said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the event of the next Assizes for the West Riding of Yorkshire being held at Leeds, the maintenance of prisoners in the Leeds Borough Gaol, in accordance with the Notice in the Gazette of the 10th instant, will be a charge upon the County Rate of the West Riding, there being ample accommodation for such prisoners in the West Riding Prison at Wakefield?

in reply, said, he could not give a positive opinion on the point. Hitherto the prisoners committed for trial at the Assizes for the West Riding had been sent to York Castle. [Colonel SMYTH: No; Wakefield.] That was after trial. He believed the fact to be, that whereas the county had been put to the expense of maintenance of prisoners committed for trial at York Castle, those prisoners would now be sent to Leeds instead, but they would have to be paid for as before by the county. The class of prisoners at present sent to Wakefield would continue to be sent to Wakefield.

rose to call the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the necessity which exists for amending the Laws relating to the administration of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, and for making better provision for the care of Imbeciles confined in the Union Workhouses; and to inquire whether he will introduce a Bill next Session to remedy the defects complained of? For the last three years he had each Session called the attention of Government to the serious defects which existed in the moral treatment, with a few exceptions, in the Lunatic Asylums of Ireland; and in his efforts to have a proper system introduced, he had never been fortunate to obtain much support from the Irish Members. Nevertheless, the question had gained ground, and some good results had followed. He should do the Chief Secretary for Ireland the justice to say that the representations which he had made to him on the subject had not been disregarded, as he had given a good deal of attention to it, both by visiting asylums and endeavouring, as far as he could, to effect a reform in the direction which he had frequently pointed out to him as most necessary. He considered it was only just towards the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, as well as towards some of the Managers of these institutions in the country, to say that within the last two years an undoubted improvement had taken place in many of the asylums, so far as regarded increased suitable occupation and amusement for the patients, although in some much remained to be done. It was also very pleasing to see in the last published Report of the Inspectors, that that portion of the treatment in each of the asylums had a prominent place in their remarks. On the present occasion he would only allude to it incidentally in suggesting some legislation which he thought would materially aid the carrying out improved moral treatment. If the suggestions he was about to offer for amending the laws relating to Lunatic Asylums had not the merit for the most part of originality, they had at least what was much better, which was the fact of many of them being so manifestly necessary that they had been recommended for adoption by much higher authority than he was. Nearly all would be found in the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed in 1857 to inquire into the state of the Irish Asylums, which consisted of men of great ability and eminence, amongst them one of the foremost physicians in the empire, Dr. Corrigan. Subsequently the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), then Chief Secretary for Ireland, introduced a Bill, in which also might be found many of his (Mr. Blake's) suggestions on the present occasion. The Royal Commission recommended that the asylums should be under the direction of a central board, to consist of three salaried members, who should also act as Inspectors—two to be of the medical profession, one of the legal. To that recommendation he would add three more Commissioners, who should be salaried, so far as paying them one or two guineas each for every time they attended a meeting of the board: this would not entail a cost of more than a couple of hundred a year, and would be certain to secure a punctual attendance. To this Commissioner he would delegate nearly all the duties now performed by the Privy Council in reference to asylums, and would, in certain cases, give the Lord Lieutenant a veto. As things then stood, nearly all the control devolved on the Inspectors; as the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council must necessarily be influenced by their recommendations; and without at all intending to disparage those gentlemen, for whom he entertained the highest respect, he thought it would be far better to have some other gentlemen associated with them in the direction of the asylums, especially as their duties would every day increase from the additional asylums in progress of construction. The present board of control would, of course, merge into the new Commission. He thought that, for purposes of inspection, Ireland ought to be divided into two districts, assigning one to each Inspector, who would thus have a greater responsibility than at present, and more inducements to forward the asylum intrusted to him. It would promote a desirable emulation, as each Inspector would naturally endeavour not to have the asylum of his district inferior to those of his colleague. Power should also be given to the Lord Lieutenant to appoint for particular purposes, when occasion called for it, a special Commissioner to hold investigations and report. This would prove most useful at times when there might be a great difference of opinion between a local board and the Inspectors, and when it would be desirable to have the assistance of a person who would be certain to be totally unprejudiced. Two-thirds of the governors of asylums ought to be appointed by the grand jury, and in certain instances by town councils; or, in the event of transferring the maintenance of lunatics to the poor rates—as ought to be done—the appointment to be made by the guardians. One-third of the boards might be left to be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, which would be always sufficient to secure a fair representation from the gentry. It was manifestly unfair, that whilst the asylums were maintained from grand jury rates, that that body had no voice whatever in appointing those who were to administer them. There were many other objections to vesting such power in the hands of the Government. Dr. Nugent, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, stated that the governors were usually appointed on the recommendation of the Inspectors. Such a practice was most undesirable. It was for the interest of the asylums that the governors should in every respect be wholly independent of either Inspectors or local medical officers. If the Government were usually guided in their selection by the recommendation of the Inspectors, it was not going too far to assume that the latter, in their turn, were often influenced in their selection by the local officers; and it was only natural that the latter would not recommend any one likely to be unfriendly to them, or who would not accord in their views. He believed the independence and efficiency of many local boards was much impaired by the mode in which they were appointed. To a board constituted in the way he had suggested, he would give the appointment of all the superior officers, subject to the approval of the central board or the Lord Lieutenant. On this subject the Royal Commissioners justly observed—

"As regards the appointment of superior officers, resident and medical physician, &c, we consider they should be left to the governors. The evidence we have received is to a great, perhaps preponderating extent, opposed to this power being given to the governors. But, as a general principle, we do not see why the executive Government should interfere in these matters, or that its interference has, or is likely to lead to, a better selection of officers than would be made by the local authorities. It is true, as has been stated, that the appointment of these officers may tend to local contention, and that private feeling may prevail to the prejudice of the institution. We think there is not a little reason to believe that political influence might lead to an equally unfortunate result."

