said, he would beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Government are going to take any more proceedings against the Rev. Mr. Conway and the Rev. Mr. Ryan?

said, he had written to the Crown Solicitor to know whether there was any prospect of obtaining additional evidence against the Rev. Mr. Ryan and the Rev. Mr. Conway, and in answer the Crown Solicitor stated that he neither had any additional evidence nor did he expect it, as every possible exertion had been used to search out all the evidence which could be obtained before the trial. Considering that the object of the prosecution, that the law against intimidation should be expounded, had been attained, and that a subsequent election had taken place in Mayo without any interference on the part of the priests, he did not intend to take any further steps in the matter.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs if the British Mission has been recalled from Herat; if the independence of Herat, as guaranteed in the late Treaty of Peace with Persia is no longer to be insisted on; and, if so, whether the main object of the late war has not been abandoned? With the permission of the hon. Gentleman, he would also ask another question, of which he had not given notice—namely, whether the Persian Government has not advanced claims to territory lying to the east of Herat and bordering on Candahar, and whether it is not at this time threatening the country of Seistan, to the south of Herat, also contiguous to Candahar?

said, the term "British Mission" was scarcely applicable to the Mission of Colonel Taylor and some other British Officers who were sent to Herat, in order to see that the stipulations for the evacuation of that place were punctually fulfilled. As soon as that condition was fulfilled the object for which Colonel Taylor was sent to Herat was satisfactorily performed, and he returned. The independence of Herat, as guaranteed in the Treaty of Peace with Persia, had been fully recognised, and the Government had no reason to think that the stipulations of the Treaty would in any respect be evaded. As to whether the main object of the war with Persia had not been abandoned, he considered that the question was answered by what he had already stated, although it was rather difficult to say what was the main object, as the war with Persia was declared and carried on and peace was concluded without any explanations being offered to the House of Commons. With respect to the last question of the hon. Gentleman, claims were set up by the Persian Government to the territory lying to the east of Herat and bordering on Candahar; but the Government had received a communication from Mr. Murray, our Minister there, stating that in consequence of his expostulations those claims had been withdrawn, and the territory recognised as an independent part of Affghanistan. As to the country of Seistan, to the south of Herat, beyond the fact that a claim was advanced by Persia, the Government had at present no information on the subject.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has received any Report from the law officers of the Crown on the claims and complaints against the Brazilian Government preferred by Messrs. Swann and Smallpage; and, if so, what steps have been taken respecting those claims and complaints?

said, the case was considered by the late Government to be one of hardship, and redress for the injuries sustained by Messrs. Swann and Smallpage was pressed upon the Brazilian Government. But the Brazilian Government, having made inquiry into the circumstances, took a totally different view, and as to redress gave a decided refusal. Since then Her Majesty's present Ministers had consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, and were advised that the case did not call for any further interference. The Brazilian Government had undertaken to pay for any actual loss sustained by Messrs. Swann and Smallpage. The matter was now in process of investigation, and would, no doubt, be satisfactorily arranged.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there would be any objection to allow Members of Parliament coming to, or returning from, the House of Commons to drive through the Park by Constitution Hill, or through the Horse Guards?

said, he must remind the House that two years ago regulations were made, which were understood to be satisfactory to this House and the public generally, for making an opening, with the permission of the Queen, by Buckingham Gate and St. James's Gate, for the accommodation of the public in going through the Park. The privilege had always been vested in the Crown of making exceptions in favour of certain persons either on account of their official position or for other special reasons, and they had been conferred upon all occasions where it was thought reasonable to grant them. But he would put it to the House whether, after the concessions already made by the Crown, it was reasonable to go further. His own individual opinion was—he gave it entirely upon his own responsibility—that he thought there would be an objection to making any further request of this kind; and, certainly, as far as he was concerned, he should be very unwilling to lay such a recommendation before Her Majesty, because he considered it was quite unnecessary.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Control whether any despatches have been received by the last Mail relating to the pacification of Oude; and, if so, whether there is any objection to lay them on the table. And whether there is any copy at the India House of the Proclamation issued and the instructions given to the Local Commissioners by Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone, on the Conquest of the Deccan in 1819, with respect to the rights of landholders and the maintenance of native usages and customs.

said, that no official documents whatever had been received by the last Mail on the subject of the Pacification of Oude. With regard to the papers relating to the Conquest of the Deccan in 1819, he had caused inquiries to be made, and he believed there was no doubt of their existence at the India House. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would move for them, and they were not too voluminous, there would be no objection to produce them.

said, he should be glad to know whether any non-official or private communication had been received on the subject of the Pacification of Oude, either by the Chairman of the Court of Directors or the President of the Board of Control?

said, private letters received from private persons had been put into his hands, but they were not such communications as he considered he ought to lay before the House. He had not received through the late President of the India Board or any other quarter letters from Lord Canning.

said, he understood that letters had been read on the previous day by the Chairman of the Court of Directors from Lord Canning to the Court respecting the Pacification of Oude. Would there be any objection to lay them on the table?

I believe that there was a private letter from Lord Canning addressed to the Chairman of the Court of Directors. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Sir E. Perry), after asking me a question of which he had given notice, proceeded to ask another of which he had given no notice. I am not aware whether my answer was understood. It was, that I have not in my possession, and that I believe there is not in this country, any official document on the subject referred to, which it is in my power to lay before the House.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any truth in the statement alleged to have been made by Mr. Mason, United States Minister to France, that there has been some communication between the Governments of England and France upon the subject of the exportation of Negroes from the West Coast of Africa, in the course of which Her Majesty's Government have informed Count Walewski that they will not object to the French scheme for that purpose, while the wants of the British Colonies are being supplied by the Coolie trade.

said, the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been drawn to the statement to which the noble Lord had alluded; and he could only say, that there must have been some very grave misapprehensions as to the facts on the part of Mr. Mason. It was true that there had been communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France with reference to the "Free Emigration" scheme, as it was termed; but it had been on our side rather to express our regret that such a scheme should have been originated, and still more that it should have been persisted in. No concession, such as had been described by Mr. Mason, had been made by Her Majesty's Government; and there had been no admission on their part that such a course would be proper.

said, he wished to know if the scheme itself was still going on?

said, Her Majesty's Government had no reason to suppose that it had been given up, but they had felt it their duty strongly to point out to the French authorities the objections there were to the plan—not so much on account of the treatment the "free labourers" would receive in the Colonies of France when they arrived there, as on account of the evil results which the scheme would occasion in Africa. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department had proposed that the French Government should name a person, and we another, who should together inquire into the facts alleged; and to this proposal the French Government had assented.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board whether he intends during the present Session to introduce any measure with the view of providing a remedy for the grievances of the Poor Law Medical Officers?

said, he was aware that the present system of medical relief was not satisfactory. It was complained that the fees paid to medical gentlemen were inadequate, and that those gentlemen were not otherwise placed on a footing becoming their professional cha- racter. He had given his attention to the subject as far as it was possible with the hope of devising some measure with regard to it; and, although he was not out of hope of devising a measure which would be attended with good results, yet he could not expect to do anything with it during the present Session. However, if it was possible, he would endeavour to lay a Bill on the table of the House this Session, that it might be considered during the recess.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any Order has been issued by the War Department restricting the Paymasters of Embodied Militia Regiments from paying to the men the full amount of Bounty due to them at the expiration of each quarter in the aggregate sum of 5s., to which they are entitled, and instructing them to make this payment by instalments of 2d. per day during the thirty days next ensuing?

said, that no alteration whatever had been made in the regulation of November, 1857. That regulation directed that the bounty of 5s. should be payable at the end of each quarter, or at the rate of 2d. per day for thirty days previous to the termination of the quarter, whichever method the men might prefer.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Deedes), whether a meeting of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was held this day, or is in contemplation, for the purpose of considering the scheme of appropriating a portion of the Church patronage situated in the See of Durham or in the gift of the Bishop of that Diocese, for the purpose of transferring it to other sees; and whether it is the intention of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to act on this principle, without taking the opinion of this House on the justice of such a course?

said, that at a meeting of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that day by a memorandum respecting the rearrangement of the patronage of the Episcopal Sees in the province of York was submitted to the Board, and referred by them for further consideration to a Committee which was named for the purpose at the same time until that Committee had made their report of course he was not in a position to answer the second part of the noble Lord's question.

said, he wished to know whether the memorandum did or did not involve the separation of eighteen livings from the Diocese of Durham?

said, he could not exactly state the number of livings which were contemplated by the memorandum to be removed from the Diocese of Durham or any other Diocese. It certainly did involve an alteration in very many instances, and in consequence of its importance it had been referred to a Committee of lay Members of the Commission for further consideration, with a view to the thorough investigation of the subject before the Commissioners themselves came to a determination respecting it.

said, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Commissioners, after considering the question to act upon this principle without reference to the House of Commons on the justice of taking such a course?

Sir, when I tell the noble Lord that the Act of Parliament requires the Commissioners to undertake this distribution of patronage, I think he will at once see that, until there is some direct scheme determined on by them, it would be premature to announce any intentions that they may have.

said, he rose pursuant to notice, to ask the noble Lord the Member for Clackmannanshire (Viscount Melgund), if it still be his intention to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Public Houses Act (Scotland) during the present Session; and if so, when he intends to submit his Motion to the House?

said, that when he gave notice of his intention to move for a Committee he had hoped that his proposal would meet with general concurrence; but he found that there were many hon. Members who thought that though the Act had many virtues and perfections, they were of so delicate and fragile a nature that they would not endure so rough a test as a Parliamentary investigation. Under those circumstances he should not move the appointment of a Committee, but he should, on the 6th of July, draw attention to the subject.

, in moving the second reading of the Bill said, he desired to take the earliest opportunity of stating, for the information of the House, that it contained the very same clause as the measure which had been introduced by Lord Aberdeen's Government in 1854, for amending the law with respect to the representation of the people. That Government not only admitted the principle of extending the franchise in counties to the extent which he now proposed, but they showed an honest determination to act upon that principle by making it a prominent feature in the Bill to which he had referred. When in the last Parliament he moved for leave to introduce his Bill he was opposed by a small but influential section of the Liberal party, that was to say, by Her Majesty's late Government; but he was glad subsequently to learn, from an explanation given by Lord Granville in another place, that they did not object to the principle of the Bill, but that they thought that it had been draughted in such a manner that it was not susceptible of the alterations which they thought it necessary to make in it. As he was not a person to quarrel about words, and seeing that most of the Members of the late Government had also been Members of the Government of Lord Aberdeen, and therefore he might reasonably wish to secure their support, he had endeavoured to obviate their objections by adopting in the present Bill the exact words of the Bill which had been introduced by the Government of Lord Aberdeen; and in Committee he intended to move a clause which would make a dwelling-house a necessary part of the qualification. The right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the front Opposition bench could not well object to this Bill, because most of them had been Members of the Aberdeen Government, and had, of course, approved the Reform Bill then introduced, even to its very words. On this ground, then, he claimed the support, not only of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), and the right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood), but also of the right hon. Baronet the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), whose name was on the Bill, and who had since most consistently given his support to the principle; and of the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone), who was also a Member of Lord Aberdeen's Government, and whose vote he therefore claimed. It was matter of great satisfaction that in the course of the many debates and discussions on this Bill no one had made any serious objection to its principle. Had anybody been able to make out that the class proposed to be enfranchised were not fit to be entrusted with the franchise, that would have been an insurmountable objection; but almost every one who had spoken had admitted that, as a class, they were unobjectionable. It was admitted that they possessed the political capacity; and he maintained that the right ought to follow the capacity. The only objection was, that the measure was inexpedient. At the passing of the Reform Bill it had been admitted that the political capacity resided in a rental of £10, accompanied by residence in certain localities. All that he asked the House to do was to deal in a general way, and with generosity, with those who did not happen to reside in those particular localities. He did not ask them to disfranchise one small borough, or even a single individual, desirable as that might be in some cases. He only asked them to give the same right to a certain class of persons whom they admitted to be a safe body to possess the franchise, without reference to the locality in which they resided. To say that the political capacity existed in certain places and not in others, was to hold that it belonged to the locality, and not to the individual. This argument had been utterly refuted at the time of the Reform Bill, when the right was taken away from the mounds and ruins of Gatton and Old Sarum. It had also been said that this Bill did not deal with the question generally—that it ought to deal with boroughs as well as counties. But what would have been said, if he had been presumptuous enough to bring in such a Bill? It would have been said at once that he was dealing with too large a question. He had determined that the only objection to his measure should be, not that it was too large, but too small. If they were to wait for a large and extensive measure of Parliamentary Reform they must wait for some time for the tone and temper both of Parliament and the country did not seem to be now in favour of any great measure, and it was therefore, in his opinion, only by piecemeal legislation that they could arrive at any end at the present time. He would advise hon. Gentlemen opposite not to wait for a time of great political excitement, as at the Reform Bill, when reform would be extorted from them, as it was then, by excitement amounting almost to physical force. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised a small objection to his Bill, that it would tend to increase anomalies at present existing; but he said nothing about anomalies that it would decrease. He said, that while 160 Members represented something like 500,000 electors in counties, in the boroughs 330 Members represented a constituency of about 460,000. That was a question which concerned the proportion of Members to electors; and if the right hon. Gentleman would bring in a Bill to make the number of Members in proportion to the population, thus adopting another point of "the charter"—that of electoral districts—whether those districts were round or square, the measure should have his cordial support. But such a complaint did not come with good grace from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the county of which he was so distinguished an ornament was overloaded with Members. The total population of the county of Bucks, including the represented towns, was only 165,000, and it had eleven Members. Comparing that with East Surrey, he found that in the latter district nearly 580,000 persons were represented by only seven Members. Or, taking the county of Bucks exclusive of the represented towns, he found that 115,000 inhabitants had three Members, while the West Riding of Yorkshire, with a population of nearly 800,000, exclusive of represented towns, had only two. In the counties only one person in twenty-three had a vote; in the boroughs one in eighteen. The statistics showed how very slow was the increase of county electors. In 1848–49, the total number of county voters was 503,552; and, according to the last return, it was only 505,988, being an increase of 2,436 only in ten years. The number of borough electors had increased in the same period, from 368,822 to 439,046, showing an increase of 70,224. Taking the property assessed to the poor rates in the counties—excluding the represented towns—it was £44,518,000, while in the boroughs it was £23,181,000. This, of itself, showed that there were reasons why the number of electors in counties should be increased. It was a paltry excuse to refuse to increase the electoral body in the counties on the ground of there being so great a number already. It was hard to reject the claim of a person who sought to be one of a number of electors—to grudge him the five, ten, or 20,000th share in the election of Members for a county, while in many boroughs each elector had a 200th or a 500th share in electing a Member of Parliament. He hoped the House would not refuse to pass this Bill. Her Majesty's late Government could not recede from the principle which they had laid down on former occasions on this subject. Taking them at their own words, they could not refuse now to support the Bill; and he hoped that the existing Government would not deny this boon to the people of England. Graceful as would be the concession of the late Government on this question, concession would come with far greater grace from the party in power. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not make a promise of any future measure now; for he really felt that a fatality attended those Parliamentary promises, and that there was very little chance of their being fulfilled. He hoped, also, that the right hon. Gentleman would not press the House to a division, because he (Mr. Locke King) felt certain that if he did a majority of the House would divide in favour of the Bill, which majority would express the feeling of both the electors and non-electors of this country.

