in moving that this Bill be read a second time this day three months, said, that he considered it expedient to arrest the further progress of the measure. The promoters of the Bill complained that great exaggeration had been had recourse to, and many misrepresentations made with regard to its provisions. It was said by them that an attempt had been made to impose upon the public with respect to its provisions, and that the House came to the discussion with an unfair amount of prejudice; but he considered the case was so plain against the measure that it required no amount of dressing up, and that it would have been equally clear if the name of Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson had never been mixed up with it before. The House would bear in mind that five Bills had been already introduced on this subject by that gentleman, all of which had been rejected by Parliament—one proposing to deal with Hampstead Heath itself, and four of them to build property abutting on the heath, which would most materially affect the comfort, health, and enjoyment of the tens of thousands to whom that heath afforded the means of recreation. He therefore hoped he should persuade the House that, not only as legislators, but as trustees for the public, they ought to put an end at once to any further attempt at legislation on this subject. This class of Bill was not at all an uncommon one, for, whenever an heir to a tenant for life found that, through circumstances which had arisen out of the contemplation of the testator through whom he inherited, certain powers were necessary which he could not by law exercise, he went to Parliament, for the purpose of obtaining a relaxation of the provisions of the will, and that relaxation Parliament usually granted, provided that it was proved to demonstration that the wish of the testator was not interfered with, or public interests damaged. In order to ascertain that fact, which was a very important one, the wills and codicils were referred to learned Judges to report to Parliament whether or not, in their view of the case, the circumstances rendering the Bill necessary were within the contemplation of the testator. In this particular case the usual course was pursued, the will and codicil being referred to two learned Judges, and they had reported against the Bill, not only on this, but on former occasions; and, should the House of Commons give its sanction to the measure, it would be doing that which was, and he hoped would continue to be, unprecedented, because Parliament had never hitherto granted the powers sought to be obtained by Bills like the present in the face of an adverse report by those learned persons. It was unnecessary for him to weary the House by going into any minute details of this particular case, because they had been stated with clearness and accuracy in a paper which he held in his hands, and which hon. Gentlemen had also had an opportunity of seeing. The reasons advanced in that paper had convinced him, and would convince any one who would take the trouble to read them. He thought it was quite clear that the late Sir Thomas Wilson had designedly deprived the present tenant for life of the power to grant leasing powers over the Hampstead property, because, while expressly giving such powers over other parts of his estate by a codicil to his will executed in 1821, he had entirely omitted all reference to the property in question. It was indeed said that Sir Thomas Wilson had no intention to build upon Hampstead Heath, which was entirely apart from the property embraced in this Bill. It was, however, not a little remarkable that when, ten years ago, the copyholders agreed to withdraw their opposition to the granting of the powers sought so far as their property went, on consideration that Sir Thomas Wilson would enter into an engagement to leave the portion abutting on Hampstead Heath uninclosed. Sir Thomas Wilson refused to make any such engagement, and only two days ago that refusal had been confirmed in a personal interview which he (Lord R. Grosvenor) had had with the agent of Sir Thomas Wilson. There was really no difference in principle between the present and the former Bills promoted by Sir Thomas Wilson; the provisions of the will clearly refused building power; and, even if he had shown an inclination to enter into any such engagement, the House, who ought to consider themselves trustees for the public, should, when they found an attempt made by means of a Bill of such a description to inclose an enormous open space of ground in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, refuse at once to give their assent to any such measure. It was said that Sir Thomas Wilson had power now to build over the estate, but it was perfectly clear that such power was useless unless Parliament gave him the leasing powers he sought, and conceiving, as he did, that there were the strongest objections to granting them, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

said, he must disclaim the slightest personal interest in the question or knowledge of Sir Thomas Wilson or any of his family, and he considered that he was acting only in accordance with the wish which must be felt by every Member of that House that no injustice should be done if this Bill was allowed to pass. But he must confess that, so far from thinking the arguments either of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor), or those contained in the paper of "reasons" to which he had alluded, were conclusive against the measure, in his opinion, formed as it had been most impartially, very great injustice would be done if this Bill were not allowed to pass. Time reasons on which he had founded that opinion, erroneous though they might be, he would submit to the dispassionate consideration of the House. He was quite aware that a very strong feeling existed in the public mind against Sir Thomas Wilson, in consequence of the desire which he appeared to have entertained for some time past of inclosing Hampstead Heath. He knew nothing whatever of the merits of that question except that which he had gathered from the newspapers of the day, but he must say he should be extremely sorry if any such plan should be ever successful, and would do all he could in his power to resist it. But, if he was rightly informed, the present measure had no reference whatever to any portion of Hampstead Heath, or to any land abutting upon it; for the land it dealt with was, according to the information he had received, at least a mile from the heath, and there was no part in sight of it. In the reasons which had been submitted he found, among others, it was urged that if this concession were made it would be cited as a precedent for the granting of similar powers over the land abutting on the heath. Now, he did not consider that a fair and legitimate argument. The House ought to deal with a question on its own merits, doing that which they considered right on the present occasion, and not withholding its sanction to a measure because they thought it would be cited in favour of something that would be wrong subsequently. The position of Sir Thomas Wilson, the owner of the property, was not quite understood in reference to this matter. He was the tenant for life under his father's will, with power of leasing for twenty-one years, and, supposing him to die to-morrow without children, his nephews, who were all of age, being successors in tail to the property, would become immediately absolute owners of the property, and might lease it for ninety-nine or 999 years without coming to Parliament at all, or, if they chose, cover the land with buildings. But it appeared, by certain codicils made by Sir Thomas Wilson's father, that he gave power to grant building leases with respect to certain portions of his property at Woolwich and Charlton; the codicils were made in reference to the then state of the property, and it was upon those considerations that the Judges had given their opinion on this Bill to the House of Lords. Much stress had been laid on the fact that that opinion was adverse to the Bill, but let the House consider the position of the Judges with regard to the advice they gave on Estate Bills. They expressed no judicial opinion, but merely gave their advice to the Lords, which their Lordships could adopt or not as they pleased. It seemed to him that the argument drawn from the circumstance of the Judges having given an adverse opinion cut exactly the other way, because it showed how strong the case must be which would induce the Lords, departing from their usual course, to be dissatisfied with the opinion of the Judges and pass the Bill, adopting a course which was said to be unprecedented. That was an argument the other way altogether, and, so far from being an "unanswerable reason," certainly told against the opposers of the measure. With great deference, and supported as he was by the opinion of the House of Lords on this subject, he thought the advice given by the Judges was not very well founded, or the result of a very careful consideration of the circumstances of the case. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex was aware that, since the codicils, the Finchley Road had been driven through the estate from south to north, and a railroad had been constructed from west to east; the state of things was so entirely different from what it was at the time the codicils were made that he thought he might, without the display of too much confidence, venture to say he should have come to a different conclusion from that at which the Judges had arrived. It was probable that at the time the owner of the estate made the codicil he never contemplated that the population would advance so rapidly in that direction; and, in respect to land which was capable of being applied only to agricultural purposes, nobody by wills or settlements in which that land was dealt with would think of giving building powers—the thing would be ridiculous. That might have been the case with the late Sir Thomas Wilson, and he might have been in the state of mind in which the noble owner of Burlington House was, who built it in its present situation, because he thought London would never extend so far. He put it to the candid consideration of the House whether any prudent person who was the absolute owner of this estate would not, instead of keeping it in useless coppice, have applied it to the only purpose for which it was applicable under the existing state of things? And when they considered what the intentions of the testator must have been, if he had in view the altered circumstances of the case, it was almost conclusive in favour of the argument that he would have given those powers for the improvement of the estate which he himself would have exercised if he had been absolute owner in possession. He, therefore, ventured to think that the Judges had misapprehended the case, and had not given that careful attention to all the circumstances which they might have done, and in that opinion he was confirmed by the circumstance that the House of Lords had not adopted their advice. The noble Lord (Lord R. Grosvenor) had said the Members of that House were trustees for the public, and ought to take care that a large spot of open ground should not be inclosed, in order that the public might have health and recreation, but this measure did not ask to have a large open piece of ground inclosed. A considerable portion of this very land in question had been let out as a park, and the public had no access to it whatever. They might pass along the railroad and the Finchley Road, but resorting to it for health and recreation was entirely out of the question. The real reason why the opponents of the Bill hoped it would be rejected was, because, at some former period, Sir Thomas Wilson had projected a plan for inclosing Hampstead Heath, and the fear, if the present Bill was passed, it might be used as a precedent or an argument for the inclosure of Hampstead Heath at some future time. He did not think that was a fair conclusion. Nor let them forget that, in preventing the application of this property to the only purpose for which, under existing circumstances, it could be advantageously applied, they were prejudicing the interests not only of Sir Thomas Wilson, but of the reversioners. With respect to the rights of copyholders, they must have known that, some time or other, the owner would become possessed of the property absolutely, and in a position to cover it with buildings, without the intervention of the Legislature. Although he himself was perfectly indifferent to the decision the House might come to, he was yet extremely desirous that no injustice should be done, which he believed would be the case if the Bill were rejected.

said, that though the Bill came before the House under the specious guise of a private Bill, it was to all intents and purposes a public measure. He thought the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last spoken could hardly have furnished the House with satisfactory reasons for upsetting the will of the late Sir Thomas Wilson; for, let them recollect, that was the object of this Bill. He did not know whether the doctrines laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be satisfactory to the legal profession, but he did not think that the disrespectful way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of the opinions of two of the greatest Judges of the land, would be received with satisfaction by the profession. Who were the learned Judges who had given a decision on this question—"Whether the late Sir Thomas Wilson desired to omit his property at Hampstead from the provisions of his will which gave building powers on his other estates," and who had reported that they "saw no reason for setting aside the dispositions of his will." That Report was signed by Frederick Pollock and Edward Vaughan Williams, who were admitted to be two of the ablest and most respected Judges on the bench. The hon. and learned Gentleman had kept some material points in connection with this measure out of sight, which ought assuredly to have been brought before the House. There had been five Bills promoted by Sir Thomas Wilson, to enable him to build on Hampstead Heath, The first Bill was introduced in 1827, when he asked for powers which would have enabled him to have built over the entire of Hampstead. The House must consider the previous circumstances of the case when a Bill came before them invidiously entitled the Finchley Road Estate Bill, but the proper title of which was A Preparatory Bill for the Building over of Hampstead Heath. Several other Bills were brought in subsequently, and rejected. In 1843 Sir Thomas Wilson changed his tactics, and he placed the will of his father before Sir Frederick Pollock, but not the codicil, and the learned Judge accordingly then reported in favour of the Bill. But in 1854 he was obliged to amend the recital, and produce the codicil; and then Sir Frederick Pollock decided that there was no reason for altering the dispositions of the testator's will. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Law Lords in the other House who opposed the other Bills were all in the House when this Bill was passed, and they did not oppose it as they had done the other. [Sir F. THESIGER said he did not exactly say that.] Well, at all events Lord Brougham and Lord Campbell were present, and they had hitherto opposed these Bills; and Lord Brougham had said tha the object of the Bill was to defeat the testator's will, and he did not consent to it. Lord Campbell, the Lord Chief Justice, whose opinion he supposed the hon. and learned Gentleman would also treat with a disrespect which he (Mr. B. Osborne) could not venture to do, said that his opinion of the Bill was unaltered, and that it was the same as that of Lord Tenterden and Lord Denman, who declared that it was contrary to the principles of jurisprudence that a Bill like this should pass; and if it was agreed to, there was no reason why Sir Thomas Wilson should not apply for powers to build over Hampstead Heath—for by agreeing to this Bill, you conceded the whole principle. That was the opinion given by Lord Campbell the other day. He (Mr. B. Osborne) hoped the House would not pass this Bill, which was a most invidious attempt on Hampstead Heath. They must not be led away by the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the land in question was a mile from the heath. A beautiful path leading to Hampstead ran through it; and as Sir Thomas Wilson would give no pledge that he would not build on Hampstead Heath, it was clear that he had an eye, as he always had had, to building on that space at some future time. He would not enter much into the question between the copyholders and Sir Thomas Wilson; but the main point was the question as it related to the poorer and middling classes, who had a vested interest in the preservation of Hampstead Heath. He hoped the Government would take up the matter, and not leave the question of Hampstead Heath in its present unsatisfactory position. He would sit down, expressing a hope that he had convinced the house that by agreeing to this Bill it would be an abominable misuse of its power of passing private Bills, for it would give Sir Thomas Wilson powers which his late father was unwilling to invest him with.

said, he was delighted to find his hon. Friend had so great a reverence for the opinion of the learned Judges, which, however, he believed the hon. Gentleman had not always manifested. He had no doubt, however, that the House would be disposed to pay respect to the opinions of the Judges on matters peculiarly within their cognisance. But, at all events, he thought that they were quite competent to form an opinion for them- selves upon this measure. It was said to be clear that the testator, if alive, would not have given his son the powers which it was sought to confer on him by this Bill, because he omitted the Hampstead property from the operation of the codicil of 1821, by which he gave power to grant building leases over the Woolwich and Charlton property. He contended, however, that the fact that the Finchley Road property was not then adapted for building land quite sufficiently accounted for its omission from the codicil. And that there could be no doubt that, now that it was adapted to that purpose, the testator would, if at present living, give the same powers over it as he had done with respect to land so circumstanced at his death. It was, indeed, said that the late Sir Thomas Wilson entertained strong objections to the inclosure of Hampstead Heath; and the whole of this case rested on the supposition that it would interfere with the rights of the public in closing Hampstead Heath. He could assure the House it had no more to do with Hampstead Heath than it had with Belgrave Square, and it was merely because it happened to be the same owner who applied for the power that such great apprehensions were felt for Hampstead Heath. They ought to decide the question on some general ground, and not be led away by clamour or prejudice. In his opinion there ought to be some general law, enabling persons possessed of primitive interests in estates to exercise their powers of granting long leases, but, failing that provision, the general practice was to apply for Estate Acts, enabling them to do it in particular instances. Almost all applications for Estate Acts related to land situated in the immediate vicinity of large towns; therefore the objections urged to the present Bill might well apply to all such Acts, as it was only when the land became valuable by the approach of buildings that the necessity for such Acts arose. With respect to the opinion of the Judges, he must confess that he entertained the highest reverence for it, but the House would recollect that in this case they were not delivering a judicial opinion, and that it was a question upon which every gentleman could form an opinion. Whatever might be the opinion with respect to Hampstead Heath, there could be no question that the present measure had nothing to do with it, relating as it did solely to some pretty green fields lying beyond Finchley Road and St. John's Wood, exceedingly agreeable to look at, no doubt, but in a situation which must, in the natural order of things, be sooner or later built upon. There was nothing to distinguish this from other Estate Bills which were agreed to day after day, and more than forty of which had been passed that Session.

said, the hon. Gentleman had not put the question fairly before the House. If a private person was as competent as a Judge to form an opinion on such questions, what was the use of referring to Judges all questions connected with Estate Bills? He should be glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman how many Estate Bills had come down from the Lords against the opinion of the Judges. The hon. Gentleman has asked on what grounds they were to refuse the Bill. He thought the question rather was, what were the grounds to induce the House to pass the Bill? The Judges had decided that the settlement of the testator ought not to be disturbed. He had heard no valid reason why the Bill should pass. It was said this Bill had no reference to Hampstead Heath. But he thought the House had no business with this Bill. It ought to stand on the ground of all other Estate Bills. Unless there were special reasons, wills ought not to be disturbed, and parties who only took a limited interest under a will ought not, except on very good grounds, to have that interest enlarged. He had heard no reasons for altering the intention of the testator, and must therefore vote against the Bill.

said, he hoped, as a personal friend of Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson, he might be allowed to make an observation on this question, and he considered that it was well for that gentleman that he had at least some friends in the House to disabuse the minds of hon. Members and the public with respect to the exaggerated statements made on this matter. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor) had stated that he had had a personal interview with the agent of Sir Thomas Wilson, who refused to make any compromise. He had not stated the matter quite correctly. The question asked was whether, in selling the property, Sir Thomas Wilson would agree to a stipulation that it should always remain agricultural land; and that was what was objected to, as by making such a stipulation, Sir Thomas Wilson would be making the public a present of 13,000l. He assured the House that there was no intention on the part of Sir Thomas Wilson to inclose Hampstead Heath, and, in confirmation of his statement, he held in his hand a letter from Sir Thomas Wilson himself, in which he disclaimed anything of the kind. Although the opinion of several learned Judges had been expressed unfavourably to this Bill, yet he would remind the House that Lord St. Leonards had always supported it, observing that such Inclosure Acts were of every-day occurrence. He could not believe that the House of Commons would refuse to Sir Thomas Wilson what it had already granted to so many applicants, and, considering that the sole object of that gentleman was to improve his property without damage to the public, he should give the Bill his cordial support.