Out of the 4,506 patients in asylums, only 1,135 were returned as probably curable; and of the 3,371 incurable, there were many in a state of hopeless idiotcy, and, unfortunately, occupied the place of many insane confined in gaols or workhouses, or with their families, who, if placed early under curative treatment, might have a chance of recovery, which was lessened every hour they were out of the asylum. Some arrangement ought to be made by which many of the hopeless tranquil cases, where the mind had sunk into fatuity or idiotcy, belonging to two or more counties, could be sent to special institutions, and thus relieve the asylums of their care, and make room for hopeful cases. Power should be given to magistrates to commit dangerous lunatics direct to asylums, instead of sending them to prison, where they could not be so well cared for, or have the same chance of recovery. Boards should be empowered to receive and enforce payment from patients capable of contributing in the whole or part for their maintenance. There was considerable doubt as to the law on the subject, which ought to be settled. In some places, boards sought and obtained payment from parties capable of paying, whilst elsewhere they considered themselves not entitled to do so. A great burden was, therefore, thrown on the ratepayers—for example, at Limerick there appeared to be seven patients well able to pay who were supported out of the rates. Boards should also be empowered to send strange lunatics to their own localities. In the larger towns, particularly seaports, persons after only residing a short time, or perhaps only passing through, were sent to the asylum, and became a charge on a district to which they did not belong. Central boards should have the power of fixing the dietaries of asylums. The quantity and description of food was a most important element in the treatment of insanity, and on no account should be left to the discretion of local boards, who, as a rule, could not be competent to determine what should be given to patients. The dietary table in various institutions varied considerably; and in some instances the Inspectors had remarked on the insufficiency. These gentlemen and the other Commissioners should have the power of absolutely determining on the dietary; and on them should also devolve the duty of laying down regulations for the moral treatment, and ordering to be provided all necessary appliances for the occupation and amusement of the patients. The judicious employment and recreation of a lunatic was the most important part of the curative treatment; and those who, like the Inspectors, were supposed to be best informed as to what was necessary to soothe and restore the diseased mind to its healthy state, should have as ample powers to have everything provided for the purpose as to insist that good and sufficient medicine was furnished for the bodily ailments of the patients. It would be most desirable if the Inspectors would, as he believed they were bound to do by Act of Parliament, furnish to each member of the local boards a copy of the Report relative to his own asylum. The expense would be very small, and the probable advantages considerable, as governors would then be made aware of the state of progress and requirements of their asylum, of which many knew very little. Many governors never even once attended the asylum from their appointment—often extending over a period of twenty years; several others, perhaps, once in two or three years. There ought, therefore, to be an enactment by which governors who, not being either ill or away from the locality, absent themselves from a certain number of stated meetings in succession, should forfeit their position on the board. As some medical I officers of asylums excused themselves from taking their patients outside the asylum for exercise and recreation, on the ground that it would be illegal to do so, the practice ought to be legalized, as, with proper precaution, there was little or no danger to be apprehended, and the gratification and advantage to the patients was considerable. No doubt the system pursued in an asylum should be a good one before patients were brought to that tranquil, orderly state when they could be trusted outside; indeed, it was a great test of their progress; and it was, therefore, a great pity that incompetent or inefficient medical officers were afforded an excuse which their convenient interpretation of the law furnished them for not following the example of more zealous and better qualified officers. While on this point of the subject, he would allude to the great necessity in all future appointments of resident medical officers in making a theoretical and practical knowledge of the treatment of insanity an absolute condition; and that no one should be eligible unless he produced a certificate of having, for at least six months, resided in or attended and watched the practice in an hospital for the insane for that period. Besides this, they should undergo an examination before the Inspectors without whose certificate of competency they could not be appointed. As a rule, under every Government political influence went before every other consideration in making the appointments, and the unfortunate lunatics were the sufferers. Means of clinical instruction should be provided in some of the larger asylums. The criminal one would probably be best, as being altogether under Government control. There was nothing the Royal Commissioners more strongly urged than the absolute necessity which existed for clinical instruction; but this recommendation, as well as others equally useful, had been totally disregarded. The chaplaincy question was one which imperatively called for legislation. Fortunately, the only instance where a board had persisted in refusing to appoint a chaplain was that of Belfast; but even that was sufficient to call for the interference of the Legislature. He believed, without exception, every eminent authority concurred in recommending judicious religious ministration as a most important agent in promoting the happiness and recovery of the insane; in fact, an essential link in the chain of curative treatment. Some few boards in Ireland had for a time resisted the appointment of chaplains—sometimes supported in their views by the medical officers—but they gradually gave in, and all had acknow- ledged that beneficial results had followed. Belfast alone still stood out. The Commissioners had closely inquired into the question, and reported strongly in favour of chaplains being appointed. The Inspectors, in their annual Reports, did the same. Successsive Lord Lieutenants had made the appointments; but, owing to the state of the law, the board successfully resisted the payment of the salaries. The Catholic and Protestant Bishops, and, he believed, one Presbyterian member of the board, were in favour of chaplains. On yesterday he had a conversation with the Right Rev. Dr. Knox, Protestant Bishop of Down, on the subject, who told him that whilst the Protestant chaplain had been acting, his flock appeared to derive much comfort and benefit, and no unpleasantness of any kind had occurred. His Lordship also stated that he had written to all the asylums in Ireland to ascertain whether the appointment of chaplains had turned out satisfactorily, and the answers were in the affirmative. From the communications the Most Rev. Dr. Denvir had favoured him with on the subject, he found him equally anxious as the Protestant Bishop to be enabled to afford the portion of his congregation in the asylum spiritual ministrations. He trusted, therefore, with all this concurrent testimony on the subject, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give an assurance that Government would take steps to afford the poor inmates of the Belfast Asylum the same means of religious consolation that the insane of every institution of the kind in the empire were in possession of, with acknowledged comfort and advantage. There was only one more reference he would make to Lunatic Asylums. In whatever Bill might be introduced to amend the laws relating to them, there ought to be a clause placing their maintenance on the poor rates. It was a strange and unjust anomaly that, while a sane pauper was maintained at the joint expense of landlord and tenant, he would, if he became insane, become chargeable altogether on the tenant. Having occupied so much time on the subject of Lunatic Asylums, he should touch very briefly on the second part of his Motion relative to idiots. For that unfortunate class there was, unhappily, no adequate provision for their care in Ireland. They were, unfortunately, very numerous, being nearly equal to the lunatic class; and whilst for the latter there were sixteen public asylums and several others in course of construction, besides many private institutions, there was not a single one for idiots. The pauper ones were placed in workhouses, and the others were at large or with their families, but no effort whatever was made to endeavour to cultivate those faculties of their mind which were not obliterated. Until lately it was thought that this unfortunate class were incapable of cultivation, but experiment had proved the contrary. The hon. Member having read a description of the improved condition of the patients at Earlswood, many of whom had been so far instructed as to be able to go out and earn their living, and an extract from the Report of the Census Commissioners in 1861, proceeded to say that he could not conclude without thanking the House for the very patient hearing they had given him on a subject which he felt conscious was far from being generally interesting; but he trusted his having trespassed at such length would be excused when he assured them that bringing such subjects before Parliament was almost the only way of having evils remedied or reforms accomplished. He hoped he would receive an assurance from the right hon. Baronet that he would introduce measures next Session to remedy the laws relating to Lunatic Asylums, and also to initiate something for the benefit of the more unfortunate class of whom he last spoke. The right hon. Baronet would probably tell him that much that he had suggested regarding lunatics could be accomplished by the Privy Council rules. No doubt that was true, but he respectfully asked why the Privy Council did not do what was necessary? If they did so, there need not be legislation on all the points he had touched on; and an act would only be required for what the Council could not effect. Although he felt he had but feebly pleaded on behalf of those for whom he felt the deepest compassion and interest, he ventured to hope that he had made it manifest to the House that humanity and policy alike called on us to endeavour to mitigate still further the misfortunes of those whom Providence in its wisdom had visited with the most fearful of all afflictions.