Sir, in rising to move the Amendment of which I have given notice, I have to request the kind indulgence of the House for one who upon only one previous occasion has ventured to trespass at any length upon their notice. And I can assure the House that it is with no small diffidence on my part that I have ventured to assume the prominent part I am now taking in the discussion that awaits us, believing as I do that short as is the title of this Bill, short as is the wording of the Bill itself, and somewhat scanty too as is the amount of argument with which the hon. Member opposite has called upon us to support its second reading, the House is in reality called upon to-night to decide upon one of the most important questions that has been submitted to its notice in the course of this hitherto unusually animated and interesting Session. That question I take to be not merely the abstract justice or injustice of the measure itself; not merely the manner in which the county constituencies or the county representatives of this country will be affected by its passing, those doubtless are important elements for our consideration, but beyond all and above all, comes, I think, a question of far greater importance—at what time, and in what manner this House is disposed to deal with the whole great question of Parliamentary Reform? Now, Sir, in stating as briefly as I can the principal objections I entertain to the passing of this measure at the present time, I wish, in the first instance, carefully to guard myself from the expression of any opinion that may seem to convey to the House an impression that I am either deeply convinced of the present perfection of our representative system, or that I am opposed in the main to any further extension of the county franchise. On the contrary, I venture to think that the day is not far distant when the great question of Parliamentary Reform must be fully dealt with in all its branches, nay more, I will go even a step further, and, speaking as a private Member, I will venture to assert, that no Ministry, let it be composed of whatever party or parties it may, can hope to retain office for another Session of Parliament without announcing its intention of devoting to an early settlement of that question its utmost attention and deliberation. But, Sir, I must add this also, at the same time, that while upon the one hand it is my honest opinion that there could be no course more beneficial to the progress of legislation, there could be no fairer field, no grander object on which to concentrate the intellectual energies and abilities of the greatest of our statesmen, than the attempt to deal with this great question in a fair, an impartial, and above all, in a comprehensive spirit,—so, on the other hand is it my firm conviction, that there could be no course more hazardous; there could be none more likely to be fraught with ultimate serious peril to the safety and stability of our Representative Institutions than the attempt to deal with it in a spirit of isolated, of partial, and of piecemeal legislation, like the measure now before the House. I venture to maintain this of our representative system, that so intricate and so complicated is its machinery, and at the same time so evenly balanced is its composition, that you can hardly attempt to deal with one anomaly at a time, without either creating a fresh one, or bringing out in a still stronger and more glaring light those that already exist. And of the truth of this assertion I think the measure now before us gives us a somewhat singular illustration. The hon. Member opposite proposes by this measure to deal with certain inequalities and anomalies he alleges to exist in one individual branch of our representative system, the County Franchise. And how, may I ask, does he propose to deal with them? Why, by a process which I can only compare to the ancient fable of attempting to heap Mount Ossa upon Mount Pelion, and which would create a perfect mountain of anomaly and inconsistency out of that which is at present comparatively but a molehill. Sir, as I said before, I am far from being opposed to any further extension of our County Franchise. I am convinced that the County Franchise might be most beneficially extended to men now not in possession of it, and who are yet for the most part possessed of the intelligence requisite to enable them to make a right and a conscientious choice of a representative, and sufficiently independent in station to vindicate their choice when made. But if I were asked to point out what in my opinion has of late years been the greatest anomaly and injustice in our county representative system, I should most unhesitatingly say it was this, that large towns already adequately, and more than adequately represented in this House, have begun to assume an undue voice, and to exercise an unfair preponderance over the county representation also. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote to the House one or two instances in support of my assertion. I would ask them to look for instance at the case of East Sussex, where I think it is not too much to say, that one member is returned to this House mainly through the predominent influence of the already suffi- ciently represented town of Brighton. The same thing was nearly occurring a few months since in the case of one of the divisions of Northamptonshire, through a similar influence on the part of the town of Northampton. And to come a little nearer home, the same thing actually did happen at the last dissolution in the southern division of the county, I, myself, have the honour of representing (Essex), where an hon. Friend of mine was returned mainly through the vast increase of late years of the metropolitan suburban districts of Stratford and West Ham; and wishing to speak with all due respect of the hon. Members for East Surrey and for Middlesex, the proposer and seconder of this measure and not in any way seeking to detract from either their ability or their usefulness as Members of this House, I must confess that I regard them in their capacity of advocates of this Bill far more as the representatives of a metropolitan district of boroughs, than of county constituencies. Now this, Sir, is an anomaly—this is an injustice, which a judicious extension of the county franchise would go far to amend, but which, by the passing of the measure before us, would, I maintain, be increased at least a hundred fold. For what, in point of fact, will be the effect of this measure? I assert that it would be simply this, utterly to subvert throughout the length and breadth of the country the present system both of county franchise and county representation, and to substitute for it one vast and uniform system of borough electoral franchise. It would bring the £10 householders resident in the non-represented towns and the country districts to bear in numerical overwhelming masses upon the freeholders and tenant occupiers in whom the county franchise is at present vested, to the total destruction of that fair and legitimate influence which, I maintain, the landed interest is entitled to possess in its representative assembly. Now, Sir, I think that, if we consider attentively the progress of legislation since the passing of the Reform Bill, there are two great principles, as regards representation, that may fairly he said to have been enunciated. The first of these is, that no system of representation can be said to be perfect, or to fully and fairly express the intelligence and genuine wishes of a nation, that is not based upon the recognition of a diversity of interests to be represented, and that does not assign to each of such interests a voice in the representative assembly of a due proportion to its relative importance. The second is this, that uniformity of the suffrage, upon which I contend this measure to be based, is nothing more or less than another name for vesting the control over your representative body in the hands of a single class; and further, that the lower you extend the franchise on the basis of uniformity, so sure are you to find the controlling class in that which is immediately above the lowest level to which the suffrage is extended. And if the House be once led into sanctioning an extension of the suffrage on this fatal and erroneous basis, I very much fear there will soon be an end to all free and independent legislation. If you vest the control over your representation in the hands of a single class, it is for the interests of that class alone, depend on it, you will eventually be compelled to legislate. If you make the £10 householder that controlling class, it is to his tastes, to his dispositions, nay more, to his very prejudices—you will have to conform and be obedient in all things. Perhaps the House will allow me to quote to it the words of a great and illustrious statesman—I mean Mr. Burke—which I think give an admirable illustration of the position I am now assuming. Mr. Burke says:—

"Whatever the distinguished few may be, it is the substance and mass of a body which constitutes its character and must ultimately determine its direction. In all bodies, those who aspire to lead must also to a certain degree follow. They must conform their propositions to the taste, talent, and disposition of those whom they wish to conduct."

Now, these are words which I think the House will agree with me, contain a great and an undeniable truth. Mr. Burke wrote these words as regards the relations that exist between the leaders and followers of a representative body itself; but I think we may well carry their application a step further, and say that they are not the less true of those that exist between a representative assembly and that vast body of constituents whose interests it is returned to represent. But, Sir, the hon. Member for East Surrey has told us this evening, as he told us before, that we must not look upon this as a final measure of Parliamentary Reform, but as one of a series of measures that we are to be called upon to pass from time to time. Now, I must confess that, if the objections I entertain to this measure as a final one are somewhat strong, those I entertain to it, or indeed to any measure of Reform, as one of a series, are of a still stronger and more emphatic character. Sir, in dealing with a great question like this of Parliamentary Reform, I venture to maintain that to speak of your measure as one of a series is tantamount to an admission, not merely that it is incomplete and imperfect as regards the present, but that you have no definite and well-matured plans as regards the future. I protest, in a great question like this, against this species of blindfold hand-to-mouth legislation. I venture to think that it is of the utmost importance for the best interests of this country that, whenever Parliamentary Reform is dealt with, we should attempt to arrive at such a settlement as may, for many years at least, be regarded in the light of a final one. I venture to maintain, as some of the greatest and wisest of our statesmen have maintained before us, that the habit of making frequent constitutional changes is one of the most dangerous that a people can acquire. And if, year after year and Session after Session, the time and attention of Members of this House are to be occupied in the discussion and agitation of questions relative to the reform of our representative institutions, I must confess that I for one cannot conceive any course more calculated to check the progress of all sound and practical legislation, or to shake the confidence hitherto felt, for the most part, by the people of England in the general efficiency and stability of Parliamentary government. But I have no doubt it will be urged, in the course of this debate, that Her Majesty's Government have already sanctioned the principle of dealing with Reform seriatim, inasmuch as they have allowed another measure of the hon. Member's—the Bill for the abolition of Property Qualification—to be passed without resistance on their part. Now, speaking as I do as a private and independent Member of the Conservative party, I do not hesitate to say that I should have been glad if the Government had opposed that measure in a body, on the ground that was urged by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for so doing, and upon which I myself individually followed him into the division lobby. But I must confess, at the some time, that there were reasons shown in the course of debate for allowing that measure to pass, which could not be urged with equal justice of any other branch of our representative system. That was a measure the non-application of which, in the case of a considerable number of the Members of this House, proved it at once to be of a partial and one-sided character in its bearings; and the application of which, as regards the remaining portion, had been shown by many years' experience to have been rendered, in many instances, nugatory by evasion and equivocation. I contend, then, that you cannot, with justice, assert that the two cases are in the slightest degree analogous. In dealing with the one, you had the benefit of past experience as a guide for the future; in dealing with the other, you can summon to your aid no such assistance. You cannot even tell how many electors your measure will enfranchise; and you are forced into relying solely, with a blind and implicit confidence, upon the fortunes of the future. Well, Sir, but upon the first reading of this Bill the noble Lord the Member for the City of London made use of what I could not but consider a very extraordinary argument in its favour. The noble Lord told us that he was surprised that any hon. Member should offer the slightest opposition to the passing of this measure, inasmuch as its effect would be largely to increase the county constituencies, and the larger in a numerical point of view the constituency an hon. Member represented the more it enhanced the dignity and the influence of his position as a Member of the House. Now, Sir, I thought at the time that this argument, coming as it did from one who had been a Minister of the Crown, was a somewhat extraordinary one to advance, and subsequent reflection has but confirmed my opinion. I do not mean to say for one moment that the representation of a large and populous constituency, involving as it does the representation of numerous important interests, does not tend to increase an hon. Member's own sense of the responsibilities intrusted to his charge; but to say that a mere numerical increase of a constituency will give of itself Parliamentary influence to its representative, or that there is any other passport to Parliamentary influence than the exhibition of talent or ability of some kind in him who aspires to that much-envied distinction, is, I think, a fallacy which the past pages of Parliamentary history will serve most effectually to disprove. If we look for a moment at the Parliamentary career of some of the most eminent states- men who have adorned this House since the commencement of the present century, we shall find that, though they may at some period of their career have sat for large and populous constituencies, yet that in all cases it has been the constituencies that sought them, after they had made themselves a name, and not they the constituencies. And further, we shall find that, with one or two exceptions, the higher the Parliamentary position to which they attained the surer were they to relinquish the representation of these large constituencies, and seek the comparative ease afforded by a small borough. If, for instance, we look at the career of that great man, Mr. Canning, we find that, though for some period of his life he sat for the large and populous constituency of Liverpool, yet, that on his becoming leader of the House of Commons, he voluntarily relinquished its representation, and got himself returned for a close borough. Again, the House will, I am sure, not need reminding that that late eminent statesman, Sir Robert Peel, sat from the passing of the Reform Bill to the close of his life, during by far the most important part of his Parliamentary career, for the comparatively small constituency of Tamworth; while, I am sure, we are all equally aware that the noble Lord the late head of Her Majesty's Administration has reposed for many years unmolested in the peaceful shades of Tiverton. It is true the noble Lord himself (Lord J. Russell) is a signal exception to the rule, as we all know he has for many years represented the City of London; but, perhaps, on this point the noble Lord will allow me to read him a short extract from Lord Grey's recent Essay on Parliamentary Reform. Lord Grey says—

"It is so difficult for a Minister who represents a large body of constituents to exercise his judgment with proper freedom, and to escape altogether from being biased by their local interests and feelings, that it appears to me very desirable that in general the servants of the Crown should not hold seats of this kind."