said, that as the late Sir Thomas Wilson expressly gave his son power to grant building leases over part of his property, but not over the rest, he thought it was pretty clear he did not intend him to have any such power over the excepted estate. This was really a question of legal construction, and upon this the two learned Judges to whom the Bill was referred had given an opinion, which he did not think that that House ought to, or would, disregard. As far as he could understand the legal part of the question, it was this, that Sir Thomas Wilson was tenant for life under the will of his father. Suppose he died, then the entail ceased, and the reversioner could do as he pleased. What they were desired to do was to anticipate that period, and to allow the tenant for life to do that which the reversioner would be enabled to do. The hon. Gentleman said also that the property was now of immense value, and that it could not become more valuable. Why, they all knew that the current of building was in that direction, and if this property were withheld from the market for ten or fifteen years, the reversioner would have a more valuable estate than at present, because the more they surrounded it with buildings, the more valuable would the property become. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said there was a great outcry against Sir Thomas Wilson, but that there was no intention on his part to inclose Hampstead Heath. If there was such an outcry, and he had no such intention, why did he not come forward and insert a clause in the Bill to prevent his having the power of doing that which he said he had no intention of doing? But, so far from doing that, what had Sir Thomas Wilson done? As far as his information went, he had one time actually laid out Hampstead Heath for building. [Mr. M. SMITH was understood to say that that was not so.] Well, if not exactly on the heath, immediately contiguous to it, as if he intended to lay out ground and build houses, with a view to encroach on the heath. [Mr. M. SMITH: Never.] Then he supposed his information must be wrong, but if Sir Thomas Wilson did not intend to build on Hampstead Heath let a clause be introduced in the Bill to that effect. There was another good and sound reason why this Bill should not pass. The Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Corporation of London had made a Report, in which they recommended that a board should be established for the metropolitan district, with power to acquire such property as may be useful for the health and recreation of the inhabitants. The noble Lord the President of the Council had given almost an assurance that very early in the next Session a Bill should be brought in founded on the Report of those Commissioners. Therefore, he thought no great harm would be done by rejecting this Bill for the present, as the Commissioners would have power to treat with Sir Thomas Wilson for the purchase of the property. At all events, it would be most unwise and unjust in them to set aside the opinion of the Judges, to whom the matter had been referred.

said, the Bill ought not to be looked upon as a private Bill. It was said there was no connection between Finchley Common and Hampstead Heath, but he believed there was a close connection between the two properties. It must be recollected that one of Sir Thomas Wilson's former Bills contained a clause for inclosing Hampstead Heath. As so many adverse opinions— both of Lords, Commons, and Judges—had been given, he should rather pay respect to those opinions than to the reasons which had just been urged by hon. Members to the contrary. It was obligatory on that House to preserve the rights and recreations of the poor, and, considering that the health of the metropolis was involved in the question, he should oppose the Bill.

said, he so totally disagreed from a great number of the rea- sons which had been urged against the Bill, that, although he could not hope to add anything new, he should not like to give his vote against it without stating his exact views. He entirely disclaimed taking into consideration for a single moment, or allowing himself to prejudge this matter, by anything which had been said with respect to the question of access to Hampstead Heath, or with regard to the detriment of the people. It might be, and no doubt it was, very desirable that Hampstead Heath should be preserved to the public; but, if so, let the public purchase it, and let them not employ the power given them of rejecting this Bill as a means of saving their money, or of making better terms with Sir Thomas Wilson. They were rich enough to be able to afford to be honest, and he therefore entirely disclaimed being influenced by such considerations. He thought this was a purely legal question, and they ought to take care that no one should blind their eyes in the matter, either on behalf of the public or of individuals. What they had to inquire and ascertain with reference to the Bill was, what was the intention of the testator, and of an Estate Bill which was almost in the nature of a conveyance? They ought not to sanction anything which would do violence to the will of a dead man; but could they carry out the intention of the Bill without such violence? These wills were made for the convenience of the living, and, therefore, the only question he asked himself was, what were the intentions of the testator when he made the will? If the will stood alone, and had no codicils appended to it, saying nothing about leasing powers, notwithstanding the inconvenience that might result to the public, he must have voted for this Bill, because he might have believed that the omission of leasing powers was a mere oversight on the part of the testator, which would be no reason for restricting the advantages or curtailing the liberty which the son desired to have in dealing with property his father had left him for his own benefit; but when he found the testator had made no less than five codicils, and that in the first two of them he had passed his large suburban property in review before him, giving those powers to the devisee in certain estates, and saying nothing about such powers with respect to certain other estates, he could not doubt, as a lawyer and a man of sense, that the testator had the whole of his property in his mind, and that, considering what he wished should be done with it after he was dead, he passed it all in review, marking out certain portions over which he gave his son liberty to grant building leases, and at the same time knowingly omitting the granting of such powers with respect to other portions of the property. He apprehended that was the common-sense view of the question, and that in this case the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius applied. If he could have doubted that before, he was confirmed in his opinion by that of the two learned Judges, who had arrived at the same conclusion, one at least having been so little biassed with respect to the matter that he only came to that decision after the fact had been brought to his attention that there was a codicil. This was a dry point of law as to what was the intention of the testator, and whether that intention was expressed in the words of the will. On that point they were fortunate in having the guidance of two learned Judges of the law to lead them to a conclusion. As he would not go against that conclusion, so he would not allow his mind to be prejudiced by considerations which did not bear on their case. It was consistent with his principles that they should do simple justice in all matters. He should have adopted that principle if it had led him to a different conclusion, and it was because he felt that justice ought to be done that he would not have it supposed he was swayed one way, right or left, by any consideration of what became of Hampstead Heath.

said, he was glad to find that there was such a disposition in that House to reverence wills, and he trusted that they would always exhibit so praiseworthy an intention.

said, he concluded that the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) would satisfy the lawyers. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Thesiger) said this Bill had nothing to do with Hampstead Heath; that the Bill applied only to the green fields that were to be found between Hampstead and London, which, if they passed this Bill, would soon be built upon. It was said that this Bill had nothing to do with Hampstead Heath, because the estate the Bill applied to was at a great distance. Now, it so happened that the distance was measured yesterday by a surveyor, and it was found that they were exactly half a mile apart. An hon. Member opposite said Sir Thomas Wilson did not intend to inclose Hampstead Heath, but he had never said he did not wish to build upon it.

said, that Sir Thomas Wilson had no power to inclose Hampstead Heath. He must have the consent of the copyholders to do that.

said, he was quite aware of that; but the question was whether Sir Thomas Wilson had not endeavoured to build on Hampstead Heath. He earnestly hoped the House would reject this Bill.

said, he was well acquainted with Hampstead Heath, and had gone there especially to make inquiries regarding this property. He could say that the property to which this Bill referred was not in the sight of the heath, and he very much doubted the accuracy of the statement that only half a mile was between the properties. He would refer to the letter from Sir Thomas Wilson, alluded to by the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. M. Smith) as disclaiming any intention of inclosing or building upon Hampstead Heath. What he aimed at had reference only to land adjoining the heath. The opposition to this Bill, he believed, had reference to the object of certain parties who wished to obtain some of the land considerably below its value.

said, he was of opinion that Sir Thomas Wilson was at the present moment in a position of menace and actual attack upon Hampstead Heath, and it was the duty of that House to defeat his projects, which, let them be disguised under what pretexts they might, would ultimately damage the interests of the public.

said, he came down to the House with the full intention of voting against the Bill, but the arguments he had heard had led him to an entirely different conclusion. The ground in question must be appropriated sooner or later to building, and to defer the time of doing so would not benefit the public, though undoubtedly it might be gainful to individuals who were in possession of adjoining lands. There was a prejudice abroad that the public were to be deprived of certain rights, but that was not made out very clearly.

said, he opposed the Bill on the ground that it was quite clear that, in making the disposition of his property, the testator con- sidered the whole circumstances of the case, and if the House passed the Bill it would be violating the intentions of the testator.

said, he thought it extremely improbable the testator would have made the same restriction if he had lived till 1854.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Government to the hardship inflicted on counties by the new principle adopted, whereby, instead of merely having to find conveniences for keeping militia stores, the county rates were burdened with the expense of erecting militia barracks, which put the county he had the honour to represent to a cost of from 12,000l. to 14,000l. The ordinary military barracks were paid for out of the general funds of the nation, and he saw no reason why that course should not be adopted with respect to this description of barracks, especially considering the heavy charges to which the county rates were already subject, He hoped some hon. Gentlemen who represented counties would take the matter up, as, he assured them, it was well deserving of attention.

said, his constituents felt very strongly the burden that was about to be imposed on county rates, and on their behalf he most strongly objected to the Bill. He thought they had a good right to complain of the way in which the Bill had been introduced and pushed forward, with clauses and alterations that were not known to hon. Members generally.

said, he could assure the noble Lord the Home Secretary that a very strong feeling existed in the counties with regard to the additional charges thrown upon the county rates by the Bill introduced by the noble Lord at the end of the last Session, and adopted by the House. That measure had compelled the counties, not merely to establish storehouses for the militia, but also something like barracks upon a small scale. On a former occasion the expense of pro- viding storehouses in the two divisions of the county he represented did not exceed 50l. a year, but now the county of Lincoln was called upon to provide parade grounds in the neighbourhood of Lincoln and Grantham, and he believed that the expense thrown upon the two divisions of the county for making these arrangements would amount to not less than 20,000l. He thought, if the Government intended to have expensive storehouses erected, that the better course would be to place the whole control of such matters under the Board of Ordnance, by whom the public service would be more efficiently carried out, instead of saddling the counties with the heavy charges proposed to be thrown upon them. He hoped the noble Lord would consent to throw the whole, or at least a portion, of those charges upon the Consolidated Fund.

said, he must appeal to hon. Members, whether this was not anticipating a discussion which would arise more properly in Committee on the clauses, and he, therefore, would submit to hon. Members that it would be better to allow Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair.

said, he thought it was more convenient to discuss such matters before Mr. Speaker left the Chair. The noble Lord the Home Secretary brought in a Bill at the end of the last Session, without any previous notice, to defray the charges for the pay, clothing, and other contingent expenses of the disembodied militia; and from the title of that measure no one could have supposed that the Government were about to throw upon the counties an entirely new and onerous charge for the building of barracks. The power of calling upon the counties to pay these expenses rested, not with the county magistrates, but with the deputy lieutenants, who were not now necessarily landed proprietors, and who, therefore, might have little, if any, interest in the amount of rates with which the counties were burdened. If these changes were made year by year, they would put the counties to so much expense that the counties, he apprehended, in self-defence, would refuse to do anything, and would leave Government to its remedy by mandamus.

said, he also thought it a grievance on the counties that they should be compelled to endure a burden which ought, on every principle of justice, to fall on the country at large.

said, there was a new principle involved in the Bill, totally different to that which occurred in former times of war. The Bill last year was got through the House in a way not very creditable to the legislation of that House. To show how the Bill worked in his county, he would state the cost the county of Kent was formerly put to, and the cost they would be put to by the Bill. The cost was, previous to this Bill, about 80l., and the cost now was estimated to be not less than first to lay out 10,000l. for two regiments, and then they would have to provide for a third regiment of marine artillery, besides being exposed to the demands made by the Ordnance, which must be the cause of further expense. Then there were repairs, fuel, keeping up of barracks, &c., and these alone would cost more than the whole of the charge in previous years. He could only look upon this as the introduction of a new principle, and although quite ready to say that counties ought to bear their fair share of expense, he must call upon the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) to consider what he was doing, and the great dissatisfaction he was causing in counties by this enormous increase of expenditure. He thought it was no answer to say that the expenditure would be spread over a series of years, for he deemed it most objectionable that the counties should run into debt instead of paying as they went on.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) intimated that no one could have inferred from the title of the Act what its contents were; but he thought a reference to the clause and the circumstances would show that the opinion was not correct. He had no wish to add to the expenses, and would willingly take the words of the clause of last year. There was no intention to bring in under cover of this Act subjects which were not strictly connected with the objects of that Act. The Bill in question did not pass without discussion, as it was discussed at the time. With regard also to the complaint made by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, one of the clauses relating to store rooms, adopted in the Act of last Session, had formed a regular portion of every Militia Act passed.

said, fraud was not imputed; it was only charged that matters were introduced in the Bill which the House was not prepared for. The complaint was that Government took ad- vantage of thin Houses to get these expenses sanctioned.

said, he must protest against the principle of the Bill, which was to make that a local charge which ought to be a national charge.

hoped that if any relief were granted to English counties, it would also be extended to Scotch counties.

moved to leave out "deputy lieutenant of such county, at any general meeting convened for that purpose," and insert "the justices of the peace for such county at the general quarter sessions next ensuing assembled." The magistrates were the proper guardians of the county expenditure, and not the deputy lieutenants, who were not now required to have property qualifications.

said, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman, that it was more fitting that justices of the peace should be intrusted with these arrangements than that they should be left to the deputy lieutenants, and had, therefore, no objection to the Amendment.

moved that, after the words "providing that the premises obtained under the clause shall contain an orderly and guard room," the words "cells and magazines" be inserted.

said, he must oppose the Amendment on the ground that it was unnecessary to incur a large expenditure for providing cells and magazines, which would, in all probability, be required in many cases for a very limited period.

said, he considered that the erection of cells in connection with the storehouses for the confinement of men who were guilty of breaches of military discipline would entail an unnecessary expense. With regard to magazines also, it was not probable that any amount of ammunition would be required for the use of the militia, for which a place of deposit might not be found without difficulty. A supply of thirty rounds of ball cartridge per man, for a regiment comprising 1,000 men, might be deposited in a very small space, even in a closet or cupboard, and he, therefore, thought that the erection of expensive magazines was altogether unnecessary.

said, he differed in opinion from the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) on the subject of magazines, and considered it absolutely necessary that they should be provided. He might mention, with reference to the regiment he had the honour to command, that very recently a quantity of ammunition, consisting of rounds of blank cartridge, was obtained for the use of the corps, and, as there was no safe place in which it could be kept, it was deposited under the adjutant's bed.

moved to omit from the clause all the words after the words "militia stores," with the view of relieving the counties from the expense of barracks, and providing for such barrack accommodation as was required out of the Consolidated Fund. His object was to raise the question as to what portion of the expense incurred under this Bill should fairly be borne by the counties. He considered that, if the militia were made a national force, the funds necessary for its maintenance ought to be derived from the national resources. He thought that the portion of the expenditure for the maintenance of the militia, to be borne respectively by the counties and by the nation, ought to be clearly and distinctly defined.

said, he believed that, if the Government would consent that the necessary expenditure should be defrayed in equal proportions from the county rates and the Consolidated Fund, such an arrangement would be satisfactory to all parties.

said, he thought that the proposition of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Colonel Gilpin) was a very fair one, and would recommend its adoption by the Government.

said, he considered it unnecessary to erect extensive barracks for militia regiments, which were seldom out for a longer period than twenty-eight days during the year. He hoped that hon. Members who represented boroughs would resist the attempt to throw the charge for this purpose upon the Consolidated Fund.

said, he apprehended that the object of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron) was to limit the expense to which counties were subjected to the building of stores, and to leave the Government to provide any other buildings and to meet any other expenses which were requisite for the maintenance of the force necessary to ensure the security of the ammunition, arms, and stores, in houses which would probably not afford many advantages for defence, and which might be situated in the midst of a large population. The effect of omitting the proviso, however, would be to render the clause almost valueless.

said, it was his intention to support the Amendment, unless some assurance were given by the Government that they were prepared to charge a fair proportion of the expense to be incurred under this clause upon the Consolidated Fund.

said, this Bill was not new in principle, but simply defined that which was left vague in the existing law. During the late war the militiamen carried their arms on their shoulders, and wore their coats upon their backs. In such a state of things there was no occasion for the erection of storehouses. That necessity arose for the period during which the militia regiments were disembodied or not assembled for military purposes. It was quite a fair question, no doubt, whether the expenses should be borne wholly by the counties or partly by the country at large. But that question did not arise on the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, which only went to prevent those buildings from being as perfect and secure as was desirable, by whomsoever built, whether by the Government alone or by the counties alone, or by the Government and the counties conjointly. He would seriously urge upon the Committee this consideration, that if the proviso should be struck out, there would be no security that these structures would be sufficient for the purposes intended. The passing of the Amendment and the leaving out of the proviso would effectually interfere to prevent the attainment of the object in view, and hon. Gentlemen by supporting the Amendment would only defeat their own intentions. He considered that the best course would be, first to determine that adequate storehouses should be constructed, and then to decide by whom the cost of their construction should be borne.

