The Press. — London, England, 1854-04-08 00:00:00

APRIL 8, 1854, limitations and correction. This measure, as Mr. Card well urged, was calculated to benefit both the public and the railway companies. It was the first attempt to intro- duce symmetery and uniformity into the railway system, and might with great advantage have been enacted ten years ago. Late as it was, however, it would, he believed, du much to revive and secure the prosperity of the railway interest." A ....scetianeous discussion, relating principally to details of management or of grievance, was kept up by Mr. M'Gregor, Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Mangles, Mr. Locke, Mr. Malins, Mr. Hudson, and Mr. Beckett Denison. Leave was then given, and the bill brought in. PUBLIC LIBRARIES. The second raTliniof the Public Libraries and Museums Bill was moved on Wednesday by Mr. IiWART, who adverted to the success which had at tended the experiment made by the act of 1850, not merely in the extension of a desire for reading, but in the judicious selection and good treatment of the books. The question now was, he said, whether the area of the experiment might not be enlarged and extended, as he proposed, to towns not municipally governed, as well as to Scotland and Ireland. He explained the main provisions of the bill, which were almost entirely in accordance with those of the Baths and Washhouses Bill. _ Mr. HENLEY, without opposing the bill, observed that it would throw no light burden upon the poor rate, and that its provisions required great consi deration. Considerable discussion took place, and a motion was made for adjourning the debate, but negatived upon a division. Afterwards Mr. FITZROY moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. The chief objection to the measure was its depriving the ratepayers of the power of levying the requisite rates, in order to transfer it to the town council. Mr. Hume, Mr. Milnes, and Captain Scobell sup ported the bill. Lord STANLEY, approving its object, reluctantly opposed the measure, upon the ground that one of the clauses took all power out of the hands of the ratepayers, which was not a matter of detail, but of principle. Sir C. WOOD reiterated the objections offered to the bill by Mr. Fitzroy and Lord Stanley. The debate, in which a great number of members took part, closed with a reply from Mr. EWART, who complained of the course pursued by the Government, and insisted that the clause objected to could be modi fied in the committee. Upon a division the amendment was carried by 88 to 85. The bill was consequently lost by a majority of 8. DUBLIN UNIVERSITY. Mr. FAGAN, on Tuesday, moved for leave to intro duce a bill to make provision for the better govern ment of the University of Dublin ; for the establish ment of a second college therein, with co• ordinate authority and equivolent income with Trinity College, to be called " The Queen's College ;" and for the extension to students of all religious denominations of the honours, degrees, emoluments, and o ffi ces, in the said college. Although the system of education in the Dublin University was of a high character, yet, he remarked, that institution had sent forth fewer distinguished men than the Universities of England or Scotland. This could not be attributed to any deficiency in the endowments, as the university was the richest in the world. It possessed 200,000 acres of land in various parts of Ireland; its revenue was 64,0001. a year, and would hereafter exceed 100,0001.; the provost received 3,5001. a year, and the seven senior fellows, on an average, 1,8001. a year. The evil arose from the narrow sphere within which the rich endowments of Trinity College were distributed in favour of the religion of the minority; whereas he argued from various authorities that, by the charter of Elizabeth, the college was not intended, at its foundation, to be an exclusive establishment, to favour any particular religious creed, still less to prepare persons for holy orders of the Church of England. He admitted, however, that Trinity College was entitled to be kept up as an institution for the education of clergymen of the Established Church, and that if it were thrown entirely open to all religious denominations this object could not be preserved. He thought, however, that under an act of Charles 11. the difficulty might be surmounted without injuring the efficiency of Trinity College, and that the time harried v for effecting the change. He propose d that there should be two colleges, with separate provo sts, under a council of twenty-four members elected by both colleges, the second college having its fair share of the large property now belonging to Trinity College. Mr. Fagan concluded by giving a general outline of the constitution of the university, as developed in the bill he proposed to introduce. Mr. G. A. HANTLTON announced his decided and most uncompromising opposition to