said, he doubted the expediency of giving the appointment of officers to the governors of asylums, as owing to the violence of party feeling in Ireland they could not be sure that in every case the best men would be em- ployed. He was not fond of central boards, and any change in the direction of striking off governors who did not attend ought to be made very carefully, as the ratepayers of outlying districts were not the less entitled to representation. He believed that the Irish Lunatic Asylums were in general very admirably conducted; but there was one point to which he attached very great importance—namely, the training of the resident physician. He thought these officers should receive a special training, and that they should acquire a practical knowledge of the treatment and cure of the insane by residence and study in some of the great lunatic establishments in England.

said, he willingly bore testimony to the zeal and humane spirit which had actuated his hon. Friend the Member for Walerford in bringing the matter before the House. He could not, however, agree with his hon. Friend that further legislation on this subject was needed. The fact that this subject had not been lost sight of by the Irish Government was proved by the circumstance that since 1821 fifteen separate Acts of Parliament had been passed specially dealing with the treatment of the insane poor of Ireland. He quite concurred with the hon. Member for Clonmel in thinking that the resident physicians should be educated with a more especial eye to the duties they had to perform; but even in the present day, with the aid of the consulting physicians, they were able to deal with the unfortunate persons under their charge in a manner much more satisfactory than was formerly the case. Not having been able to catch as accurately as he could desire the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Waterford, the written outline of the points in which he felt interested, furnished by his hon. Friend, would enable him to deal in detail with those various matters. As regarded the appointment of a central board, his idea was that the local authorities, with the supervision of the central Government, ought to have the main direction of the institutions. Dr. Nugent and Dr. Hatchell, the present Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, performed their duties to the satisfaction of the public, and he was always anxious that the poor inmates should be treated with every consideration. Under the existing rules and regulations the Lord Lieutenant had power to direct a special inquiry, and only recently a case occurred at Clonmel which Dr. Hatchell was sent down to investigate.

said, what he contemplated was the appointment of a special Inspector, distinct from the regular officials.

said, he did not think the division of Ireland into districts like those rendered compulsory by the Prisons Act would be advisable in the case of Lunatic Asylums. It was important that it should not be known beforehand what Inspector was to hold the inquiry. With regard to appointments, it was proposed in 1859 by the Ministry of that day to vest these in the governors; but the measure was strongly opposed by Liberal Members, and the present arrangement, which gave to each of the political parties in turn a share of the patronage, was, he thought, preferable. There were 16,000 of these poor creatures altogether in district Lunatic Asylums, poor houses, gaols, and private asylums. A great many boards were taking steps for affording recreation and amusement to these poor patients. It was also of great importance that chaplains should be provided for these institutions. That subject had occupied the attention of successive Lord Lieutenants. The Earl of Clarendon, the Earl of Eglinton, the Earl of St. Germans, and the present Lord Lieutenant, agreed that every Lunatic Asylum ought to have a chaplain attached to it. The Belfast Asylum was now the only one without a chaplain. Representations had been made to the board of the asylum that the patients ought to have the advantage of devotional services, but the board had hitherto resisted these appeals. Bearing in mind the great advantages that had resulted in other establishments from the services of clergymen of different denominations, he could not but think it very desirable that the deficiency should be supplied. At Londonderry, after holding out for a long time, the board agreed to make the trial. They had since reported that the effect of the ministrations of the chaplain upon the minds of the poor patients was most remarkable. It was thought that religious controversies might arise; but Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian ministers attended at different hours, and the proceedings were conducted with perfect harmony. The majority of the cases in these asylums were chronic, and the patients were collected and rational, except in regard to the particular delusion in which their insanity was manifested. In the Report presented to the Lord Chancellor by the Commissioners of Lunacy in England, of whom Lord Shaftesbury was chairman, it was stated that the patients looked forward with pleasure to the performance of Divine service, and regarded their exclusion from it as a privation. They added that the prayers of the Church exercised a soothing influence even upon insane hearers. A great deal had been done of late to promote the cure and comfort of this unhappy class of persons. There were at present seventeen Lunatic Asylums in active operation. Six other Lunatic Asylums were now being built; so that the complaints that these patients were placed in gaols would soon be obviated. When these six additional Lunatic Asylums were opened, 235 of the 389 insane persons now confined in gaols would be removed to them, leaving the balance in the Dublin district. He had been in communication with the grand juries, and something would, he hoped, be done to relieve the Richmond Asylum from the pressure that fell upon it from the Dublin district. The imbeciles confined in the union workhouses in Ireland were not less than 2,400, two-thirds of whom were women. They were for the most part in a state of harmless imbecility, and it would be better to leave them there. The Boards of Guardians were giving them an increased dietary, and it was not desirable to establish large asylums for the reception of these hopeless idiots. The cost of a patient in a Lunatic Asylum averaged £20, while the cost of an insane pauper in a union workhouse was only £10. To transfer these harmless imbeciles from the workhouse to the Lunatic Asylum would, therefore, be attended by great expense, without any corresponding good. He trusted that after this explanation the hon. Gentleman would not press the subject any further.

said, he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the satisfaction which he expressed with reference to the centralized power. They were unanimous in Ireland in their wish to manage their local affairs themselves. In his own county they were most anxious to have the appointment of the governors, or some of the governors, because they wanted to check extravagance; but though he had been many years a Member of Parliament, the Irish Executive had taken care that he should have nothing to do with the management of the Lunatic Asylum in his county. He desired to draw attention to one point, which was the difficulty that existed at the present moment in getting a criminal lunatic removed to an asylum. He hoped the Government would take the subject into consideration, in order to remedy the inconvenience.

said, he agreed with almost all that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary, and that no unfortunate people were better taken care of than the lunatics of Ireland. He thought, however, that the taxpayers ought to have some control over the appointment of governors and medical officers.

