The Sun. — London, England, 1854-03-18 00:00:00

IMPE MAL PA R IL NT. HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took is seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. _ _ Lord CLARENDON laid on the table the private correspondence alluded to the other evening, between Russia and her Majesty's Government, respecting Turkey. DISCLOSURE OF CABINET SECRETS. The Earl of NIXLVIEiBURY called the attention of the house to the charge made by the F►rst Lord of the Treasury against a gentleman, formerly a clerk in the Foreign-office, for a violation of his duty in disclosing some secret correspondence of that department. Having observed that he tit it his duty to take this c.turse in the interests of justice and fiirplay, he st.ttel th , ‘t_ he was convineei for two reasons, that the noble earl had been deceived in making the charge against the young gentleman in question—first because the esprit de corps which existed among the clerks of the Foreign-office was such that there was not a single instance on record of any important secret having been disclosed by them ; and, secondly, because this gentleman had, (lariat" the whole period he was in the office, conducted himself in the most praiseworthy manner, lie (the Earl of IVlalmesbury) had communicated with the gentleman, whose name was Mr. Astley, and he had received a letter from him, expressing his deep concern at the charge made again 4 him by the Earl of Aberdeen, and stating that he had not at any time, or in any way, divulged the secrets of the Foreign office, and that he could not therefore admit. as alleged by the noble earl, that he had scandalously violated his duty. Considering that Mr. Astley was the son of a baronet, had hitherto borne a high character, and was hardly 22 years of age, he hoped the noble earl would retract his accusation, which, coming from the first per son in the country, next to the Sovereign, and having been for several days before the public, could not but have a very injurious effect on Mr. Astley's reputation. The Earl of ABERDEEN replied that, on a former evening, he had said he ,was perfectly eeady to leave the issue upon this matter entirely with the gentleman himself. Undoubtedly, when he made the statement he did, he had not the slightest belief that this gentleman would find it possible to deny its truth ; but, as the letter read by the noble lord convinced him of the con- trary, he was bound to accept the denial, and at the same time to express his sincere regret that he had been the means of casting any aspersions upon his conduct. He was sure, however, their lordships would believe him ;len he said that he would not have made the charge withont a moral conviction of its truth, but if the noble earl was not satis fied, he was quite ready to make known to him the ground he had for entertaining that belief. The Earl of Aberdeen concluded by bearing strong teitininny to the ability, zeal, and fidelity of all the clerks in the Foreign- office. The Earl of DERBY expressed himself fully sa tisfied with the statement and ample apology of the noble earl, and said he hoped his noble friend would he ready to - accept them, but he could not but think it would be more satisfactory if the noble earl, in pursuance of his offer, acquainted his noble friend with the .quarter from which he obtained the information affecting the chara ter of Mr. Astley. The Earl of Derby then strongly condemned the practice of communicating Cabinet secrets to the newspapers as injurious to the public service; and men tioned that the ultimatum sent to St. Petersburg , for the evacuation of the Danubian principalities was pub- lished in the Times newspaper the next morning after the sitting of the Clbinet Council, in which it was agreed to. The noble earl intimated that if the practice continued, he should feel it his duty to take up the ques tion, and endeavour to ascertain from the parties who published such information, the sources from which it was derived. The Earl of MALMESBURY observed 'that what the noble earl opposite bad said mast be extremely satis factory to Mr. Astley. (Hear.) He would only make one or two observations on what had fallen from his noble friend behind him. When a correspondence took place between two parties, and the secret was known to both, it was possible for the secret to be violated by one of the parties. He had never heard of its being violated by the department in England, but he was sorry to add that he could not say the same thing of offices abroad, for he had known instances of secret correspondence being most shamefully m tde public. But in the case of the ultimatum, or whatever the paper might be called, . . referred to by his noble friend, that could have been known only to the Cabinet and the persons employed by the Cabinet, and it was quite evident, therefore, that in that case the betrayal could not take place abroad, but must have occurred in this country. Nay, more, the very short time that elapsed between the decision of the Cabinet and the publication of this document was an ad- ditional proof that the person violating his duty must be a person connected somehow