this bill. Trinity College was essentially a Protestant institu tion, established by a Protestant sovere ign for THE PRESS. Protestant purposes, and more especially for the education of the Protestant clergy. Notwithstanding this the college had been thrown as widely open to Catholics and Dissenters by the authorities as was consistent with its Protestant foundation. It was incorrect to say that Roman Catholics and Dis senters were excluded from all its honours and advantages. Ile showed the relaxations which had been made of the original restrictions, and the number of honours and offices in the college open to Roman Catholics, the aggregate emoluments amounting to 6,9001. a year. No test whatever was required on admission, nor on obtaining any degree, except that of divinity, a reservation which no one could wish to see abrogated. Nearly all honours and emoluments were open to all religious sects, except those which were of a theological character. Mr. Hamilton then enumerated some of the eminent persons who had been educated at Trinity College, and proceeded to argue that the Act of Settlement, and the act of George 111., upon which Mr. Fagan relied as affording authority for his scheme, contained enactments directly repugnant to it. Mr. HEYWOOD bore testimony to the liberality that had been shown in modern times towards Roman Catholics by the authorities of Trinity College in Dublin, but suggested the advisability of introducing some further modification in the same direction, and especially of throwing open the scholarships to all the students without requiring religious tests. Sir J. YOUNG deprecated all propositions which tended to keep alive the flame of religious antagonism . Among these he classed the present measure, and entered into many details respecting the university system in Ireland to show that it was neither neces sary nor expedient. Mr. HUME supported the motion. Mr. WHITESIDE resisted it, declaring that the bill contemplated an act of confiscation upon the revenues legally appertaining to Trinity College. Mr. FITZGERALD repudiated that charge, and de clared that if leave was given to introduce the bill it would be found to have no confiscatory tendencies. No greater change was intended in the constitution of Dublin University by this bill than Lord J. Rus sell had indicated with regard to Oxford in the mea sure he had placed before the house. Mr. NAPIER remarked that the revenues derived from public grants by the Dublin University were less than the amount of the annual vote for Maynooth College. Liberality towards nonconformists could not be carried further than it was already done in that university without overturning its constitution and defeating the intentions of the founders. The system now pursued in Trinity College worked well ; its revenues were spent to excellent purpose ; the education it afforded could stand a comparison with that of any of the English universities, and the whole organisation was so good as to render change altogether undesirable. The motion was also opposed by Mr. BUTT and Mr. GEORGE. After a few words from Mr. P. O'BRIEN, who sup ported the bill, and a reply from Mr. FAGAN, who de clined to ask for a vote, . The motion was negatived without a division. THE STONOR APPOINTMENT. Mr. MOORE moved, on Thursday, that a select committee should be appointed to investigate the circumstances attending the appointment of Mr. Stonor to a puisne judgeship in the colony of Vic toria, "the said Henry Stonor having been reported by a committee of this house to have been guilty of bribery at the election for the borough of Sligo in 1853." He disclaimed any personal motive for at tacking Mr. Stonor, declaring that it was not the conduct of that gentleman, but of the Government, that would be chiefly impeached before the proposed committee. The hon. member entered into a variety of particulars for the purpose of proving that the Ministry had conferred the appointment in question in return for the corrupt services rendered by Mr. Stonor in securing the return of a junior Lord of the Treasury for the borough of Sligo. Imputing to the Colonial Secretary a guilty knowledge of these facts, he professed an utter disbelief in the statement put forth by way of explanation by the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. F. Peel), whose resignation, or that of his chief, he thought would be necessary for the satisfaction of public justice. The transaction altogether was an outrage upon public decency. The CHANCELLOR of the F.XCHEerER eagerly chal lenged the minutest scrutiny of a select committee To the allegation that the Colonial Secretary had ap pointed Mr. Stonor with any knowledge of the cir cumstances stated to have occurred at the Sligo election, or that the appointment was made in any way as a recompense for political services, he offered on behalf of the Duke of Newcastle an unqualified denial. He trusted that the house would consent to nominate the committee. It was now incumbent upon them to have the case searched to the bottom, and the grounds discovered for the charges that had been made with so much levity. 