said, that considering the object of the Amendment was to raise the question whether it was fair to call upon the counties to bear all the expenses to be incurred under the clause, he would give his vote in favour of the Amendment.

said, he conceived that the question which this Amendment was intended to raise would more properly come before the Committee upon the 4th clause, but at the same time he thought there was nothing to prevent the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) from now making a statement which might be satisfactory, and might prevent the necessity of pressing the Amendment.

said, he must complain that this clause would throw an unfair proportion of the expense upon the counties, and, unless the Government would consent to place a portion of that expense on the Consolidated Fund, he should support the Amendment.

said, he would suggest that, as the war could not last for ever, and as it was to be hoped the arrangements contemplated by the clause would be only of a temporary character, the Government might be enabled to hire buildings which would afford all the accommodation that was required.

in moving that the Lords' Amendments to this Bill be taken into consideration, said, generally speaking, the Government were prepared to agree to those Amendments, with three exceptions of no very great importance.

proposed to alter one of the Lords' Amendments, which was evidently an oversight, inasmuch as it provided that the Hebdomadal Council should be elected on the fourteenth day of Michaelmas term, whilst the Congregation, which was to elect the Hebdomadal Council, did not come into operation till the fifteenth day of Michaelmas term.

said, it was not competent for the House to entertain the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, inasmuch as it sought to alter a part of the Bill which the Lords' Amendments did not touch.

said, it was true that the "fourteenth" had not been altered by the House of Lords; but the whole effect of the clause and of the word "fourteenth" had been altered by the alteration which the Lords had made. He would, therefore, submit that this was a case in which the whole difficulty arose from the Amendment of the House of Lords.

said, unfortunately the word "fourteenth" preceded the Amendment of the Lords, to which the House was now asked to agree.

said, that he thought the Lords' Amendment, under this head, could not be adopted. One of the most important questions contained in this Bill was that relating to the constitution of the government of the University. Now, up to the time when this Bill was introduced, the constitution of the government of the University consisted of a Hebdomadal Board principally composed of the heads of colleges or halls. There were objections to such a constitution, and the principal objections were, as he had always understood them, that this constitution was too exclusive in its character, that it was confined to men who had been elected to the heads of their separate colleges or halls, possibly for special or peculiar purposes, and that the University, therefore, was not sufficiently represented in the government of its affairs by persons so elected by the colleges and halls. The Government, therefore, proposed to alter this constitution, and they had two modes in which, he thought, they could have done it. Either they might have altered the constitution of the University by giving to the University the fullest power to frame a more liberal constitution for itself; or, they might have undertaken through the advice of Parliament to pass a law which should impose upon the University a new constitution of a more liberal character. Now, the Government did neither one nor the other of these two things. The Bill as introduced into that House proposed a new constitution in which there were to be three classes of persons at the head of the government of the University; the one class consisting of the heads of houses or of halls, the other class consisting of professors, and the third of members of Convocation. This threefold classification, he thought, was a very wise one, for it brought the three interests into play in the government of the University—the heads of houses representing the colleges, the professors representing the professorial element, and the members of Convocation representing, more or less, the University at large. But, when the proposition, as originally introduced, went on to say that these three classes composing the government were all to be elected by one constituent body, it was necessary to ascertain of what that constituent body was composed before you could determine whether you were giving a more liberal government to the University or not. The constituent body created by the Bill, as originally introduced, was the Congregation, consisting of resident members of the University, and was of a more limited nature than that which was now proposed. At first the constituent body did not exceed 150 persons; and as now proposed it would not exceed 250 members of the University. You were, therefore, going to intrust to 250 men the power of selecting the governing body of the University, when the whole of the members—the graduated members—of the University amounted to little fewer, probably to more, than 3,000. But the Congregation, or the constituent body, in whom you had invested now the power of selecting the governing body of the University, was composed of men who might, and who, as he was informed, would probably represent a peculiar and special class of opinions in the University to the detriment of the University at large, and in a manner which was not consistent with the wishes of the great majority of the graduated members of the University. Now, when you had once attempted to give a more liberal government to the University, your representative system ought either to have been put upon a much larger basis, or you ought to have taken security that the members composing the governing body were not confined to the representatives of one class of opinions, but that you should get in the governing body every class and every interest of which the University was composed. It was for that reason, and for that reason mainly, though not wholly, that he had proposed, when the House was last in Committee upon this Bill, that the different classes so constituted, and composing the governing body of the University, should elect themselves—that the heads of houses should be elected by heads of houses, the professors by professors, and the members of Convocation by Convoca- tion, If that plan had been carried out, you would, in the first instance, have made your constituent body for each of these classes the best judges of the persons to represent that class; and, in the second place, you would have had the heads of houses electing heads of houses, and, as they were all elected heads of houses by their separate colleges, you would indirectly, if not directly, have brought to bear the feelings and the wishes of the University at large upon the governing body whom you had so appointed and constituted. The same might be said of the professorial element. You would have intrusted to professors the selection of members of their own body, and would thus have had men chosen who were best calculated to represent the professorial element in the University. That was the reason for the alteration which he had proposed when the Bill was in Committee, and that was the reason why that alteration had been sanctioned by the House. But the House of Lords had now altered back the Bill. It had made a representative system based upon the constituency of 250 men only, representing, or likely to represent, a particular class of opinions. Consequently you would have at the head of the University a governing body which might be in conflict with the members of that University; and then he should like to know how the affairs of the University could be conducted with harmony or with profit? But was this all? If you reverted to congregational election you had absolutely now, as your Bill was drawn, deprived the members of the University at large of all voice in the legislation of the University, except so far as that legislation might be conducted by, and might be agreeable to, this new and small oligarchy of the Congregation which you are founding in the University. The Congregation would elect their own delegates; those delegates would constitute the governing body, and make their own laws; and if a larger influence were brought to bear on them through Congregation they would never allow it to succeed. He appealed, therefore, to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) whether the Amendment was one which he could sanction? The noble Lord, in liberalising the system, had placed it on a smaller basis, and one which, with reference to ecclesiastical and religious opinions, would be looked upon with great suspicion by the University at large. If he were to address the noble Lord by an argumentum ad personam, he would ask him whether, in reforming municipal institutions some fifteen years ago, he would have been content to leave the election of the members of corporations to one-tenth of their body? or when proposing the Reform Bill, would the noble Lord have consented to limit the parliamentary constituency to the municipal body? That, however, was what the noble Lord was doing by this Bill. The result would be a body not in harmony with the University, and the Bill would fail because they had not adhered to the principle of sectional election, by means of which every class in the University would have been much better represented than they would be under the Amendment made by the Lords. He begged, therefore, to move that the House disagree with the Amendment made by the Lords in this clause.

said, it was his opinion that the House ought not to concur in the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member. He could not think that the right hon. Gentleman had stated the proposition of the House of Lords fairly, as compared with his own proposed constitution. If it had been proposed that there should be a very large body to intervene between the constituent body and the Hebdomadal Council, there might have been some plausibility in the argument which the right hon. Gentleman had used; and he thought that even then the argument with respect to municipal councils would have been defective. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed was, that instead of 250, which the House of Lords had made to be the number of electors, two-thirds of the whole of the Hebdomadal Council should be elected by about fifty-five persons. The right hon. Gentleman, having proposed that these fifty-five persons should have the nomination and election of two-thirds of the Hebdomadal Council, complained very much that this was a very restricted and narrow body, and called it an oligarchy. If it were a question of oligarchy, he could not but think that the proposed arrangement with respect to the heads of colleges would be more entitled to that designation than the one proposed by the House of Lords. He believed the body now proposed would be well suited for the purpose, because it was composed of persons conversant with the duties which it would have to perform. He thought that with respect to the case of small towns, referred to by the right hon. Member, having, for instance, not more than 500 ratepayers, it would not be an improvement to add to them for municipal purposes the inhabitants of adjoining towns, in order to increase the number of electors. Such a plan would not necessarily be an improvement, because it would not secure that the larger body would feel so deep an interest in, or be so conversant with the wants of the town, as the smaller resident governing body. He thought the House of Lords had acted with great wisdom in making this Amendment, and he hoped the House would agree to the alteration.

said, he did not think the noble Lord was justified in casting upon his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) the imputation of wishing to narrow the constituency in the University. As the Bill stood the new governing body at Oxford would, in reality, be chosen by 125 or 126 gentlemen. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, no!] Such would unquestionably be the case, inasmuch as the whole number of residents would amount to only 250, and of that number 126 would constitute the majority, into whose hands the whole power to deal with the affairs of the University would be transferred. He, for one, was by no means favourable to the government of an oligarchy, and he felt assured that the noble Lord would find that 120 or 130 gentlemen who entertained particular views would naturally associate together, and select such persons as they thought held opinions in accordance with those views. He could not believe that such a body would, in the long run, be found to work as well as one composed of different elements. He could not sit down without seizing the opportunity of adverting to a most unfounded charge which had been made in another place, to the effect that arrangements had been entered into among the heads of houses to elect by seniority. So much surprised had he been at learning that such a statement had been made, that he had instituted inquiries as to its accuracy, in a quarter upon whose testimony he could rely, and he had been assured, that it not only was not true, but that the question of election by seniority had never been agitated among the heads of houses.

said, it appeared to him that the two right hon. Gentlemen had set out with the most mistaken principles in the view they took of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) regarded it as most desirable that the three sections of the Hebdomadal Council should be so elected as to be representatives, and to be chosen especially as representatives, of certain sections, and should be considered valuable principally in that capacity. Now, he thought this was precisely the reason why the Lords' Amendment was desirable. It would be extremely mischievous if the three sections of the Hebdomadal Council were sent there as deputies of any particular set of electors. The object of the enactment as originally framed and as it now stood was merely this—that the Hebdomadal Council should consist of men who were qualified in a somewhat different manner, and habituated to different trains of thought and different associations; and this you effected by requiring that it should be composed of different classes of men. But that they should be sent there in the antagonism which would result from their being the deputies of these different classes was a thing very much to be avoided. The right hon. Gentleman's fear that the residents of Oxford were likely to elect persons who would fall into any particular class of opinions, so as to come into antagonism with Convocation at large, was, he believed, unfounded. What you did by selecting Congregation was to take men who were a fair epitome of Convocation at large and who represented the views of Convocation—men habituated to watch the daily wants of the University, and who knew what sort of legislation it required. Congregation would be more likely than Convocation was to select men who would apply their minds to exactly what the circumstances of the University required, and who would provide measures which Convocation itself would be likely to approve. For these reasons he greatly preferred the Bill as it had come down from the House of Lords, and should certainly support their Lordships' Amendments.

said, that as one who had voted with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) before on this subject, he wished to explain the reason why he should now be quite willing to concur with the Lords' Amendment. Since the time when the right hon. Gentleman proposed his Amendment this House and the other House of Parliament had agreed to retain clauses which he looked upon as a very great improvement, and which had opened the University of Oxford to the nation, so that now this legislative body in the University was no longer a body for the education of members of the Church of England only, but one which had charge of the education of students of all religious denominations. This made a very great change, and there would in future be such a force of public opinion brought to bear upon the University that even if, at first, their elections were not so good as could be wished, it would be impossible for them to resist public opinion in the long run. It appeared to him the more generous plan to place confidence in the University, and to give to it the constitution which was most desired by its Members.

said, he did not at all fear the antagonism which had been alluded to by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heath. cote), but he was afraid that if the governing body were to be elected by the same class of persons, it would consist of individuals acting upon the same principles and holding the same views, so that the advantage usually derived from discussion would not exist. The subject had been most seriously considered by the Tutors' Association, and they had published their views in a pamphlet which, he believed, had been very widely circulated. The opinion of that body was decidedly favourable to the sectional mode of election, which had formerly been adopted by that House, and at the University which he had the honour of representing the same opinion prevailed, and to such an extent that a scheme for altering the constitution of that University had been drawn up on that principle. There was the great advantage in having a governing body chosen by different classes, that different views would be advocated by different members of it, and discussion being thus occasioned would lead to more satisfactory results than if all the members of the governing body were actuated by the same views; he therefore trusted that the Lords' Amendment would not be agreed to by that House

said, he felt very much surprised at the decision of the House of Lords upon the question under the notice of the House, and he very much regretted that they had deemed it to be their duty to assent to such an Amendment as they had introduced. It was his belief that the Amendment introduced by the House of Lords would act as a lock upon the freedom of the University, and would tend ultimately to destroy its high character. It might be very convenient for the noble Lord the President of the Council to narrow down the question, and to say that the mode of election which the Bill as it stood proposed was more popular than the sectional mode of election. Surely the noble Lord could not have forgotten the reasons which caused the sectional mode of election to be sanctioned by that House. Under the old state of things prevailing at the University, the Hebdomadal Board was an independent authority—independent alike of the residents and of Convocation. For a long series of years that body had performed the duties committed to its charge in a manner which reflected upon it the highest credit. It was all very well for noble Lords to run down the heads of houses, but they it was who had been the barriers to the ambitious designs of a section in the University. A right rev. Prelate in another place (the Bishop of Oxford) seemed to participate in the desire to run down the authority of the heads of houses, but he (Mr. Newdegate) could only say that those heads of houses had for 100 years most efficiently carried on the government of the University. One step had already been taken to cripple the, action of Convocation by the interposition of Congregation, and now they were asked to give to that latter body the absolute power to create the Hebdomadal Council at its pleasure. When the measure was spoken of as a liberal measure, it ought to be borne in mind that it was but another clog upon the free action of the University. They were about to render the real governing body of the University more like a borough council, and less like the constitution of that House—they were about to make it, perhaps more academical, but less national. He was unwilling to let the discussion close without adverting to what had occurred in another place, in connection with the Amendment which had been there introduced, and whose merits they were then discussing. That Amendment had been moved by a noble Lord (Lord Ward), whose contemporary he had been at the University. Lord Ward was, no doubt, a man of great ability; but he (Mr. Newdegate) must protest against its being supposed that the noble Lord represented the opinions of his contemporaries at Oxford. The noble Lord rather represented the discontented portion of the University. But to return to the question immediately before them, what was it they were about to effect? The Hebdomadal Board had opposed Tractarianism at the University; but they were about to destroy the last vestige of its corporate existence. Convocation had resisted Tractarianism; but they were about to double-lock the power of Convocation, by placing the initiative in the hands of men whom they proposed to constitute the rivals of Convocation, and were thus prepared to strike a blow against both the authorities which were opposed to Tractarianism, while they proposed to invest with great power that party among whom it dwelt. He trusted, however, that the Protestant Dissenters in that House would not be a party to any measure which should hand over nearly the whole authority in the University into the grasp of a faction; and that they would not give their consent to give up the Church of England, bound hand and foot, to the domination of a body which had done more to endanger her position in public estimation than any other body which had ever taken part in the government of the University.

said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the words which were proposed to be added to the 15th clause. The clause itself provided that the Vice Chancellor should make a register of Congregation, and the effect of the proposed words would be to render the register conclusive. He thought it was desirable that persons should be allowed to object to the register, and, if necessary to appeal from the decision of the Vice Chancellor.

said, he did not think there was any reason for disagreeing with the Lords' Amendment. Any well-informed resident in Oxford would be able to make out the register with tolerable accuracy, and the Vice Chancellor would have no difficulty in discharging the duty with substantial justice. There was no fear of exclusion to any serious amount, nor was there, in his opinion, the slightest danger of partiality, or favouritism, or neglect.

said, if the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the Amendment, he would not attempt to alter it.