or other with the Go vernment, whom, therefore, the Government were bound to discover, He did not believe it possible that any member of the Cabinet could have had the indiscretion to allow anything that passel within the Cabinet to be publicly known; but if any repetition of these improper proceedings took place, he trusted that the noble earl, whose first duty it was to discover the culprit, would not rashly lay the blame on the youngest, and, perhaps, the most insignificant member of a department, but would remember the observation of Sancho Panza, " that a cask may leak at the top just as well as the bottom." The subject then dropped. BRITISH MERCHANTS IN RUSSIA. The Marquis of CLA.NRICARDE, in rising to move for copies of the late correspondence between the noble lord her Majesty's , Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and her M jesty s consul at Riga, regarding the export of the produce of Russia belonging to her Majesty's sub jects, and to the rights of neutrals in the event of war, said that he wished to call the attention of their lord ships to the substance of a despatch from the noble lord to her Majesty's consul at Riga, which was dated on the 10th of February last. The words of this document were as follows :-- " The Earl of Clarendon has hail under his consideration a despatch requesting to be informed what respect would be paid by British cruisers, in the event of war, to bona fide British property, the produce of Russia, if shipped on board neutral vessels. I am to acquaint you, in reply, that property of the description in question, the produce of Russia, and exported therefrom by and on account of a British merchant domicile i and trading there, although purchased before the war, and exported to England, would not be respected by her Majesty's cruisers, unless in pur suance of a license, or of some special instructions from her Majesty to the officers of the navy. By the law and practice of nations, a belligerent has a right to consider as enemies all persons who reside in a hostile country, or who in tintain commercial establishments therein, whether such persons be by birth neutrals, allies, enemies, or fellow-subjects ; the property of such persons, exported from such country, is, therefore, res hostium, and, as such, lawful prize of war. Such property will be condemned as prize, although its owner may be a native-born subject, of the captor's country, and although it may be in transitzi to that country ; and its being laden on board a neutral ship will not protect the property. You will therefore inform those whom it may concern that, in the event of war, the property in question will not be protected by the consular certificate, or by any other document, but will be liable to capture and condem nation as prize." Now, he did not mean to question in any way the law as laid down by the noble lord, but merely wished dis tinctly to understand the extent of its applicability to the British merchants resident iii Russia, who, as a mat ter of course, were most anxious that a question of so much moment to them should be reduced into as plain language as possible. By treating the British merchants resident in Russia with too great severity, we should not only be doing an injury to them, and to our own coun try, but we should also be doing an advantage to Rus sia. The measures held out in the despatch as likely to to be adopted with reference to such merchants have, if rigorously enforced, a most unjust and pernicious influ ence ; because only last autumn such merchants had re ceived the most positive assurances from the British Government of the peaceful termination of the question at issue between the Western Powers and Russia ; and the Emperor of Russia himself had told them that their persons anti property would be protected either in peace or war, and, under these circumstances, he thought that the British merchants had noright to be led to suppose that their° wn Government would desert them at this particular crisis. In connexion with thissubject, also, he read in the Times newspaper of to-day a letter from the Board of Trade, which was addressed to Messrs. Martin 'and Levin, of Trinity-square. The letter was in these words : " Office of Cominittee of Privy Council for Trado, Whitehall, March 14. "Gentlemen, —In reply to your letter of the 24th of February requesting to be informed whether, in the event of war between this country and Russia, Russian goods imported from neutral ports would be considered contra band, or would be admissible into England, I am directed by the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade to inform you that, in the event of war, every indirect at tempt to carry on trade with the enemy' s s country will be illegal ; but, on the other hand, bona fide ade, not subject to the objections above stated, will not become illegal merely because the articles which form the subject-Matter of that trade were originally produced in an enemy's coun try.