317 After a protracted and somewhat angry discussion the motion for a committee was agreed to ou a divi sion by a majority of 115 to 37-78. SCOTTISH RIGHTS. The Earl of &MINTON, after presenting a petition from the National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights, moved that an humble address should be presented to the Queen, praying her Ma jesty to take into consideration the circumstances set forth in that petition, and especially to consider the propriety of appointing an additional Secretary of State for the management of Scotch affairs, and of increasing the number of representatives allotted to Scotland. A prolonged discussion ensued, shared in by the Earl of Aberdeen, the Duke of Montrose, the Duke of Argyll, and Lords Campbell and Panmure. Ulti mately the Earl of Eglinton withdrew his motion. BRIBERY. The committal of the Bribery Bill introduced by Lord John Russell was moved on Monday evening. Lord J. RUSSELL, alluding to a measure of almost similar title brought in by Sir F. Kelly, arranged that the two measures should be placed in successive order on the paper. They related, he said, to the same subject, and ought to he considered together, so far as the forms of the house allowed. Mr. V. SMITH interposed with an amendment fbr the purpose of having both measures referred to a select committee, in which arrangement he wished to include also the Controverted Elections Bill in by Lord J. Russell. The subjects emb these measures were, he considered, so wide and complicated that they could not be fairly discussed in a scattered style. In the select committee the question could be considered as a whole, anti, wards be presented to the house in a form for legislation. The hon. member proceed • . remark upon some practical difficulties which required to be carefully and skilfully dealt with, dwelling particularly upon the perplexing ques of agency. The amendment was seconded by Mr. DEEDES. Lord JOHN RUSSEI.L was disappointed at course taken by his hon. friend Mr. V. Smith. reference to a select committee was equiv to postponing the bill to another session. All o. - jections to the measure might be taken in the com mittee of the house, and he proposed to take Sir F. Kelly's bill second in order to his own, • . postpone the controverted clauses in the until an agreement had been come to as to a d .- nition of the offences to be legislated against. He also observed that it would be impossible for him to attend a select committee, and he urged that there was no real difficulty in considering the measures he proposed. Mr. WirroLe believed that the bill might be ad vantageously referred to a select committee, but would not oppose its progress at present. Colonel Siernoar looked upon all proposals to put down bribery as mere pretences, and intended to op pose the bills at every stage. Mr. Phinn, Mr. Butt, Sir H. Willoughby, and Lord Hotham having spoken in favour of the am • went, and Mr. Napier, with other members, it, a division took place. There appeared for • into committee,l46; for the amendment, 76-71. The house then resolved itself into committee on the bill, and much time was spent in discussing various amendments upon successive clauses of the . measure. Very little progress was, however, made, the clauses being chiefly postponed. At the sixth clause a motion that the chairman should • progress was agreed, to, and the further pro: the bill postponed until after the Easter recess. PROPERTY DISPOSAL BILL. Under this title a bill has been brought in, de signed chiefly to operate in cases of the bequest or disposal of property by nuns. The measu. e stands for a second reading on Wednesday. When the me lion to that effect was made by Mr. WHITESIDE, Mr. PRINS opposed the bill, thinking that it too far, for it threw the onus of proving a n upon the recipients of the property. He also proved of the machinery of the bill, which was fensive to Roman Catholics by its assumption th • the wills, in certain cases, were fraudulent. Mr. FAO/N objected to proceeding with the bid that occasion as a breach of the understanding wh•. had been come to, that the second reading not take place until after the report of the corn . on conventual establishments should be laid upon the table. Lord PALMERSTON opposed the second reading of the bill on two grounds—first, that its further pro cedure would be contrary to the understan • which had been come to; secondly, that the pre full of assertions which ought not to should be struck out, while the enacting part from its nature be altogether inoperative. Mr. WHITESIDE repudiated the understanding re ferred to, and complained of it as a mockery to turn him over to the report of a committee which might never sit. .gSM