And after quoting one or two intances in support of his assertion, the noble Lord goes on to say—

"That for this very reason he considers it to have been a great disadvantage to Lord John Russell in his ministerial career to have so long represented the City of London."

The noble Lord is not, as we all know at the present moment, a servant of the Crown; but I think it must be obvious to all who have watched the progress of recent events, that with the chequered me- mories of a ministerial past the noble Lord still associates a few brighter visions of a ministerial future. And if I might venture on a word of advice to so exalted an authority, I would recommend the noble Lord to pause before he rashly becomes the advocate of sweeping and extensive changes in our county constituencies, and endeavour to negotiate for himself an exchange of seats with the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock. The noble Lord would then be in a far more independent position, and far better able to avail himself of the good things which the Fates who preside over the rise and fall of Administrations may or may not have yet in store for him. I have now, Sir, stated the principle objections that I entertain to the dealing in any shape with this measure at the present time, and I am happy, indeed, to think that, however imperfectly I may have done so, the views I have expressed have been shared by the highest authorities, and advocates, too, of almost every shade of liberal opinion that finds a voice within the walls of this House. I am fortified in the first instance by the open and avowed opinions of the noble Lord the Member for London, who as a Minister of the Crown gave this measure a most determined opposition, but who, now that he has found himself a seat below the gangway, for some reason that I confess I am unable exactly to comprehend, though I studied his speech on the first reading with due attention, gives it an equally determined support. I am fortified, also, by the expressed opinion of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, the man of great intentions, if not of great deeds, in the cause of reform, who also has resisted this measure as a Minister of the Crown, but whose intentions, now that he, too, is seated on the front benches of Opposition, are at this moment, he will, perhaps, pardon me for saying, a matter of very considerable speculation to both sides of the House. I have also upon my side another high authority from another class of politicians, the sincerity of whose zeal for Parliamentary Reform we have no reason that I know of for doubting, in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wilts. Now, all these three high authorities have given it as their opinion, that whenever this House dealt with the question of Parliamentary Reform, it was of the utmost importance that a diversity of interests to be represented should be recognized as existing between counties and boroughs; and that in considering the question of the franchise, they should above all things steer clear of extending it on the basis of uniformity. But, Sir, I can even go further than this. It may seem somewhat hopeless to seek for aid from those hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, whose reform ultimatum was given to the House only two nights since by the right hon. Member for Birmingham with a force and a vigour which must have made the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton's hair fairly stand on an end with dismay. But even then I do not despair of success. I hold in my hand a slight comment of The Times newspaper of November 18th, 1857, on that Parliamentary Reform Manifesto which startled Members representing county constituencies from their customary repose at that period of the year. In allusion to that document, The Times says:—

"It was not, however, we believe, unanimously agreed to. Mr. Ayrton, for one, it is understood, took exception to parts of it, and especially to the proposition for extending the county franchise to £10 occupiers, which he thought would swamp the legitimate influence of property in the election of knights of the shire, and tend to array town against county in a way to which he was altogether adverse."

Now, Sir, we have, I think, heard a great deal of late years of rapid progress, of fusion of party, and, I might almost add, of confusion of principle; but I certainly did not think that upon almost the first occasion I have risen to address the House I should be enabled to prove, as I have done from their own words, that a perfect unanimity of sentiment exists on any subject connected with Parliamentary Reform between the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton on the one hand, and the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets on the other. And still less did I ever imagine that I should find myself, as a Conservative and county representative, cordially concurring, and I do now, in the sentiments that both have expressed. All I can say is that, as has been well said in theatrical life, so it is not the less true in the Parliamentary arena, "when we do agree our unanimity is truly wonderful." Well, Sir, but I have not yet quite done with The Times newspaper of November 18th, for on referring to the leading article on the subject of the same reform manifesto, I find a few words of advice addressed to those who are so ardent in the cause of reform, couched in terms at once so truthful and so forcible, that at the risk of wearying the House, I cannot refrain from giving them the paragraph entire, promising, at the same time, that it is the last extract of any kind to which I will treat them on the present occasion:—

"We cannot but think on the whole, that Parliamentary Reform had better wait—even for the sake of Parliamentary Reform itself—till an undivided public attention to the subject can secure due justice to it, till public opinion, set free from the present engrossing claims upon it, can watch the progress of such a Bill with proper jealousy, back up Reformers in resistance to petty obstacles and private interests, and secure an effective settlement instead of a corrupt bargain."

Now, this is advice which I venture respectfully to urge this House to adopt on the present occasion. I ask the House to pause to-night ere they give their sanction to the first of a series of concessions I believe to be alike erroneous in theory and mischievous in practice, which would check the progress of useful and beneficial legislation, and which, for the free and independent representative of varied interests would inevitably substitute the fettered and the compromised delegate of a class domination. And I venture to make an appeal not merely to the Members of this House collectively, but I venture also on a special appeal to the noble Lord the late head of Her Majesty's Administration. It certainly appears to me that during the progress of these reform skirmishes which the hon. Member for East Surrey has led so gallantly, and hitherto, I regret to add, so successfully during the present Session, the noble Lord has recognised the wisdom of the ancient proverb, which says that "The end of a feast is better that the beginning of a fray." I think the House can hardly yet have forgotten the somewhat remarkable absence of the noble Lord on the first reading of this Bill. But let me remind the noble Lord of what occurred on the first reading of a similar measure last year. Let me remind the noble Lord that when a cry of mutiny and insurrection arose amid the ranks of his followers, it was a Conservative Opposition that bore down to his rescue. They said, "This is our cause of quarrel as well as it is yours. We consider that the balance of our representative institutions are at stake in this measure. Our sense of honour, our love of fair play, will not allow us to look tamely on and see this great mischief done;" and so, though perhaps they bore the noble Lord no violent affection, they raised him to his legs again, and they quelled his insurrection. I trust, then, the noble Lord will show by his vote to-night that he is not oblivious of the assistance he then received; and, above all, that he is not oblivious of the principles he then avowed; but that which he was enabled, by a Conservative Opposition to resist, and resist successfully as a Minister of the Crown, he can enable a Conservative Ministry to resist, and resist successfully, even though he be seated on the front benches of Opposition. Sir, I will now leave my Amendment in the hands of this House, confident that the arguments I have advanced will meet with their impartial deliberation. In conclusion, I will but add that I believe this House, by its vote to-night, will show that, whatever may be its natural desire to deal with acknowledged inequalities and anomalies in our representative system this is not the fitting time, as I believe it to be not the fitting manner of making a concession to the voice of popular opinion. I believe that this House will show by its vote to night that, however plausible in the abstract their isolated theories of reform may be, however well adapted to woo and win the popular applause of the hustings of East Surrey, there is something of mature deliberation required—there is something, too, of statesmanlike ability demanded—to mould them to a due conformity with the existing relations of society, and the established institutions of the country. And, above all, will I venture to believe that this House, in its zeal for Parliamentary Reform, will never suffer itself to be led into a forgetfulness of that which has for ages been at once the guiding principle, as it is the noblest object of all its legislation, justice to those vast and varied interests that return it to act as their representative Assembly.

, in seconding the Amendment, congratulated his hon. Friend who had just sat down on the ability he had displayed in moving this Amendment. He felt that his hon. Friend was a great accession to that House, and trusted that his future career in that Assembly would worthily sustain so promising a commencement. With respect to the question before the House, he was glad that his hon. Friend had withdrawn his original Amendment for reading the Bill a second time that day six months, because such an Amend- ment, in the present state of the question of reform, would have been considered a vote on the whole question of reform which must be introduced in the next Session. On the 20th of this month the registration in the counties commenced, so that this Bill, even if it were passed, could have no operation before the beginning of another year. He thought they ought to wait till next Session, when the whole question of reform would be considered. He had the greatest objection to piecemeal reform. This was a question upon which the noble Lord the Member for London had changed his opinion. In bringing forward his Reform Bill in 1854 the noble Lord, in reference to the first Reform Bill, said that they had not limited the franchise to one species, for that would not have made the reform sufficiently comprehensive. With regard to the scheme of 1854, the noble Lord proposed a £10 franchise for the counties, but dropped the borough franchise to one of £6. Instead of a uniform franchise, however, the noble Lord proposed to give votes to persons with salaries of £100 a year; to persons with incomes of £10 from the Funds, or from East India Stock; to persons who paid 40s. assessed taxes, income tax or licence duty in the year; to graduates of Universities—a proposition to which there was not the slightest objection; and to every person having a deposit of £50 in a savings' bank. These qualifications were to be common to counties and boroughs. Thus the noble Lord's proposed £10 franchise did not stand alone, but was part of a very varied franchise. The war with Russia prevented the question from being again brought forward till last year, when the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King) introduced his Bill. The hon. Member for East Surrey had, as he understood him, said that his measure of last year was opposed by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, and by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they did not agree with its details. But what did the noble Lord himself say on that occasion? He said nothing about details. What he said was,—

"I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on the principle which forms the foundation of his proposal—namely, that there should be identity of qualification for voting in boroughs and counties. I rather agree with what has fallen from my noble friend the Member for London"—there he was deceived—"that there has always been a distinction, and I think it expedient to maintain that distinction, between the right of voting in boroughs and counties. The two great classes of electors repro- sent different interests in the community, and the principle on which their right of voting has stood has always been different."

The hon. Member for East Surrey was therefore mistaken in supposing that the noble Lord was a supporter of his plan. They on that side were entitled to claim the support, on this question, not only of the noble Lord, but of all those hon. Members on the other side who had voted with him. His hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment had reminded the noble Lord that they on that side had come to his relief on this question on a former occasion. They certainly had done so, and the result was that the Motion was at once got rid of. They now asked the noble Lord to come to their relief. Let them have fair play on this measure. That was all they asked. They stood there an avowed minority. Having helped the noble Lord on this question last year, they claimed not only his support, but the support of all who voted with him on that occasion against the Bill of the hon. Member for the reason assigned by the noble Lord. He claimed therefore the support of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman)—of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere)—of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Radnor (Sir G. Lewis)—and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe). He inferred from what he had seen in The Times of that day, that they should have the vote of the right hon. Gentleman. They claimed the vote of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. J. Wilson), and also of that hon. Member who had been of such service to the late Government—the right hon. Member for Wells (Sir W. Hayter). Two returns on this subject—one moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr.Disraeli), the other by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith),—well deserved their attention, because they showed that the counties ought to have not only more voters, but more representatives. There were many anomalies in the Bill of 1832, which was passed amidst great agitation and excitement. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King) had alluded to some threatened agitation; but the fact was that not a single petition had been presented in favour of this Bill, and the only ones which had any reference to Parliamentary reform were from 19,500 persons in favour of universal suffrage. There was not one in favour of this Bill. Therefore there did not appear to be any danger of much popular agitation. The truth was, the House had brought this reform upon itself by constantly calling upon Governments to introduce a Reform Bill. The noble Lord the Member for London first promised to do so, and he redeemed his pledge. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton made a similar promise, but he had not fulfilled it. Lord Derby had stated his intention to bring in a Reform Bill next Session. ["No, no!"] He was sorry to hear his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) say the other night that Lord Derby had promised to consider the question, but had not promised to bring forward any measure. Lord Derby, in his Ministerial statement on the 1st of March, said:—

"As soon as the pressure of Parliamentary business enables us deliberately and carefully to consider the question, we will direct our attention to the defects which exist in the laws regulating the representation of the people in Parliament, and to the amendments which may be made in those laws; and we will give that attention with the sincere and earnest desire to trifle no longer with this great question, but with the hope that we may be able in the next Session of Parliament to lay before the Legislature and the country a measure upon that subject which may for a time settle a matter of such deep importance, and which, if we cannot hope to please everybody—which would indeed be a most extravagant expectation—may at least be accepted as a fair and reasonable measure by all moderate, impartial, and well educated men." [3 Hansard, cxlix. 43.]