said, the Amendment was a very necessary and material improvement; but having been introduced in the Lords for a specific purpose, it had been thought upon consideration to be exclusive of other objects which were obviously desirable. In the Bill, as it went up to the Lords, it was considered and assumed, whether too hastily or not, that the consolidation and conversion of college emoluments might be effected under the general powers of the colleges, subject to the restraints provided by the Bill; but in the Lords it was thought fit to insert words, first of all providing for the consolidation of fellowships, and secondly, providing for the conversion of fellowships in certain cases, namely, in cases in which they were attached to schools. Now, it might be desirable to consolidate fellowships; but it was quite clear that it was even more desirable and requisite to consolidate other emoluments, because with respect to other emoluments, and especially to exhibitions, there were a considerable number which were so insignificant in amount that they were of no reasonable value whatever, and it was necessary to put them together in order to derive any good or profit from them. He therefore proposed, that being an object which had always been contemplated, to substitute for the word "fellowships" the word "emoluments," which would cover exhibitions and other classes of endowments as well as fellowships. But, besides the consolidation, it was likewise very desirable to provide in certain cases for the division of fellowships. There were one or two cases in the University in which the incomes of particular fellowships were so large, relatively to the general standard, that, although he did not assume they ought to be divided, he thought the Commissioners should have the power of considering that subject. The words introduced by the Lords, which empowered the colleges and the Commissioners to convert fellowships attached to schools, would possibly have the effect of preventing the conversion of fellowships in any case except that in which they were attached to schools. He considered that it was of the greatest importance that power should be given to convert fellowships into scholarships in cases other than those in which they were attached to schools. The words were introduced by the Lords with a particular view—namely, to satisfy those who were interested in schools, by giving them compensation, in case of opening a portion of the emoluments to which they had now an exclusive right, in the shape of scholarships and exhibitions. But the words, as they at present stood, would prevent the conversion of fellowships in other cases, and, therefore, it seemed wise to enlarge them in such a way as to embrace all the cases which might be desirable. He could not help mentioning also that a conversion of this description—of superior into inferior emoluments—was a mode of reform eminently in conformity with the views of the founders, because it was clear, from the Statutes of the colleges, that when the founders provided for the maintenance of fellows, they meant by "fellows" very much what were meant now by scholars and exhibitioners. They were persons who were to be students, and who, in point of fact, in a great many instances, were designated not by the word "socii," but by the word "scholares," in the Statutes themselves. He proposed, therefore, to take out the words introduced by the Lords, and to insert the following—

"For the consolidation, division, or conversion of emoluments, including therein the conversion of fellowships attached to schools into scholarships or exhibitions so attached, and of fellowships otherwise limited into scholarships or exhibitions, and either subject or not to any similar or modified limitations."

said, he should move that the House disagree with this Amendment of the Lords. A great part of the most important endowments of the best schools in the kingdom consisted of University emoluments in the shape of fellowships, scholarships, and exhibitions. Now the present Bill was not founded upon any inquiry into the interests of these schools. The colleges, in the exercise of the power given to them were bound to consider the interests of the colleges as places of education alone, and if they dissented from anything proposed by the Commissioners, they could only do so on the ground that it would be prejudicial, not to the interests of the schools connected with them, but to the colleges as places of education. For that reason, and to prevent emoluments being taken away from the schools for considerations unconnected with the interests of the schools, the House, at his recommendation, agreed to the 34th clause in the Bill, which referred to the governing body of each school, not only the questions relating to the endowments in which it was interested in the University, but the general questions of the abolition of any particular right of preference to which the school might be entitled. Now there could be no reason why they should except fellowships from the operation of that clause. The only plausible arguments which had been adduced in favour of that exception were founded upon an entire misunderstanding, if not misrepresentation, of the effect and object of the clause in question. It had been urged by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) that the clause in effect said that nothing should be done with the fellowships attached to schools without the consent of the governing bodies of the schools. There could not be a more complete misrepresentation of the effect of the clause; and an explanation of its true object and effect would serve as a full answer to another argument which had been used, namely, that it was of the greatest importance to the colleges to have these fellowships, offices of government and teaching, filled with persons of high qualifications. The clause did not in the least degree interfere with that, nor did it refer to the veto of the governing bodies of the schools any regulation which might be proposed for that purpose. It would be in the power of the colleges or the Commissioners in any case to establish as an indispensable condition of election to a fellowship, upon the ground of preference, any qualification soever which might he thought necessary to secure the election of a person of competent attainments and learning. Take the case of Pembroke College, which had been urged as showing the necessity of the Lords' Amendment upon the clause. Pembroke College was connected with a school never large, and now, he believed, incapable of supplying candidates of sufficient merit to fill the vacancies in the fellowships and scholarships which attached it to the college. Was it necessary, in order to remedy that evil, that they should say, when Abingdon School could send a fit person to be elected to a scholar- ship upon that foundation, and when that person exerted himself in the University, and, after a meritorious career as an undergraduate, showed himself well qualified for a fellowship, that he should not be elected to the fellowship, but should be exposed to a general competition, and, perhaps, rejected as unworthy of the office, only because some one might possibly come forward more able and more distinguished than himself? It was quite clear that could not be necessary for any legitimate purpose of the college. What was really necessary was, that the college should have the power of establishing an adequate standard of merit, and excluding any one who claimed on the ground of school preference, but who did not come up to that standard, and then, if necessary, throwing open the office to general competition. Now, under the 34th clause in the Bill, it would be competent for the college, without interference on the part of the governors of the school, to say that no one from the school should be elected to a fellowship unless he took a second-class, or even a first class honour, if that were thought to be the proper standard; and therefore it was the idlest thing in the world to say that the clause, as that House passed it, took from the college, or the Commissioners, the power of establishing such tests of merit in successions to fellowships of the favoured class as would be necessary for any proper or legitimate purpose of the college. The only thing that could not be done under the clause was to abolish absolutely, the right of preference, without the consent of the school. It had also been said that scholarships and exhibitions were favourable to the schools, while fellowships were favourable to the colleges. There could not be a greater fallacy than that. No man could pretend to say that a scholarship held for one or two years would be of equal value to a fellowship, which might be held for life. The truth was, that the supporters of the Lords' Amendment confounded one abuse, which might easily be rectified, with the thing itself, and had consequently applied the remedy of destruction instead of that of reformation. There could be no doubt that there were some evils connected with the present system; but power was given by the clause to remedy them. One mode was that of requiring the claimants to take University honours, and that was a sufficient answer to the objection that they could not, under the present clause, apply any stimulants; but they might, in addition, renew the competition after a certain time, throwing it open, if necessary, to the members of other colleges, who had been at the same school. No reason, however, could be shown for taking away the right of preference altogether. The case of the Merchant Taylors' School was a very strong one. The present head master, a competent and liberal-minded man, had expressed, in the most forcible manner, his conviction that the school was so dependent upon the particular endowment in St. John's College, and upon the special value which that endowment derived from the circumstance, that any meritorious young man elected by merit to St. John's, and continuing meritorious and satisfying any standard established there, would keep his fellowship for life—that he delivered the difference in value between a scholarship tenable for three years, and a fellowship tenable, subject to proper tests of merit, for life, was such, that the very existence of the school was involved in it. Winchester School might possibly be in the same position, and he was certain that the interests of New College would not at all be served by throwing open to general competition its senior fellowships, less valuable than any other in the University, although the esprit de corps would always give a particular value in the eyes of Winchester men. He hoped the House would not forget that this question derived great importance from the manner in which the three greatest schools concerned in it were affected. It so happened that in New College, St. John's, and Christ Church, where preferences in favour of Winchester School, Merchant Taylors' School, and Westminster School existed, there were no scholarships at all—they were all fellowships; and so they were by the Lords' Amendment entirely depriving those three great schools of the whole benefit of the protection given by the clause. It was true there was a proviso added to the clause, to the effect that the colleges or Commissioners, if they thought fit, might divide the fellowships into two classes, senior and junior, and that the senior only should be held to be fellowships within the meaning of the clause; but that was no protection whatever, because it made the whole matter depend upon an act to be done under the exercise of the uncontrolled power of the Commissioners, who might refer a large portion of the fellowships to the senior division. The Lords' Amendment, in short, was a simple alienation and abstraction from the schools of the largest and most important portion of their emoluments, and he trusted the House would support him in rejecting it.

was understood to say that the heads of Pembroke College did not view the Amendments introduced by the House of Lords in an unfavourable light.

said, he had no doubt that the heads of Pembroke College would be glad to sweep away Abingdon School body and bone. He was glad his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Palmer) had taken the course he had in giving those who agreed with him an opportunity of recording their opinions and sentiments on this clause. It certainly was a very strange alteration to be made by the House of Lords. That assembly had now consecrated the opinion that it was right to disregard the possession of a privilege for 300 years, and that the rule was henceforth to be detur digniori. That was, he considered, a very dangerous principle for the House of Lords to establish, and one on which he doubted very much whether they would like to hold their peerages. If endowments which had been enjoyed by certain persons for 300 years were to be set aside simply because it was thought that others more worthy ought to possess them, they might depend upon it that that was a principle which would not long remain unapplied in another direction; and that many who were now living would see it carried to an extent they at the present moment little contemplated. It would be fortunate, indeed, if none of those Gentlemen who called themselves Reformers, but who really desired change at any cost, should propose to apply the principle to the privilege of sitting in the House of Lords. The objection to the limited number of scholars among whom these scholarships and fellowships were to be given appeared to him to be perfectly groundless. Just in proportion as the area was small, just in that proportion was the privilege valuable to those who enjoyed it. If they chose to rob these schools (for that was the right word) of this property given to them hundreds of years ago, and to assign it to others, simply on the ground that those others were more worthy to enjoy it, it was, of course, in their power to do so; but it would nevertheless be a gross act of robbery, and it could be called nothing else, and that was the real principle of this clause of the Bill.

said, a noble Lord once, being indignant at the conduct of a small portion of the assembly he was addressing, threatened them that if they voted in a particular sense they would be called in a short time to vacate their seats. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) did not, in the very extraordinary language he had used, limit the threat to that minute and insignificant portion of the assembly, but said quite distinctly, if the House of Lords chose to rob and plunder, as they had done by the clause in this Bill, they must prepare to yield their places. The right hon. Gentleman, himself a distinguished Conservative orator, who was rather supposed to hold with tenacity smaller institutions of the country, did not hesitate, with hyper-Papal authority, to say to the House of Lords, "If you vote otherwise than I think right, you must be prepared to have your powers and privileges taken away from you." Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) ventured to state that the House of Lords, by the vote it had given on this occasion, had done nothing to weaken, but everything to strengthen, itself in public opinion. And, moreover, after giving at least as much attention to the subject as the right hon. Gentleman, he would venture to state that the Amendment sent down by the House of Lords was not an Amendment in favour of robbery and plunder, but was an Amendment in favour alike of moral and intellectual excellence as against ignorance and abuse. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roundell Palmer) had discussed this question with great temper and moderation, and he confessed he felt great regret dial his hon. and learned Friend was not satisfied with the victories he had already obtained, for he had already succeeded inducing this and the other House of Parliament to invest bodies for the most part utterly incompetent with an absolute power of stepping in between Parliament, between the Commissioners, between the Privy Council, and the work of legislation, and of saying, "We do not care one pin for public interests, for the interest, of learning, for promoting the diffusion o the streams of learning over the land; we look at this locality, and as, in our opinion, this locality is to suffer by the change you meditate, we say no, and forbid you to proceed." Well, the House of Lord had submitted to the pleasure of his hon. and learned Friend, so far as regarded all Scholarships and fall exhibitions connected with the University of Oxford. All that the House of Lords had done was this—they had claimed, not to throw open all these fellowships, but to give impartial and dispassionate parties a power of considering, upon larger and more general grounds than the corporation of Abingdon, for instance, would consider, whether these endowments should be continued. The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded on the assumption, though he did not use the phrase, that both the Privy Council and the Commission—composed of the Earl of Harrowby, the Earl of Ellesmere, the Bishop of Ripon, and so forth—were a set of men totally incapable of discerning and of estimating the fair claims of these schools, and of allowing to those fair claims everything that was just and reasonable. It was the duty of the Commissioners to consider and weigh fairly all claims not overriding local interests and local rights, but estimating together the bearing one on another of certain local with larger and more general rights, and to consider the ultimate benefits to accrue from the course they might adopt. Those were the duties to be committed to the hands of the Commissioners; but his hon. and learned Friend said he was not satisfied with that, and that the corporation of Abingdon, being the best judges, should have the power to interpose with an absolute veto. Long before the Bill assumed its present form it contained the principle of compensation to these schools. The Government never proposed, with regard to exhibitions, that the privileges should be taken away. They were to pass under review, but all limitations were to be retained with regard to them, and in order to prevent the supposition that it was intended to sweep away these endowments irrespective of the rights of the schools, it was provided that fellowships limited might be converted into scholarships or exhibitions similarly limited. That was distinct proof that it was not intended to proceed on the abstract principle—the abstract principle, so excellent, against which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had directed his powers of ridicule, of giving to the best man these advantages of the University. The Government did not intend to give scope even to that principle, but to provide the best machinery to satisfy every local claim. Was it true that these endowments now existed in such a form as would be most beneficial to these parties themselves? He said, on the contrary, and to a very great extent, they existed in such a form that immense resources were wasted in producing an amount of local encouragement hardly perceptible. He would take a particular case, which would exhibit the matter simply. Let the House suppose that a school had a right of preference to three fellowships of 200l. a year each. That would represent a property of 600l. a year; but if the average tenure of those fellowships was fifteen years—which was somewhere about the usual tenure—it followed there would be only one opening once in every five years. That opening afforded a perfectly ineffective stimulus to the school; but supposing the Commissioners converted one of those fellowships into five exhibitions of 40l. a year, each tenable for five years, then there would be an exhibition available every year in the school, instead of a fellowship once in five years. He, therefore, put it to the House whether that would not give very much greater encouragement, at an expense of 200l., than the three fellowships at the expense of 600l. a year? And, therefore, he said that, in numbers of these schools, arrangements might be made which, augmenting the amount of local interests, would leave a large overplus for the benefit of general education. He asked the House to do—what? Not by a sweeping clause to declare that these privileges should be taken away, but to submit these matters to impartial persons in high stations, being worthy of the confidence of the House, to make the best arrangement they could after full examination of the case. If the Commission failed, they allowed them to go before the Privy Council, where there would be a hearing from parties acting judicially; and if the Privy Council failed, they might come down to that House, where his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Palmer), with all his Winchester associates at his back, would be ready enough to ask sympathy, and find ability enough to command it, to induce the House to prevent the recommendations of the Commissioners becoming law. These matters having been so much discussed, he would not go at any length into them, but he wished to point out to his hon. and learned Friend that he was not entitled to the honour and pride of declaring himself in that House the preserver of the wills and intentions of the founders. The wills of the founders declared certain local preferences, and if it was mere sacredness of situation that they were talking about, why not preserve the rights and the claims of the Channel Islands, of Wales, of the diocese of Lincoln, of the diocese of Exeter, and all the rest? They did nothing of the sort, and was it unjust to apply to schools the same principle they applied to counties? The intentions of the founders were exactly parallel. The only difference was, that in the one case there were persons ready to raise a great disturbance, and in the other there was no organisation—no means of raising clamour. So with regard to founders' intentions altogether. He should like to know in what case (where the founder had enacted anything inconvenient to anybody) his intentions had been allowed to stand in the way of putting that obstacle aside? And he should like, also, to know in what case it was possible to urge the founders' intentions against useful reform, intended for the interests of the public? The fact was, the Government were those who were giving effect to the intentions of the founders. Many of those founders were men of enlightened minds. The intention of William of Wykeham was to establish the best college at Oxford, to make it distinguished among others by its intellectual and moral excellence, and he trusted to a most elaborate system of control, examination, and mutual supervision. The force of those Statutes died out, and what was the case in that was the case in these close colleges generally. Did they fulfil the intentions of the founders? Could it be said that any of these close colleges were superior to the other colleges in Oxford? He thought not. He said it was the intention of William of Wykeham to have a superior college, but by circumstances his college had become entirely inferior. And when it was endeavoured to infuse into it the breath of new life, they came and talked of founders' intentions. These were the founders' intentions—to have the best college which legislation and human wisdom could obtain, and he hoped by this Bill and the Amendment of the House of Lords to give effect to the founders' intentions in that respect. Though he attached great importance to the specialties of the two Universities, with respect to this particular question, the general principle would apply also to Cambridge. There was no question about that, and it was admitted, also, that the object of the interference of Parliament in this matter of University education was to open and enlarge the Universities, not to narrow and restrain them. In Cambridge he did not know how, but, in fact, this very thing was done which the Lords' Amendments gave power to do, with respect to one of the greatest and most distinguished colleges in that University. Trinity College had taken away from the Westminster scholars the absolute right to succeed to fellowships. That had been done without the intervention of Parliament; and now that Parliament was appealed to to facilitate the work of reform, that work would not be assisted, if, to use a term which had become fashionable during the discussion on this measure, they allowed themselves to be deluded by his hon. and learned Friend. If the House adopted the clause of his hon. and learned Friend, it would be impossible to effect for King's College at Cambridge, which was connected with Eton, the very thing which, without the aid of Parliament, Trinity College had effected with regard to Westminster. No doubt the rights in question varied in every possible way. No doubt there were special cases where the object of the founder was almost exclusively his interest in the school, whilst there were a multitude of other cases where his interest was in the college. With regard to Winchester, he thought his hon. and learned Friend fundamentally misrepresented the case when he said New College was made for Winchester, and that if he read the Statutes he would see Winchester was made for New College. Mr. R. PALMER: Both were made for each other.] Now, he thought the welfare of New College was the main object in the mind of William of Wykeham, and that he treated Winchester as a mere appendage. It was because of these many shades and varieties of interest that Parliament should refer the cases for review to an intelligent competent tribunal, in order to deal fairly by these parties. He was quite satisfied his hon. and learned Friend would not succeed in inducing the House to adopt his Amendment. It was quite true the House had twice voted in its favour, but by very different majorities, and the more light that was thrown on this question the more impossible would it be to induce the representatives of the people in this country to set themselves against the House of Lords in a case where the House of Lords had been voting on large views of public and general interests, and where the interests arrayed against them were, to describe them in the kindest manner, interests of personal and local feeling.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown in his last, as in his former speeches upon this subject, something very much resembling the eagerness of a partisan, as well as considerable unfairness of argument. The right hon. Gentleman said that the opponents of the Amendment ought to be satisfied, because the tribunal which would have to carry the Amendment into effect was an impartial one. That, however, was assuming the question whether the powers given by the Amendment ought or ought not to be conferred upon the Commissioners. Those who took the same view of the question as he did might consistently refuse to grant a particular power to a tribunal without objecting to the composition of the tribunal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also adverted to the advantages which would result from converting fellowships into exhibitions, but the House was aware that that could be done under another clause of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had likewise dwelt on the advantages of framing regulations for making the fellowships more available for learning in the University, but all those regulations could be made by the clause of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roundell Palmer), without the Amendment of the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to New College and Winchester School, and said that that college was not constructed for Winchester School alone. It was true it was not like the case of Abingdon School and Pembroke College, where the latter grew out of the former; but it could be seen from every part of the Statutes that the founder designed to build up a college on the school at Winchester, and it would be a complete overthrow of those intentions if they were to deprive the college of all connection with the school. It would be no answer to say a larger scheme of education was proposed; for if a school was founded with particular views for a particular class, Parliament could have no right to accept the gift, and then appropriate it in a way as different as possible from the intentions of the founder. He should certainly enter his protest against any attempt to overrule the decided and sufficient opinion already given by the House upon this subject.