bore testimony, as governor of an asylum, to the fact that the inmates were well cared for. The only fault he had to find with the management of the institutions was the difficulty of getting people in. When a person was suddenly struck with madness, a week or a fortnight might elapse before he could be got into an asylum. He would suggest that, as medical officers were at hand, a certificate of insanity might be obtained without delay, and the afflicted person removed at once to the institution.

rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the terms of a Resolution of the Select Committee on Royal Forests in Essex which sat in the Session of 1863. It might be in the recollection of the House that in February, 1863, it was agreed to present an Address to Her Majesty praying that Crown forestal right existing within fifteen miles of the metropolis should not be disposed of, nor encroachments thereon be permitted. The encroachments which had been going on were, however, continued; the public paid no attention to the rights of the Crown, and the Government paid no attention to the Vote of the House. A Committee was afterwards appointed to inquire into the subject, and by it a most elaborate Report was presented to the House. The Members of the Committee, of whom he was one, were nearly equally divided in opinion. The minority, in which also he was included, thought it better to leave the whole thing as it was; the majority, on the other hand, were in favour of enclosing certain parts of the land which had not before been used by the public, and of retaining portions which it was proved they had been in the habit of enjoying. He now admitted that he had changed his view; and, together with another hon. Member of the Committee who was one of the minority, had come to the conclusion that the majority was right. It might be objected that no inclosure at all should be made; but though that was his former opinion he did not now go to that extent. He thought, however, that unless something were done soon to preserve a portion of the forest in question to the public there would be no forest left, and not only would the Crown lose its right but the public be deprived of the privilege they had long enjoyed. One of the Resolutions of the Committee to which he had referred was to the effect, that a considerable part of the forest having been enclosed without consideration of Crown rights, the Crown be recommended to take immediate steps to ascertain its rights and to abate such inclosures. As yet, however, as was admitted recently by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, no steps had been taken by the Government to carry the Resolution of the Committee into effect, or to prevent any further enclosures taking place. The Committee further recommended that the sanction of Parliament should be obtained

"For the inclosure of the remaining portion of the forest, to ascertain the rights of the several parties interested, and to make provision for securing an adequate portion of the forest for the purposes of health and recreation, for which, it has been proved to your Committee, this forest has from time immemorial been enjoyed by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood and the metropolis."

It would be said, perhaps, by the Government, where was the money to come from with which to carry the recommendation into effect? He would tell the Government in reply that the Crown held 2,000 acres, which had been taken out of the forest, and which were worth £100 an acre, and to those the public had some claim. This would be seen from the fact that Fairlop Oak was situated, and Fairlop Fair was accustomed to be held, on the very spot in possession of the Government, and from which land the Government were deriving a revenue of £4,000 or £5,000 a year. The public by usage had a right to the portion of the forest referred to, and as this portion was worth at least £200,000, the Government could not say they had not the funds with which to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. Further, after paying the expenses of draining and fencing, this land yielded a profit of £15,000 on the sale of the timber. He therefore called on the Government to stop the encroachments that were being made on the forest, and to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee. In conclusion, he begged to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should at once take the necessary steps to carry into effect the Recommendation of the Select Committee on Royal Forests (Essex) in Session, 1863, and which Recommendation was as follows: 'To obtain the sanction of Parliament for the inclosure of the remaining portion of the forest; to ascertain the rights of the several parties interested; and to make provision for securing an adequate portion of the forest for those purposes of health and recreation for which, it has been proved to your Committee, this forest has from time immemorial been enjoyed by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood and the metropolis.'"

The House having already resolved "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," it is not competent for the hon. Member to move any further Amendment to the Motion that I do leave the Chair.

said, that the hon. Member, in complaining of the Government for not carrying out the Recommendations of the Committee, had not made allowance for the difficulties in which they were placed; but if the course they had adopted had not been satisfactory to the hon. Member, it had satisfied the House. In February last year the House voted an Address to the Crown, praying it to give directions that no sale to facilitate inclosures should be made of Crown lands or forestal rights within fifteen miles of the metropolis. The recommendation of the Select Committee, however, was that the lands should be inclosed, and that the rights of the Crown in Eppitig Forest, which were merely those of keeping and hunting deer over open spaces, but which prevented inclosure as long as it remained, should be sold. In this conflict between the Report of the Committee and the Resolution of the House, the Government had felt it their duty to follow the latter as long as it continued unrescinded. The Address to the Crown had been agreed to, he must remark, rather in opposition to the opinion of the Government, who thought that it was scarcely fitting that the forestal right of the Crown over Epping Forest, the soil of which was private property, should be used as an instrument for converting that private property into public property; and they were advised by the Law Officers that it would be very difficult to institute successful legal proceedings for the purpose of abating bit by bit encroachments over a considerable space. Moreover, they had also doubted whether it would not be subversive of the principle of the Acts relating to the land revenues of the Crown, that a large expenditure should be incurred in asserting rights which, when vindicated, would be productive of no income to the Crown. The Committee of last Session in their Report recognized the force of the objections made by the Government, and expressed an opinion that to employ the forestal rights of the Crown to obstruct the process of inclosure would not only be a course doubtful in point of justice, but one which, judging from the experience of the past, was likely to fail in securing the desired object. He was inclined to think it would be advisable that some Resolution, such as that which the hon. Member had wished to move, should be adopted by the House; but he took exception to the words stating that Her Majesty's Government ought at once to take the necessary steps for carrying out the recommendation of the Committee of last year. It would not be in the power of the Government to do that. The question was not one merely as to disposing of the forestal rights of the Crown. If that were all, they could, no doubt, either sell those rights to the owners of the soil or obtain in exchange for them some equitable equivalent for the benefit of the public. But the Committee recommended that open spaces in the forest should be inclosed, subject to the reservation and acquisition of an adequate portion for the health and recreation of the inhabitants of the metropolis. As the law now stood, it rested with the owners and others interested in these open spaces to originate the proceedings for inclosure, and the Government had no compulsory power to require any open space to be inclosed. It was a difficult question, too, from what source the means of purchase should be derived. The hon. Member had endeavoured to dispose of that difficult question by saying that the Government could, without coming to that House, appropriate 2,000 acres to the purpose of a public park in Epping Forest. The £200,000 which the hon. Member said was the value of the Crown property in Epping Forest, was however as much portion of the landed revenue of the Crown as any other, and the Crown had no power to divert that amount to the purposes contemplated. It was very undesirable that the House should commit itself indirectly or by implication to the making of any grant for the acquisition of that portion of the forest which it was desired to procure. The question was actually under discussion between the Treasury and the Metropolitan Board at the present moment, and a letter had been written to that Board from which, as it had been already moved for, he might be permitted to read the following extract:—