He understood this as a pledge to introduce a measure in the next Session. Under these circumstances he did not think the present measure ought to be taken into consideration, or that the question of Parliamentary reform should be treated piecemeal—it was a subject which could only be fittingly dealt with as a whole; and if the Government wished to show they were in earnest they must lay before the country a bold and comprehensive measure. Taking the Reform Bill for their basis, they must improve upon it, remove its anomalies, and open the franchise to other classes of Her Majesty's subjects. His hon. Friend (Mr. Du Cane) had quoted an article written some time ago in The Times. Now if he were to speak two hours he could not better explain his sentiments than by reading two short extracts that appeared in The Times of that day. He always found that the leading journal was quoted by hon. Gentlemen opposite when it suited their arguments, but that it was always attempted to be suppressed when it told against them. The Times of to-day said—

"The present county franchise was fixed in the Reform Act, and can only reasonably be altered to any considerable extent in a second measure of the same serious and comprehensive character. The House of Commons ought not to pass a bad measure, and a bad measure we believe this to be, not so lunch in what it does as in what it leaves undone. No reasonable person can doubt that it would at once consign many of our counties to constituencies of the same class as that now specially represented in our boroughs. This would be to convert our counties into large boroughs."

All he would add was that he cordially seconded the proposition of his hon. Friend, and that he hoped to have the support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I waited till the very last moment, when those who are of that opinion must say "No!" or those words would be pronounced that must close the mouths of all who are assembled—I waited, I say, until the last moment, in order that the House might know what was the line which Her Majesty's Government were about to take on this Motion. But as the House is to divide in ignorance of the course which the Government intend to pursue, I rise to answer the eloquent, touching, and moving appeals made to me and to my right hon. Friends by those who have moved and spoken upon this Amendment. Sir, we have often had occasion this Session to feel compassion for the pitiable condition in which the Government are placed. They came into office avowedly professing to rest upon a minority, and depending for support upon the majority of this House; but never upon any occasion have such signals of distress been hung out to those who do not belong to the Government as on the present occasion, not by the Government, but by those who profess to express—and who, by the silence of the Treasury bench, may be considered to express their sentiments. The mover of this Amendment, in a speech to the ability of which I gladly bear my humble testimony—it was a promise of future performances which I am sure must be gratifying to all—that hon. Gentleman appealed in moving accents for support to those who sit here, and the ground, forsooth! of his appeal was to ask for our assistance in return for the assistance which he said the Conservative Members afforded the late Government on a former occasion. The hon. Gentleman said, that in February, 1857, there was an insurrection and a mutiny in the ranks of those who supported the late Government, and that the Conservative party came to the rescue and afforded them relief. No doubt that was a very charitable action. But, Sir, there was a February 1858, as well as a February 1857. In February 1858 there was a mutiny and insurrection against the Government, and what did hon. Gentlemen opposite then do? Did they come to our assistance? No, they joined the ranks of the insurgents, and overthrew the constituted authorities. So far, therefore, as any personal claim is concerned, I put February 1858 as a set-off against February 1857. Sir, the present conduct of the Government and the language we have heard to-night remind us of the miserable condition of the former inhabitants of this island when they were deserted by the Romans. They said, as the Government now say, "The barbarians"—of course all who do not sit on the Treasury benches are barbarians—"the barbarians drive us into the sea," for which we may read the troubled waters of the gangway, "and now the sea drives us back upon the barbarians." Now, I hold myself free to act on this occasion upon my own opinion, without being bound by any feeling of gratitude to hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite. Last year, when my hon. Friend (Mr. Locke King) brought in a Bill on this subject, it was a different Bill in title and intention from that which he now proposes. It was then a measure for an assimilation of the county and borough franchise. The present is a Bill to improve and extend the franchise of counties, but it is not by title and intention a Bill to assimilate the franchise of the two. Last year Her Majesty's Government announced their intention to propose in the present Session a Bill of Parliamentary Reform. Now, as we intended to embrace in that Bill arrangements with regard to the county franchise, we were of opinion that the House ought to trust us so far as to postpone any decision relative to the county franchise last year, and to wait until we had produced our measure. But the present Government have not pledged themselves to produce a measure of Parliamentary Reform, but only to consider the question. Consideration and procedure are, however, different things. The consideration may last a long while, and the decision may be tardy in coming. Well, Sir, I hold that this Bill is not the Bill that was proposed last year. Gentlemen may say, and will say, so far, with truth—that, although the Bill is a different one, and the procedure is not by proposing the assimilation of the borough and county franchise, yet that the manner in which the blanks are filled up will accomplish that object. No doubt that is the state of the case. But then, Sir, those who like myself adhere to the opinion expressed by many, that it will be very undesirable and objectionable to assimilate the borough and county franchise by reducing the franchise to £10, may vote for a second reading with the intention of proposing an alteration in the franchise that is intended to be established for county voters. And therefore any man who contemplates a reduction in the rate of the county franchise may perfectly well vote, and would indeed consistently vote, for the second reading of this Bill, reserving to himself the liberty of proposing in Committee the particular amount of qualification that he would prefer. As I am not one of those who think that the county franchise ought not to be lowered,—as I am one of those who think it would be advantageous to reduce the present county franchise, and to extend to a certain amount the county constituencies—I, for one, if called on to choose between the Previous Question and agreeing to the second reading, am prepared to give my vote for the second reading with that reserve with regard to the amount of qualification which I have stated. There have been many arguments used in favour of this Bill from agreeing with which I must refrain. We are told that one of the grounds upon which this Bill is proposed is, that we are to get rid of an anomaly in our representative system. I defy you by any legislation to get rid of the anomalies in the representative system. If you were to divide the country into parallelograms, establish electoral districts, and award the franchise to equal numbers, you would not then get rid of the anomalies in the representative system; because anomaly means only that which in the opinion of the man who uses the word is at variance with some imaginary rule which ought to be laid down as the rule upon the subject to which his opinion applies. One man might think the rule ought to be a perfect numerical equality in the constituencies, and that man would say, "get rid of tile anomaly by equalizing the number of constituents;" but another man might say that the proper course to be pursued would be to secure a representation of the different interests and classes in the community, and he would probably tell you that you would only add to existing anomalies by dividing the country into equal electoral districts, and seeking a numerical equality of constituents. Therefore, I put aside arguments founded on anomalies, because I defy the ingenuity of man to frame a representative system which shall not be liable to objections—full of what the person who makes the objections is pleased to call anomalies. We are told, also, that it is better to make these changes now, because we shall be called upon by strong popular impulse to make them hereafter, under less favourable circumstances; and we are referred to what passed at the time of the Reform Bill in 1832. I think that argument is misplaced. When the Reform Bill of 1832 passed there existed a system which no man who deliberately considered it could fail to admit was in the highest degree objectionable. There were imaginary boroughs returning Members to Parliament, and a large mass of wealthy and industrious communities who had no voice whatever in the Legislature of the country. It was a state of things, which went on to a certain point; but when the time came to consider it, it could not be defended by any arguments whatever. But that state of things cannot possibly be said to exist now, and therefore I cannot admit that the example of the great national demand for a change in the representation in 1832 can apply to the present state of the representation as founded by the arrangement of 1832. That, however, is no reason against looking into the present system, and endeavouring to improve that portion of it which is susceptible of improvement; but it is au argument against rushing headlong into any particular proposal on the fallacious assumption that there is no time to consider, and that we shall soon be driven by popular impulse, in spite of the intentions which our reason induces us to entertain. I have no objection to bit-by-bit reform. I think it might be better, perhaps, to leave this measure to be incorporated as part of a more general scheme; but I do not think that the nation at large is at present very anxious for any great fundamental change in our representative system. I believe the House of Commons is much more forward in this matter than the nation whom they represent. I believe the country will be satisfied with very moderate measures. But, at the same time, if I am called on to decide, I cannot concur in thinking the present county franchise ought not to be improved. I, therefore, shall be ready to go into Committee with my hon. Friend for the purpose of endeavouring to see in what degree and to what extent the county franchise can be reduced consistently with the interests of the county and a due regard to that balance of interests upon which our representative system rests.

The noble Lord has stated in such plain and unanswerable language every objection that can be made to the present Bill, as explained by its mover, that I find he has left me nothing to add to his arguments against the measure. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King) has rested his case entirely on the expediency of assimilating the county and the borough franchises. He used no other argument which could justify the adoption of his proposal. The position which he maintained was, that as a £10 franchise was good for the boroughs, a similar franchise must be good for the counties. But the noble Lord says that he cannot assent to that conclusion, and that he will not vote for a £10 county franchise, although he is willing to alter the franchise established in the counties under the existing law. The noble Lord, however, has not told us what is the nature of the change of which he would be prepared to approve. He did not give us the smallest inkling as to the figure which he would support in committee, if the Bill should ever reach that stage. The noble Lord has complained that no Member of the Government rose before himself to address the House; but I think be must admit that, after two speeches had been made by hon. Members sitting on this side against the Bill, it was natural for us to suppose that some of those who were called by the noble Lord himself, and not by us "the barbarians" would get up and address the House in support of the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey. Hon. Members are well aware that it is very unusual to see three Members sitting on the same of the House rise in succession to maintain the same opinions upon any question. Now, with respect to the proposal itself, I must say I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) was perfectly justified in asking what could be gained by attempting to legislate upon this subject in the present Session. The time is gone by when such a measure as this could have any immediate effect. The registration for the counties will commence before it will be possible to pass this Bill through the House, even if it went through its stages in the most rapid manner; and there can, therefore, be no reason why we should now embark in this discussion. The words employed in "another place" by the noble Earl at the head of the Government have been quoted for the purpose of showing what are the future intentions of the Government in reference to the introduction of a reform Bill. Now, I think those words are as explicit as words can be. Let it be remembered, too, that the speaker is not a man who is at all apt to use language and afterwards fail to act up to it. Under those circumstances I think it is not unreasonable to ask the House whether, by adopting the course they are now invited to pursue, they believe they would be facilitating a general settlement of the reform question, or whether they do not rather think they would thereby be throwing an impediment in the way of the accomplishment of such an object? I entirely approve of the mode in which the proposal for the second reading of the Bill has been met; and I must also bear my testimony to the great ability and moderation with which the Previous Question has been moved. I believe it would have been unfair to have met the Motion for the second reading of the Bill by a direct negative. I believe that after the pledge given by the Government to look into the whole reform question, with a view to its general settlement, it would. have been unfair to have asked the Government or the House to any particular proposition. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Bill wishes to assimilate the county and the borough franchises; but no one has adduced any argument in favour of such a scheme, and the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) has argued directly against it. Every one must see that the noble Lord is availing himself of a kind of special plea when he supports the second reading of the Bill, while he expressed his disapproval of a £10 county franchise. I will ask hon. Members opposite who sit below the gangway, whether they do not understand this to be a measure for a £10 county franchise, and nothing else? Yet the noble Lord will not consent to a £10 franchise when we get into Committee. I must add that I think the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill ought to have given us some intima- tion of its probable effect on that balance of power between different interests and classes which is secured by our present representative system; but the hon. Member has left that very important matter wholly unnoticed. I very much doubt whether the measure would remove the anomalies of the present system. I agree with the noble Lord that you must have anomalies under any arrangement it would be possible to adopt; and all that you can do is to obtain a sort of balance of those anomalies, so that all the interests of the country may on the whole be fairly represented. I do not believe you would, by adopting this measure, close all discussion as to the amount at which the qualification for the county franchise should stand, and I do not think it would now be just or wise to attempt to prejudge that matter, and thus throw an impediment in the way of the Government which would interfere with their taking the whole reform question into their consideration, with the view of honestly endeavouring to effect its settlement. I must repeat that I believe the noble Lord has completely refuted the proposal for an assimilation of the county and the borough franchises; and I have now only to state, in conclusion, that I shall cordially give my support to the Mover of the Previous Question.