—l am, gentlemen, your obdient servant, " J. EMERSON TENNENT." He was quite sure that their lordships would agree with him that the subject to which he was calling their atten tion was one of the greatest gravity and import trice, and one which affected a very large class of our fellow-coun trymen. (Hear, hear.) He felt very strongly or the matter, having been resident at the Court of St. Peters burg, and knowing how many disagreeable disputes con stantly arose, and how much trouble and annoyance was brought about in reference to the protection of the persons and property of British subjects. He had no doubt that the subject would receive the attention that was due to it, both from the English and French Go liernments ; and he had also no doubt that very often, in the commencement of a war like the present, se verities were necessary, and in many cases unavoid able ; but still, at the same time, he hoped that every opportunity would be taken to relax them as far as possible, especially with reference to our own sub ject., whom it ought to be our wish and desire, as it was our duty and privilege, to protect. (Hear.) [The noble lord spoke so indistinctly that it was difficult to hear any two consecutive se ntences of what he said.] The Earl of CLARENDON—Wth respect to the letter to which my noble friend has alluded, and which I had not seen before, it appears to me that, although there may be some indistinctness in its wording, there can be no doubt as to the meaning to he attached to its contents. It meant to state that, in the event of war, all indirect trading with the enemy's country would be considered as illegal ; but that on the other band, bond fide trade, not subject to the objection stated In th e letter, would not become illegal from the mere fact that the articles forming the subject-matter of that trade were originally the pro iuce of an enemy's country. (Hear.) This is the meaning I attach to the letter to which the noble lord hae referred, and this is, I consider, the fair coustructioa to be put upon it. With respect to my latter to the consul at Riga, I should be very sorry that it should appear to have been written with any unneces sary curtness or severity, or that it should in any way inflict pain on the British merchants resident in Russia, and I can truly state 'that such was not my intention. (Hear.) During the tune that I resided at the Court of St. Petersburg, I feel bound to bsar witness to the honourable conduct and bearing of the British subjects resident there, and, although I am ready to agree with the noble lord as to the many disagreeable c ails we have made upon us relative to the persons and property of British subjects resident in the country to which our embassies may be attached, yet, with refe rence to the British residents at St. Petersburg, as far as my experience goes, I must say that I never had the slightest trouble or annoyance with them. (Hear, hear.) Tne letter of which I am no ,v speaking became neces sary in consequence of certain communications which had been made by a gentleman resident in Russia to the consul anti authorities at Riga. This gentleman was not going to leave Russia, but, on the contrary, to remain resident there ; and he wrote and and asked whether he •might import Russian goods from Russian ports with safety. The subject was referred to me about a month ago, and I immediately took advantage of all the means at my command to ascertain what the law was with re ference to it, ; and, having ascertained it, I stated it as clearly and as concisely as I could in my despatch to the consul at Riga, and in such despatch I explained to him that, by the law and practice of nations, a bellige rent had a right to consider as enemies all persons who resided in a hostile country, or who maintained com mercial establishments therein, whether such persons were by birth neutrals, allies, enemies, or fellow-sub jects ; that the property of such persons exported from such country was res h,ostium, and, as such, was looked upon as a lawful pr.ze of war. Such property would, in fact, be condemned as prize, although its owner might be a native-born subject of the captor's coun try, and although it might be in transitu to that country ; and the fact of its being laden on board a neutral ship would not protect it. I am exceedingly sorry that the law should be considered to be unnecessarily severe upon this question, but, in writing the despatch to which the noble lord has called attention, it was not my duty to indulge in any comments as to its severity, but merely to state clearly, distinctly, and explicitly what the law really was. ("Hear," and cheers.) I only wanted to inform him of the truth of what the law was, and what he would expose himself to if he did what he had announced it was his intention to do. I certainly did allude to licenses and facilities that might be given ; but, without knowing under what circumstances he was going to export his produce, and, in fact, knowing none of the particulars of the case, I thought I was going to the utmost extent al lowable, without the fear of leading him into error, when I adverted to such facilities, and informed him of the state of the law, leaving him to decide for himself. During the last few days I have rsceived at the Foreign office very numerous