said, that as he was one of those who had voted with the majority on the first occasion against the Government proposition, and in the minority on the second, against his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth, he trusted the House would allow him to say a few words in justification of the course which he had thought it his duty to pursue. The first vote, be it remembered, involved the question whether the interests and rights of schools were to be absolutely set aside and ignored by the operation of this Bill. Now he (Mr. Vernon) entertained as strongly as did the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the feeling that they had no right, while they were legislating for the good of the University, to throw out of their consideration the almost equal claims of the endowed schools. Even assuming, which it was perhaps fair to assume, that the schools did not in all cases perform the functions which they were intended to perform as adequately as might be desired—even granting that some of them did not furnish the best scholars to the University— he still maintained that they had no right, in a Bill which exclusively affected Oxford University, to put in the power of the Commissioners and of the University authorities, whose main object might be presumed to be the credit of the University itself, the fortunes of these various endowed schools. Well, the Government were beaten on that occasion. The rights of the schools were vindicated. Then arose the question whether they were to carry out the principle of school immunity from control to what he believed would be an unfair and mischievous extent? In the endeavour to reform the University they had not adhered strictly and exclusively to the actual terms of the expressed wishes of the founders, but only so far as those wishes could be maintained with due regard to existing and altered circumstances. It was impossible to carry out to the letter all the wills of the founders. They had endeavoured, in the efforts to improve the constitution of the University, to respect the main intentions of the founders with scrupulous, but not slavish, attention. Must they not, then, in some degree, carry out the same principle in reference to the relation of the schools with the University? In the modified proposition of the Government which he had supported, and which, though rejected by that House, had been restored to the Bill in another place, it was proposed to maintain the privileges of the schools in almost all instances with regard to exhibitions and scholarships—to leave, in fact, the position of undergraduates unassailed and untouched—but it was considered fair, after the expiration of some four or five or six years of their tutelage, to look to the efficiency and merit of the scholars as members of the University. Their career was, as now, to be assisted in its outset—they were to be fully and fairly launched—but they were not to be permitted to have an indefeasible right to a perpetual monopoly of college emoluments, independent of distinctions of fitness and of merit, simply because they proceeded from this or that particular school. He was one of those who regarded with great confidence the Commissioners selected by Her Majesty's Government. He likewise approved of the various checks imposed upon the exercise of their authority. He was perfectly certain nothing would be ordered by those Commissioners, in a sense either unfair or severe, with reference to these schools; and he thought it the duty of the House to reflect before placing a power of veto either in the corporation of Abingdon, or even the school to which he was more particularly attached, that of Westminster. With regard to the allusion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Trinity College, Cambridge, and Westminster School, the right hon. Gentleman was completely in error, as the Westminster scholars never had the power of taking fellowships—it was a pure question of examination.

said, he had listened to the hon. Gentleman's explanation of the contradictory votes he had given, and must say—with all possible respect for the hon. Gentleman—that he never heard anything more hollow, inconsistent, and unsatisfactory. In the first instance, the hon. Gentleman had voted for the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer); and secondly, against it, because he was not prepared to carry the principle to an extreme extent. He should like to know how the hon. Gentleman expected men of sense to believe that, when he gave his first vote, he did not vote for that which by his second vote he negatived. The question had been fully argued, everything which could be said about it had been said, and therefore he would not have said a word on this occasion, had it not been for some expressions which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the Lords' Amendment was in favour of moral and intellectual excellence against ignorance and abuse. From that description of the Amendment he altogether dissented, but at any rate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the last person from whom such language might have been expected, looking to the declarations which he had made on this subject four years ago. It should be recollected this was not a question of expediency—it was not the case of something that might be good to-day and bad to-morrow—it was a question of principle, which rested now upon the same grounds as those on which it stood in 1850. The House should hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in 1850, and then he would leave the right hon. Gentleman to explain his inconsistency as he could.

said, he would not be responsible for the report which the right hon. Gentleman was about to read.

The right hon. Gentleman now said, that the report of his speech was not correct.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman, by using the word "now," meant to imply that he had not before disavowed the report, he must beg to set him right, for he had published a corrected report of his speech on that occasion.

said, he could refer only to the report which appeared in the usual record of Parliamentary proceedings; from that he would read some passages, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could state what portion of those passages was incorrect. The question at issue was one of high principle. Like his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), he thought the Lords' Amendment would sanction unjustifiable spoliation, and he believed the country at large were of the same opinion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was reported to have used this language in 1850—

"Into the question of the restraints in the election of fellowships I will not enter at any length. It is plain, however, that neither the House of Commons nor the Crown can assume a jurisdiction to remove those restraints; but, in point of fact, those restraints are of a much more limited character than is supposed." [3 Hansard, cxii. 1498.]

In 1850, then, the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that the restraints upon the election to fellowships could not properly be removed by the Crown or Parliament. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, no!] He wished to know what error the passage contained?

I said the House of Commons, not Parliament.

said, he must say he thought the right hon. Gentleman was thankful for small mercies. He must be hard pressed, indeed, when he drew such a very nice distinction. The right hon. Gentleman was now urging the House of Commons to deal with those very restraints to which he had then referred. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say—

"The selection is usually made from the country, or in most cases from the diocese. But although I do not deny that there ought to be some relaxation of these restrictions, yet I do deny the assumption that they are altogether evil. It is plain the principle of examination must have some limitation."—[3 Hansard, cxii. 1498.]

We were not now indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for any limitation whatever being put upon the principle of examination, or for scholarships not being dealt with in the same manner as fellowships. The right hon. Gentleman continued—

"I would not like to see a Prime Minister, or any other Member of the Cabinet, appointed by examination. I would as soon have them chosen out of a particular county or a particular diocese. And so in the case of fellowships—you may ascertain the competency of candidates by examination; but we all know that there may be as much trick in passing through an examination as anything else, and I protest against examination being taken as the sole and only test of the fitness of candidates for those foundations."—[3 Hansard, cxii. 1499.]

Yet the right hon. Gentleman now said that the House of Lords had passed an Amendment in favour of moral and intellectual excellence, and against ignorance and abuse. What was that moral and intellectual excellence? Why, it was an excellence that was to be tested by examination. He did not deny the right hon. Gentleman's right to change his mind, but he thought the weight of the right hon. Gentleman's opinion upon this matter ought not to tell very much with the House, when he expressed such diametrically opposite opinions upon a question of high principle within the short period of four years. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the colleges fulfilled the intentions of their founders; but he denied his right to enter into that question now, when they had such plain and unanswerable proof as to what those intentions really were. Why, this very morning the House had been led into an act of great injustice, as he considered, solely from their respect for the intentions of a testator. He alluded, of course, to Sir Thomas Wilson's Finchley Road Estate Bill. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the intentions of the founders were to establish the best colleges; but he denied the hon. Gentleman's right so to distort their intentions. He would appeal to the case in which he was the most interested—that of certain schools in the county of Worcester, connected with Worcester College, and he would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was justified in saying that the Worcestershire gentlemen who founded those fellowships and scholarships had solely in view the establishment of the best college? It was perfectly clear that the real object of the founders was to benefit the county, to give an advantage to particular schools, and they could not now deprive those schools of their fellowships, which were, in fact, their endowments, without committing an act of the greatest injustice. He denied that they were open to the accusation of having protected the interests of schools while they neglected those of localities, and such a distinction ought not to be drawn. In the case of Jesus College, the interests of the locality had been protected by the decision of the House of Commons. He must express his deep regret at the course which the Government had taken, as their object appeared to be to induce the House of Commons to stultify itself; but he would remind the House that they had already come to two different decisions upon this particular subject, not in a thin House at the end of July, but in a full House in the middle of the Session. With one of those decisions the right hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied, and therefore asked the House to review it, but they had refused to do so, and declared that they held sacred these endowments and respected these rights. He hoped the House would now come to the same conclusion at which they had twice before arrived, and reject this Amendment of the Lords.

said, the House would recollect that the last time they had debated this question, there was a majority of ten only in favour of the hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Roundell Palmer's) proposal, so that, if they were now to come to a different conclusion, they would not, all events, be reviewing a decision which had been arrived at by a very large majority. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) stated that his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said, in 1850, that these endowments ought not to be set aside by the will of the Crown or of the House of Com- mons. No doubt his right hon. Friend had said so, and he had no hesitation in saying the same thing now; but what they proposed was, that not the Crown or the House of Commons simply should decide this question, but that the whole body of the Legislature—the Queen, Lords, and Commons—should give their assent to a Bill by which that alteration should be made. He owned that he felt somewhat embarrassed in arguing this question when he heard the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir William Heathcote) and the right hon. Gentleman opposite arguing for a literal adherence to the wills of the founders, because, if they were to adhere to the wills of the founders, without looking at their intentions, how was it that they had allowed those wills to be set aside and different dispositions to be made in the case of localities? What was there in the case of schools which would justify their acting towards them in a separate manner? The question, therefore, came to this—whether, having adopted certain words with regard to these preferences in a former clause, which had been agreed to both by the Lords and the Commons, namely—

"And whereas it is expedient for the interests of religion and learning to enable colleges to alter and amend their Statutes with respect to eligibility to headships, fellowships, and other college emoluments, and the tenure thereof, and to ensure the same being conferred according to personal merits and fitness, and for that purpose to modify or abolish any preference, and to make ordinances for promoting the main designs of the founders and donors,"—

whether, having agreed to that preamble, and given the Commissioners power to carry this purpose into effect, they had altogether parted with their right to touch any of the dispositions made by the founders, and were to preserve sacred and inviolate every endowment they had made, however mischievous might be its operation at the present time? The argument of the Government was that the founders never intended that the foundations which they established for the purpose of promoting religion and learning should be rather made a hindrance to the promotion of religion and learning. Let them take the case now before them—not that of fellowships, but that of scholarships and exhibitions from schools. There might be certain schools containing a large number of scholars who were perfectly fit to compete for the exhibitions to scholarships at the University; but the number of boys might also be so small that a sufficient number could not be furnished who were able to obtain the fellowships that were by law assigned to them. Was the inferior person in that case to be preferred, and the young man of talent set aside? He owned it appeared to him that, if they gave the preference to fitness, they could not adopt the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The question had been placed upon a very different ground by the hon. and learned Gentleman; for he did not say he wished to stand exactly upon the will of the founders, but that they would obtain fitness if they took the scholars from these schools, as the examinations would ascertain whether they were fit for the emoluments which they wished to enjoy. But it was quite clear that if the number of scholars was very limited, they would find that these examinations would only ascertain a very low degree of competence, a very narrow standard of learning, and their general object would thereby be defeated. He hoped, therefore, the House would reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition and agree to the Amendment of the Lords.

said, he had no wish to use such harsh words as plunder and spoliation; but he must say, that if the clause were passed in its present form, it would enable parties to violate the rules under which property had hitherto been recognised in this country for a very long period. It was a deviation from the principle which the people of this country had long enjoyed, that those who bequeathed property for a particular purpose should have the right of defining the manner in which that property should be disposed of. That was one of the main principles on which all the rights of property were founded, and he trusted the House would not be induced to accede to such a proposition as was now before it, and which would reverse that principle. He denied that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roundell Palmer) would in any way be a hindrance to the progress of learning and religion—they had a sufficient number of protections and safeguards to prevent any abuse of that sort. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had argued that they were committed to this course by what they had already done. He could only say that this did not apply to himself, for he had protested against the principle, and had voted against it. But besides this, the present clause went a great deal further than any of the others. Then they were asked by the noble Lord whether they were prepared to adhere to the wills of time founders, even though those wills should hinder rather than promote the spread of religion and learning. He denied that they were reduced to this alternative, for even if the words introduced by the House of Lords were omitted, still they would have the fullest opportunity of enacting rules which would secure the advancement of religion and learning. In reply to another case put by the noble Lord President, he would say that in case of schools not sending up persons sufficiently qualified for scholarships, it would be competent for the colleges to reject them, and in that case the appointments would be open. It had been decided in the case of Catherine Hall, Cambridge, that the colleges had the right to refuse the election of incompetent persons. They had, therefore, no temptation to deviate from the principle of respecting the wills of the founders, and he hoped the House would not depart from it.

moved that the words "and respecting private halls," which had been added by the Lords, be omitted, as he believed they had been inserted by the Lords per incuriam, and without due consideration. No doubt the intention had been to place their proceedings in regard to private halls on a footing analogous to their proceedings with respect to the Hebdomadal Council and Congregation. With respect to the latter, however, they had provided by the Bill both for their existence and for many details with regard to them; and the present clause provided that the particulars and details of them might be altered by the University with the consent of the Crown. The House of Lords had assumed that the case was the same with regard to private halls, and that they had provided by the Bill both for their existence and for a number of details respecting them. In place of this, the Bill merely provided for their existence, and laid down no details in relation to them, leaving it to the University to regulate all those details. The only thing, therefore, which would come within the scope of the words, "and respecting private halls," would be the very existence of those halls themselves. He did not think that this could have been the meaning of the House of Lords, and would therefore move that the Amendment be rejected.

said, he did not believe that this clause had been inserted by the House of Lords per incuriam. In fact he had raised this very question, and moved an Amendment in these very words when the Bill was formerly before the House. He did so on the ground that this experiment of private halls was one of a very doubtful nature, and that it ought to be competent to the University at some future time to renew and, if necessary, to abolish it. Holding these grounds, he must oppose the Motion that this Amendment of the Lords be rejected.

said, that if the Amendment were agreed to, the benefits which Dissenters expected to derive from the establishment of private halls would be completely neutralised.

said, he understood the 42nd clause unquestionably to give powers to alter the 27th clause, which established the private halls; but the extreme limitation under which the private halls could be altered ought to be taken into consideration. They can only be altered in case they have completely failed, not merely in the opinion of the governing body, but in the opinion of the members of Convocation resident in the University. But since it was admitted that an experiment was being made, was it not right to leave the University, that was to say the governing body of the University, the powers to give a veto, which were allowed to Convocation, and further powers to prevent the University from hastily exercising their own powers if the University were inclined to do so? Suppose the private halls failed—suppose it became advisable to establish affiliated halls—why was the University to be debarred from superseding the regu- lations or the provisions which might turn out not only a failure, but detrimental to the best interests of the University. He (Mr. Walpole) trusted that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not persevere in resisting the Lords' Amendment on this point.

said, that there were great interests bound up in the establishment and development of private halls, through which medium the great principle of University extension was to be carried out. If the words were not struck out, the great object of the Bill would be entirely nullified, and the Bill itself reduced to a mere temporary provision. This surely was not the intention of the House, neither was it the object of Imperial legislation. The whole Bill proceeded upon the establishment of two great principles. The establishment of private halls was one—the constitution of the University the other; and if any alteration was made with regard to one of these, the other, the constitution of the University, must certainly be subjected to the same rule.