said, that in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six mouths, he did so under a great disadvantage, because since the Bill professed to reform and improve the Scotch Universities, he feared that hon. Members generally thought that this Bill was similar in its object to the Bills lately carried through Parliament for the improvement of the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford. It was with great reluctance that he had come forward to oppose the measure, but no other course was open to him when he found that, while the Bill was brought forward as a measure to reform and improve the Scotch Universities, the changes proposed were really of a retrograde rather than of a progressive character. He doubted whether twenty Members had examined the Bill sufficiently to learn its true character, and he was quite sure that upon examination it would be found to be a measure winch would not work, or, if it would work, that it would be to no useful purpose. Had his objections to the Bill been of a light character—to mere matters of detail—he might have contented himself with proposing Amendments in Committee; but he felt that the Bill was so thoroughly bad as to be quite unmendable; that it required a new stock, new lock, and new barrel. He had heard what improvement the Professors desired, what the students desired, and what the patrons desired. The Professors wanted money that they might have their salaries increased; the students wished to have endowments which might furnish the means of literary retirement, and to have the Scotch Universities endowed upon the same scale as the English; and the patrons desired that some millionaire would die and leave large funds at the disposal of the colleges. Now, in these respects, the Bill met the wishes neither of the Professors nor the students—nor the patrons. He had examined the Bill with great attention with the view of learning its real character, but he must confess that, nevertheless, he had considerable difficulty in following the learned Lord when he stated its provisions. The preamble commenced by stating that it was expedient, for the advancement of religion and learning, that provision should be made for the better government and discipline of the Universities of Scotland. Now, when he saw those words "advancement of religion" in a Government measure, it always made him very suspicious. The proposed changes were indeed a very crab-like method of reforming abuses. The Bill provided, for instance, that the General Council of the University of Aberdeen should consist of the members of the University Court, of the professors, and of all the graduates registered in the books of the University and King's College and in the books of Marischal College and University, and of all future graduates. At present there were twenty-one professors in the University, most of them members of the Church, and at least 47 per cent. of the students were intended to enter the Church; and as many of the professors and students, though laymen, were more bigoted than divines, they would take care that only their own religious views should be advanced in the Universities. Thus the whole University would be thrown back into the old system of clerical abuses. Then, again, in Edinburgh, they had only about eight or nine graduates in the year, and most of these were destined for the Church; as to the medical graduates they were scattered over the face of the earth; and therefore the University would be under the absolute dominion of the clergy. At the meeting in Edinburgh on University Reform, the Lord Advocate professed that he contemplated no organic changes in the constitution of those bodies; but this Bill made not merely a change but a revolution. Was it not a refinement in cruelty for the Lord Advocate to stand up before a meeting at which were present many of the patrons, and promise that no radical changes should be made in their University; and while they were cheering him to the very echo, he and his predecessor were meditating a coup d'état to destroy the liberal and constitutional government of their University, and to substitute in its place an irresponsible junto in the shape of eight commissioners, five of whom were to form a quorum, who were to override the Senatus Academicus and all other members and office-bearers in the University? He (Mr. Black) had been for ten years a patron of the University which had been founded by the citizens of Edinburgh, fostered and maintained by them, and, without royal or baronial munificence, raised by their good management to the first rank among the Scottish Universities. He held in his hand an account of the sums expended upon it by the corporation from the middle of the last century to 1833—these amounted to about £100,000. In 1833, an adjustment was made with the creditors of the city, when it was found that from the property in Leith the city should draw £7,000 a year; of this £2,000 was set apart for the University, so that it may be said the University is still maintained by the citizens. The patrons never interfered with the curriculum of the College, unless compelled by urgent demands for improvements. The professors generally opposed reforms, and he believed it would be found that in every instance where the senators and the patrons differed, it would be found that the patrons were in the right. However anomalous it may appear in theory, it has been found in practice that a corporation of tradesmen are not only competent to manage a University, but, in fact, that the University of Edinburgh, of which the Town Council were patrons, was the best managed of all the Scottish Universities. At present the constitution of the University is an open one, and no great job could be committed with impunity, and he must declare that, in his opinion, no college could be better managed than this has been under the present system. It was now proposed to overturn a constitution that had worked well, and to replace the managing body by an irresponsible conclave which would do everything in the dark; and he should not be doing his duty if he did not raise his voice against what he believed would be injurious to the citizens of Edinburgh, and, he would add, to the public generally of Scotland. The inhabitants of Edinburgh had felt the greatest alarm with respect to the measure, and only that afternoon he had received a telegraphic despatch from them saying that the Amendments to the Bill were intolerable, and urging him to do all in his power to upset the measure. Hon. Members, he trusted, would be the last persons who would wish to see despotism and oligarchy established in the Universities. Some were of opinion that all that was wanted to provide for the deficiencies of the Universities was money; but for himself he would say, "Perish the money, but may the honour and independence of the University flourish." He would conclude by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, that the hon. Member seemed to have mistaken the stage of the Bill; his objections should have been reserved for the Committee, when they would no doubt have received the candid consideration of the Lord Advocate. The hon. Member seemed by his speech to indicate that the University of Edinburgh was perfect; but the whole of Scotland had been for years past calling out for University reform, and a Commission had reported on the subject in 1830. He understood the object of the measure to be to put an end to the system of closeness in the governing bodies of the Scotch Universities. When it was introduced it was received with universal acclamation, and it was not until the monopolists found that their interests would be interfered with, that they offered such a determined opposition. He entertained great respect for the Town Council of Edinburgh; but the colleges and University of Edinburgh had only been under the management of that Town Council since 1830; prior to that time they were under the control of a close Council, as the Town Council then was, and he did not know that the management of the University was not as good before 1830 as it had been since. It would be great grief to the people of Scotland if this well-intentioned measure were not acceded to. The principle of it was that the Scotch Universities required to be reformed, and ought therefore to be reformed. That was all they required should be acceded to, and then when the Bill was referred to a Committee, the suggestions of hon. Members would be received and discussed with candour and impartiality. The measure was intended to throw open, so to speak, the doors of the Universities, and to induce the alumni to take their degrees there, and afterwards to keep up their connection with them, and if the Bill were passed there would be, without doubt, a great inducement to young men to obtain degrees and to keep up a connection with the Universities. They would, under this Bill, after obtaining degrees, become governors or managers. It was inteded to throw open the Universities, and not to create certain close corporations, as had been said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. He sincerely hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and then in Committee they could make what Amendments might be suggested. There was nothing in the hon. Member for Edinburgh's objection that the Bill would throw too much power into the clerical body. The Bill, on the contrary, invited all classes of students to become sharers in the management of the University, which had grown into a great institution. He believed that all distinctions of people belonged to an association which had been formed for the purpose of reforming these Universities; and, anxious as they were for the Bill to pass, it would be a great disappointment to them if it were thrown over to another Session.

said, he believed he spoke the sentiments of the greater portion of the Scotch Members, and of the people of the North-East of Scotland, when he opposed this Bill. The opposition was not to the principle of the Bill, but they had been forced into it by the refusal of the learned Lord (the Lord Advocate) to accede to the moderate propositions which had been made to him by Scotch Members. The right hon. and learned Gentleman insisted on maintaining parts of the Bill to which the Scotch Members most strongly objected, and thereby left them no choice but to support the Amendment for reading the measure that day three months. He concurred generally with the hon. Member for Edinburgh as to the practical difficulties that must attend the working of this Bill in its present shape, and which must greatly interfere with its usefulness. The feeling of opposition was not confined to Marischal College, which was to be sacrificed for the advantage of the sister college (King's), as the graduates of the latter college, in a letter which he (Colonel Sykes) read, condemned the measure as being one which could not, in this free country, be sanctioned, and spoke of it as a legislative attempt to deal with endowments existing for a century and a half in an arbitrary and unjust manner. The 15th clause of the Bill embodied those views, and was of itself sufficient to justify a determined opposition to the Bill, for it gave to Commissioners (who might be fanatics, sectarians, or men with extreme views in politics) power to revise the foundations, bursaries, donations, and patronage which had been granted for the benefit of the professors, students, and others, but which should appear to the Commissioners, according to their views, feelings, or prejudices, to require revision. The Commissioners would be able to frame new statutes or ordinances for all gifts and endowments in defiance of the regulations of the donors. They had all heard of "confiscation" on the other side of the globe; but now confiscation was coming under their immediate view, for, by this Bill the Commissioners would possess the power to confiscate all ancient and modern endowments given for specific purposes, that is to say, to amalgamate, or abolish, which was equivalent to confiscation. In this free country they were all moving onward—even hon. Gentlemen who sat on the other side of the House; and it was surprising that such a Bill should have been introduced. The 15th clause, in short, was so objectionable, that he should consider it quite sufficient to justify him in refusing to sanction the second reading. From what took place at the meeting of Scotch Members in a Committee-room upstairs great distrust had been excited in his mind as to what the learned Lord Advocate would do in Committee. He had been overwhelmed with letters urging objections to the measure. The remonstrances from Aberdeen and the north of Scotland, from graduates of King's College, from synods, and from the graduates of Marischal College, were exceedingly strong; and that there might be no mistake he would in the end read some of the documents which he had received against the Bill. The citizens of Aberdeen had for years asked for a measure which would unite the two Universities into one University, under one common government, and they now asked for the same thing to be done, but the Bill in addition enacted the fusion of the two colleges, to the suppression, practically of Marischal College—which had been founded by the Earl Marischal of Scotland for three centuries for the benefit of the citizens of new Aberdeen alone, and which, by the charter, was not to be translated forth from Aberdeen, and which was supported by endowments and gifts. Among the opponents of the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition was the Society of Advocates of Aberdeen, the graduates of Marischal College and University, and the graduates and alumni of King's College University. Two hundred graduates of King's College University, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was Lord Rector, entered their solemn protest against alienating the funds of foundations to any purpose contrary to their original destination. The hon. and learned Lord by his profession was bound to support the law, and it was curious to see him coming forward to subvert the law. The only parties in favour of the fusion of the two colleges was the Senatus of King's College, and a majority of six to four of the Professors of Marischal College; but the had been informed by telegraph that day, that out of six two had changed their opinion, and he was in hourly expectation of receiving a petition to the House ineicating this indicating this change. From the position of the only parties who supported the fusion of the two colleges the hon. and learned Gentleman could not deny but that the question was a personal one, as the object was to suppress some chairs, and divide the emoluments among those Professoos who remained. [The hon. and gallant Member here referred to various petitions to the House of Commons, Resolutions, &c., in opposition to the Bill, especially to what was called the fusion of the two colleges. These documents represented the opinions of the following persons:—The Mayor and Town Council of Aberdeen, the Incorporated Trades of Aberdeen, the Landholders and Commissioners of Supply of the county of Aberdeen, the Landholders and Commissioners of Supply for the county of Banff, the Landholders and Commissioners of Supply for the county of Kincardine, the Synod of Aberdeen, some District Courts of the Free Church, Society of Advocates in Aberdeen, Graduates of Marischal College, Graduates and Alumni of King's College, Senators of Marischal College, the Town Council of Peterhead, &c.] The hon. Member continued.—Thus, on one side there was a universal feeling, not against a Bill for improving the status of the University, but against that part which conferred illegal and unconstitutional powers on the Commissioners, and was contrary to the interests and feelings of the people of Aberdeen and of the north of Scotland. Now, with regard to Marischal College, it had been founded three centuries ago by the Earl Marischal of Scotland, and was under no pretence to be translated from the place of its foundation; it possessed a number of exhibitions or bursaries from £5 to £30 a year, which enabled even the very poor to receive that instruction, without which they could not expect to succeed in life. Various attempts had been made from time to time to suppress Marischal College in favour of a united college and University, but the inhabitants of Aberdeen had successfulty resisted all these attempts. It had existed in its integrity for three centuries, and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed by a dash of his pen to disturb those vested rights, and make waste paper of the Royal Charter. He (Colonel Sykes) admitted that it was quite proper that the State should interfere in cases where the objects of the founders of charitable or educational institutions were not carried out, but he considered it an act of oppression and tyranny to step in and deliberately set aside the intentions of founders where they had been properly carried out; and he contended that in the case of Marischal College the objects of the founder had not failed, and that the proposed interference was therefore unjust and tyrannical. He lamented that the hon. and learned Gentleman was indifferent to the interests and feelings, not of a class or a community, but of an entire people. One of the reasons given for the fusion of the two colleges was, that the chairs were so badly endowed that competent men could not be obtained to fill them; but two gentlemen of the English Universities were professors there now, and he was told that whenever a vacancy occurred there were sometimes no less than twenty candidates from Oxford and Cambridge. It could not, therefore, be on the ground of the want of a sufficient endowment for these chairs, that it was necessary that the average of £400 a year for each chair should be increased. The feeling against the fusion of the two colleges of Aberdeen, instead of diminishing, was increasing. He had in his possession, in addition to the petitions already presented, a petition on the subject, which he ought to have presented that evening. There was another coming from 2,300 of the Parliamentary electors of the city of Aberdeen, and many others were preparing. The petitioners objected to the fusion of the Marischal and King's Colleges as a gross violation of ancient charters and patrimonial rights. If the hon. and learned Gentleman granted the concessions which the petitioners asked for, and which resolved themselves into the maintenance of a complete faculty of arts in each college, he might say, on the part of the inhabitants of Aberdeen, they would not oppose the Bill becoming law.

said, he thought the Bill for the fusion of the two Universities of Aberdeen was a measure with which the prosperity of the north of Scotland was closely bound up, and if he thought it involved any invasion of the privileges of the Universities, or any alteration which was not necessary to adapt them for increased means of improvement and usefulness, he should be inclined to join in the opposition to its passing. The opposition to the Bill undoubtedly seemed to assume a somewhat alarming aspect, and he should deeply regret if it had any effect in either defeating or postponing the measure, the adoption of which he believed every sincere friend of Scotland would hail with joy. The opposition from Aberdeen especially appeared very formidable. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sykes) had quoted document after document to show that the corporation, the clergy, the inhabitants, and even the landlords of Aberdeen, were opposed to the Bill. He believed, however, that this opposition did not arise entirely from the unpopularity of the measure, but in a large degree from local prejudice and a jealous feeling of rivalry. Here was a description, from a local paper, of the meeting called the "Head Court," from which the petition to be presented by the hon. and gallant Member opposite emanated:—

"A 'Head Court'—if we may judge by the Castle Street specimen—consists of nine or ten individuals trying to speak, and wearying themselves with gesticulations, and some thousands of people (men and boys) roaring and shouting, and booting them down as effectually as if the orators had been endeavouring to converse with the public out of the heart of Julien's band in the full crash of a battle-piece …. If a stranger had been told that this is our 'Head Court' he might certainly have been struck with the simplicity and popular character of our institutions and our way of resuscitating the ancient Saxon witenagemote, but he would not have been impressed with the value of the judicial decision likely to emanate from such a source."

