The Sun. — London, England, 1837-04-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 11. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'clock. Mr. Peck brought up Papers from the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. The Bishop of ELY presented a petition from the Master, Fellows, and Scholars of St. John's College, Cambridge, against the Oxford and Cambridge Statutes Bill. The petition was read at great length by the Clerk. The RIGHT Ray. PRELATE then presented a similar petition from the Master and Fellows of Jesus College, Cambridge. Lord GR A NT L E Y p resen t e d petitions in favour of Ch urch rates from St. Mary's, Guilford, and from another place in Kent. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from an individual against the Leeds and Manchester Railway Bill. Lord KENYON presented four petitions in favour of Church-rates, and one from Abergavenny against the Poor law Amendment Bill. The Bishop of HEREFORD presented similar petitions from parishes in Surrey and Hereford. The Bishop of LINCOLN presented a petition from King's College,' Cambridge, against the Oxford and Cambridge Uni versity Statutes Bill. The Right Rev. Prelate also presented petitions to the same effect from Lincoln College, Oxford, and from Brazennose College, Oxford. The Bishop of WINCHESTER had several petitions to present upon the same subject, but was unwilling to trouble their Lordships with the reading of all the petitions by the Clerk. The Earl of RADNOR said it would be impossible to know what the objects in view of the petitioners were, unless they were read. Lord BROUGHAM was also of opinion that in justice to the parties, they should be read. The Earl of RIPON did not think that any great information could be obtained by their Lordships from having the petitions read in that way. The Bishop of WINCHESTER was entirely in the hands of the House, and he would either state their prayer, or have them read by the Clerk.--( Cries of " Read, read.") The petitions were then read at length by the Clerk. They were from Corpus Christi College, Oxford ; St. John the Baptist College, Oxford; St. Mary Winchester College, Oxford, commonly called New College ; St. Mary Magda lene College, Oxford, and from the President, Fellows, and SAiolars of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, Oxford. The last petition prayed that if the Bill proceeded another stage, petitioners might be heard by counsel against the Bill. Lord RE DE SDA LE presented a petition from the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church College, Oxford, to the same effect. Lord RA VENSDALE presented a petition from Ipswich agninst the abolition of Church-rates. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a petition f. om the President and Fellows of 'Ballo! College, Oxford, against the Oxford and Cambridge Statutes Bill, and a peti tion from Merton College, Oxford, to the same effort. The Most Rev. PRELATE then presented a petition from the Warden, Fellows, and Scholars of All Soul's Cullege, Oxford, to the same effect. And in the absence of the Arch blahop of York, who was prevented by a domestic calamity from attending, the same Prelate presented a petition from the Provost, Fellows, and Scholars of Queen's College, Ox ford, to the same effect. The Most Rev. PRELATE then, on behalf of the Bishop of Eteter, who was prevented by indisposition from attending:, presented a petition from the Rector and Scholars of Exeter College. Oxford, to the same effect. The Bishop of LL A NDA FF presented a petition from the Blessed Mary the Virgin College, Oxford, to the same effect. The Duke of \WELLINGTON presented a petition from Woreester College, a petition from the Chancellor, Master, and Fellows of the University of Oxf,r,l, and a petition from the Masters and Fellows of Clare hell, Cambridge, to the same effect. Lord LI A RD W ICK E presented a petition from the Master and Fellows of Queen's College, Cambridge, to the same The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from the Principal and Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford, to the same effect. Lord WYNFORD presented a petition from \Vadham Col lege, Oxf.rd, to the same effect. Lord DE GREY presented four petitions from places in Leicester and Yorkshire, against the abolition of Church rates. AFFAIRS OF SPAIN. Lord A LVANL E Y gave notice that to-mGrrois be should put a question to his Sinje!ty's Government relative to the Marines and Artillery employed in the scrvie..l of the Queen of Spain. THE UNIVERSITIES BILL. The Earl of RA DNO had del :sued moving the second reading of this Bill, in order to give Noble Lords the oppor tunity of presenting certain petitions against it, and had done thin for the purpose of ascertaining on what ground they ob jected to the Bill. He was exceedingly glsd that he had adopted this course, for he would at once confess that from these petitions he drew very urgent reasons why the House should not comply with the prayer of any one of them. He would commence with the petition from Wadham. in which it vies stated that they were perfectly satisfied with the state in Ahleh they were—that they were in a prosperous state—and that as they were bound to observe the statutes of their foun der, they could not agree to the provisions of the Bill with out violating an obligation of the most sacred nature. With respect to this very College, the statutes of the founder having been found inconvenient, an applici ti n had been made t oPar liament in order the College might be relieved, and under the Act so obtained it was now in the flourishing condition described by the petition. How the Members of that College were b nind by the original statutes of the founder, he (the Earl of Radnor) would leave for those gentlemen themselves to explain. With respect to many of the other petitions, they alleged that if the visitors made alterations, contrary to the original statute, they would be bound by their oath to disobey them. Other Colleges had presented petitions on grounds precisely the converse. All these reasons, however, might be good, but he still thought that there were reasons in favour of the passing of the Bill. One College at Oxford had pre sented a petition against the Bill on the ground that it was a public branch and member of the University of Oxford. The College was no more a branch of the University than it was pf the Corporation, for the University existed before the Corporation, and even before the College itself; and if the House were to do that which some of the petitioners appeared to think was the object of the Bill, viz., to confiscate all the property of the Colleges, that would not in the slightest de gree impair the University. It was stated that the Colleges were public bodies, and a part of the University. That might be perfectly correct ; but on the fundamental question there were certainly private eleemosynary foundations. A great number of the petitions alleged that the preamble of the Bill was not true, that the Colleges had not mismanaged their funds, and that, consequently, it would be unfair to make the Bill apply to them.—( Hear.) It was exceedingly difficult to prove the charges, from the difficulty of knowing what were the original statutes. In some of the Colleges the mem bers were sworn to secrecy, and in others the statutes were almost unknown to the members themselves. Colleges were originally founded for the benefit of poor scholars. In the statutes it was provided that the Fellows should be poor, or the sons of poor men. Now, no one, he believed, would as sert that the poor were the only class who derived the benefit of these foundations. In some Colleges a test of property had been originally adopted, such as 51. or 101., but in this respect some allowance ought to be made in consequence of the difference of the value of property. But most of the Col leges had evaded the statutes of the founders by selling their lands, and laying the produce out in the funds. In Merton College, Oxford, it was provided that the payment to the Fel lows should be limited to 405., and that out of this their com mons should be paid for. And the provisions in most of the statutes were that the Fellows should be resident. Now, this was generally disregarded, and in one College, out of forty Fellows thirteen were honorary, one of whom was at the present moment a Knight Grand Cross of the Guelphic Order, and now on a special mission to Constantinople. In Trinity College, Cambridge, not more than one-fourth of the Fellows were resident, some of them holding other situa tions, such as schoolmasters, in various parts of the country, which rendered permanent residence impossible. Then the Senior Fellow of Brazennose College had a stall in the Cathedral of Hereford, and three livings in the diocese of Hereford, which were returned as worth 1,1001. a year, with a cure of three thousand souls. With respect to the manner in which the domestic superintendence and tuition of the Univer sities were exercised, he complained that the managers of the Colleges did not give the requisite instruction, according to the directions of the founders, but delegated it to one or two tutors ; and now, in almost every case in which a youth