said, a restriction was imposed on the Queen in Council with respect to private halls, which did not exist with respect to the University, to the election, constitution, and powers of the Hebdomadal Council, or to the powers of Convocation. If the House would not trust the University, it certainly might trust the Queen in Council. All that the House of Lords had proposed in the Amendment was very obvious. They had said, why should not this experiment be subject to the same provisions as the other parts of the Bill—why should it not be subject to the Queen in Council at the suggestion of the University, in the same way as every other creation in the Bill? It was not to be expected that the House of Lords was likely to pass the Bill with such an anomaly as this, and he did not see why this portion of the Bill, which was avowedly an experiment, should not be subject to the same regulations as the other proposals contained in it.

said, that so far as he could understand the Bill it was in a very confused state. It was absolutely necessary that the University should have these powers, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would attend he would show him why. The 30th clause gave powers to the University to make regulations for private balls; the 41st clause gave powers to the University to alter anything that they had done themselves; and the 39th section of the Bill gave powers to the Commissioners to frame Statutes, in the case of the private halls, to carry out any of the provisions with respect to which the University had made a default. But if these Statutes, after working five or six years, were found to contain inconvenient regulations respecting the matters to be observed in these private halls, surely the right hon. Gentleman did not say that these were to be law for ever. If they were matters of two grave a kind for powers to be given to the University, he (Mr. Henley) considered that the Queen in Council was a sufficient check. If the University did not see its way clearly to establish these halls, and left them to be established by the Commissioners, and the Commissioners having made these regulations, there would be no power to alter them at any future period, however inconvenient they might be.

said, the meaning of the words as regarded the Statutes made by the Commissioners was, that they should be subject to revisal and alteration by the parties who created the private halls, and if the regulations with regard to private halls should be found upon experience to be inconvenient, there was full power under the Bill to alter them. What he wished should not be altered, however, was the provision of the Bill with respect to the establishment of those halls.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord opposite two questions. The first was, why should not young men entering the University be called upon to make a declaration of their belief? He could not for a moment imagine why this was abolished. It could only be to enable foreigners to become Members. He well knew that the House of Lords were extremely liberal in their accommodations for the reception of distinguished foreigners, of which they had lately had an instance in the case of Count Pahlen; but he certainly did hope that there would be no time) found in our Universities. The second question he would ask was as to the meaning of the word "office." It was not in the interpretation clause; and he wished to know whether a fellowship was to be construed as an office within the meaning of that clause?

said, according to his apprehension the word "office" did not include "fellowship," although, in certain cases, a fellowship might have attached to it some particular office. "Office" and "emolument" were quite distinct, and in his opinion, the word "office" could not include either fellowship or emolument.

said, he believed that the words alluded to by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) were intended to apply to the masters of grammar schools. He did not, for his own part, agree with the proviso at all, and he could not consider the matter settled so long as it remained upon the Statute-book, but he believed that it expressed the present opinion of the other House of Parliament upon the subject, and he had no wish at this period of the Session to raise a difficulty about it. Sir Robert Peel, in the year 1834, in speaking upon this subject, had, said—

"The Dissenters at the Universities never would remain contented with the mere empty degree of master of arts, but would continue to strive after—nay, peremptorily to demand—a perfect equality in all things not necessarily connected with ecclesiastical affairs. He would put the case of two students intending to enter upon the profession of the law, the one a Dissenter, the other a member of the Church of England; either might have, he would suppose, a lay fellowship, if the religious scruples of one of them had not happened to stand in the way. The Dissenter might stand more in need of such fellowship. He would then put it to the right hon. Gentleman to say how he could, upon his own principles, refuse the claim of the Dissenter to a collegiate advantage not necessarily connected with ecclesiastical affairs? By what right could he establish such an invidious distinction on a matter merely of civil benefit and advantage? To his mind, it did appear infinitely more rational and consistent to proceed according to the recommendation of the hon. Member for Leeds, and grant to the Dissenters a full and equal participation in all the advantages of the Universities not necessarily of an ecclesiastical or spiritual character."—[3 Hansard, xxiv. 706.]

He must say that he (Mr. Heywood) should very much have preferred that Parliament should have arrived at this, which was called by Sir Robert Peel "an infinitely more sound and rational conclusion" than that this proviso should have been introduced for the purpose of pushing out or keeping out Dissenters from the masterships of grammar schools. He was not at all satisfied with the matter as it stood; but he repeated that he would not at present make any opposition to the Amendment.

said, he thought that, when the hon. Member for North Lancashire cited the opinion of Sir Robert Peel upon this subject, it was as well the House should know that upon the very occasion on which he had made that speech—in which he was arguing against the views of his opponents, and showing to what consequences they would lead—his vote, as they would see if they referred to it, had been given against the proposition to admit Dissenters to the Universities.

said, he understood that the language of Sir Robert Peel, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for North Lancashire, had not been cited by him for the purpose of informing the House of the opinions held by Sir Robert Peel on the subject of admitting Dissenters to the Universities, but had been read for the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and of other Gentlemen who sat near him, and in order to show them that what they had now done had established an irresistible claim upon the part of the Dissenters to have everything else they desired. He understood that that quotation expressed Sir Robert Peel's opinion, then speaking upon this very subject—that if what was then asked should be conceded, which was something very like what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been instrumental in carrying now, the Dissenters would have in that concession an irresistible argument for demanding everything else. Now, with re- spect to this proviso, it appeared to him that the only effect of it would be to strike at the schoolmasters; and that while it would shut out the Protestant Dissenters to a man, Roman Catholics would be let in by it. It applied to "any office which has been heretofore always held by a member of the United Church of England and Ireland." Now, many of these schools had, no doubt, been formerly held by Roman Catholics; and, therefore, the effect of this concoction by the Dissenting body on the one hand, and the right hon. Gentleman on the other, would be, that no Protestant Dissenter could benefit—that it was possible that Church of England schoolmasters might be shut out—and that Roman Catholics alone would derive any advantage.

said, he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman's apprehension with respect to Roman Catholics was very well founded; but he admitted that the clause was very oddly worded. He believed that the "United Church of England and Ireland" had only existed since the Act of Union, and it would be obvious that, if that were so, hardly any office could be said to have been "heretofore always held" by a member of that Church; but, of course, a court of law would give a rational interpretation to the clause.

said, he would now move to restore the 47th clause, which provided that no member on account of his rank should be permitted to take his degree sooner than any other undergraduate.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman was applying his Cambridge experience to the case of the University of Oxford, whereas the systems at the two Universities were entirely different. At Oxford there was no distinction made in the examinations on account of difference of birth. The clause had been introduced on the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore), and no great question had been made about it at the time, but there was really this serious objection to it—that it referred to a matter of detail, and that, if they took upon themselves to legislate upon such a matter, they would be making themselves responsible, in effect, for a great number of other details which they might think ought to be amended. He thought, therefore, that the safer course would be to leave this, as they had left a great many other matters, to be dealt with by the University itself. On the 50th clause (saving the powers and privileges of the University and its officers, except in so far as they are expressly altered or taken away by the provisions of this Act).

said he wished to call attention to the subject of the Vice Chancellor's veto. When the measures to be submitted to Convocation emanated from the Hebdomadal Board, with which body the Vice Chancellor was constantly in harmony, there was no danger that the veto would be mischievously exercised in reference to those measures. But at present, for the Hebdomadal Board they had substituted a Hebdomadal Council, with whom there was no reason to suppose, but the contrary, that the Vice Chancellor would always act in harmony. It was a matter, therefore, of the greatest importance that the Vice Chancellor should not have power to interpose and neutralise the proceedings of the Hebdomadal Council, by vetoing those proceedings when submitted to Convocation. When he had spoken to the hon. and learned Solicitor General some time since upon the subject, the hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed his opinion that the veto of the Vice Chancellor was taken away by the operation of the clause which was now the 19th in the Bill. He therefore wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman now, whether the stringent words substituted would have the effect of maintaining the veto of the Vice Chancellor on all proceedings connected with Convocation, which it was formerly his opinion had been abrogated by the 19th clause, or whether he considered that it would be taken away in spite of the stringent words introduced by the House of Lords?

said, it was provided by the 19th clause that every Statute framed by the Hebdomadal Council should first be submitted to Congregation, and afterwards to Convocation; and, in his opinion, the exercise of the veto was, by that provision, effectually restrained.

said, in calling the attention of the House to the case of the Bishop of New Zealand, he begged to observe that when he had complained on a former occasion of the withdrawal of the grant to the Bishop, he was told there was nothing new in it, as the grant had been stopped in 1853. He then inquired if any despatch had been sent out either to the Bishop of New Zealand or to the Governor of New Zealand to state the intention of the Government to withdraw the grant, or to state the fact that it had been withdrawn, and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Grey) was, that no such information had been sent to either of these parties. In the year 1853 the income which the Bishop had received from the time of his appointment was withdrawn, without the slightest intimation being sent of the intention either to the Bishop or to the Governor of New Zealand. He would say nothing of the position of the Bishop of New Zealand, of his exemplary character, and great and admitted capacity. He would assume for a moment that instead of being a bishop of the Church of England he was the lowest official of the smallest colony, and he (Sir J. Pakington) would ask the House whether in the case of any public servant, be he who he may, it was consistent with good faith and fair dealing, that an allowance once granted by Parliament, and on the faith of which that public servant had gone out to the Colony, should be so withdrawn. Putting the case in that way to the House, he begged to say distinctly that he did not intend to make any accusation against the Duke of Newcastle, the Secretary of State who arranged the matter. He was quite sure that the Duke of Newcastle was as little inclined as any one could be to do anything unfair towards any public servant connected with his department, and more especially one holding the high position of the Bishop of New Zealand. He might add, that he knew too much of the Colonial Office to feel surprised that occasional mistakes of that kind should arise, and he could only suppose that this was a mistake, and that in withdrawing this grant from the Estimates of 1853, without the slightest warning to the Bishop, the Duke of Newcastle had acted inadvertently, and in that view he looked to its speedy and effectual rectification. He (Sir J. Pakington) would not advert to the attempt that had been made to throw the blame of this upon him. He could only say that he felt extremely innocent on the subject. It was true that in the year 1852, he expressed a hope that after two years New Zealand would cease to be a charge upon this country. Perhaps he had not been so cautious in making a distinct exception with regard to the salary of the Bishop as he should have been, but nothing would induce him to be a party to such a withdrawal of the grant as had actually taken place, and that without due notice. He would remind any hon. Gentleman who attempted to throw blame on him of the fact that it was stopped in 1853 without any warning or notice, and, at all events, he was innocent of that, because it did not devolve on him to send out notice. But if hon. Gentlemen thought he was to blame, be was willing to bear his share of it, but he would not be a party to stopping the grant under such circumstances. In a letter written by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, by the direction of the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), it was stated that, until it had appeared incidentally, the Governor was under the impression that the Vote for the salary of 600l. had been continued. Now, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman if those words did not establish his (Sir J. Pakington's) case? Why was the Governor under the impression, or how did he discover it incidentally? If the intention had been courteously communicated, no such erroneous impression would have existed. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say that the Estimate of 1853 had been diminished by previous engagements to 5,090l and he (Sir J. Pakington) must beg to correct the right hon. Gentleman with respect to that passage of his letter. The right hon. Gentleman would not find that anything that had been said by him would render it necessary to reduce the grant in 1853 to 5,090l. He (Sir J. Pakington) had talked of gradual reduction, but said nothing with respect to the reduction of the grant to that amount. He then said the salary of the Bishop, with other items, was omitted, but he gave no reason why they were omitted. It was perfectly clear from those extracts that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to give any reason for the withdrawal of the salary. His letter to the Bishop was, of course, worded very politely, but the real substance of it was, "I am sorry to say that I have to inform you that your salary is stopped." To this letter the Bishop sent an answer. It was written in a calm and dignified tone, and he made no complaint; and if there was anything like severity in the letter, it was only the severity that was inseparable from the nature of these unfortunate circumstances. The Bishop stated the facts on which the question mainly turned. The salary was taken away by the Government in 1853, and he never received any notice of the fact until the 25th of June, 1854. It was true that the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), who was Colonial Minister when the arrangement respecting the bishopric was originally made, had said that he would not be responsible for the permanence of the salary. But in saying that the noble Lord could only mean one of two things—first, that he would not answer for Parliament being always disposed to continue this grant, and that at some future day the income of the bishopric might be transferred from the Parliamentary grant to some other source. He (Sir J. Pakington) did not believe the noble Lord had intended to intimate to the Bishop the possibility that he, the very Minister who made the arrangement, would turn round on the Bishop and say his income was to be taken away without any warning, or any provision being made for it elsewhere. It was well known that the Bishop of New Zealand did not desire income for income's sake. He bestowed his income in a manner that was worthy of a Bishop of the Church. He bestowed it with liberality and generosity, and from the fact of his devoting his income to the benefit of his fellow-Christians, and never making it a source of profit to himself, he might have been exposed on receiving this intimation to the want of pecuniary means. He (Sir J. Pakington) did not affirm that the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand was to be a permanent charge on the funds of the country. He thought it might be desirable to do in that case as had been done in others, and transfer it to some other source; but until they had done so, they were bound in good faith, and by a regard for the dignity and welfare of the Church, to continue that salary until they had otherwise provided for it. He asked the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council, and the right hon. Gentleman who filled the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, whe- ther it had not been the uniform policy of successive Administrations in this country to increase the episcopacy in Colonies; and it was also their uniform policy never to allow the establishment of a new bishopric until a sufficient endowment was provided. Did it not follow from that that it was the uniform opinion of successive Governments that it was absolutely necessary that those who held the office of bishops in the Colonies should be properly provided for, and if it were opposed to that policy, to establish a bishopric until an endowment was found, it was equally opposed to it to leave this bishopric destitute. Before placing his Motion in Mr. Speaker's hands, he would confess that he entertained the most sanguine hope that the Government would admit, whomever the blame might rest upon, that his proposition should be acceded to, and it should be recollected that the salary was stopped by an act of the Government, and not by the act of the House of Commons. It was stopped, he believed, under a misapprehension, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would not resist his application. In conclusion, he begged to propose the Motion of which he had given notice.

said, that this grant of late years had been allowed to pass upon the distinct understanding that it would be gradually reduced and ultimately withdrawn altogether. When the grant was last before the House, he threatened to divide upon it, but upon receiving a distinct pledge that it would not be resumed he did not persevere in his intention, and the grant was allowed to pass. Under these circumstances he contended that it would be a breach of faith to Parliament if this Motion were agreed to. Upon what principle of common justice or common honesty could the right hon. Baronet expect this country to support a Bishop of New Zealand? If the Colony wanted a bishop the Colony was well able to support one; on the other hand, if the Colony did not want one, let the right rev. Prelate withdraw from it.

said, he trusted the Government would not oppose this act, he would not say of grace, but of justice and common fairness. It was now twelve or fourteen years since that House, by a distinct vote, without any qualification, had sent out this most distinguished man to the diocese of New Zealand, and certainly at that time there was not the slightest intimation held out that his stipend would ever be thus summarily withdrawn. When the Vote originally appeared in the Estimates, it appeared not as a charge relating to the colony of New Zealand, but as an item in the Estimate for the ecclesiastical and clerical charge of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Zealand, and several years elapsed before it appeared in its present form. But some time afterwards it was presented in a different form, and it became liable to the grave consideration whether, generally speaking, the provision for the prelates of the Church in the colony should be made by the colony or by this country. As regarded the ecclesiastical salaries of Canada and Nova Scotia, they still continued to be voted by Parliament during the lives of the present recipients. The salary of this Bishop belonged to the same class; and in their Report the Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates, which sat five or six years ago, stated that they declined to enter into the consideration of salaries belonging to this category, because they would lapse altogether with the lives of the life-holders. Well, this admirable Prelate had gone forth to a remote colony to discharge most important Christian duties there, never dreaming that he would receive treatment such as was now suggested, and which he (Sir T. Acland) could hardly trust himself to characterise as it deserved. It was not merely the bounty of Parliament that was asked for him, but rather what was justly due, on the principle that the labourer was worthy of his hire. The Bishop of New Zealand had helped to prepare in those islands a state of society in which was exhibited perhaps the most remarkable instance ever known of the bringing of a numerous and high-spirited native population into full union and sympathy with a Christian country to whom they had become subject. This the right rev. Prelate had done in a manner that deserved the highest consideration on their part; and he (Sir T. Acland) felt assured that that House would not refuse the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington), and which he sincerely trusted would meet with no opposition from any Member of the Government.