From such a source came the petition which was signed by 2,300 Parliamentary electors of Aberdeen, and he deprecated its having any influence whatever upon the Bill. It was, however, said that the landowners of the counties of Aberdeen and Banff, and the adjoining counties, had passed resolutions against the Bill; but it had not been mentioned that the convener of Aberdeen, and a still more distinguished person, the Earl of Aberdeen the Lord Lieutenant of the county, were strongly in favour of the fusion of the Universities. He (Mr. Steuart) believed that the effect of the Bill would be to bring more distinguished ornaments of learning from a distance to compete for the chairs in the Scotch Universities, and thus to raise the standard of education in Scotland much higher than it had ever been before. It was easy to understand how the opposition to the measure sprung up when they looked to the spirit which animated the two colleges of Aberdeen. King's College represented the high Tory feelings of the country population; on the other hand the Marischal College gave expression to the democratic feeling of the city population of Aberdeen, and it was not wonderful that it feeling of jealousy should exist between too such bodies; and if the Bill put an end to such feelings, it would effect a great good. He could not think that what this measure proposed amounted, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Sykes) represented, to an invasion of vested rights, like what had recently been threatened in Oude. Surely the fusing of the endowment of two colleges, or throwing the bursaries and scholarships belonging to them together could not in any sense be considered a violent invasion of vested rights. In the case of the University of Cambridge, the Commission, presided over by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) had proposed measures which went much further than this Bill proposed to go. The hon. and gallant Member had quoted a good many opinions against the plan laid down in the Bill, but he had omitted to state that the majority of the Professors of King's College cordially agreed in the principle of the measure submitted to the House, and he ventured to hope that their opinion would neutralise the effect of those formidable documents and petitions which had been submitted to them. So far for Aberdeen. He was not surprised at the objections of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black), supposing, as he did, that the rights of certain portions of his fellow-townsmen were about to be endangered. The hon. Gentleman bad taken credit for the manner in which the Town Council of Edinburgh had managed the Universities. No doubt that body consisted, for the greater part, of a number of bigoted and exclusive Tories who would regard this measure with disfavour; but he thought the Town Council of Edinburgh was not a body to which the management of the University ought to be entrusted. It happened that an Edinburgh paper had been sent to him last night containing the speech of an Edinburgh bailie at a public meeting, in which he complained that sectarian jealousies had crept into the management of the Universities to such an extent that the townspeople had become disgusted, and would not rally round their municipal representatives in defence of their just rights, and another gentleman rose and confirmed the statement. The late Lord Cockburn, in his evidence before the University Commissioners of 1835, had ridiculed the idea of a man of learning and genius going through a course of mental prostration before thirty- three tradesmen of the town, elected into a Town Council. He might mention a case which had occurred not very long since. There was a vacancy for the Greek chair in the Edinburgh University, and a friend of his, who now filled a high station in the University of Cambridge, asked him for some information as to the character of the Town Council. He told his friend that he had no chance whatever, for the Town Council had already two candidates before them; one was a Free Church man, and therefore had a good chance of election, but the other had an equally strong one, for he had just before defeated the established presbytery of Aberdeen in an attempt to oust him from a professorship he held there. He would not go into the particulars of the quarrel between that gentleman and the presbytery, but it was much the same as if Baron Rothschild were to come to the table, take the oath on the true faith of a Christian, and then turn round and say, "I do not believe a word of it." So this learned Gentleman went to the table of the presbytery, signed the formula as a member of the Church of Scotland, and then said "I am not to be bound by what I have sworn." It turned out, as he had told his friend, the two gentlemen ran a neck-and-neck race, but the gentleman who who had beaten the presbytery won the election; and yet the Town Council of Edinburgh objected to the system proposed under this Bill as a horrible oligarchy, and some Scotch Members surprised him by saying "perish the Universities rather than submit to such tyranny." As to the other objections that had been urged against the Bill, and particularly those coming from the University of Glasgow, he did not say there was no foundation for them, but he was sure his learned Friend would not object to remove them in Committee.

wished to offer a few observations on the subject matter of the present discussion, but he regretted that he should find himself opposed to two hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House—the hon. Members for Edinburgh and Aberdeen, both University towns. As both those hon. Members were well acquainted with the subject which they discussed, their opinions were entitled to weight and consideration; but it would require more cogent arguments than they had used to make him ditrust his own judgment and refuse his support to the Bill, the utility and importance of which were obvious. From the character of the opposition it had met with in all quarters it might be supposed that its provisions had been framed, not to confer a benefit, but to inflict an injury; not to improve the education of the country, by adapting it to the requirements of the time, but for the purpose of impairing the usefulness of the Universities, if not to lower the standard of education. He could see in the Bill no such intention—indeed, nothing but what was conceived in the most beneficial spirit, especially the alteration proposed by the learned Lord Advocate. He therefore saw no reason why legislation should be postponed, and the people be deprived of those advantages which the Bill was calculated to bestow upon them. If the hon. Gentlemen to whom he had referred could have shown that there was no want of improvement in the government of the Universities, and that the course of study which they prescribed kept pace with the requirements of the day, that within all was content and satisfaction, and that without there had been no expression of public opinion in favour of University reform in Scotland, there might be some ground for their opposition to the Bill; but the only opposition he had heard had arisen from what he would term amiable and excusable local partialities. Now, surely no opposition founded upon local partialities should stand in the way of a measure so essentially for the public benefit as that before the House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) referred to the constitution of the University of that city. Now, the constitution of that University differed from that of any other similar institution; find although the power vested in the Town Council had been, upon the whole, faithfully exercised, yet it by no means followed that the duty of internal superintendence might not be as well discharged by any other body. But if the preservation of the right of the Town Council of Edinburgh was a ground for opposing the Bill, it was clearly an objection to be urged in Committee, and not brought forward as a ground of opposition to a Bill having reference to the Scotch Universities generally. The interference of the Town Council with the internal arrangements of the University had been condemned by the late Dr. Chalmers, by Lord Cockburn, and by many other distinguished Scotchmen. But still the Bill did not deprive the Town Council of their patronage. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) had entered into the history of the two colleges of that city to show that they should still be kept separate and distinct, but it was sufficient for his (Sir W. Dunbar's) purpose to mention that the agitation for their amalgamation was not of recent origin, but had been at work for the last two centuries; and, from all he had heard or read, the question of union ought to be now decided in Parliament, or the agitation would continue two centuries longer before public opinion would work the change. It was a fact that both colleges were in themselves incomplete, but they might be amalgamated into one complete University. The Commission of 1857 had recommended a compromise, but in making that recommendation they surrendered their own judgment to the strong local feeling, which did more credit to the sensitiveness of the people of Aberdeen than to their judgment. If the Universities of Scotland were to be raised to the position which they ought to occupy, private convictions and personal considerations should be alike set aside, and the question considered with regard to the interests of the community generally; and he believed and hoped that the Lord Advocate had approached the subject in that spirit, and would never lose sight of it whilst endeavouring to accomplish the objects he proposed. Under any circumstances the Bill, by increasing the emoluments of the existing Professors, by providing retiring allowances for disabled Professors, by taking security for the better management of the Universities, and by abolishing existing restrictions, accomplished much in the right direction, and in his opinion the learned Lord Advocate, whether his measure should fail, or, as he hoped, should succeed, had, by this endeavour to deal with so important a subject, entitled himself to the gratitude, not only of the people, of Scotland, but of every well-wisher to the cause of education.

said, he had come down to the House in the expectation that the present Bill would be postponed, and was not therefore prepared to enter very fully into the question. He would, however, say that he was glad his right hon. and learned Friend (the Lord Advocate) had taken up this subject. It could not be in better hands, and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would consent to such alteration as would enable him to support the Bill; for he should certainly regret if he were compelled to oppose the first mea- sure that had been introduced for the advancement of Scottish University Education. With regard to the objections urged by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen and others, these were rather objections of detail than of principle, and might more justly be urged in Committee. Some of the provisions of the present measure he regarded as being of great value—those, for instance, providing for retiring professors, those making provision for additional chairs, and the proposed establishment of a Council in which the graduates of the Universities were to have a voice. There were, however, provisions in the Bill of which he regretted to be obliged to express his disapproval. The Bill, he thought, tended to render the government of the Universities of too closely corporate a character. As at present framed, the governing body—the University Court—would be exclusively corporate, and at the same time, to a large extent, clerical. It consisted of the Principal, himself a member of the Senatus Academicus, and a clergyman; an Assessor nominated by the Chancellor who was to be elected by the Senatus with the exception of the newly created Chancellorship of Edinburgh, which the Bill proposed should be filled up by the Crown, together with an Assessor nominated by the Council; the Rector, who was also to be appointed by the Council, and an Assessor nominated by him. Then the Council was to consist exclusively of Masters of Arts, and these were, and would for some time, be chiefly clergymen; so that there would be no popular element in the governing bodies, except in the University of Edinburgh, in which the Town Council were to select two Assessors, and where the Chancellor was to be appointed by the Crown. He (Mr. Dunlop) thought that the Crown should have the appointment of the Chancellor in all the Universities, and thereby give the State a voice in the University Court. Again, the General Council ought to be so opened up as to admit medical graduates, and those of other professions than the Church, and to take away the almost exclusively clerical character—not, indeed, confined to one denomination—which as matters at present stand in Scotland it would under the Bill possess. And finally, the Rector who had himself a vote in the University Court and nominated an Assessor, who also had a vote, ought to be elected by the students as he was at present in all the Universities except one. They had in times past well exercised that privilege, selecting the most eminent men of the day. It was of great value to the studeents to be brought into contact with such men, and it was of importance to the Universities that an extraneous element of such a character should be introduced into their governing bodies. There could be no doubt that the Universities of England held a higher standard of learning than those of Scotland; but they lacked that faculty, so eminently characteristic of the Scotch Universities, of spreading throughout the land a vast amount of general and popular learning, and he would very much prefer that the Scottish Universities should retain that character than that they should attain the excellence of the universities here at the expense of so popular a feature. But that very circumstance rendered it of importance that there should also be something of the popular element in the Government of the Universities; and therefore he thought it unfortunate that the hon. and learned Lord should have taken from the matriculated students the power of electing their Rectors. He trusted the House would have from the learned Lord Advocate an assurance that the corporate character to which he had alluded would be guarded against, or he should be obliged, with regret, to withhold at a future stage, his support from the measure.

would congratulate the hon. and learned Lord on the support his measure had received, not only from his own side of the House, but from the other. He was glad to find that they had at last found an educational subject upon which it was possible for all to agree, and he hoped this concurrence of opinion was a favourable augury for the reception of other larger measures yet to come. He should have expressed his assent to the Bill by a silent vote, but for the reference made in the title of the Bill to the union of the colleges and universities of Aberdeen. He had been a member of the Commission appointed to investigate this question, upon which he freely admitted he entertained an opinion in favour of that union until he went as far north as Aberdeen itself, and there he found public opinion, both in the city and the University of Aberdeen, so opposed to it, that he was obliged somewhat to modify his views. Upon this subject public opinion was an element which they could not disregard, and that was very strong in the city of Aberdeen. In a letter to Colonel Mure, from a nobleman whose name was of more weight in Scotland than that of any man living (the Earl of Aberdeen), he said that he found the local public and the people of the city of Aberdeen so decidedly opposed to this union, that he abandoned the project of his Government in 1854, until at least some change occurred in that opinion. Since that time nothing had occurred to justify this union; but, on the contrary, public opinion had set in much stronger than it had been in the same direction. Although in the abstract he had been in favour of this union, yet he found it necessary to modify that opinion and to recommend that, whilst there was a union of the Universities, the colleges should remain separate—one of them teaching certain branches, such as divinity, law, or medicine; the other certain others, but each retaining their full staff of Professors in what was called the faculty of Arts. That was the modification which he recommended the Lord Advocate to adopt. As a reason for retaining the colleges separate, he mentioned that endowments were supplied there from private sources, insomuch that as lately as the last year a new professorship in Marischal College had been established out of private funds; but there would be a danger of these sources being dried up if the old colleges were suppressed in favour of some new body with a new name. Moreover, such was the local feeling on the subject, that if any Commissioner were sent north by his right hon. Friend to suppress one or other of these colleges, he would require to be backed with at least something more than moral force. The University of Glasgow was treated in the Bill more summarily in certain points than it ought to be, and somewhat unfavourably. As for the opposition of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black), he was sure that any amount of qualified concession would not induce him to moderate his bitterness; and he therefore appealed to his right hon. Friend whether he ought not to go further, and acquire still more of the public opinion of Scotland, by relieving the Town Council of Edinburgh of a good deal of its patronage. It was quite true that that Council was an elective body; but it did not on that account afford the slightest security against jobbery in University appointments. He hoped the suggestions which had been thrown out in the course a the debate would not be lost on his right hon. Friend, and that a pretty full paper of Amendments would save them much trouble in Committee.