was really desirous to learn, it was necessary to substitute a private for the public tutor, to afford that assistance and information which it was the duty of the public tutor to supply. He him self knew it to be a fact, that at Trinity College, Cambridge, there was paid annually for public tutors a sum of 4 : 600/., and ;no less than 10,000/. per year for private tutorage in that one College alone. In another respect the wills of the founders had no: been complied within many respects, though he must confess there were some instances that were not open to this complaint. Those wills had left certain sums of money amongst a number of Fellows, and in very many cases it had been provided that if the value of the property were a u gmen t e d, th e Fellowships should be increased in number, and not in value. That was the case with respect to Merton College ; but that institution had now the same number of Fellowships that it had six hun dred years ago. The same took place at Clare Hall. There was, he believed, only one College in which the number had increased, which was Queen's College, where they had in creased from twelve to fifteen. It was very generally said that the Senior Fellows appropriated to themselves more of the spoil than they were entitled to, and deprived the Juniors of their proper share. It certainly was the case that in Tri nity College, Cambridge, that eight of the Senior Fellows lirad double Fellowships. In a case such as this he would sub colt that the Legislature ought to interfere; but they were t, ki that the Legislature never had interfered with the manage me et of eleemosynary foundations. Now that was not the ease,. for the Legislature, by many modern statutes, had inter fered with other charities. The annual amount of property now enjoyed by the Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge was not le , s than 200,0001. per year. The first petition that had be. an presented that night, from St. John's College, Cambria Tge, alleged that this measure was quite unneces sary, bee muse there was a power in the visitor to regulate abuses. _Now, he had no doubt that the Gentlemen who signed that petition believed that statement to be true ; but t h e f ac t CI al a directly the contrary. The violation of oaths was really -and truly something—he was going to say quite horrible. DO held in his hand a book published 120 years ago b y 94. gent leman learned in the law, in which the whole of these statutes were reviewed in order ; the book certainly con tained much violence of expression, in consequence of the author having had a quarrel with a Master of Trinity College; but it also afforded considerable information ; and then, after a fair and full recital of the statutes, it was stated that those statutes were constantly broken; yet since that time no alter ations whatever had taken place, and the oaths had continued to be administered. The statutes of that College (Trinity) required that there should be nine lecturers, but there were not ; and that was one of the many violations to which he might call their attention. The Master swore to observe the statutes and enforce their observance ; and one of them required that the Master should not be married. The present Master was a widower; but the statute embraced that case, for the words were that he " should not contract marriage." It was, how ever, said that the Crown had granted dispensation ; but he would beg to ask what power had the Crown, or any one else, to dispense with the observance of oaths ? He thought that he bad made out clearly to their Lordships that the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge were not managed in conformity to the original intentions of the founders, and that the funds were misappropriated ; and he would conclude by moving that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bishop of LL A NDA FF said that oaths were taken under various circumstances, and some of them, by their very terms, implied that those to whom they were administered were bound to govern the Colleges according to the true te nour and real spirit of the statutes, and according to what they sincerely and conscientiously believed to be theinten tion of the founders. The particular provisions by which that intention had been carried into effect were often igno rantly described in detail, so as in fact to produce a very dif ferent effect from that which was intended ; and he did be lieve that most of the instances which had been produced as deviations from the intentions of the founders had proceeded from an anxious desire to fulfil those intentions, and to afford all the benefit of which the institutions were capable. Such, at least, he knew to be the motives which had led to any de viations that had taken place during his connection with the Universities ; and, although departing in some respect from the letter of the 'statutes, yet still adhering to their tenor and spirit. He would confine himself to two points in the preamble of the Bill, upon which he would make one or two observations. In the first place, the preamble of this measure recited, " that, whereas great estates and funds had been bequeathed, for the purpose of providing poor and in digent persons, &c. Sze." Now he thought that the Noble Earl had mistaken the real object of these institutions, for although they were legally tested eleemosynary, they were not, he apprehended, in any respect similar to almshouses or any charitable establishments of that sort. Their main ob ject undoubtedly was to provide fit men to serve God in the Church, and ail the specific provisions which had been adopted had a manifest tendency to that end. The statutes by which the Colleges were founded generally described their object to be to afford such a liberal course of education as would fit those who received it for the office of the Ministry; and the persons for whom those benefits were intended were required to be of suitable character and behaviour, and, amongst the rest, indigentes ; that was, persons who would not be able otherwise to go through the necessary course of study. The term indigentes, he must observe, had not the same meaning as the word " indigent," which was generally applied to "1" person in actual distress. With respect to the question of residence, certainly the greater number of those who enjoyed the benefits of the College foundations were not resident ; and he must confess it to be his opinion that it was much more beneficial to the world at large, and more conducive to the intentions of the found ers, that it should be so ; but, at any rate, he clearly thought that it was a master which ought to be left to the consciences of men placed in such a position, under the solemn obligation of an oath. The Noble Earl had appeared think that there was some inconsistency in the language of the petitions which had been real that night. For his own part, he could not see the ideonsisteney ; in those petitions different reasons had been alleged a p-euharly applicable to the circumstances of different Colleges. If, indeed, one reason had been alleged that could neutralize !he rest, then the objection might have had some weight. But the case was not so; and now he had one general reason, which was also common to all the petitions against this Bill, viz., that no sufficient foundation had been laid to justify the Leg,islature in calling upon public bodies of this nature to produce all their private papers, their registries, their deeds, and records—perhaps to attend foe some time in London, and leave the sphere of their peculiar duties, and to submit to the dictatorial powers of a hostile Commission—a:al that, too, without any charge being made against them, or any sufficient opportunity being afforded them of explana tion. It Was, at least, unusual that so decided a step should be taken at once. A Committee ought, as it generally did, to precede so sweeping a measure as the pre sent. It appeared to hint that the Bill had arisen entirely from a mistaken notion of the real intentions of the founders of these collegos, front an idea that they were designed entirely for the instruction and benefit of very poor and indigent per. sons ; whereas, on the contrary, he believed that they were mjnly intended to rase religion in the estimation of society, by means of the character and station of its Ministers. There was a clause in the statutes of the college to which he had be longed during a great part of his life, which he had ever con sidered the wisest provision connected with the Government of any college, and by which it was permitted to those in whom the management tested, to make such changes and alte rations as the altered circumstances of the times might require, and this was declared to be done ad conservationenz institutio nis, or for the purpose of earning into effect those objects for which the institution was founled. He (the Bishop of 'Llan daff) by no means wished to insinuate that the Noble Earl was net actuated by the most virtuous and patriotic motives; but he did think that he had not sufficiently considered the na ture and object of these institutions, or he would have been contented with some provision which would relieve the Fei• lows from the difficulty in which they were at present placed. To the second reading of this Bill he must give his decided op position, and he would therefore conclude by moving that it be read a second time that day six months. Lord HOLLAND agreed with that Rev. Prelate in be lieving that most of the persons who had taken upon them selves to relax those statutes, and especially the Right Rev. Prelate himself had done so in the full spirit of the founder's intention, and in conformity with the tenor of the statutes themselves. He agreed with him further, that many of those statutes were such, that it would be wise and advantageous to the public, to the Colleges, and to the individuals themselves, that they should be dispensed with. The object of the Bill was to dispense with those observances which were now strictly adhered to, and to do this without the violation of any moral duty whatsoever.