"Their Lordships are even more unable to act upon the second alternative proposed by the Committee" (that now recommended by the hon. Member). "Parliament, by the Act 14 & 16 Vict. c. 42, which separated the Departments of Woods and Forests and Land Revenues and of the Commissioners of Public Works, assigned certain Royal Parks in the neighbourhood of London to the management of the latter department, in order that they might be maintained principally for the recreation of the inhabitants of the metropolis, and left all other portions of the landed property of the Crown under the management of the Commissioners of Woods, in order that during Her Majesty's reign the revenues should be administered for the benefit of the Exchequer. By this Act Parliament decided the extent to which the recreation of the inhabitants should be provided for from public funds, and, it may be added, that it has very liberally provided by annual Votes for the maintenance and embellishment of the metropolitan parks and gardens. Not only, however, does the Act of 1851 define the extent to which public aid should be afforded for this, but the enactment above quoted clearly throws upon the Metropolitan Board the duty of providing any additions to the public parks which circumstances may require. My Lords, therefore, before they decide upon any further proceedings on this subject, wish to ascertain whether the Metropolitan Board is disposed to take any measures for obtaining Parliamentary powers for the inclosure of Epping Forest as a place of recreation under the authority of the enactment in question (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 144, and 19 & 20 Vict. c. 112, s. 10). If they should be disposed to do so, my Lords will be prepared to consider any arrangements for the cession of the rights of the Crown which may be necessary for effecting the objects in view. Two courses presented themselves to the Committee as applicable to the remaining portion of Waltham Forest—one is to discontinue the sale of the forestal rights of the Crown, vigilantly to maintain these rights without regard to the question of cost, for the purpose of preventing all future inclosures, and to preserve the forest in its present extent and wild uninclosed condition. Tour Committee are of opinion that to employ the forestal rights of the Crown for the purpose of obstructing that process of inclosure to which the Lords (Commons?) and copyholders of the manors comprised within the forest are entitled, in common with all other persons similarly situated, would not only be a course of doubtful justice, but might in accordance with the experience of the past fail in securing the desired object."

A reply had been received from the Metropolitan Board, asking for further information before deciding upon the proposition made to them; and therefore he was not in a position to state what course the Government might decide upon taking, with a view to carry out the suggestion of the Committee as to setting aside an adequate portion of Epping Forest. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with this explanation.

preferred wild forests to tame parks, and would rather see Epping Forest kept in its present wild state by asserting the forestal rights of the Crown than that portions of it should be inclosed in the manner proposed. It was far more enjoyable for residents in the neighbourhood, and for visitors from London in its existing condition; while, as a question of economy, the 7,000 acres still uninclosed could be purchased for £30,000, and at least £70,000 or £80,000 would be required to lay down 100 or 150 acres, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be an expensive process to act upon the Crown forestal rights and to abate inclosures; but this he looked on as a frivolous excuse. Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine that no corresponding expense would be entailed upon the encroachers, or that any person would like to engage in a lawsuit with the Crown? Moreover, if the Crown were successful in one suit there need be no apprehension that other suits would follow. The inclosures going on at the present moment, he believed, were taking place upon grounds over which the Crown had parted with its forestal rights. In such cases the power of the House no longer existed; but the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this subject was bound, he thought, to give some evidence in support of his views, and likewise to account for his own change of opinion. The present position of the question was most unsatisfactory, and he hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth, who carried a Motion with regard to it a few evenings ago, would at the commencement of next Session move for a Committee to inquire into the whole subject of open spaces, with which might be advantageously coupled a further inquiry into the general working of the Inclosure Act.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was virtually the author of the Select Committee—[Mr. PEACOCKE: No]—having carried a Resolution preventing the sale of forestal rights over Epping Forest. He (Sir John Trollope) had been appointed a member of that Committee, and he was bound to say that the interest of the Crown, and the consequent protection which it was calculated to afford, seemed in this case to be almost infinitesimal, extending as it did only to the right of keeping deer in the forest and consequently to herbage for them. The real question was as to the persons in whom the right to the soil was vested. The real right to the soil was vested in these, and if they could agree to go to the Inclosure Commissioners, under the General Act, they could at once obtain an inclosure, and the rights of the Crown would be preserved by a small allotment but it was the lords of the soil, the commoners, and the copyholders who were the proper persons to stir in the matter. They had nothing whatever to do with the public. The public might squat upon it, or live the life of gipsies upon it, but they had no right to interfere with its ultimate appropriation. The Committee recommended larger allotments for purposes of public recreation and enjoyment than the Inclosure Commissioners had the power to award. They recommended that from 150 to 200 acres, not lying altogether, but separated by intervals of space, should be allotted to the public in this manner. There was a great difficulty in dealing with Epping Forest in that respect. If, for example, a larger allotment was set out than usual, it must be vested in some body which would improve it and keep it in proper condition. This was what ought to have been done in Chigwell. There fifty acres were appropriated to the public that were neither drained, levelled, nor inclosed; no monies were provided for those purposes; they were useless for recreation, and, unless they were placed under the care of the Board of Works or the Metropolitan Board, it would be impossible to make this land useful for the public at large. As he took a somewhat utilitarian view of this subject, he could not agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Peacocke) as to the value of the land in its present wild and unimproved condition. It was covered with brushwood, with tangled briars and thorns, and nineteen-twentieths of it was useless except to feed a few scrubby cattle and miserable ponies. It was a disgrace to our civilization that within fifteen miles of the metropolis 7,000 acres of land should be allowed to remain in such a state when it might so easily be turned to some useful account. Let any one visit the forest in unfavourable weather and the result would be that he would leave his upper garments on the bushes and his shoes in the mud. The Committee took the practical view of this subject, and the hon. Member for Maldon the poetical and sentimental. He (Sir John Trollope) introduced a clause in the Report, which was, however, negatived, giving to the Government Department the credit he thought it deserved for the improvements it had made in Hainault Forest, which now produced £4,000 a year, whereas formerly the same land scarcely produced barely £500. If a similar improvement were made in Epping Forest it would be conducive to the public interest as well as to private advantage.