said, he had been anticipated in nearly all that he had to say, but the objections to the Bill were so grave and serious, that he thought it would be better to delay proceeding with it until there was more agreement among the people of Scotland. He admitted that many of the points objected to were rather subjects for consideration in Committee. He would not yield to any man in his wish to improve the Universities, but he was sorry to say that his hopes of doing so this Session were damped yesterday, when he found the right hon. Gentleman would consent to no modification whatever. He would take the opportunity of referring to the case of Professor Blackie. He (Mr. Cowan) was somewhat surprised to hear an objection from the Ministerial side of the House to the Test Act, which they had so lately defended as necessary for preserving inviolate their ancient religion. It was owing to his energy and skill that the attention of the country had been directed to the subject of the Universities, and to the necessity of introducing reform. The Scotch were proud of their Universities, and were desirous to maintain their ancient reputation. He might without impropriety appeal to the noble Lords the Members for Tiverton and London, who were distinguished alumni of these Universities, and had studied there in the days when Playfair, Adam Smith, and Dugald Stewart were in the zenith of their fame; and he would ask them not to sanction a change which would have the effect of placing the Universities in an inferior position to their sister Universities in England. He would rely upon the manner in which the patronage had been bestowed, and the reputation which the Universities had acquired throughout Europe. For these reasons he would ask the House not to sanction the measure without first giving to it that due and ample consideration which its vast importance demanded. He was desirous to support the second reading of the Bill, but unless such Amendments were made as were imperatively demanded, he should feel compelled to go into the same lobby as his colleague.

I shall offer no apology for rising, as an English Member, to take part in a debate hitherto confined to Scotch Members, and relating to a Scotch institution, and that for two reasons. First, any question affecting the welfare of the Scottish Universities is necessarily an Imperial one in the eye of the British Legislature—that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and I can conceive of scarcely any question that can come before us of greater magnitude or more pressing importance and interest than one concerning the reformation, I had almost said the reconstruction, of the Universities of Scotland. My second reason for interfering in this debate is, that I must naturally feel an interest in it, being myself an alumnus of the University of Edinburgh, and at the same time as my hon. and learned Friend opposite the late Lord Advocate (Mr. Moncreiff) and the Bishop of London. I left the University so far back as 1828, just two years before the issuing of the Report of the Commission on whose recommendation the Bill before us is founded—and which makes its appearance after so great an interval as twenty-eight years. Those Commissioners were numerous, and persons of high station and great weight and influence in Scotland—indeed, they comprised some of the most eminent names of which Scotland could boast. Their Report appeared in October, 1830, as the result of a period of four years' systematic and patient inquiry. They tell us that they had subjected the Scottish Universities to a most searching and complete scrutiny, and spared no effort to get trustworthy information. They addressed requisitions to every Principal and Professor in the Universities and colleges, and obtained from them the inspection of all their respective charters and other muniments. They directed a notice to be affixed on the walls of each University, intimating that they should be ready to hear all concerned, in regard to all matters relating to the universities and colleges, and inviting communications to be transmitted to them. They held special visitations of the Universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, and at great length examined the Principals and Professors of the University of Edinburgh, and a number of other persons who, though not members of the University, were well informed concerning them. The Commissioners obtained a great body of valuable and authentic information, to be found in the bulky blue book which they published, and which entirely justifies the able and elaborate Report, signed by fourteen of the Commissioners, whose main recommendations will be found embodied in the Bill laid before the House. With such means and opportunities, the only wonder is that so lengthened a period should have elapsed without even a Bill having been introduced. It is enough for me that it at length it makes its appearance in substantial conformity with the suggestions of the Commissioners to whom I have referred. What could they have done but what they did do, and to what weight are not their recommendations entitled? I have not heard the propriety of any of them called in question, and I for one am prepared to act on them implicitly. I think my learned Friend below me (the Lord Advocate) who has introduced this Bill, is entitled to the cordial thanks of the House, and of Scotland, for the manner in which he has addressed himself to this important question, and it gave me great pleasure to find my learned Friend opposite, his predecessor, so cordially supporting him. I am sure that in so doing they are rendering great and permanent service to their country. Scotland has long been characterized by its insatiable thirst for learning, and the extraordinary efforts made to obtain it, by even its humblest classes, of which I have personally been a witness; and I rejoice at the prospect now afforded of consolidating and improving her academical institutions, and thus affording her the advantage of that impetus which we have so recently given to our own great academical institutions of Oxford and Cambridge. Let those of Scotland be placed on a level, and made to harmonize, with the wants and capabilities of this advancing age, and I really think such will be the effect of this Bill. I hope, therefore, that no obstacle will be placed in the way of its getting into Committee, where all its multifarious provisions can be thoroughly canvassed. Some of them I foresee will give rise to keen discussions; but I am satisfied that, as a whole, the Bill is well entitled to the acceptance of the House.

gave his cordial support to the Bill. He had too much respect both for the constituency he represented, and for the House to enter into any of the local arguments which had been brought against the Bill, and which he thought would have much better been urged in Committee. He should like to ask Scotch Members if University education in Scotland was adequate to the wants of the country, or at all equal to the education in the Universities of this country? Decidedly it was not. Then, he would ask them, was it capable of improvement? Undoubtedly it was; and because it was capable of improvement he gave his support to any Bill which had the effect of improving it. Some years ago Scotchmen were in the habit of considering themselves better educated than their southern neighbours; but if they looked at the result of the recent competitive examinations they would see that that was very far from being the case now. He remembered that when Ireland was in difficulties, Sir Robert Peel had, among the first measures for its improvement, introduced a system of national education; and that system, although stigmatized as "Godless," had been productive of the greatest benefit. In the part of the United Kingdom to which he (Viscount Duncan) belonged, there had been too little attention paid to University education; and now he thanked the Lord Advocate for this Bill to improve it. By whom was it opposed? By the Members for Edinburgh in the first place. He had been educated at the University of Edinburgh, and he had a great respect for it; but he did not think that Edinburgh ought to monopolise it, or that the management of it should remain in the hands of the Town Council now that it was supported by the public funds. Then the Bill was opposed by the City of Aberdeen. But he believed that the union of the two Universities would be a great benefit to that part of Scotland; and he thought that the City of Aberdeen had not, just as the City of Edinburgh had not, any right to monopolise the University. Let them fancy such a thing as the towns of Oxford or Cambridge claiming to monopolise those Universities because they were situated there; or, suppose the corporation of London should claim to have the management of the London University—why, if such a proposition were made, they would be laughed at from one end of the kingdom to the other. He supported the Bill, because he believed that it was calculated for the general good of Scotland, and not for the good of any particular locality; and he was not prepared to throw it out for any of the allegations which had been urged against it; on the contrary, he felt that it was an honour to the learned Lord Advocate who had introduced it. As to the danger of improper appointments, he thought that with the freedom of the press of this country that was not to be feared.

would veto with great pleasure for the second reading of the Bill, although he did not agree to the provisions relating to the two colleges of Aberdeen. It had been truly said, at the meeting of Scotch Members the other day, that the Commission was the Bill; and he trusted that the Commissioners who would be appointed would be persons in whom they all had confidence. He acknowledged that credit was due to the Government for the manner in which they had filled up the only appointment which had fallen vacant in the Scotch Universities since they came into office. They had appointed a gentleman of great distinction, who was opposed to them in politics, but whose appointment was an honour to the University to which he had been named, and reflected great credit on the Government. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill.

said, he thought this was an Imperial, and not merely a Scotch question. He objected to distinctions being drawn between measures as being exclusively Scotch or exclusively Irish. He at all events could look at the Bill free from local prejudice, and he thought the proper mode of dealing with the objections was to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He entirely agreed that this Bill had been brought forward under the care of one of the ablest men in the House; but one thing struck him, namely, the large powers committed to a small body of men without responsibility. The true direction of University reform was to enlarge their bases, extend their constituencies, and give a more popular control over them. He thought that the Commissioners ought to account to the House for their expenditure. He should with reluctance vote against the second reading unless explanations were given, because he thought the details were imperfectly understood, and a new Bill might be introduced next Session.

, Jun., observed, that this Bill had already been before what he might term a Select Committee of Scotch Members. Before that assembly the Bill had been discussed, and nothing could exceed the courtesy of the learned Lord in allowing objections to it being entertained. He acknowledged the importance of such great powers being entrusted to the Com- missioners; indeed the Commission was the Bill. But the learned Lord Advocate had already answered some of those exceptions. He had, however, provided that the proposed rules should be published in the Edinburgh papers, and should afterwards be confirmed by Her Majesty in Council. He should not be satisfied, however, if the names of the Commissioners were not given in; he thought he should not be satisfied in voting for the second reading unless these names were given by the learned Lord. With regard to the grant of £10,000, he really thought that when Scotland got so little of the public money, so scanty a grant as this ought not to be objected to. He thought that the expediency, the fairness, and justice of this vote must be admitted when the importance of the ends to be attained are considered. He thought he might congratulate the Lord Advocate upon having introduced a Bill open to so few objections; but he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would satisfy the House upon certain practical points. The first was as to the distribution of the fund. They ought to expect that the scheme for distribution should be before the House in some form or the other, or before the Government, before such scheme is allowed. The next was, the election of Rectors. This was proposed to be materially altered. He thought the present mode of election could not be materially improved. He thought the students, as he remembered them of old, would abhor a job, and would elect men whom they thought eminent in literature and science. It mattered not whether they elected a stranger, as the Rector had a right of choosing an assessor. He understood it was the intention of the Lord Advocate to popularize the University Court by adding to it one assessor to be elected by the students. He was quite ready to adopt that Amendment. He thought the election of the Chancellor ought not to be in the hands of the University but in the hands of the Crown. He thought it a reflection on past Governments that, in spite of the Reports of a Commission, nothing had been done to remedy the evils the Commission had pointed out; and he thought great credit was due to the learned Lord Advocate for the introduction of this measure. He hoped the House would unanimously pass it.