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") What his Noble Friend proposed was simply a commission to inquire into the subject. What his Noble Friend proposed to accomplish was no more than that which in many instances was done at present by the authority of several of those Colleges and so. cieties themselves, and done in many instances against the letter of the statutes, and in other instances against the letter of the oath taken to observe them. The Learned and Reve rend Lord had argued that this was not a statesmanlike way of proceeding to revise these oaths. In that he might not dif- fer with the Learned and Reverend Lord, but if these oaths were not thought necessar) to be observed, he (Lord Holland) could not see any advantage in continuing them. But he would even say, was not there disadvantage in continuing them? If such oaths as these were taken in certain other Colleges, and loosely observed, would their Lordships hear nothing about " Dens' Theology," and of the subtle inge nuity of swearing to do one thing and intending to do another ? Those persons who opposed this Bill were placed in an awkward dilemma. They stated that they could not consent to any investigation, that they must resist and remon strate against any invasion of the words of oaths prescribed by the original founders of these institutions, and against the in vasion of the provisions of their ancient statutes. But if these founders were alive at the present day they would call upon their Lordships to do just that which this Bill proposed to do. They would call on them—on the Parliament and on the Crown—to make those alterations and improvements which were wholesome and advantageous for the institutions themselves. The Bill did not charge any parties with any delinquency whatsoever; it simply called on the proper au thorities to make inquiry into the subject. He did not see that the Bill went further than simply proposing a Commission of Inquiry. Now, he would ask, was there any one College in either University which had not in some degree de parted from the original statutes ? Most of these Colleges had been founded before the Reformation. Were there not, in the ancient statutes of most, or of all, of these Colleges, obli gations to say masses and to pray for departed souls, and were not oil these obligations departed from ? True he might be told that this was in accordance with the law of the land; but did they not take the oath to observe these obligations? The law of the land was quite a different thing in the reign of Henry the Eighth from what it was at present. It then assumed a more formidable shape, and it was not quite so safe a matter to dispute it. He was anxious to see this Bill passed, because he thought the improvements it proposed were highly advan- tageous - and desirable, and would confer the greatest benefi on these Universities themselves. The Bishop of LL A NDA FF explained. One part of the Bill proposed to, release the members of Colleges from the observance of the statutes in all minute particulars. He feared that the measure would not tend to raise the character of the obligation of an oath throughout the country at large. The Marquis of CAMDEN opposed the Bill altogether. He contended that it was unjust to the parties most interested. The preamble of the Bill was not proved. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY thought that the Noble Earl attempted to show that these Universities, which were the pride of the country and the admiration of the world, had ceased to fulfil the purposes for which they were originally instituted, and that it was necessary to bring forward this measure. This was exactly set forth in the preamble of tke Bill. The Noble BAron had stated that this measure merely p: °posed an inquiry into this subject.—(Hear, hear.) But surely their Lordships knew that the visitors of Colleges had at present the power to make this inquiry, and surely it could not be doubted but that they were interested in any improvements that they held to be desirous or advan tageous. The visitors and the heads of Colleges had full power to remedy any abuses that existed. He had listened with particular attention to what the Noble Earl had stated with respect to the preamble of the Bill. That preamble contained allegations of a very serious nature. It stated that whereas these Universities were criginally established for the promotion of religion and virtue, and the encouragement of liberal arts, &c. Now, the allegations that these Universities had departed from the fulfilment of those original purposes ought to be proved. But what did the Noble Earl confine himself to ? To the single instance of the duty of the Univer- sities to provide for the' education of indigent persons. Had it been shown that they had failed in the promotion of religion and virtue, or that they did not produce many eminent per sons both in Church and State ? But, with respect to the in stance to which the Noble Earl had particularly directed his argument—namely, the education of the poor and indigent__ on this point he would refer to a very eminent and ancient authority in the Romish Church, who was held in high repute in the Ecclesiastical Colleges in most of the Continental coun ties, and his application of the meaning of this provision for the education of the indigent was, that it should be held to apply to those whose parents, taking all circumstances into consideration, were not equal to the expense of maintaining their sons at Colleges. Now that was the interpretation that was put upon this part of the ancient statutes in all the Col leges of either of the Universities with which he (the Arch bishop of Canterbury) was acquainted. This was the rule on which the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford generally acted. With respect to Baliol College, the Master and Fellows had, ac cording to the ancient statutes, a right to appoint each a scholar, who, according to the notion of the original founder, was to be consiedred a servitor, and was to pay for his education by his personal service to the Master and Fellow who appointed him. This custom wore out with the age, and without violat ing the notion of the original founder, they thought that in stead of each master appointing a scholar, the appointments generally should be open to election. But they did not pro ceed ad libitum to the alteration of the statutes. They ap plied to him as visitor to the College, and he felt happy to give his full sanction to that alteration. Now, when such a power of making useful alterations existed, and when it had been so beneficially exercised, why send Commissioners to violate those Institutions which had existed for upwards of six hundred years ? He had received a communication from the Bishop of Exeter, in which he requested him to state that in the College of Exeter no deviation from the statutes took place without the previCus sanction of the visitors. The No ble Baron (Lord Holland) had stated that many of these foundations existed before the Reformation, and that many of the ancient provisions fell consequently into desuetude. But why did that happen ? M ere l y b ecause t h ey were a t variance with the existing law of the land. If he properly understood the speech of the Noble Earl, his object appeared to be to restore things to their ancient state.