said, that, having answered various questions that had been put to him recently on this subject, and correspondence relating to it having been produced, the facts of this case were already sufficiently known to the House, and it was therefore unnecessary for him now to reiterate them. Neither was it needful that he should repeat his entire concurrence in the eulogiums that had been passed upon the excellence, the zeal, and the ability of the Bishop of New Zealand. He believed the appointment of that Prelate by his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), in 1839, to the diocese which he had now for many years occupied had been productive of the greatest benefits to New Zealand and the neighbouring islands, and especially to the native races inhabiting them. With regard to this salary itself, he must say, that although it was originally proposed in the manner stated by his hon. Friend the Member for North Devonshire (Sir T. Acland), not as a salary for New Zealand alone, but in common with the ecclesiastical salaries voted for different parts of our Colonies, yet this arose from the circumstance that there used to be no Vote for New Zealand asked from Parliament, and as soon as a Vote came to be required for the civil service of that Colony, the Bishop's income of 600l. formed a part of it. The Vote was justified on the ground that in an infant colony like New Zealand the local resources were not sufficient to meet the exigencies of the settlement, and, therefore, the aid of Parliament was invoked in its behalf. Thus the Vote was continued from year to year, till in 1851 a despatch was addressed to the Secretary of State by the Governor of New Zealand, describing the financial condition and prospects of the Colony, and stating that if 10,000l. was voted in 1852 by Parliament in aid of the colonial revenues, in 1853 the Vote might be reduced to 5,000l., after which he thought no further help would be asked from the British Parliament in aid of the finances of the Colony. He (Sir G. Grey) thought the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) would find, independently of what he was reported to have stated to the House at the time, that a note was appended to the Estimates for 1852 (which were prepared under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman), in which it was stated, in accordance with the opinion of the Governor, that if 10,000l. was granted in 1852, a sum of about 5,000l. would be all that would be required in 1853, after which no further Vote would be required for the civil services in New Zealand; and he (Sir G. Grey) found, on looking over the records, that when the Vote of 1852 was objected to on the specific ground that it contained 600l. for the Bishop, the right hon. Gentleman rose and said that after 1853 nothing more would be required on account of the civil service of New Zealand, making no exception of the Bishop's salary, so that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) was entitled to express himself as he had done, because he had been induced to withdraw his opposition to the Vote on that occasion by reason of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. But it seemed now that the right hon. Gentleman intended to except from that general statement this 600l. a year; but he thought it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who ought in 1852 to have addressed a despatch to the Governor, informing him that he had stated in the House of Commons that no Vote would be brought forward again, and suggesting to him that proper means should be taken for providing this sum from the resources of the Colony. No such intimation, however, was conveyed by the right hon. Gentleman, and next year, when the Vote was discontinued—no doubt it might have been from accident or inadvertence on the part of the right hon. Gentleman—no direct communication was made to the Governor or to the Bishop of the actual cessation of the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that no intimation of any kind had been sent to the Colony, because, as he had informed the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question that had been put to him, the Estimate itself had been sent to the Colony, and the inspection of it would at once show that the salary had been withdrawn. Yet, owing to there having been no previous communication to the Governor on the subject, either from the right hon. Gentleman or from the Duke of Newcastle, the 600l. had been actually paid to the Bishop in the Colony for the year 1853, so that the alleged sudden stoppage was no sudden stoppage at all; and in point of fact the salary had only ceased from March, 1854. The Bishop certainly, however, had no intimation of this cessation, and he (Sir G. Grey) had received a despatch from the Governor, as if the salary were still pay- able. The House must be aware that he had nothing to do with the occurrences to which he had adverted; but upon learning these facts, he thought it right to communicate immediately with the acting Governor, and desire that he would take steps, without delay, to induce the authorities in the Colony to provide for the salary of the Bishop from the time it had actually ceased. If it should appear that the payment to the Bishop of the salary of 1853 was an illegal payment, and that there existed any claim upon him in respect to that salary, he (Sir G. Grey) was willing at once to express his opinion that this was a claim to which the Bishop ought not to be liable, and the House, he thought, ought to be called upon to make good such a demand. So, with regard to the year 1854, to which the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was limited, he was prepared to say that, if the Bishop had been put to inconvenience—which it was impossible he should not have been put to from the sudden withdrawal of the salary and the absence of all notice—and if the appeal to the Assembly of New Zealand was not successful, then this House ought, he thought, to make good the salary for that period also. They were not, however, in a condition now to determine that question. The Bishop had received his salary for 1853, and he hoped the appeal to the Assembly of New Zealand would be productive of a good effect, and that it would be unnecessary to call upon this House to make good his salary. With regard to these two years the Bishop had a claim upon the Colony, and that was a claim which the Government would very willingly recognise, in the event of the Assembly not taking it upon themselves to meet it.

said, that, although the right hon. Colonial Secretary had, with respect to these two years' salary, said everything which could be wished for, an important principle was involved in this case, to which it was right the attention of the House should be called. The House should consider in what position any bishop or clergyman sent out would be placed if an appointment of this nature were made, fixing on a person an office of which he could be divested, and if the salary which had been accorded to him was then suddenly discontinued. It seemed to him that the Government of this country, assenting to the appointment of a bishop, and leading him to the expectation that his salary would be provided for by Parlia- ment, were bound, so far as that individual was concerned, to continue to provide for him that salary during the whole of the time he might continue to retain that position, in default of such a provision being forthcoming from any other quarter. In the absence of any disposition on the part of the Colonial Assembly to take upon themselves this charge, it appeared to him that it would be a most undignified and unworthy course of proceeding for this country to send out to a colony a person in an ecclesiastical situation, teaching him to rely upon the provision made by the Legislature for his annual support, and then to put the matter on a new footing, and say that if the Colonial Legislature did not take the charge of paying this salary the Bishop would have to go without his stipend. It was his conviction, that it would be the duty of this House to provide permanently for the salary of the Bishop if the Colonial Legislature did not do so. This was no colonial question, but a question simply concerning the honour and the good faith of the Imperial Parliament.

said, that after the statement they had heard from the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), the House had nothing to deliberate upon. If the Bishop of New Zealand were the excellent man he was represented to be, and he did not doubt that he was, why did not the denomination to which he belonged enter into a subscription amongst themselves for the purpose of raising the money necessary for his support, without coming and asking the House of Commons to do it for them. This was not the place to grant money for religious purposes. Let the prosperous colonies connected with this country maintain their own religious establishments, in the same manner that the majority of the people of England now did theirs.

said, in reply to the hon. Member who had last addressed them, that the Bishop had expressed his determination to return to New Zealand, whether his income was secured to him or not, and there maintain himself by digging or begging in the best way he could.

said, that after the statement that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, he should not persevere in his Motion.

said, that up to the present moment the House had received no information as to what was to be done with the purchase of land at Kensington, and they ought, therefore, to pause in granting this additional sum of money for the purchase of Burlington House until they had had some specific plans and estimates laid before them. The sum voted for the Kensington estate was 200,000l., and the 140,000l. now proposed, was merely for the purchase of the site upon which Burlington House stood, and the Committee was in utter ignorance with regard to the expenses which were to incurred in building on those sites. When last the subject was discussed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Secretary to the Treasury, stated that the cheapest way of dealing with Burlington House was to pull it down. So that, according to this suggestion, the nation was about to pay the sum of 140,000l. merely for the space upon which the house stood, and the old materials. With the example they had before them in the building in which they were then assembled, the first estimate for the erection of which was 700,000l., whereas 2,500,000l. had been expended, whilst it was a very great way from being finished, he did think the Committee ought to be careful and cautious in what they did, and not incur further expenditure. Unless some Satisfactory explanation were given, he should take the sense of the Committee against the Vote.

said, he understood at first that Burlington House was to be purchased for public offices. He thought it was very inconveniently situate for such a purpose. If land were wanted, why was not use made of the waste piece of ground at the end of Downing Street? That could be had for nothing. There was also public property lying waste in the rear of Somerset House. It appeared, however, that in truth it was wanted not for public offices, but for the accommodation of certain scientific societies. This was the second call which had been made on the nation in connection with the Exhibition of 1851, which thus promised to be a very expensive affair to the country. He should have thought that the splendid success of the Crystal Palace at Sydenham would have convinced the Government that such matters as this were best left to private enterprise. If the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Spooner) would divide the Committee on this Vote, he would cordially join him.

said, he presumed that, as Government came to the House of Commons to ask for the money to purchase Burlington House, they had not yet made the bargain. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) and the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), and he could not help thinking that, if Burlington House was to come down, we were merely purchasing about three acres of land, for which we were going to pay 50,000l. an acre. He did not think that the present times justified such an expense being incurred for so small a return. As to the space being used for the erection of buildings for private societies, he thought such a proceeding was not necessary, and he believed that these societies could erect their own buildings at a much less cost than Government would be likely to do it for them.

said, he believed, on the contrary, that the estimate was extremely economical. He might state to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) what might perhaps lessen his objection to the Vote, namely, that he had heard it reported that if the Government did not buy the site of Burlington House for this purpose, it was the intention of the Roman Catholics to purchase it, and build a large cathedral upon it. He (Mr. M. Milnes) could not agree with those hon. Members who spoke slightingly of scientific societies, for he considered that the country was under great obligations to them. He certainly trusted that the Government would not pull down Burlington House, for it was one of the finest specimens of its style in England.

said, he objected to the grant on every ground, but one of his chief reasons for opposing it was, that the present beautiful structure would be pulled down. Next to the fine specimen of Inigo Jones at Whitehall, Burlington House would be one of the greatest ornaments to the metropolis, if it could be seen, and the only thing which could reconcile him to the Vote was the pulling down of the exterior wall in Piccadilly, and opening the building to the public view. He also thought that the present was an unsuitable time for that House to be asked for a Vote of this description, and he saw no reason why, because they were called upon to vote millions, they should not look after the thousands and tens of thousands.

said, that the Presidents of the different scientific societies had had a meeting the other day, and had all agreed that the purchase was desirable, and were obliged to the Government for proposing to buy it. Some of those societies had a fair claim on the Government for a location, as some of them had originally been provided with rooms in our public buildings.

said, he could not well understand the arguments made use of by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes). That hon. Gentleman stated that his objection to this Vote would be either withdrawn or greatly modified if it were proposed to pull down the wall in front of Burlington House; and, having made that statement, he proceeded to say that, at the present time, it was absolutely necessary, on account of the war, to refrain from applying to Parliament for money to be expended for a purpose not absolutely necessary. He could not understand how those two arguments could hang together, nor could he admit that either was tenable. The proposition for pulling down the wall, and so opening the view to Burlington House, was a proposition not to be endured—["Oh, oh!"]—that was to say, not to be endured by those who were intrusted with the management of the public resources at the present time; and, on the other hand, he protested against the doctrine, that the country was so reduced in means that no money could be voted except for purposes of what might be called absolute necessity. With respect to the acquisition of three acres and a half of land at a price which every one must admit was by no means extravagant, in the very heart of London, in a most commanding situation, in a great thoroughfare, he could only say that, if the opportunity were allowed to pass, it might be many generations before such another occurred, and in the forty or fifty years which might elapse before such an opportunity occurred, in what way could the public demands for space be met? What was to be done with the institutions, and the objects of interest which would have to be removed from Marlborough House in a few years, when that house was given up? It would be cheaper to devote the rooms in Somerset House to offices, than to build new offices at a distance. With regard to the statement that scientific societies could furnish themselves with room at a cheaper rate than the Government could provide it for them, he must say that he could not agree to that statement; because, if they were provided with space in any Government building, other parts of the building, which would be useless to them, could be turned to account by the Government. The difficulty which those societies met with in obtaining accommodation was the difficulty of procuring a large room for their meetings, but if they were provided with space by the public, one large room would be sufficient to answer the requirements of all. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had spoken of the vacant space in Downing Street; but that site was wanted for other purposes. The position of the great State offices in Downing Street was absolutely disgraceful. Some of them were even dangerous, and others inconvenient in the highest degree, and it had become a matter of necessity that they should think of an alteration and enlargement of those offices on a great scale. For such purposes the vacant space in Downing Street would naturally be required. To transfer any of the great offices of State to Burlington House would be altogether inconvenient, and it was important they should all be centred in the neighbourhood of Downing Street. But for Commissioners' offices and establishments of that kind, Burlington House would be found exceedingly convenient, and he therefore thought that for such purposes the proposed arrangement was an excellent one. He hoped, therefore, that the present question would not be mixed up with the one about Kensington, or in any way confounded with the question of the National Gallery, which had been discussed and settled, as was understood, conclusively, in the course of last Session.

said, there could be no doubt of the soundness of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, that nothing could be more valuable, or rather invaluable, to the Government of this country than those spaces of ground that from time to time might be procured in the metropolis. But, before he adverted to that subject, he would venture to make a remark on one or two observations that had fallen from some hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Lambeth had commented on the propriety of some alterations in Somerset House, for which he (Mr. Disraeli) was responsible, and in some measure he approved of what had taken place. He was quite prepared to show, if it was necessary to go into the question, that those alterations were all for the convenience of the public service, as well as economical in so far as regarded the public expenditure, and that, in so far as the management of the Duchy of Cornwall was concerned, the alterations were unquestionably all in favour of the public. So far, indeed, from there being anything like a suspicion of what was called "a job" in this matter, the Duchy of Cornwall would have been perfectly satisfied to remain in their old quarters. The hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Scobell) had made one of those, he might say, habitual attacks on purchases that were so common in that House, and on a former occasion had found fault with the purchase at Kensington Gore on account of its expense. He then stated that 200,000l. had been paid for twenty acres of land, whereas the fact was, that it was not twenty, but ninety acres of land that were purchased; and, therefore, when the hon. and gallant Member for Bath wished to establish his reputation for economy, and made his attacks on these purchases, he ought to be more statistically correct in his figures. Neither could he agree with the hon. and gallant Captain, that the site of Burlington House was eminently qualified for a National Gallery. Before they determined what was a good site for a National Gallery, they should come to a conclusion as to what was meant by a National Gallery. He thought that the present National Gallery was the greatest disgrace that existed in this country, and he would much sooner there was no institution bearing the name than that the small collection in the present institution should be where it now was in this metropolis. In his mind, the site of Kensington, which had been recommended by a Committee of that House, was not too small for a National Gallery, a great palace of art, worthy of this nation, and he earnestly hoped no attempt would again be made to raise a National Gallery, such as a National Gallery ought to be, unless they attempted to do something really worthy of the country and the subject. There was nothing on this question so important as that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had so strongly impressed on the House, of every existing Government seizing upon every opportunity that presented itself of purchasing such spaces of ground in the metropolis as might be thrown upon the market. It was absolutely necessary to avail themselves of these opportunities of promoting the public service, and that in no niggardly spirit. It was of the utmost importance that they should have more accommodation for the public offices, and it was hardly less important that the public servants should be as much as possible brought together by the contiguity of the offices in which they were placed. Indeed, contiguity was, to a certain degree, as valuable as additional space. For these reasons, if the Government recommended the purchase of those three acres and a half of ground at Burlington House, he would be prepared to support them. But there was one point on which he wanted some information. He was himself so impressed with these feelings when in office that when a distinguished nobleman, who held a Crown lease which was about to cease, wished to have that lease renewed, the Board of Treasury, of which he was a member, refused the renewal. Application was made to have the lease of Montagu House renewed by the Duke of Buccleuch, a nobleman who was respected by every Member of that House; but it appeared to the Treasury that the claims of the public service were so paramount that hey were not at liberty to renew the lease. On that occasion he felt it his duty, remembering that Montagu House stood in the immediate vicinity of the public offices in Downing Street and Whitehall, to retain the site for the use of the public; but no sooner was he out of office than that decision of the Board of Treasury was rescinded, and the lease of Montagu House was renewed to the same distinguished nobleman he had already referred to. Although he was fully prepared to support the purchase of Burlington House, because he thought it conducive to the public good, still, he thought, for the reasons expressed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, he ought not to have rescinded the resolution arrived at by his predecessor with respect to Montagu House, and that that very important and valuable site should have been preserved for the public use.

said, the latter point adverted to by the right hon. Gentleman required an explanation. As he understood that statement, the right hon. Gentleman said, that at the time he left office, the renewal of the lease of Montagu House to the Duke of Buccleuch had been refused, but that on the coming of Lord Aberdeen's Government into office, they had granted what had been refused by the previous Ministry. The subject had not been brought before him for some time, and he would not now enter into details on the subject; but he would frankly own that the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in calling attention to the matter, for he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was distinctly of opinion that an error had been committed in renewing the lease in question. With respect, however, to the time at which, and the persons by whom the error had been committed, he would not now say anything, as it was capable of being shown by full documentary evidence. He thought, therefore, it would be better, with the leave of the Committee, to allow the matter to stand over till the earliest period at which these documents could be produced. For once the right hon. Gentleman and himself were happily agreed as regarded opinions and principles, but with regard to terms he was afraid that they would not be so much of one mind. If the Committee would allow him to look up the documents, there should be an opportunity of their coming to a full judgment on all the facts of the case.