said, that when he introduced a measure for improv- ing the Scottish Universities he was perfectly conscious of the very delicate and important task he had undertaken, and he was therefore well pleased with the amount of support the Bill had received from the House. He also thought he had reason to congratulate himself that so very few objections to it had been stated at the present stage. The only two hon. Members from whom he had experienced direct and active opposition were the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes). But their opposition was founded really upon local considerations, which had better be dealt with in Committee rather than on any general principle. They had, however, alleged some things against the Bill which he had better explain. The hon. Member for Edinburgh charged him with embarking upon a most suspicious course, because the object professed by the Bill was the advancement of religion and learning; he had also charged him with attempting to introduce radical and most revolutionary changes as to the Universities by a machinery that was so complicated as to be unintelligible. Now, he (the Lord Advocate) did not think that other hon. Members who had read the Bill had found it so unintelligible in its details as the hon. Member had represented it to be. The Bill was founded almost entirely upon the Report of the Commission of 1830, a Report which had very much alleviated his labours, and which was one of the most able documents it was ever his good fortune to peruse. Almost all the suggestions of the Commissioners were embodied in the Bill. Of course some of its details were not to be found in the Report; but any hon. Member who bad made himself master of the Report would fully understand the machinery by which the principle of the Bill was to be carried out, and any hon. Member who had not must confess that he had not made himself master of the question of Scotch University reform. The hon. Member for Aberdeen had made one objection to the Bill, independently of local considerations—namely, the objection that so much power was granted to the Commissioners and that there was no appeal against what they might do. He (the Lord Advocate) had already given notice of an Amendment which would render every rule or ordinance of the Commissioners subject to the approval of Her Majesty in Council. That Amendment declared that no rule or ordinance of the Commissioners should have any effect until it should have been published in the manner therein provided, and have been approved by Her Majesty in Council. He at once admitted that he agreed with those hon. Members who had insisted that the Commissioners should have no power of distributing the funds of the Universities without the supervision of Parliament or of the Government; and he would endeavour to alter the Bill so as to give to the Commissioners exactly the same powers in that respect as were given in the cases of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. These were the only objections which had been stated against the principle of the Bill by the hon. Member for Aberdeen and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, whom he reckoned as the only active opponents of the Bill that evening. These hon. Members had certainly stated very strong objections to portions of the Bill applicable to the particular localities which they represented, on which he would say a few words. In the first place, the hon. Member for Edinburgh was constrained to admit that nothing could be so anomalous, nothing so apparently indefensible on principle, as that the regulation of the course of study in a University, and the management of its affairs, should be in the hands of a municipal council, consisting chiefly of tradesmen. He was very much obliged to his hon. Friend for the admission; but then it had been stated that evening in that House, and elsewhere, over and over again, that that system, though very anomalous in itself, was still entitled to the credit of having worked great good in times past. He was not disposed to make any such admission. On the contrary, he believed that, so far as regarded the administration of the affairs of Universities by town councils, it had been attended, he would not say with unmixed, but certainly with very great, evil. What was the boast made by the representatives of those town councils that evening? They said the town councils had had litigation with the Professors and the Senatus Academicus, but then they were always found to be in the right, and that the Senatus Academicus had never resisted them successfully. What did that mean? Simply this—that in their contests with the Senatus Academicus they had been found to be right in point of law, and to have such control over the affairs of the Universities that the Senatus Academicus could never successfully resist them. But the question whether the interests of the Universities had been advanced by their success in litigation was a very different one indeed. An hon. Member had stated that one of the changes which the town councils introduced, and of which that hon. Member himself seemed very cordially to approve, was that by which students attending a University were allowed to give attendance upon the lectures of certain extra-academical teachers instead of the professors themselves; and he stated that the reason why that course was resorted to was that some professors were too old, that some were in bad health, and some exceedingly unpopular. Now, one of the evils against which this Bill would guard was that of professors who were too old or too infirm continuing to exercise the functions of a professor. He presumed that if some of the professors were exceedingly unpopular, the town councils who appointed them were answerable for that unpopularity. He believed that any hon. Gentleman who undertook to prove that the present system, anomalous as it was, had worked well in times past would fail. But the town council of Edinburgh were naturally most jealous of their rights. Like all other corporate bodies, they were unwilling to part with them, and would struggle for them with the utmost pertinacity. But when the hon. Member talked of the inhabitants and citizens of Edinburgh as he had, he went much beyond his warrant. He (the Lord Advocate) saw no evidence, either in that House or in Scotland, that the views of the town council of Edinburgh were in any degree in sympathy with the country in general. On the contrary, if he were to appeal to the ordinary modes in which public opinion was expressed on such questions, the hon. Member might recollect that very remarkable meeting which took place in December last in Edinburgh, in favour of University reform. Let him remind them that there had not been, within the memory of living man, so influential a meeting; but there was not the slightest indication at that meeting that the people of Edinburgh sympathized with the arrogant pretensions of the town council. The press, also, were generally in favour of the measure. The fact was, that the case for which the hon. Gentleman pleaded was the case of the town coun- cil of Edinburgh, and not the case of the city of Edinburgh, for the largest section in that city were in favour of the present Bill. But whosever the case was, it would be considered in Committee, and in Committee he should be prepared to meet the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Now, with regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes)—the hon. Member said that there was a vast preponderance of opinion in Aberdeen and in the north of Scotland against the fusion of the two Universities, and that it would be vain to hope that any settlement of the kind would meet with favour from any class of men in that part of the country. The hon. Gentleman, however, greatly exaggerated his strength in that respect, for he must remind him that the Senatus Academicus and the Marischal College had petitioned in favour of the Bill. He had himself presented a petition that evening from the town which the hon. Gentleman who opposed the Bill represented, in favour of the measure; and most especially and distinctly in favour of that portion of it which provided for the entire and absolute union of the two Universities. But even if there were a strong local feeling in any place against the measure, that was not a consideration that could enter very much into the legislation of the House of Commons on a question of this kind. Both as regarded Edinburgh and Aberdeen, it appeared to him that the persons who opposed the Bill were forgetting the national character of the Universities, and were seeking to convert them into something very little better than good borough schools. That, he hoped, was not the spirit in which the House of Commons would legislate upon the subject; he trusted they would consider the Bill as a measure intended not to make provision for single localities, but to render these Universities national institutions, and as the national means of diffusing through Scotland sound education, and he would say, with all respect for the hon. Member for Aberdeen, for promoting religion with learning. The opponents of the Bill appeared to him to wish to maintain two institutions, crippled and imperfect, rather than to constitute one good and effective. He should be quite prepared to show the hon. Member for Aberdeen, in Committee, that the great preponderance of intelligence and unprejudiced opinion was in favour of an entire union of the two institutions. He could only say that any suggestions which might be made in Committee, for the improvement of the measure, would be met in the most friendly spirit, and would receive the most careful consideration. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop) appeared to think that, in the composition of the Academical Council, the clerical element would too much prevail. He (the Lord Advocate) thought that, if that were so, it would be a great evil, and he should be ready to do anything in his power to remedy it. The Bill would enhance the value of academical degrees, and would therefore act as an incentive to all classes to enter the curriculum which led to them. There were, no doubt, difficulties arising from the constitution of the bodies of graduates as they now stood—there were persons who had entered or were about to enter the Episcopal Church, or some body of Dissenters; but the evil to which his hon. and learned Friend referred was one which would be constantly and progressively diminishing under this Bill. He had given notice of an Amendment which he hoped would meet the objections of his hon. and learned Friend; but if that were not adopted he should be ready to assent to any Amendment which had for its object to secure an independent element in the Members of the Council. The second point referred to by his hon. and learned Friend was the mode of choosing the Rectors. The mode of choosing the Rectors at the University of Glasgow and the Marischal College at Aberdeen were elected by the matriculated students. In the other Universities it was not so. It had been suggested that where that practice did not at present exist, it should be established. As far as his own feelings and sentiments went, he had a great bias in favour of election by the students; without giving any pledge that he would adopt that principle, he would say that his wish was to adopt it. Then with regard to the office of Chancellor—in Edinburgh there was no Chancellor. But in regard to the other Universities it was said that as he was elected by the Senatus Academicus he represented too exclusively the professorial and academical interests. In answer to that objection he would ask the House to remember who were the individuals who were now the Chancellors of the Scotch Universities. They were the Duke of Argyll, the Duke of Montrose, the Earl of Aberdeen—and these certainly were not persons likely to represent the prejudices and interests of any particular class. The nomination which it was proposed should be vested in the Crown as regarded Edinburgh, suggested whether it would not be well to extend that principle to the other Universities, thereby assisting the other elements presented by the Universities, and, at the same time, counteracting the other influences to which his hon. and learned Friend had alluded. The point was worthy of consideration, and he should be prepared to attend to it. With respect to the suggestions of the hon. Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. E. Ellice), the only one to which he should advert, was that touching the promulgation of the names of the Commissioners. Upon that point he could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that it was a task of very great difficulty. Nothing but the difficulty of framing such a list of names as would be satisfactory for so important an object bad prevented him hitherto from laying those names before the House; but he promised that no time should be lost, and he hoped the announcement of those names would at once secure the confidence of all parties. He did not consider it at all necessary to go back to the principles of the Bill, but he had rather endeavoured to meet objections that had been raised; and he would only add that his sole object in promoting his Bill had been the prosperity and permanent welfare of the Scottish universities, and he should be most desirous hereafter to receive any suggestion for their improvement. He could not expect that he could produce a perfect measure upon a subject which necessarily must give rise to a great deal of discussion, and be open to great alterations in its passage through that House.

said, after the speech of the hon. and learned Lord, he should reserve his observations until the next stage. He would only say he believed the measure to be one of a comprehensive and liberal character, and the learned Lord must have been gratified by the manner in which it had been received by the House.

appealed to the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) to withdraw his Amendment.

said, after the candid manner in which the learned Lord had addressed the House and expressed his readiness to listen to any suggestions, he should, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Amendment.

wished to know what notice would be given to depositors in banks which were converted from unlimited to limited liability of the change that occurred in their relations towards such banks?

said, that under the former Act it was provided that no change could affect existing contracts. After a change to limited liability, a bank must advertise the circumstance upon all its forms.

drew the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the cases of running accounts which were not in the nature of contracts.

replied, that it was competent for parties to withdraw their money if they pleased, as they would have sufficient notice of the change.

suggested, whether there should not be some special notice.

would have no objection to adopt any suggestion that might be made upon the point.

proposed to apply the Bill to existing companies by adding, after the word "business," the words, "all existing companies at the time carrying on business on unlimited liability before availing themselves of the provisions of the Act."

asked the hon. and learned Gentlemen whether, after the greater number of shares had been issued, there ought not to be some intimation given as to what the value of the shares might be, and a statement of the amount which the depositors had paid?

said, that the memorandum of association would state the information which the right hon. Gentleman required.

proposed the addition of the following words to the clause, "and also the amount of all debts and liabilities to the said joint-stock company on the 31st December immediately preceding, signed by two of the directors and the manager," his object being to have their debts and liabilities published every year.

thought there would be some difficulty in publishing those statements in the manner proposed. He would not, however, object to the Amendment if the Committee thought it desirable to adopt it, as he was anxious for the fullest publication of the affairs of those companies.

thought the Amendment of his hon. Friend would render the statements of those companies plainer to the public.

said, if it were desirable to have a statement which would not deceive the public, as all such statements generally did, he thought that the Bill should define more accurately what the statement should be. The first requisite should be to compel a declaration of the assets truly valued, stating what were good and what were bad. There should be a further provision, that if the directors neglected to distinguish the good, bad, and doubtful assets once every six months, they should be subjected to a penalty which would prevent them from deluding themselves and the public by a statement of assets which were no assets at all.

supported the Amendment.

said, that the clause ought to be struck out altogether, as while they proposed to make it incumbent on the bankers to set out the increasing liabilities, they did not require them to give any account of the increased assets.

said, that the clause introduced a more perfect audit; but it would be necessary to insert words which would prevent a one-sided account being given.

then moved to insert the words, "and shall also be legibly printed at the top of every receipt given for deposits by the company," in the clause, so as to make it appear on such receipts that the company was limited.

opposed the Amendment, considering it unnecessary.

said, there was an essential difference between banking and ordinary business which called for a modification in the principle of limited liability as applied to banks. It was desirable as a matter of policy that some legislative guarantee should be taken for the credit and stability of banks, the functions of which in some respects resembled those of a trust. The peculiarity of a banker's business was that he held almost all his money payable on demand, and his very safety rested on the forbearance of his creditors. There ought, therefore, to be some security for the creditor in the event of the insolvency of the bank.

did not advocate either one principle or the other, but would leave the public to be perfectly free upon the subject as to whether they would deposit their money in banks with limited or unlimited liability. He thought they ought to put the principle in practice as regarded banks as well as in other joint-stock undertakings. It was not so much a question of capital as of public confidence.

said, it had been his fate to be director of one of the largest banking undertakings out of London, in the county of Lancaster, and it was there found that the true principle to proceed safely upon was not so much in respect to large accumulation of deposits, as a perfect reliance on the skill, prudence, and judgment of its managers. All the events that had reflected so much disgrace on the commercial community had ensued from banks on the unlimited liability principle trading on supposititious capital, and who pledged the liability of the shareholders to an enormous extent.

hoped the clause would be negatived, seeing that the Bill proceeded entirely on the principle of letting the public judge of banks for themselves, and trust to the government, management, and stability of its managers without introducing any legislative guarantees.

said, that the clause was unnecessary, because it was already the practice of joint-stock banks to call up only about half the amount of the shares.

said, that notwithstanding the high authority in favour of the Bill, he doubted whether it was one that deserved the approval of the House, and he would move that it be read a second time that day six months.

said, he had intended to move as an instruction to the Committee that the provisions of the Bill should be so altered as to include insurance companies, but he found on looking more carefully at the Bill that, in order to carry out his object, it would be necessary to introduce special clauses which might be inconsistent and inconvenient in a measure relating to banks. He wished, however, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would have any objection to introduce a Bill for the purpose of placing insurance companies upon a more satisfactory footing? After a very patient inquiry before a Committee in 1853 the late Government had framed a measure on the subject, which was introduced last year, and they had since prepared another Bill, which, had they remained in office, they had intended to submit to the House. He thought it was much more advisable that a measure on such a subject should be introduced by the Government than by a private Member, and he wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take up the question?

replied that the subject was undoubtedly one of considerable importance, and under ordinary circumstances he would have been happy to endeavour to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman, but in the present state of public business he could not undertake to bring forward a Bill.

observed, that such a Bill as was indicated by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) might be comprised in one or two clauses consolidating the various measures relating to the subject.

, repeated that, in the present state of public business, he could not promise to prepare such a Bill.

asked whether the Bill for the Amendment of the Poor Law which the right hon. Gentleman had promised would be postponed till this Committee made its Report.

said, it was most desirable that the proposed Committee should be appointed. The Act expired next Session, and before renewing it Parliament ought to consider the principles upon which it was framed, as well as the effect of its operation.

said, he was glad this subject was about to be inquired into, and he hoped the Gentlemen composing the Committee would remember that the Bill whose working they were to inquire into was orignally passed in the interest of the poor.

complained of the way in which Scotch paupers were removed into Scotland.

said, he did not intend to postpone his Bill while this inquiry was pending, but at the same time he did not mean to press it forward. He was aware that measure had excited a good deal of interest and some alarm, and in order to give time for persons to make themselves acquainted with the subject, and to see that their fears were groundless, he had postponed the second reading for a fortnight.