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If there were abuses there could be no objection to put an end them ; but had any case been made out ? Had there been any case to show that there was any violation of oaths? Before they proceeded to pass such a censure upon the Uni versities they should have all the statutes before them, and see whether there might not be certain observances in some sta tutes from which other statutes contained a dispensing power. There were some which might be dispensed with, whilst there were others that did not admit of being dispensed with. There was nothing to determine their Lordships to vote in favour of the Bill before them, without better information than they at present possessed on the subject. He did not think that their Lordships could, in justice or reason, consent to this Bill, and he confidently trusted that their decision would convince him that he was not wrong in that expectation. Viscount MELBOURNE was most willing to make every allowance for the difficulty of the task ; but, at the same time, he must say that, agreeing entirely with the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, that they ought to look to the effect the change might have in the morality and religion of the country, be ( Viscount Melbourne) had in his own experience seen in the Universities too much high and transcendent talent, too much of fair and unblemished character, and too much of fair and competent fortune, to wish at once to consign them to an untimely grave. He would not say in his own experience that they did not require an inquiry or that they could not be improved. He ad mitted, with the Noble Lord, that great improvement had lately taken place ; but that very admission went to the ex tent of showing that heretofore, at least, they had not ful filled the objects for which they were instituted. He could not say that these institutions were perfect ; but this he would say, that, in his opinion, they required to be in quired into, with a view to their amelioration and improve ment. He had listened with great attention to the peti tions which had been presented, and he had heard the allega tions that these Colleges were private foundations. This point, he thought, bad been well argued by his Noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Radnor), who contended that the private character of these institutions had merged into a public character in consequence of certain proceedings which had taken place inany years ago, providing that no man could be a member of the University, or partake of a benefit from the University, without being also a member of some College. As had been well stated by a writer of great acuteness, that if a private institution became incorporated ..sith a public institu tion, without becoming at the same time both public and pri vate, its public character did not become private, but the pri vate made itself public, and might accordingly be dealt with as a public body. With the exception of a few prizes —certain examinations for degrees and lectures—nothing was done by the University. The whole of the proceedings of the Univer city with respect to tuition and to discipline belonged to the Colleges, and therefore he would contend that it was perfectly fair and right that an inquiry should be made into the manner in which these matters were conducted within the Colleges. The Statutes, it was admitted, were in most respects obsolete. Now, to remedy that defect it would be necessary to have an inquiry of the nature proposed. An University would not reform itself ; there were too many conflicting opinions, too much of compromise, and too many different motives, ever to expect such a result. The Right Rev. Prelate said that the powers proposed to be given were too great. He stated that persons would be liable to be called from different parts of the country. Now, that was just the argument used by every Noble Lord who had attacked the proposed Commission ; but if the powers were too extensive, could they not be limited ? This was the argument that was used against the Ecclesias tical Commission. It might have a very good sound, it might look well on paper, but it bad nothing in it, and he was sorry to see that, on the last occasion, it had been used by Hon. Gentlemen of great knowledge, and for whom he entertained the highest respect. There had been a great number of these Commissions issued of late ; but had any one ever heard that they had abused their powers? The Right Reverend Pre late said that the Commissioners might trouble persons with A sorts of illegal questions—in fact, that they might be made to answer questions which would criminate themselves. This was the great complaint urged against the Municipal Con - mission ; but he had never heard any complaint against that Commission—( Cries of " Hear")—or of any abuse of their power. The fact was, that they never possessed those powers, and, therefore, it was a necessary consequence that they could not have abused them. Undoubtedly, the conclusions which they drew front the evidence were very much objected to ; but there was another point which made it very necessary in his opinion, and also in the opi n i o ns of the Right Rev. Prelates whose absence from the House he certainly had no right to remark upon—and no doubt they had sufficient reason for it ; but there was another point which made it ne cessary to direct the attention of the House to the subject of maintaining the efficacy of these institutions as seminaries for education. Two institutions had lately risen in London, in connection with which there were Right Reverend Prelates, well cognizant of the ancient Universities, who had been tu tors in them, and he believed it was the opinion of those Right Rev. Prelates that the system of education pursued at the new seminaries was infinitely superior, and that the various subjects of knowledge in which instruction was given to the students were so good, that he believed it to be the opinion of those Right Rev. personages that, unless the curriculum of study in the ancient Universities were enlarged, they would not be able to hold their present position. At least this was the opi nion of a Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Durham. He ( Viscount Melbourne) had seen it in his printed speeches, and that same Right Reverend Prelate had said that the persons who came to him from the new institution at Durham for Ordination, were infinitely superior in their learning and attainments to many who came from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He ( Viscount Melbourne) knew that no man could be better qualified to judge in this matter than the Right Rev. Prelate, and he would therefore repeat his opinion that, unless the curriculum of study at the ancient Universities were enlarged they would not be able to maintain their present position. For this reason, therefore, he thought that some inquiry should be instituted. But there were other matters of a more serious nature to which it was necessary for him to advert. The Right Rev. Prelate said that there had been a regular course of improve ment in the Universities. Had there been an improvement in the pecuniary expenses? Could anybody assert that there had? Would any Noble Lord, whether lay or clerical, say that in this respect the Universities had not partaken of the laxity of the times ? His Noble Friend had remarked up on the great prevalence of private 1 uition in the Universities. This custom was introduced, it was said, in order to enable persons who, though net actually paupers, but men not in very affluent circumstances, to obtain that station in society to which their learning and abilities entitled them. This private tuition was a great draw upon the wealth of the stu dents. It led to a system called cramming, the consequences of which were exceedingly unfair, and the knowledge thus obtained was not of a wholesome nor permanent kind. He (Lord Melbourne) mentioned these circumstance with the greatest respect towards the Universities, and with the great est admiration of the talents which they undoubtedly pos sessed ; but at the same time to show that they were not per fect, and not entirely without blemish. The Duke of WELLINGTON—My Lords, the Noble Viscount who has just sat down has stated his disapprobation of every part of the education of the youth of the country which is under the superintendent care of the Universities. --(Hear, hear, hear.) My Lords, before I proceed to ex press an opinion on this Bill I would beg leave to remind your Lordships of the history of former Sessions of Parlia ment upon this same subject—the two Universities of the kingdom, Oxford and Cambridge. In the year 1834 a Bill was brought into Parliament, in the other House of Parlia ment, to remove certain disabilities which, as the Bill stated, " prevented certain classes of his Majesty's subjects from re sorting to the Universities of England, and of proceeding to degrees therein," and in the year 1835 a Bill "prohibiting sub scription to the Thirty-nine Articles in certain cases," was also brought in. The last Bill, my Lords, was brought in by the Noble Earl who has proposed this Bill to your Lordships. The first-mentioned Bill was brought into the other House of Par liament ; but it was moved in this House by the Noble Earl opposite. Your Lordships thought proper to repeal these Bills, and, my Lords, I have recalled these circumstances to your Lordships' recollection in order that you may see the ani mus with which this Bill is brought under your consideration_ this Bill, my Lords, which I say is neither more nor less than a Bill of pains and penalties against the Universities, and upon which the first proceeding of the Noble Earl opposite ought to have been to call evidence at your Lordships' bar, to prove the facts stated in his preamble. The preamble of the Noble Earl states, that the statutes prescribed by the original founders of most of the foundations have been abandoned, and that even the most recent statutes arc disregarded, and that it is highly expedient that an inquiry be made by Commissioners to be specially appointed to inquire into the funds and revenues and general administration of the Colleges and Halls, and to report how the said funds and revenues might be made more condu cive to the objects of the benefactor or founder. My Lurds, I say that there are facts stated in this preamble, which, i n . stead of the Noble Lord stating his own conjecture, ought to have been stated with his proofs, and the Noble Lord ought to have called witnesses at the bar to prove those allegations.