said that, having regard to the Resolution come to the other evening respecting open spaces, the proper plan would be to appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject, and the present matter would then properly form part of the inquiry, and he should move early next Session for such a Committee. His object was to preserve the forest in its wild and uncultivated condition, because that formed its greatest attraction in the eyes of those for whom it was desirable the forest should be preserved. If the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury had gone to a division, he should certainly have voted against it, not only because it was antagonistic to the vote of the other evening, but on account of the expense of laying out this park, and also the annual cost of the maintenance of a park of 7,000 acres. The proper course was to refer the matter to a Select Committee, to investigate not only the open spaces and commons in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, but also the state of Epping and other forests. The rights of the Crown in regard to Epping Forest were very small, it was true; but if the Crown would only retain the rights it possessed, that would be the best guarantee that the forest would be preserved in its present state for the inhabitants of the metropolis. He would remind the hon. Member that no one was more energetic than he in opposition to the expenditure on Kennington Park, which was infinitely small in comparison with that which the hon. Member now proposed to lay out in connection with Epping Forest.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can explain the statement which appeared in The Times of Tuesday, the 28th of June, to the effect that the President of the Council of the Lower House of the Rigsraad, in answer to a question upon the Conference, made the following reply?—

"The Danish Plenipotentiaries were instructed to accept the line of demarcation of the Schlei, and to agree to a fortnight's prolongation of the armistice should England firmly adhere to that line. Earl Russell promised that neither would he make a proposal himself, nor support the proposal of any other Plenipotentiary which would be less favourable to Denmark, unless Denmark herself should consent to such new proposals. Earl Russell nevertheless proposed, in the sitting of the Conference on the 18th, that the question should be submitted to arbitration, although Denmark did not consent to this proposal."

Sir, there is no inconsistency in the assurance of my noble Friend and the course which he took. The statement is not absolutely correct. It is very easy to substitute one word for another, and so to alter the meaning. My noble Friend did not say he would make no proposal. What he stated was, that if the Danes would agree to the line of the Schlei, he would not himself propose any other line, or support any other line if it was proposed by any other Power; and to that engagement he adhered. But when, at last, it was found that the Danes would not consent to any line north of the Schlei, and that the Germans would not consent to any line south of Apenrade, it then became necessary either to give up the whole thing in despair, or to make the proposal which, in concert with the other neutral Powers, my noble Friend made—not for another line, but that an arbiter should be appointed to whom should be referred the question pending between the parties. That arbiter might have determined on the line of the Schlei, or the line of the Apenrade, or he might have determined on some other line. But, unless my noble Friend had been prepared to abdicate his functions, it was impossible for him to say that he would make no other proposal with a view to a peaceful settlement of the matters in dispute. I may take advantage of this Question to explain another misunderstanding which has arisen. My noble Friend stated in another place the other day that henceforward no trust could be reposed in the German Powers. That statement, I know, has hurt the feelings of the persons concerned, and has been interpreted in a way not intended by my noble Friend. He by no means intended to say that any assertion and any declaration of the German Powers was not trustworthy, inasmuch as it was not given truthfully or with a sincere intention; but what he meant—as, indeed, the context of his statement clearly shows—was that the German Powers have upon more than one occasion been driven from their original intention by a pressure which they were unable to resist, and that, therefore, you could not be sure that any intention, however sincerely and truthfully stated at the time, was one that the German Powers would be able to maintain against the pressure which might be brought to bear against them. That was my noble Friend's meaning: and he, like myself, is very sorry that the words spoken should have been interpreted in a different sense, and should have given pain to parties for whom my noble Friend and the Government are naturally disposed to show the greatest possible consideration and respect.

Did I understand the noble Lord to say that the line of the Schlei and Dannewerke was the line proposed by Earl Russell and supported by the neutral Powers?

Yes; that appears on the Protocols.

asked, Whether there was any provision made for the contingency of the Thames Embankment costing far more than was contemplated by the Metropolitan Board of Works. In that event, how would they raise the additional sum required?

apprehended that they must come to Parliament. In reply to a question from Mr. WILMAMS,

said, that 4½ per cent was the rate of interest at which the Metropolitan Board of Works would be able to borrow without the guarantee of the Government. With that guarantee they could borrow from the Bank of England at 3¾ per cent.

said, he could not of course give a decided opinion on the scheme without seeing the Bill; but he thought the Metropolitan Board had a fair claim to the assistance that could properly be afforded to them by the Government. It was now proposed that the Government should afford them an amount of indirect financial assistance. Since the establishment of that Board it had conducted the business intrusted to it in a manner that justified the confidence which the inhabitants of the metropolis were now prepared to repose in it, and he thought the plan proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer beneficial.

said, the great value of that measure was, that it would save the metropolis the difference between 4½ and 3¾ per cent interest on the money raised for this work. It was a matter of comparative indifference to the Metropolitan Board of Works, whether the money was raised at 4½ or 3¾ per cent; but the great object which that Board had in view was to effect the greatest amount of improvement in the metropolis at the smallest expense to the inhabitants generally. There could be no doubt as to the security for the repayment of the loan.

said, he could not admit that it was a matter of indifference to the Metropolitan Board of Works whether they raised this money at 4½or 3¾ per cent, and that it would only affect the ratepayers. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) the other day stated before the Committee on Subways that the rates of the Metropolitan Board of Works had reached their utmost legal limit, and consequently the Board could lay no heavier rates on the metropolis. It had also reached its utmost legal limit in borrowing. But by the present measure it would obtain a larger sum than it otherwise could do for carrying on certain works. The boon granted by the Bill would be a boon entirely to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and not one to the metropolis at all; and unless the House were satisfied that the money would be wisely expended, and that those persons would obtain the contracts who sent in the lowest tenders, he did not think that additional powers ought to be given to that Board.

said, the House need not then concern itself with the question, whether the tenders were properly taken or the estimates sound? Their security was based first on the wine and coal dues, and, se- condly, not merely on the present rating powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but also on the new rating powers which the Bill about to be introduced would give to the Board.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would not take some step for carrying out his own most fair suggestion—that the taxation for these improvements should be shared by those who would permanently benefit by them?

thought the time had not come when a proposal of that kind should be made.

maintained that, as this measure would enlarge the borrowing powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Government ought to take care that the money was likely to be wisely and economically applied.

said, he had an Amendment to propose. The Bill itself, which, contrary to usual practice, had been circulated among Members, was a perfect curiosity. It recited no less than twelve Acts of Parliament, most, if not all of which, he believed, had been repealed by subsequent Acts of Parliament. Among them was the 25th of Charles II., which required an oath against Transubstantiation. Another required a declaration that the signer would upon no pretence take up arms against the King; and yet in 1688 all classes took up arms to get rid of a tyrant. There was a declaration against the oath called the Solemn League, and an Act of the 30th of Charles II. disabled Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament. Another Act extorted an oath not to injure the Church. He would, therefore, beg to move the Amendment of which he had given notice.

