with pleasure the ability, the industry, the zeal, the administrative talent, the courtesy of the noble Duke; but he did not think the noble Duke could feel that it would be at all derogatory to him, or could be in any degree offended or hurt, if such a man as the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was so peculiarly fitted for this office by his great capacity, by his lengthened experience, by his unrivalled energy, by his more than European reputation, were preferred to himself. if he were told that the Duke of Newcaste, having been appointed to an office involving the duties of Colonial Secretary and those of War Minister also, had a right to make his election between those two offices, he altogether denied that position. The single consideration for the Government to look at was the good of the country, and if the Government—if the Prime Minister, on whom these things must ultimately depend—had allowed any personal considerations to prevent the best man, whoever he might be, from being appointed, the Government was responsible for having in that instance failed in its duty. To him (Lord D. Stuart) it seemed incredible that, when there was such a man in the country as the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), so admirably adapted for this particular office, with the duties of which he had had nineteen years' experience, partly during the progress of one of the most terrible wars in which this country had ever been engaged—it seemed to him, he said, incredible that, when the Government had the opportunity of appointing such a man to the office, they should have neglected to seize it. Did anybody tell him of the number of years that had passed over the noble Lord's head? He replied Lord was an extraordinary man; he united with the experience of age the vigour of youth. There were few men who at the same time of life had his physical strength, and very few, indeed, who had equal mental powers. He did not find that age was considered an objection in the case of naval and military commanders. Admiral Dundas was, he believed, pretty nearly contemporary with the noble Lord; Lord Raglan was not much younger, and Old Charley himself, though he might perhaps have the advantage of one or two years, was not half so active. And a man like that, with all his capacity, with all his reputation, with his political experience of half a century, was wasted in labours about common sewers, boards of health, and county rates, and the armies which he had to regulate were armies of policemen. It was very difficult to believe that people were in earnest when you did not see them take advantage of the means which were obviously the best for carrying into effect the purpose which they professed. The country doubted whether the Government were in earnest about this war—the country doubted not that the best man to direct it was the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Let the Government give the noble Lord the direction of the war, and then friend and foe—all the world—would see that they were in earnest. Such an appointment would be better ten thousand times than all the recantations and retractations and explanations which had lately been made, and better than any professions of a desire to carry on the war with vigour. It would be better than the production of despatches, previously refused in that House, for personal vindication, better than any observations about disastrous treaties, intended, if possible, to retrieve the effect of disastrous speeches. Something must be done if the Government intended to re-acquire the confidence of that House and of the country. That confidence, long declining, was now pretty well lost. The proceedings of that House showed this. What measures had the Government been able to carry? What measures had they not been obliged either to postpone or to withdraw? What minorities they had been in! There would be a long list if he were to weary the House by going through it. The Government were not in the position that they ought to be. All that they could carry was taxes—taxes for the war; and the reason why over the noble they carried them was, that the people, that the noble being in earnest, would not refuse the man; he united means necessary to conduct the war. But neither the people nor the House were for half-and-half measures, and they did not want a half-and-half Ministry.

said, he by no means wished to disturb the harmony which usually existed below the gangway, and he therefore hastened to explain that it was quite inadvertently on his part that he had brought on his subject before that of his noble Friend.

said, he hoped that there was no intention on the part of the Government to proceed with the Estimates at that hour (ten minutes to twelve o'clock).

moved Resolutions regulating tile duties to be hereafter charged upon leases of lands, &c. for any term of years exceeding thirty-five; and providing, by the first schedule, that if the term shall not exceed 100 years, a duty of 3l. per 100l. shall be charged; and by the second schedule, that if the term shall exceed 100 years a duty of 6l. per cent shall be charged.

said, he must complain of the perpetual changes which it was found necessary to make in these Acts, which, he thought, ought to be more carefully drawn in the first instance. Notwithstanding the short time which had elapsed since the last Act, it was now found necessary to amend it. He objected to the Amendment now proposed, for he could see no reason why so great a difference should be made in leases for 100 years, and in those over that period. The principle was bad, and would only lead to mischievous results in practice. He should move, therefore, to omit the second column of the hon. Member's Motion, and to make the stamp duties on leases irrespective of their term.

said, he objected to a discussion being taken at that late hour on this important point.

said, he would remind the Committee that this was but a preliminary Resolution, necessary in order to enable the Government to bring in a Bill, and he would therefore suggest to his hon. Friend to allow it to pass, and to make his objection in Committee upon the Bill. If his hon. Friend would assent to this, there would be no need to discuss the principle of the proposed alteration at that time. The question would then have been before the House for some time.