-.. (Hear, hear.) These Commissioners, or any member of them, by the Act, are to ask such questions as they please upon the subject-matter of their inquiry, and the Courts of King's Bench and Exchequer are to impose a fine upon those persons who omit to answer, whether the question asked be legal or illegal— whether the question be capable of answer or not. This, my Lords, is the Bill introduced by the Noble Earl, whose object it was, on two former occasions, to put an end to the taking of an oath founded upon the religion of the Church of England, as established in the Universities. My Lords; when I say this was the conduct of the Noble Earl during the three last Sessions of Parliament, and when I heard the Noble Viscount, in the Session of 1835, declare that his object was to establish a Uni versity system of disputation upon religious matters, I cannot have the slightest doubt as to what is the real object of this measure ; and, under these circumstances, I earnestly recom mend to your Lordships to concur in the motion of the Right Rev. Prelate opposite, that this Bill be read this day six months. My Lords, that which I insist upon is, that the working of the whole system is for the benefit of the public— that it has worked well for the public, and that in each of the Colleges the object is to carry into execution the will of the founder in such a way as it is probable he would have: ap proved of if he had been living at this period. My Lords, in all these Colleges the first object, above all others, is the bene fit of the public in the education of the youth who resort to those institutions. My Lords, the Noble Viscount opposite could not avoid admitting that these institutions have worked well, and particularly that there has latterly been a great im provement in the system. The Noble Viscount has told us, it is true, of the advantages of the institution at Durham, and likewise of other institutions recently established ; but the Noble Viscount could not help admitting that the ancient institutions bore the merit of having established in Eng land a system of education and good discipline which is the admiration and envy of the world.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") My Lords, it is perfectly true that a Commission to inquire into the Scotch Universities was issued; but the Noble Lord forgets that his Majesty is the visitor of all the Universities in Scotland. His Majesty is not the visitor of the English Uni versities. If an inquiry is necessary into the Universities of England, or into any of these Colleges, I understand there is a power at this moment capable of carrying on such inquiry, and of proceeding at once to annihilate the charter of any College if it should be found that that institution had been guilty of the crimes with which it was charged. My Lords, the Noble Lord has here pleased to complain of those statutes which require that every person resorting to the University should belong to one of the Colleges or established Houses of the University. My Lords, I must say that I consider that rule to be one of the greatest merits of our Universities, and to be the great, the marked, distinction between our Universi ties and these abroad, and which renders the system of educa tion in our Universities superior to those of foreign countries. But the Noble Lord has discovered that it is expedient that this rule should be departed from Viscount MELBOURNE—I did not say so. The Earl of RADNOR—I did. The Duke of WELLINGTON—WeII, the Noble Earl thinks it proper that the rul.s should be departed from. I, my Lords, most sincerely hope a n d t rus t th a t th e r u l e w ill not be departed from.—( Hear, hear.) My Lords, the statutes of the University have relation to every member of every Col lege. It is, in fact, impossible that the regulations proposed by the Noble Earl—all of which have relation to the Bills in troduced by the Noble Earl during the three last Sessions of Parliament—it is impossible that these regulations could be effected without affecting the University. The object of the Bill is to overturn the whole system on which the Universities now stand. It has been tried twice by means of direct legis lation, and having failed it is now tried a third time. I shall most cordially give my support to the motion of the Right Rev. Prelate opposite.—( Hear, hear. ) Lord BROUGHAM could not, in the first instance, help endeavouring to remove from the mind of the House the im pression which must have been made upon it by the speech of the Noble Duke who had just sat down, that this Bill was of a perfectly different character from anything which he (Cold Brougham) could see upon the print of it, and he could only know it from the print, as the Noble Earl had introduced it without any communication with him, or he believed, any other Noble Lord in that House. But speaking only from the Bill, he must say, that anything more different from the Bill than the description which the Noblo Duke had given to it, and upon the credit of which description the Noble Duke had drew nine-tenths of his objections, he could not possibly conceive. He (Lord Brougham) would only adduce one or two samples. The Noble Duke said that the Bill em powered the Commissioners to put any questions whether le gal or illegal, and upon a refusal the Commissioners might appeal to the Court of King's Bench or Exchequer to im pose a fine. There was no such provision in the Bill. What tho Bill provided was, that if any person, being summoned, should refuse—that was of course contumaciously or obsti nately—to answer the question put, the Court of King's Bench or Exchequer might impose a fine. The Noble Duke had said that by this Bill the Commissioners were not merely to make inquiry, but to make alterations in the statutes. The Commissioners were certainly to take the statutes into consi. dcration, and, if they thought fit, to propose new ones. Now this would be a most extraordinary power by itself, and if the Bill contained anything like it he should certainly vote with the Right Rev. Prelate ; but in reality the Bill only em powered the Commissioners to inquire, and to propose what - ever alterations they might suggest to the competent autho rity. This Bill went into no such enactments as would consti tute it a Bill of pains and penalties. Its only object was to inquire, in order to lead to the discovery of the fact whether or not certain prevalent practices were right or wrong, and, if they were found to be wrong, then to suggest such remedies as would render them accordant with the law.—( Hear, hear.) But the most remarkable thing in the allegations of these petitioners was the variety and inconsistency of the argu ments they adduced in support of the views maintained by them. It was utterly impossible that all these conflicting arguments could be admitted. In the first place the peti tioners said that inquiry must not be, nay, that it should not be, for that they (the petitioners) were bound as a mat ter of conscience to be ruled by certain statutes only, and that if Parliament enacted others they would be bound to dissent from them in every way shot t of actual resistance. This was one argument. The other argument was one of a very different kind. It was one brought forward by many if not by all of the petitioners. They said, " You need not inquire ; inquiry is not necessary ; no enactments are necessary ; for there already exist visitors, who are fully competent, and empowered to do all that you would do. We can make changes ourselves if it be necessary, and if we do not, then here are the visitors, or there is the Crown. In deed we have already strained our powers, for we have made great alterations, and altogether your interference is most unnecessary and unfit." Now here were two reasons utterly inconsistent with each other, and the opponents of this Bill must choose between them. With respect to this claim of the exemption of certain Colleges, on the score of their having special visitors, he (Lord Brougham) thought they had been, on a most erroneous principle, exempted on a former occasion. By the statute of charitable uses (43 Eliza beth) all such establishments, whether they were common or eleemosynary charities, or other establishments for the disse mination of learning, as had special visitors, were exempted from the operation of that Act. Following the example of that Act, the framers of the 58th and 59th Geo. 111. inserted a clause, exempting from inquiry by the Commissioners therein appointed all such establishments as had special vi sitors. But afterwards, when men's minds, by ten or twelve years' experience, were altered on the subject, it was found that an enactment of the kind would be cumbersome, expen sive, and circuitous in its operation, and accordingly when the Bill was renewed in 1831, the clause of exemption was omitted, the grounds of the exemption being stated, nor although a strong opposition to the omission was raised in the other House of Parliament was it opposed in their Lordships' House ; and all specially visited charities were by that Act subjected to the inquiries of the Commission.