applications indeed on the important subject to which the noble marquis has referred, many of them requesting information on points of law, others with regard to the safety of transactions in which they are engaged, and others regarding the use of the Russian flag in consequence of the dearth of shipping experienced this year, and many others putting a string of hypothe tical cases which it would require no comnion ingenuity to unravel. I consider it to be no part of my duty to give answers to a great many of these questions that have been put to me ; but still I have no wish to make use of official reserve, and therefore I have endeavoured to give all the information in my power; but your lordships wilt un derstand that great caution was necessary in doing so, from the fear, in the first place, of leading parties into errors which might have led to their injury; and, secondly, not to commit the Government to courses which might have involved great responsibility. (Hear.) With respect to the intentions of her Majesty's Government, it has been impossible hitherto—though I need hardly tell you that there is every desire on the part of the Go verornent to give all the protection possible to British commerce awl British property—it has not been possible hitherto to determine on what principle the dispensing power of the Crown will be exercised—whether licenses or orders in Council shall be resorted to—till we know all the particular cases and the infinite variations which distinguish then. (Hear, hear.) There is also this point to be borne in mind —that we are, for the first time, engaged with a naval ally, and, therefore. it is our duty to be very clear as to the principles we are about to adopt, and the departure which we shall sanction from our former law and practice, as well as the bona fide character of every transaction, before we can call on the French Government to adopt those principles, and to protece British commerce and property in a way that the French •might not, in ordinary circumstances, see to be right. A great variety of cases has now been brought under the consideration of her Majesty's Government, and we are now very nearly in a position to determine what rule of conduct to adopt and what facilities to afford ; but I should be sorry to enter into any particu lars on this subject., and my noble friend has given a very good reason why, when he stated that the accounts which l i have appeared in two papers are entirely at variance with each other ; but I think we are nearly in a position to determine the principle on which we will allow licenses; and I therefore only say at the present time, in answer to the observations with which my noble friend concluded his speech, that, in so far as concerns protec tion to British subjects and commerce, it is the determi nation of her Majesty's Government to act with the ut most liberality consistent with the rights of belligerents. With respect to the rights of neutrals, and with respect to letters of marque, I trust we are about to set an ex ample of liberality by which we shall be able to show that as far as it is in our power, it is our intention to mitigate the calamities of war, and to act in a manner that shall be consistent with the humanity and civilisation of the age. (Hear, hear.) I have only to say, further, that it is of great importance that our own foreign nations should be apprised at as early a period as possible of the course which the Government intend to pursue, and I hope, therefore, in a few days to be able to lay the cor respondence applicable to this subject on your lordships' table. (Hear.) The house then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAZER took the clair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Scarborough Market Bill was considered and agreed to. SLIGO ELECTION. The members chosen to serve on the Sligo election committee were called to the table and sworn. To meet to-morrow at 12 o'clock. PETITIONS. Mr. M. SMITH presented petitions from West Kent against the Oaths Bill. Several petitions were presented praying that all pub lic houses may be closed on Sundays. Sir J. V. SEIELLEY presented a petition from the Patent Law Amendment Society, illaying for an amend ment of the patent laws ; also a petition from the parish authorities of St. James's against the Poor Removal Bill. Mr. HIND LEY presented a petition from a place in the manufacturing districts in favour of the establish ment of reformatory schools. Mr. LA.INt- presented a petition trom a place in Scotland in favour of national education divested of all sectarianism. Mr. BEr:KETT presented a petition from Ripon against the bill for consolidating rural and town districts fur police purpose;. Mr. HOR-TA.LL presented a petition from the Liverpiol Chamber of Commerce against privateerin.z. Col. BLAIR presented a petition from a Free Church congregation in Scotland against the endowment of Roman Catholic institutions. Lord HOTEIA.IA presented a petition from Hull against the Oaths Bill. Mr. RICARDO presented a petition from Stoke-upon- Trent praying for the repeal of the duty on fire in surance. ARCTIC EXPEDITION. Sir