said, he must confess, that what had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) had made him more determined to take the sense of the Committee upon this Vote. Instead of taking this grant for Burlington House, he would venture to recommend to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to sell the property at Kensington. It appeared to him (Mr. Spooner) that there was some secret about the Kensington property which he thought ought to be unravelled, for it was impossible that ninety acres of land could be required for a National Gallery. He could give no better name to this matter than that it was an extravagant job.

said, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government, if they purchased this property, to pull down the building?

said, that he thought it would be an unreasonable and extravagant application of the ground to keep the house standing; but it was premature for them at present to come to any decision upon this point.

said, he thought that the purchase of the ground in the present case was a good bargain, but he must beg to say that his approval of this did not bind him to sanction any scheme the Government might bring forward with reference to this ground.

said, that when the plans had been prepared, an opportunity would be afforded the House of fully expressing an opinion on them.

said, he objected to the form in which the Vote had been placed upon the Estimates, inasmuch as no information was afforded as to what amount of money was to be expended under each of the heads to which the Vote was to be applied. So far as the item relating to the hospital was concerned, he could only say that nothing could be more necessary than the erection of such a building. A medical officer, residing at Constantinople, had borne testimony to the inadequate provision at present made in that capital for the relief of such of our seamen as might be attacked by illness. The gentleman to whom he referred stated that the present hospital was lunch too small; that it was impregnated with filth of every description; that it afforded no means of effecting a separation between those who were afflicted with infectious diseases, and those who were not; that the diet provided for the sick was insufficient in quantity and bad in quality; that there was no surgical apparatus kept in the hospital with the exception of a few splints; and, in short, those unfortunate patients who were placed there while suffering under severe illness, had but a very small chance of recovery. Such was the accommodation that was provided for our poor merchant seamen; and he having himself seen the hospital, was bound to say that the description given of it by the medical officer whose statement he had just quoted by no means exceeded reality. Notwithstanding, however, the nature of the accommodation, those who were forced to become inmates of the hospital in question were obliged to pay out of their wages sums which, regard being had to the character of the relief which they received, were enormous. The French hospital at Constantinople presented the greatest possible contrast to the English hospital, and both by day and night the sick in it were carefully attended to by those estimable women, the Sisters of Charity, and paid only one-third of the amount exacted from the English seamen in the British hospital. When in Constantinople, he told Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who out of his own private resources contributed munificently to the charity, that he had been requested to bring the state of the hospital under the notice of the House of Commons, and that noble Lord expressed a hope that he (Lord D. Stuart) would do so, as much good might be effected by calling public attention to the matter. The hospitals in Constantinople for the use of the Turks were magnificent buildings, both for the military and for civilians of all ranks. He found the same to be the case at Adrianople. When he found these infidels acting in this noble way, he felt shame at the contrast which the hospitals of this great Christian country presented. He had felt it his duty to call the attention of the Committee to this subject, and he hoped his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works would inform the Committee how much money was to be appropriated to the building of a new hospital at Constantinople, and would at the same time give them some assurance that regard would be paid to the interior arrangements and to the comfort of the sick.

said, that one object of the Vote was to remedy the defect of the present hospital at Constantinople, and another object of the Vote was to build new consular offices and a prison. The estimated cost of the new offices was 5,400l.; of the hospital, 3,400l.; of the prison, 2,600l.; and other contingencies, 1,911l. It was calculated that the time it would take to erect the hospital would be about two years. At the expiration of that time, he hoped they would have a hospital in Constantinople which would be fit for the reception of British sailors, with an efficient medical staff to minister to their wants.

said, he wished to know under whose superintendence the building would be placed, and whether the sailors would be charged anything for the medical services required by them?

said, the Consul General was charged with the whole of the arrangements. He thought the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) was misinformed when he stated that the sailors were charged very highly at the hospital. The charge made to them was very low. The ar- rangement made for the support of the hospital in future was this—the English merchants had consented to pay a tonnage on all merchandise taken into port for the purpose of maintaining the hospital, so that he did not think any charge would henceforth be necessary to be made on the sailors.

said, the Lon. Secretary of the Treasury had given a flat contradiction to his statement. He (Lord D. Stuart) had said that the sailors paid a very extravagant sum for hospital accommodation. The hon. Gentleman got up and said that they paid a very low sum. Now, he would repeat, when he was at Constantinople he was told that the men had to pay a great deal more for their accommodation at the hospital than their own wages amounted to—that they had to pay between five and six pounds a month, while they were only receiving three pounds a month wages. He begged to express a hope that the noble Lord the President of the Council would communicate upon this subject with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, so that this monstrous evil might be immediately corrected.

said, he thought a Vote of 3,400l. was a small sum for the erection of a hospital, and he should like to know what was the average number of sick persons to be provided for?

said, that accommodation would be afforded for forty patients, which was considered to be quite sufficient.

said, the Ambassador's palace at Constantinople had cost an enormous sum, but it was only proposed to lay out 3,400l. in the seamen's hospital. He could bear testimony to the description which had been given of the present hospital, and he begged to ask whether it was intended that the new hospital should be built of wood or stone, because, in Constantinople, that made a great difference? There was a large amount of fees paid to the Consul General in Constantinople, which, he believed, were destined for this establishment.

said, no fees went to this establishment. The Consul General there was obliged to hold a court of justice, and the fees went to support it.

said, he did not see any reason for so large a sum as 5,400l. being appropriated to the erection of offices for the Consul, when it was known that he already possessed what might be termed a palace in Constantinople. He would again inquire whether the hospital would be built of stone or of wood?

said, that it was the intention of the Government that the hospital should be built of stone. In answer to his noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart), he begged to state that he would immediately communicate with his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the hospital at Constantinople.

objected to proceeding with the Bill at that late hour. An outlay of 600,000l. was involved in the provisions of the Bill, and the House ought to be fully acquainted with all the particulars before proceeding further with it. Many details of the Bill also required further explanation.

hoped the noble Lord would reconsider the 6th clause, which would materially interfere with the interests of the wharfingers along the banks of the Thames. That clause would be likely to cause a great outcry on the part of those interests.

said, another point of great importance was the cost of erecting embankments against the tidal waters. The whole expense of this would have to be borne by those occupying the frontage, while those behind would enjoy the advantage of having their property defended. They surely ought to be liable for some portion of the necessary expenditure.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, that the clause referred to had been suggested to hint by persons who believed that their operation would be beneficial. The principle of the Bill was, that the local authorities should make their own sewers, so far as they could, and reserve to the direction of the Commissioners the construction of the great trunk lines which were to carry off the general sewage of the whole metropolis; and it was in accordance with this principle that he had agreed to these clauses. Should the machinery prove in any respect imperfect, it could be amend- ed. His anxiety had been to render this Commission as far as possible representative of the wants of the metropolis. He had, therefore, requested the Members for the different boroughs each to recommend a Commissioner, which had been done. The Commission, therefore, although nominated by the Crown, would represent the interests of the various districts. It would be for the Commissioners, and not for the Home Secretary, to determine the question of square or tubular drainage. The 600,000l. to which it was proposed to extend the power of the Commissioners to raise by loan, was necessary, to enable them to commence the construction of the two great out-fall drains, one for the north and the other for the south side of the river; works which the hon. Member for Lambeth well knew were of urgent necessity; and if the Bill were not agreed to, they would be delayed for another year. It was possible the machinery might not be quite perfect, but he would endeavour to make it so. If the House objected he would not press the going into Committee that night.

said, that, so far from the power of authorising the formation of separate sewer districts being left in the hands of the Commissioners, the Bill expressly placed the power with the Home Secretary.

said, he was going to make an alteration in the Bill to transfer this power.

moved that the Committee be further postponed till to-morrow.

said, the debate was formerly adjourned to allow of the presence of the law officers of the Crown. Both of them were now present, and he did not think it would be unfair to go on with the Bill, more especially as they had also present the leader of the Opposition to the measure in the person of the hon. Secretary to the Treasury.

said, ho thought the difficulty in which they were now placed, was owing to the Government taking the unusual and inconvenient course of proceeding with Supply till past one o'clock in the morning. But for that they might have been able to dispose of this Bill; and, under these circumstances, it was right that the Bill should be disposed of one way or other. They had had the strongest possible language used on this Bill by the noble Lord the Home Secretary, and they had had equally strong language used by another Member of the Administration; and he therefore thought they had a right to know what the views of the Government were with respect to this Bill. But, instead of that, what had taken place? It was adjourned on Wednesday, merely that they might have the opinions of the law officers of the Crown. Well, the law officers were now present, the Members of the Government were present, the supporters and opponents of the Motion were present, and yet they were told they could not go on because the Votes of Supply had driven them over till two o'clock in the morning.

would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, had the salutary Motion to prevent Motions being made before going into Supply been properly carried into effect to-night, they would not have been so late.

said, that if it was the pleasure of the House to proceed with this Bill, it would be undoubtedly necessary to make some important alterations in it. If the Committee would agree that the Bill should be postponed till Tuesday or Wednesday, then, without pledging himself to an approbation of the principle of the Bill, he would take into consideration what the form of these Amendments should be.

said, this was no answer to the appeal which had been made, whether it was the intention of the Government to allow the discussion on this Bill to be renewed during the present Session, or whether it was to be thrown overboard by being fixed at an hour when it could not be proceeded with. This matter was of the more importance, because what the hon. and learned Gentleman had just stated was at variance with the assurances which had been given to the House by his noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart). The hon. and learned Solicitor General had been prudent enough not to pledge the Government upon this subject, as it would be difficult to do upon any subject on earth. But his noble Friend had on a former occasion assured the House that not only did the hon. and learned Gentleman approve of the principle of the Bill, but that he did so in the most marked manner, by suggesting an Amendment to be proposed on the third reading. The Bill was approved by the greater number of the House—["No, no!"] Yes, it was supposed by an overwhelming majority, and even some of those who opposed it, like the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), did so on the ground that the Bill ought to have been undertaken by the Government. Here, then, was a Bill on which the Government was divided—a Bill on which the noble Lord the Home Secretary had contrived to fix the eyes of Europe; and yet they had no one to tell them what the intentions of the Government were. He did not know whom to address as the leader of the House. He would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson) who was the representative of the ascendant party in the Government? Was it the noble Lord opposite, or did the opinions of the noble Lord the Home Secretary prevail? He hoped one or other of them would give the Committee an assurance that this discussion would be resumed some other day.

said, as the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had attacked him for having abstained from giving an opinion, he would now state that the Bill had been prepared with the most laudable disregard of everything that ought to have been attended to in its composition. He had desired delay in order that the defects in this notable measure might be rendered less glaring. Though the Bill was framed—as he told the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart)—in accordance with the spirit of the law, yet it was framed with the most perfect neglect of all the interests of British merchants in all their dealings with neutral nations. And though, as the House had approved of the principle of the Bill, and as they were now in Committee, it was not necessary that he should express his opinion of its principle, and he was anxious, therefore, to confine his attention to its defects; yet he would now inform the hon. and learned Member that, in the first place, there was hardly anything that was written in the Bill which ought to remain, and next, that if there was anything which did remain, it ought to remain with a vast number of qualifications in order to prevent mischief and to render it as powerless and as little operative as possible. Now take the first words of the Bill—

"If any person or persons shall purchase or sell any shares or securities for a debt, or for any other purpose accept, or assign, or transfer, or offer as security for any debt or claim, and give over, assign, or transfer any part of these prohihibited loans, he shall be guilty of misdemeanor."

So, supposing that at Amsterdam any merchant should be bankrupt, or should make any assignment of his property for the benefit of his creditors, amongst whom British merchants would be the principal creditors, should they, therefore, accept this assignment, although they might do so in perfect ignorance of the fact that amongst this property so assigned there was some portion of these prohibited articles, they as British merchants would be guilty of misdemeanor. If, again, any individual should be appointed a residuary legatee, he would be unable to take any portion which might consist of these stocks or loans. For a third case, suppose a Dutch merchant became bankrupt, and an English merchant who happened to be one of his creditors went over to Holland to claim his debt, he would be immediately told that he had no right to any portion, say 50,000l., which might be invested in these loans, because, forsooth, the British Parliament had prohibited it. It appeared that all these contingencies were perfectly unknown to the framers of the Bill, for the Bill was drawn up without any provisions for the case of transactions similar to those which he had just mentioned, into which a British merchant might be drawn without any will of his own. So far, indeed, as the principle itself of the Bill was concerned, which prevented British subjects from dealing directly by their own voluntary acts in Russian loans, it was quite in conformity with the principle of the existing law; but if the measure were permitted to go on he had drawn up a form of words which would prevent the Bill from interfering in transactions in which its operation would be altogether absurd. He would read the terms of this proviso, which he considered necessary to be added to the Bill—

"Provided only that the provisions of the Act do not extend to or include any British subject claiming interest in the estate or effects of any deceased person; or the case of any British subject taking the estate or effects of a debtor in execution; or the case of a British subject claiming in any country to be interested under any bankruptcy, insolvency, sequestration, cessio bonorum, or transfer of property in trust for creditors; but that in such cases a British subject may take such shares, dividends, or debts, due or belonging to him, notwithstanding that the same may arise or proceed from the sale or proceeds of any such stock or security."

He would lay this proviso on the table, intending to move that it should be added to the Bill.

said, he must complain that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had made a personal attack upon him, and said he was prepared to stand by the Bill. He denied the justice of the hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism. He admitted that the proviso was one which he had himself suggested, and which he would have brought up if the noble Lord the Home Secretary had not himself stated that the Solicitor General was prepared to submit a proviso upon the third reading.

said, that certainly what passed in the small hours of the morning did infinite credit to the intellectual and physical vigour of hon. Members. It appeared that they became more energetic, and their spirits and physical energies seemed to increase as the time of night wore away, but he thought, with all deference, that they had not been employing their time to the best purpose. The Bill was one on which considerable difference of opinion existed, but a large majority had affirmed its principle, and he had no doubt that an equally large majority was prepared to affirm it now. It was stated with a good deal of ground the other evening that there were questions of detail in the Bill which required further consideration, and his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had proposed a proviso, which seemed calculated to meet most of the objections which had been raised. This proviso they could not take into consideration now, because they were discussing the question of reporting progress, and as this discussion seemed likely to go on, he was of opinion that they had better report progress now, and as Wednesday was an open day, the Bill might then be taken the first thing.

said, that he did not object to reporting progress, but he trusted the Committee would allow him to say a few words on account of what had fallen from the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the opinion which he had given to him (Lord D. Stuart) with regard to the Bill was given without reading it. He (Lord D. Stuart) must, with all respect, directly contradict this statement. At the time he spoke to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he (Lord D. Stuart) had the Bill in his hand, and the hon. and learned Gentleman looked at it cursorily and expressed himself very much opposed to it. The following day he met the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was kind enough to say, "I have looked at your Bill, and examined it, and think it unobjectionable—except in some particulars." They were the same as the objections which the hon. and learned Gentleman had just stated, which he proposed to remove by a proviso, and the heads of this proviso he wrote down upon the Bill, which he (Lord D. Stuart) then held in his hand. The hon. and learned Gentleman then said that if this proviso were added, he had no objection to the Bill. To this he (Lord D. Stuart) replied that he was willing to accept the proviso, and would draw up a clause to the same effect, and have it added to the Bill. The only reason why no such proviso was prepared and put upon the notices of Motion was, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself proposed to draw it up. It did appear to be hardly fair, after this, that the hon. and learned Gentleman should now say that there was hardly a single word in the Bill which ought to remain in it. He thought it would have been more in accordance with courtesy and with consistency, considering the kind communications that he had made to him on the subject, if he had allowed him to see the proviso after he had drawn it up.

said, this would be a lesson to him not to have any communication on Bills with respect to which he had no official duty to perform. He had communicated to the noble Lord, in answer to the question which he had put to him, having first misapprehended his Bill from his own statement of it, and having understood that it was intended to apply to Russian stock generally. He was afterwards told that it applied to Russian stock created since the declaration of war; and he then stated that it was in conformity with the general spirit of the law. The Committee would bear him out in saying that he was unwilling to express any opinion on the merits of the Bill, or to take any part in the discussion, except to do what he had told the noble Lord he was willing to do, to frame a proviso, which would make it more like what it ought to be, and as little objectionable as possible in case the principle were to be approved of.