—(Cries of " Hear.") The office of the visitor was not inquisitorial only ; he also exer cised the functions of a Judge, and was himself the last autho rity to whom, in almost all cases, appeal could be made. The office of the Commissioners, on the other hand, was purely in quisitorial ; their object was inquiry, a n d i nqu i ry as i t m i g h t turn out—eading to ultimate results, to the attainment of which the power of the visitors was quite inadequate.— (Hear, hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate and the Noble Duke had urged that the preamble of the Bill was incorrect in stating that their funds were intended for the poor and indigent scholars. Now, this had long been a matter of great interest, and it was impossible to say that it was not still in a great degree unsettled. He thought that it might however, be laid down as a general rule that these funds were not, in the first instance provided for poor scholars merely, because the word " indigentes" in the statute was capable of a construction superseding that of pauper only. That word could be translated to mean—" unfit and unable to attain knowledge elsewhere, to attain to a higher station." The words were, valde pauperis et indigentes. Now, "pauperis" was commonly held to be equivalent to our word " pauper," but the intensive particle "valde" seemed to convey a meaning which he would render as perhaps very, or, rather poor-poor ish.—( A laugh.) But in his (Lord Brougham's) view of the subject, he did not care whether the words were rendered in this way or not, satisfied as he was that the founders could never have intended such an application of the funds as had since been made. Could any one think that it was the inten tion of those founders that scholarships and fellowships should be held by those who, according to the statement of the Noble Lord, enjoyed the greater part of them ? What would the founders have thought of the tripartite division of the fellowships in Trinity College, according to the state ment of the Noble Earl? What would they have thought of the first class, with their double fellowships of 7001. per year, while the Junior Fellows had their fellowships of 3001. per year? These were the indigent men—the valde pau penis et indig6ntes I Many of them were men of standing at the bar, of some of whom he had a personal knowledge, while all were persons of great respectability. What would they have thought of the fellowships of Bishop Chicheley's foundation of All Souls, original forty, but now reduced to thirteen ?—( A Noble Lord here intimated that the thirteen were residents, not that the fellowships were thirteen.) True, thirteen residents ; but what said the statutes on the subject of residence? They were most positive in requiring residence with certain stated exceptions. (He (Lord Brougham) by no means meant wholly to condemn non-residence—far from it. Those petitioners - relied upon their statutes. v Then, why not produce them? The Noble Lord (Lord Radnor) stated, that there had been deviations from the ruks laid down by the founders, and that it was desirable to have the interference of Parliament, in order to put an end, by the sanction of the law, to the odious, intolerable, and anomalous system that now prevailed. These were statutes which could not pos sibly be carried into effect ; rules that, although very good when made five or six centuries ago, might be, and were most pernicious when attempted literally to be acted up to in the present day. The Colleges had stood up and de clared that they had themselves made many alterations in day. the statutes, and the Most Reverend Prelate had admitted that many of them had been habitually broken through. For instance, if the statute required residence and there was ha bitual non-residence, was that no deviation ? The authority of the Most Rev. Prelate, and the admitted fact of non-resi dence, were the best answer to the allegation that charges were made in the preamble and were not afterwards proved. But this constant anomaly—this making and breaking of sta tutes—was it a state of things at all compatible with the dig nity of the law, or of the learned bodies themselves ? Was it becoming that the youth of the Universities should daily have before their eyes examples of rules and ordinances osten tatiously placarded only to be broken, and of sacred oaths so lemnly taken but heedlessly violated ? If the inconsistencies of the seniors were unnoticed could it be expected that those of the pupils would be punishable ? Assuredly the time was come for inquiry. It was all very well to pronounce laborious panegyrics on heads of Colleges, for, be they ever so true, they must ever form but a sorry substitute for effectual investiga tion. What I Would it be said that ther e was anything about these establishments to entitle them to claim to be the only public institutions sacred from the searching eye of Parlia ment—to say that with them infallibility and impeccability had at last taken a final refuge ? When all corporations throughout the country, ecclesiastical as well as lay, had been inquired into by Commissioners appointed by the Crown, were these two- Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to be guarded from the scrutiny of inquiry, because they declared themselves to be so immaculate and well-conducted as to have no dread whatever of any inquiry, however minute and searching ? a confidence consistently exemplified by their locking up, under three locks and three keys, each kept by a dignitary of the in stitution, all the charters, fundamental laws, and by-laws whatever, under which they claimed to have conducted their affairs; thus securely baffling investigation; while they covered the table of the House with petitions breathing no thing but indignant defiance, and challenging inquiry.— ( Hear, hear.) Such were the inconsistencies of these peti tioners. The passing this Bill would not only benefit the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, but that it would be of material and decided advantage to their Lordships them. selves. Their fellow-countrymen won't! consider that their Lordships acted wisely and judiciously in so doing, and would, he knew well, look on their Lordships as public benefactors for their readiness to comply with the general wish ; and if it should happen, in any future time, by any means whatever— whether right or wrong—that their Lordship should lose that high favour with the people which they ought to receive, lie felt confident that the passing of the Bill would tend to re store the former feeling. The Bishop of LL AND A FF explained. Lord ABINGER said that there was nothing more than the statement of the Noble Lord himself to call for the pas.,ing of the Bill. The Noble Lord had spoken particularly against the government of Trinity College, Cambridge. If any just grounds of complaint existed why did not some petition ema nate from some of the Fellows, of whom there were not less than 68 on the foundation ? If the funds were improperly administered why had not some application been made to the Visitor ; or, if that had failed, why had not an appeal been preferred to the King in Council ? Nothing of all this had been done, for it was obvious that such a proceeding was un necessary. There weae in truth no grounds for the Bill but such as existed in the brilliant imaginings of the Noble Lord. There alone could any grievances be found. He should cer tainly vote in support of the amendment. Lord WYNFORD opposed the Bill. The Earl of R A DNOR replied, and in the course of his remarks expressed his willingness to hear evidence given at the bar, in order to satisfy the House that a Committee of in quiry ought to be appointed. The Duke of WELLINGTON said that there was already a motion before the House, and it would be better to deter mine on it first. The Earl of RADNOR said that he had made the pro posal in order to meet what he considered was the expressed wish of the Noble Duke. The Duke of WELLINGTON bad already stated his opinion that there were no grounds for appointing a Commis sion.—( Hear, bear.) He had also declared that if abuses did exist there were legal modes of inquiry into their existence and their extent, as well as of applying an effectual remedy. The Earl of RADNOR having concluded his reply, the amendment was carried without a division, and the Bill in con sequence was lost. The House then adjourned at Twelve o'Clock until Thurs HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL U. The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour, but there being a ballot for a Committee to try the merits of a petition presented against the return of Mr. Luke White, for the county of Longford, the gallery was not opened until a quarter past four. Captain CIIETWYND presented a petition from Stafford in favour of the Manchester, Cheshire, and Staffordshire Rail way, and against the South Union Railway Bill. Colonel SEALE presented a petition from an individual in favour of the Hartlepool Railway Bill. Mr. GREENE brought up the Report of the Committee on the Clarence (Durham) Railway Bill. Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition against the Pres ton and Wire Railway Bill. SOUTHWARK AND HAMMERSMITH RAILWAY. Mr. BAINES, who was in the gallery, having been called upon by the Speaker, moved that all the petitions relative to the Scuthwark and Hammersmith Railway Bill be referred to the Committee on the Bill ; and that Mr. Wilks, Mr. Wason, and Mr. Praed be added to the Committee. The SPEAKER—You must come down.—( Laughter. ) Mr. WILKS thought the report of the Committee should be printed, and they would then be able to ascertain whether there was any necessity for the Hon. Member's motion. The motion was then agreed to. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented petitions in favour of the Glasgow and Ayr Railway. Lord CLEMENTS presented a petition from Leitrim against the Lough Foyle Drainage Bill. Lord G. LENNOX presented petitions against the London and South Eastern Railway Bill. The NOBLE LORD then, on behalf of the Hon. Member for East Sussex, postponed the petition relative to the Dover Railway till Thursday next. CHURCH -RATES. Petitions in favour of Church-rates were presented by Mr. Farrand, Lord Stanley, Mr. Grove Price, Mr. Horace Tw•iss, Mr. R. Palmer, and other Members; and in favour of the abolition of Church-rates by Mr. Grote, Sir G. Strickland, Mr. T. Duncombe, Major Beauclerk, Mr. Lennard, Mr Be nett, Mr. Tooke, and Mr. Aglionby, whose petition also prayed for a Reform of the House o f Lords. Lord G. LENNOX presented a petition against the Salmon Fisheries Bill. Mr. SCARLETT presented a petition against certain clauses in the Imprisonment for Debt Bill. LONGFORD ELECTION. The Clerk of the Election Committees appeared at the Bar with the reduced list, and the following Members having been called over came to the table and were sworn by the Clerk : Lord C. Russell, Sir Rufane Donkin, Mr. Edward Horsman, Mr. Benjamin Hall, Mr. Rushout Bowles, Lord Viscount Clive, Mr. Roland Alston, Mr. Thomas Hawke:, Mr. George Houston, Mr. Andrew Lawson, and Sir J. C. Hobhouse. SMITHFIELD MARKET. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from 6,000 inhabitants of London, praying for the removal of Smithfield Market, on the ground that it was a nuisance, and tended to the desecra tion of the Lord's Day. Alderman WOOD assured the HOll.lO that these petitions had been got up by persons interested in a railway which was intended to terminate near the rival market at Islington. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from persons living within the liberty of the Rolls, complaining of the inequality of the land tax. Mr. HAMILTON presented a petition from Dublin against the Dublin Police Bill. POOR LAWS. Mr. P. HOWARD presented a petition from a place in Cumberland in favour of the Poor-law Amendment Bill. Petitions against the Poor-law Bill were presented by Sir J; Graham, Lord G. Somerset, Mr. Walters, and Lord Henniker. Sir A. L. HAY presented a petition in favour of the Shipping Gazette. Lord - CLEMENTS presented a petition from Leitrim, praying for the abolition of tithes. Mr. GROTE presented a petition from London, praying for a repeal of the Corn Laws. Petitions against the abolition of Church-rates were presen ted by Mr. Palmer, Sir. G. Sinclair, and Mr. Trevor; and in favour of the abolition of Church-rates by Mr. Baines, from Leeds, Huddersfield, and about 20 other places in Yorkshire. Mr. O'CONNELL presented 34 petitions_ from various places in Ireland, praying for the abolition of Tithes, and for Vote by Ballot. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL presented petitions from Kerry in favour of the Irish Municipal Bill. On the motion of Mr. LABOUC HERE the Lords' Amend ment to the Mint Bill were agreed to. BATH AND WEYMOUTH RAILWAY. Mr. F. BUXTON presented a petition in favour of the Bath and Weymouth Railway Bill. Sir 0. MOSLEY presented a petition in favour of the Manchester and Cheshire Railway, and a petition from Derby praying for a reduction of the duty on Fire Insurances. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. HUME snored the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill, and addressed the House in support of the Bill. The only opposition given to the measure in the debate on the previous even i ng was that it would endanger the stability of the Established Church in Ireland. Ile begged to remind the House, that in the year 1822, he had put forth that tranquillity could not be expected in Ireland until the Established Church was reduced to such limits as were commensurate with the real wants of that part of the population which adhered to its doctrines. Up to the present time, how ever, that Church was put forward as the apology for not giving that justice to Ireland which had been conceded to England and Scotland.—(Hear.) He most earnestly ad vised the friends of that Church, however, to yield in time, as being the only mode of averting those dangers with which it appeared to him that the Church was threatened. He believed that the Church was not the real object which Hon. Gentlemen opposite were so desirous of preserving. They made the Church a stalking-horse, or rather the Protestant religion, wherewith to cover the real object they had in view, which was that of preserving the revenues and the sinecures of the Church. It was openly advanced by lion. Mem bers opposite, that the Bill would not pass in ano ther House; but he begged leave to state that that should be no argument with them. They had only to do their duty in making this Bill as perfect as possible, and let the other House of Parliament take all the responsibility of reject- ing this measure, and denying - to the people of Ireland equality of civil rights. He could not understand why the majority of the people of Ireland should not have the same mea sure of justice as was meted out to the majorities of England and Scotland. By the violent opposition to this Bill from the Hon. Members opposite,they were only by these means driv ing headlong to destruction the Established Church which they expressed themselves so anxious to preserve. Upon this ground he maintained that that monstrosity in our Constitution—the Irish Church—and he must say that our Constitution would be purer and better if there were no Established Church--but until the Irish Church ceased to be the dominant religion, peace could not be hoped for in that country. In England the religion of the State was the religion of the majority, and thus also it was in Scotland. An Hon. Friend near him said it was the true religion, but he was a wise man who knew what the true religion was. They had seen every religion in every county and in all ages asserted to be the true religion. The increasing intelligence of the country, however, tended every year to place the Established Church in greater jeo pardy—particularly in Ireland. ( Hear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentlemen opposite rejected this Bill, they would ere long have to regret that course. The measure before the Houso was only one instalment of that which was due to Ireland, and if it were rejected, such a rejection would only rouse the people of Ireland to greater exertion against the Established Church as their common enemy.--( Hear, hear.) It was not his fault that reform had not gone on faster, and ho hoped the day was not far distant when no party would be able to be found who would say there was no such thing as Church property. He trusted that past experience would not altogether be lost on the Tories. He would say to the Hon. Member for Kilkenny let the measure be rejected elsewhere, and if that were the case, it would afford him double ground for agi tation. He cordially approved of the Bill then before the Mouse, and he should give it his strenuous support. Mr. A. TREVOR said he, and those who sat on his side of the House, felt it their duty to uphold those principles which had been handed down to them from their ancestors and which had been sealed by their blood. He main tained that the Bill before the Houso would convert Ireland from a Protestant into a Popish country. Concession after concession had been made to the Roman Catholics; a stand must be made somewhere, and he did not see that that stand could be made in a better place than at the al tar of their religion.