said, that whatever objections might be offered to the oaths and declarations to which the hon. Member referred, there was nothing antiquated in the present declarations. As far as he knew, there was no declaration at present in force of an earlier date than 1828, when the old declaration against Transubstantiation was repealed, and another form of declaration enacted instead. In the same manner the old oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration were repealed in 1858, and a short oath appointed in lieu of them. The mistake which the hon. Member made was in supposing that because those oaths and declarations were repealed, therefore the original Acts imposing them were also repealed. That was not so; the Acts remained in force, and they had to be read as if they contained the new form of declaration or oath. He very much agreed with the hon. Member in his desire to see the repeal of the Acts themselves; he did not believe that any of the security which the Church or State had enjoyed during the last 100 years was derived from their existence on the statute-book. He, however, could not understand why the hon. Member proposed an Amendment to this Bill, because it took the same direction as the hon. Gentleman desired to go, the only difference being that it did yearly what the hon. Member desired to see done once and for all. If the Committee were appointed, it would be impossible to pass the Indemnity Bill this Session, and great inconvenience would result from the old Acts being revived. He suggested that if the hon. Member thought it better to proceed by way of Committee than by a Bill, as he had hitherto done, he should move, next Session, for the appointment of a Select Committee, a course to which the House would probably assent; but the effect of referring this Bill to a Select Committee would be altogether to prevent it passing this Session. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he must press his Amendment.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, for unless he did so the Indemnity Bill might run the risk of not passing this year. Surely the hon. Member did not intend that the persons who had not taken the oaths should be liable to the pains and penalties to which they would be subjected unless the Bill passed into law. If the hon. Member would next Session bring forward the grievances which he believed persons laboured under from the experience of the present law, and point out how changes could be made, he might then properly ask for a Select Committee; but it would not be proper to stop the progress of the Bill in order that the hon. Member might obtain a Select Committee in this manner. This would be to prevent a present remedy to evils about which they were all agreed. At this period of the Session it would be better to allow the Bill to pass as usual, and if the hon. Member moved for a Select Committee next Session he would meet with support on that side of the House.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Sir, in moving that this Bill be read a third time upon this day three months, I do not intend to enter at any length into a discussion of the merits of the Bill, or of its object or probable results. All of these subjects have already been discussed at considerable length, and hon. Gentlemen have expressed their opinions upon them. What I desire to do is to call attention to the position of the Bill, to the course of proceeding with regard to it, and to the results growing out of these proceedings. For the purpose of my argument I am willing to suppose that every Gentleman in this House will adhere to the opinions he has previously expressed on the Bill. What I wish to point out is, that if the different parties in this House do adhere to the opinions previously expressed, the decision ought to be different from that of former divisions, and the Bill ought to be rejected. Throughout its progress there have been three distinct opinions as to the proper mode of dealing with it. The hon. Member who introduced it (Mr. Dodson) and those who agreed with him, were desirous that the Bill should pass as introduced, and were unwilling to accept any Amendment. On the other hand there were those on this side the House who thought that the difficulties of legislating on the subject were out of all proportion to any advantages to be derived from the proposed change, or to any disadvantages intended to be removed. We therefore not only objected to the Bill as it stands, but declined to take on ourselves the responsibility of proposing Amendments; which, however, we were ready to consider if proposed by others. The third section, headed by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while they emphatically declared that the Bill could not pass in the form in which it was introduced by the hon. Member for Sussex, said that it was without much difficulty capable of Amendments which would make it in their opinion useful, and they accordingly voted for the second reading, with an intimation that they should oppose it in future stages, if not so amended. That is the position in which the Bill stands. The second reading was carried by a small majority, and was supported by many holding the views of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Time went on and no Amendments appeared. We took it for granted that notice of Amendments would have been given by the other side. None appeared, however, and we asked the House to refuse to go into Committee on the ground that no notice had been given of those Amendments, which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, supporters of the Bill, admitted to be necessary. The House, nevertheless, went into Committee. A considerable interval of time elapsed, and plenty of time was allowed for notice of Amendments. Still none appeared. The Bill has gone through Committee in its original state; and now, on its third reading, it stands in precisely the same form as that in which it was introduced. I make no complaint of that. It was very natural that the hon. Gentleman who brought in the Bill should not desire to amend it; and if he had accepted Amendments at all, it would probably have been only because he would have preferred them to losing his Bill. Neither do I complain of my right hon. Friends for not bringing forward Amendments. I know that they had applied themselves to the framing of important Amendments and had found the difficulties insurmountable, and that they thought it better to abandon the attempt. I do not complain of either side; but I do say if this Bill was supported on its second reading by a considerable number of Members only on the faith of expected Amendments, of which it was alleged to be capable, and if it has gone through 30 far without attempt at amendment, that I am then entitled to claim the votes of the right hon. Gentlemen, and all who sympathize with them, and to ask them to assist me in rejecting the Bill on the third reading. It is for the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Dodson) to consider whether it would not be better for him at some other time to frame and introduce a measure more likely to receive general support. For the present, at any rate, I venture to think that the course which I recommend is the best. On the present occasion I rest my opposition on these special grounds; but, in addition, I will ask the House to remember, as a matter of fact, that the Bill does not now stand in such a form as will put Oxford in any way in the same position as Cambridge. It will put Oxford in a situation very much in advance, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) would call it, but, as I think, in a very much worse position; and hon. Members who will support the third reading will do so on the distinct understanding that they are doing what has not yet been sanctioned for either University. On these grounds I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time this day three months.