--( Hear.) If the Church were destroyed, every other species of property would be destroyed also. —( Hear.) He certainly should not have troubled the House but for the denunciations of the Honourable Member for Middlesex against that Church which he ( Mr. T.) loved and cherished. Whatever might be the decision of the other House of Parliament, he was certain it would be as satisfactory to the nation, as it would be honourable. Mr. GALLY KNIGHT altogether disapproved of the Bill. Mr. O'CONNELL said the Hon. Gentleman had given them strong reasons for voting one way, and had declared his wish to vote for the Bill, and yet persevered in the determina tion to vote against it. He should not now perform his duty if he did not make an appeal once more to the English Le gislature, or rather to such portion of it as would condescend to listen to him, and hear him again advocate his favourite de mand of " Justice to Ireland !" Yes; he demanded justice for Ireland. There could be no tranquillity in that country, .and God forbid there ever should be, till they obtained jus- tice—till they obtained justice agitation should increase. But the Honourable Gentleman ought to make his vote tally more with his argument. Now, he ( Mr. O'Connell) called for jus tice for Ireland. Justice consisted in an equality of civil and political rights. England enjoyed the advantages of Munici pal Corporations ; Scotland the same ; and should he be told that Ireland should not have Municipal Government ? Sup pose Scotland and Ireland to have Municipal Corporations, and to refuse them to England. Oh 1 what a show would they make on the other side of the House, advocating the gi v ing Municipal C or p orat i ons to Scotland and Ireland, and re fusing them to England. He did not think they would ever be again restored to their situations ; he did not believe that they would ever have time to canvass their respective consti tuencies ; because he should hope that in such a case the people of England would assert the right which they had to resist oppression, and if necessary to terminate the contest by the destruction of their tyrants. Though the Irish people had been more accustomed to the domination of tyrants, Hon. Gen tlemen speculated wrongly if they thought the young heart of Ireland showed so little emotion or feeling when she was re fused that which had been conceded to England and Scotland as not to feel the wrong and the insult which were heaped upon her. They might come forward with paltry pretences and empty words—they might give them rage excuses—but what signified their words ? Was not the fact this, that Scotland and England had secured for themselves Municipal Reform, and that Ireland had not any such advantage? What then became of their words ? lie would defy the Hon. Member who had preceded him, and those who might follow him, to point out a single period of English history where England had ever go verned Ireland justly. It was a history covering a period of seven hundred years ; and the grievances of the country, with the actors in the Government, had differed in various transac tions, but the principles of each succeeding Government had been the same—the grievances had been the same in amount —the Government of Ireland had been still carried on un fairly and by faction. No Government could be unjust and strong at the same time. They might try experiments by these pretences—by the aid of religious bigotry, national antipathy, and individual malevolence.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") But individual malevolence was so poor a motive . to action that it -could not be admitted as an argument. Na tional antipathy was, indeed, the principle upon which those persons had too long acted who opposed good government for Ireland. To what extent had it been carried in another House ? There to vituperation had been added insult, to in jury, which never could be sufficiently reprobated. The Hon. Member for the University of Dublin had stated that he (Mr. O'Connell) considered the municipal franchise of itself of little value. Now he had the speech of the Hon. Gentleman who had quoted a letter of his (Mr. O'Connell's.) In showing that he undervalued this power, the Hon. Gentleman took not the speech, but a letter of his (Mr. O'Connell's), and he read this • paragraph :—" It is quite true that if Lord Lyndhurst had contented himself with limiting his proposition to the mere extinction of Corporations I would have voted for that Bill." The Hon. Gentleman quoted this part of this paragraph to show that he (Mr. O'Connell) was ready to vote for the ex tinction of tithes ; but he left out the concluding words—. , and looked for new Corporations immediately afterwards." This, then, was a specimen of the candour which had marked the " Hon. Gentleman's mode of proceeding. Did the Hon. Gen tleman deny these words ? Mr. SHA W—No. Mr. O'CONNEL L—Nor any other person for him ? The Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire had made a speech last night which exhibited less of his usual character, and less of mental power than usual. The Noble Lord, too, had dwelt much on the subject of the declaration which he maintained was required to be made, but which had been omitted in the present Bill ; he contended, too, that the 5 1 - franchise was too little in Londonderry, and made a difference in the principle of the measure. The Noble Lord then re ferred to the question of the Sheriffs, and said he would rather have them appointed directly by the Corporations. He (Mrs O'Connell) could easily conceive why the Noble Lord would prefer having them so appointed ; it would hereafter supply him with a powerful argument against the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) They had been told in the course of the discussion that the question was now only one of time. It was admitted that the time would eventually come when the Corporations of Ireland must be reformed ; but, said the Honourable Gentle men opposite, it is not convenient for us to reform them at present. Was it right or proper—would the house sanction such a course—that the Irish nation should be insulted and kept in a constant state of agitation upon a paltry question /Of time?—( Hear, hear. )—What an argument to place ir. the mouths of the repealers I—( Hear, hear.) "We admit that you are aggrieved, but we will not remove the fetters we have fixed upon you until it suits our pleasure and convenience to do so."—( Hear.) If the Hon. Gentlemen opposite stood upon a bold and disti nc t groun d, an d sa i d that the Corporations should not be reformed at all, or that they should be totally ex tinguished, and nothing of the kind substituted in their stead, there would be some consistency in their conduct ; but bow paltry, how insignificant, how unworthy of themselves, how insulting to Ireland, was their behaviour, when they said " We know you are aggrieved, but the time at which it may . please us to wipe away y our wrong h as not just yet arr i ve d.' —( Hear, hear, hear.) Why wou ld not they do i t t h e n ? They told them (them, the representatives of Ireland) that the Irish people were not fit to receive British institutions. Not fit to receive them 1 The tendency of British institution a was to elevate the human character. Then, if the Irish people were not sufficiently elevated in the scale of civilisation, the way to raise them, and to render them ultimately fit for the enjoyment of British institutions, was to give them British In stitutions at. once.—( Hear, hear.) This argument of unftness for the reception of British institutions was the same that had been advanced against the Irish people for the last 600 years: They had always been told that they were not fit for Britist! institutions. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman here entered into a narrati ve o f t h e tyranny and oppression practised u pon Ireland, by the dominant Protestant interest, from the time of the Reformation ; and contended that the old corrupt Corne rations, whose battle was fought by the Hon. Gentlemen On site, were remn an t s o f t h at old system of oppression which ought now to b e w h o ll y re f ormed. The protracted d e bates upon the subj ec t o f C orporate Reform in that House, the inso lent tone ad o pt e d e l sew h ere, showed that in many b os oms hateful feelings t owar d s I re l and still existed, strong and war' —( Hear.) It wa s th e d uty o f t h e British House of Comm ?t _ to put an end, if no t to t h ose feelings —for that might e But possible—but at l eas t to t h e system that arose out of them. _ they were told that if this concession were made—if a reformr,..i of Municipal Corporations were allowed—other and more powe s attacks would be made against the Established Church ; and t he speech of his (Mr. O'C.'s) had been quoted, to show that present measure were granted he should employ it as V ione . in strument to procure the abolition of tithes ? The flen',. s n ot ber for Cumberland, who spoke last night, said, " It is my fault if connect the topics of the Church with that av e the Corporations. lam compelled to do so because thel a rned been previously connected by the Honourable and _ idere d Member for Kilkenny," He (Mr. O'Connell) ee n _ s h o ds both as grievances, and no doubt had mentioned them not at the same time—perhaps in the came breath ; but 1 1 ot her.. follow that he had in any way linked them with easu The fact was, that to him the existence of each o f th o se . Brie - Tate° '`'"f vances was a weapon of strength.—( Hear, hear. either of these, and he was at once deprived e ) f 41 1.! ° . f ho h ns is most powerful arguments in the cause of Ireland. ea: '' t a d. both away, and he at once changed places with his pres , a ear.) versaries—they would become strong, he v"-sk• do r poras Whilst it was denied that either the Church or the, flowe r tions, as at present constituted, was a grievance, his roared Ireland—he. f must continue. He stood there for justice to this a ct not with what ribaldry he was met. He 'mid with hir_l bac i not =.England had reform, Scotland hut reform, Ireland