said, the House had been taken somewhat by surprise, and had come to a division earlier than had been expected owing to the remarkable policy of Her Majesty's Government. It would be remembered that the Government were in a position of some embarrassment on account of the course taken on the second reading of this Bill. When the Bill was passing the second reading the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, who he saw had now returned to the House, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer supported the Bill, and the ground they gave for supporting it was, not that they agreed with the Bill as a whole, or in its most important clauses, but that they objected to the principle of indiscriminate resistance, as they were pleased to call it; and they told the House that, although they should like to see certain alterations in the Bill—such as the striking out of the clauses that allowed those who were not members of the Church of England to vote in Convocation—still they should support the Bill for the sake of other clauses of very inferior importance that it contained. On that plea they supported the Bill; and they gave the House to understand that they intended to support Amendments in Committee which would make the Bill such as they desired to see it. They gave the House to understand that they gave no support or countenance to the principle of a Bill which handed over the government of the Universities for educational purposes to Dissenting Masters of Arts. But in Committee there were proposed none of those Amendments which the Government foreshadowed. The right hon. Member for Oxford University (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was absent on that occasion [Cries of "Divide!"] Surely they would allow him to proceed to discuss the matter especially when the small majority just announced was gained by a snapped division. This Bill was not debated on going into Committee, and they could not object to the discussion of it now. They might, at all events, be well excused for deliberately considering all the events before they came to a further expression of their opinion. This was a measure such as had never passed the House of Commons before. It absolutely handed over the Government of the University to those not of the Church of England. Those on the opposite side might think that was a desirable measure, but they could not say it was a measure of that insignificance that it was to be dispatched in ten minutes. What he wanted was to draw their attention to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who having given the House to understand on the second reading that Amendments would be moved in Committee, and who in Committee abstained from moving any such Amendments, now in the third reading, when the division was called for, the right hon. Gentleman who was the representative of the Government for the purposes of this Bill, and to whose Department the measure specially belonged, would not give an opinion on this important matter, but walked out of the House. He (Lord R. Cecil) did not think that a Bill of this character ought to pass without some explanation from the responsible Minister of the Crown. It was hardly dealing fairly with the House of Commons to hold out opinions on the second reading and then not to follow them up by his conduct. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman who had warned them against "indiscriminating resistance," had given them a good idea that evening of what discriminating resistance was. It meant promising to oppose a Bill when no great party struggle was in prospect, and not opposing it when party votes became of consequence. "Discriminating resistance" was discriminating in point of time; it was resistance when it suited. But, at all events, some gratitude was due to those, whoever they might be, who enriched their native language. "Running away" was a coarse and vulgar term. It was now called "discriminating resistance." They had had lately a good many specimens of "discriminating resistance." We should soon have to discuss a foreign policy in which "discriminating resistance" had been shown. ["Question."] Surely it was material to show how perfectly consistent the foreign policy of the Government was, whether they were dealing with the domestic or the foreign question. In each case they promised to render help when it was convenient, and when it ceased to be convenient they walked out of the House. ["Divide, divide!"] He saw that the House was not much inclined for discussion. He only rose to draw attention to the conduct of one of the chief members of Her Majesty's Government, and he trusted that before the House finally decided on this important question the right hon. Gentleman would explain the course which he had pursued.

I am quite ready to afford the noble Lord the explanation which he asks, but in doing so I must disclaim the character in which he has spoken of me as the representative of Her Majesty's Government on this occasion. In the previous discussion upon this Bill I spoke only my own individual opinions; and in speaking these opinions I did not, as the noble Lord has imputed to me, promise to oppose this Bill at any stage. I agreed with the principle of the Bill, but I said that I thought my hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) would act wisely if instead of asking what I thought Parliament would not be likely to grant—if instead of pressing the Bill in a shape in which I felt that it could not ultimately pass—he would consent to the introduction of Amendments which would place Oxford on the same footing as Cambridge. I was prepared to go further and to give to Masters of Arts a right to vote, for Members of Parliament as members of Convocation. I thought that that would have been a more prudent course, and would have resulted in the acceptance by Parliament of a Bill which would have done justice to those who are now excluded from privileges which they have a right to enjoy, I did my best by private communications with my hon. Friend to induce him to agree to such a modification of the Bill, and I have reason to believe that if he had consented to it there were those on the opposite side actuated by a spirit very different from that of the noble Lord, who would have met my hon. Friend in a spirit of generous conciliation, and that a Bill would have passed through Parliament which would have been a great amendment of the existing law. Not objecting to the principle of the Bill I did not feel myself bound to vote against it on the third reading. I should willingly have seen the Bill in another shape, but I never promised to oppose it, I never promised to introduce Amendments, I did not wish to press those Amendments against the judgment of my hon. Friend, and I thought that I was only taking a course which became me in not recording a vote either against or in favour of the Bill, but in walking out of the House when the Question was put. The noble Lord says that this is not a fitting question to be disposed of in ten minutes. Why did not the noble Lord, who was here when the Amendment was moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, rise in his place, and state the ground upon which he was opposed to the third reading of the Bill? Now that the Amendment has been negatived, he is taking a most unusual course in order to gain the advantage of the votes of any hon. Members who may happen to come down to the House. He had a right to comment upon my conduct if he thought fit to do so. I have stated the reasons which influenced me, and I hope that the House will not think that I have acted improperly.

The right hon. Gentleman says that when he spoke the other day he expressed only his individual opinion, and did not speak as the organ of the Government. I suppose that he has to-night again spoken in his individual capacity, and consequently, up to the present moment, we have not been favoured with the opinions of Her Majesty's Government upon this Bill. But who, let me ask, is the Member of Her Majesty's Government who speaks to the House upon this subject merely in his individual capa- city? It is the Home Secretary. And in whose Department, I should like to I know, are questions affecting the Universities of this land, if not in that of the Home Secretary? If the right hon. Gentleman tells us—as I conclude he means to; tell us—that Her Majesty's Government have really no opinion as a Government upon this important Bill, I am perfectly willing to believe the statement, and I shall not go through the useless form of expressing at it a surprise which I do not feel. But I hope it will go forth to the country that upon a measure affecting one of the most famous and venerable Universities of the land Her Majesty's Government express no opinion, have no opinion, and, so far as the Department charged with the affairs of the Universities is concerned, do not even give a vote upon this important measure. With respect to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about my noble Friend not rising after my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir William Heathcote), I must say that I never heard a more unjust or a more unfounded charge. My hon. Friend had stated the objections to the Bill in very clear and precise terms, and no one rose to answer him—not even a Member of Her Majesty's Government. Was my noble Friend the Member for Stamford to rise and beat the air—to fight with shadows when no one had replied to my hon. Friend? It was unnecessary for him to occupy the attention of the House merely to support what had been so well said by my hon. Friend. But, after the course which Her Majesty's Government have taken, he was quite justified in making the observations which he has done with reference to their conduct; and when this scene is described, when this debate is read to-morrow, it will not redound to the credit of the Government.

said, that the House was placed in a very remarkable position. Early in the evening the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) declined to answer a question asked by his noble Friend the Member for Northamptonshire (Lord Burghley) with reference to Denmark, in the absence of the noble Lord at the head of the Government; and now no reply had been given to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. The right hon. Gentleman the other Member for that University was on the Treasury Bench, and he was perfectly astonished that he had given no explanation of the course which he intended to pursue. The position in which the House was placed at present was a very remarkable one. When a debate took place the Members of the Government sat still and made no reply, and hon. Gentlemen who sat behind them thought it prudent to hold their tongue. He hoped that this occasion would not be forgotten, and that the House would go to another division upon this important Bill.

rose to address the House; but the cries for a division were so continuous, and the confusion so general, that the hon. Member sat down without proceeding.

also rose to speak; but the interruption was so great that the hon. Member could not be intelligibly heard.