T. ACLAND moved an address to the Crown for the copy of a letter addressed by Lady Franklin to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, dated the 21st day of February, 1854, in reference to their lordships' announcement in the London Gazette of the 20th day of January, 1854, respecting the officers and crews of her Majesty's ships Erebus and Terror. Agreed to. RUSSIA. AND TURKEY. . Lord J. RUSSELL, by command of her Majesty, brught up copies of treaties between Russia and Turkey, which were ordered to lie upon the table. THE B4.LLOT. Mr. H. BERKELEY gave notice that, after Easter, he should renew his motion on the subject of the ballot. RUSSIAN PRODUCE Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked Lord John Russell, in the event of war taking place, whether the pur chase of Russian produce would become illegal and liable to seizure on its transit overland, via Konigsbero to England ; or would Russian produce purchased 1; the subjects of any neutral state, and repurchased of them by En.zlish merchants be illegal or liable to seizure on its transit from such neutral state to the port of London ? Lord J. RUSSELL was not prepared to give any answer to the second question, but with regard to the first, he did not think such goods would be liable to seizure. OXFORD UNIVERSITY. meats which were used to prevent the interference of Par liament. Sir the commissioners have pointed out at great les.gth the defects which they conceive to exist in the Uni versity of Oxf'ord, and the remedies which they think it desirably to apply. But it is not the commissioners only who have stated that Oxford does not at present fulfil all the purposes for which it is designed as a national univer sity. (Hear, hear.) I find a statement to the same effect in the very valuable paper laid before the heads of houses by Dr. Pusey. He has said— " There is much need of every exertion to extend the old universities. They have means for sound education, and a traditional feeling which no new institution can possess ; means (as our fellowships) which are now often compara tively wasted, because no adequate employment is found for them within the university. But now, instead of extending our influence, we have been gradually losing the preliminary education, not only in some degree, of other learned profes sions (as the bar and the higher medical profession), but even of the very clergy. The population of England increases day and night ; increase of the clergy is not only needed, but de mauded." There cannot be stronger testimony that some reforms are needed than that so able an opponent of the commissioners as Dr. Pusey slruld be found saying, that not only is the education furnished at Oxford not adequate, in extent at least, to the education required for the bar and other professions, but that it is not sufficient even for the clergy, whose education the University of Oxford might be sup posed to be fully competent to conduct. (Hear, hear.) In considering this subject, I propose to take in order the different subjects which I stated in nay speech last year on the subject of national education, and which subjects were then poimed out in a letter to the Chancellor of the Uni versity of Oxford by my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The first relates to the alteration of the constitution of the University, with a view to the public welfare and to the extension of the useful in fluences of the universities. The commissioners have stated that there are general complaints of the governing bady of the University. They have stated that the heads of houses are elected for cther reasons and other purposes, because, for example, they are supposed to be of concilia tory manners as heads of houses, or that they will exercise a wise superintendence over the revenues of tho college, or that they have connections of a personal or political character with those who have the appointment in their gift ; and that they are not specially qualified to undertake the superintendence of the studies of the University. That this is the case is admitted by several of those gentlemen who have given their opinion on the appointment of heads of houses. Without now stating to the house what it is proposed to do on this subject, I proceed with the next question, on' which there is a great deal of evidence in the report of the commissioners—l mean the extension of the University. We are to consider that this is a national in stitution—that it is one that ought to supply education for as many young men as can be expected to require at that place a liberal system of education. Sir, in look ing at the history of the university, it will be found that in ancient times the university and not the col leges was the principal and ruling power—(hear, hear) — that the congregation of the leading resident teachers, summoned by a bell, formed the congregation or ruling body of that university—and that at one time there were no less than 30J halls to which scholars resorted to obtain the benefit of the education given by the university. But in process of time the whole of this system was subverted, and the commissioners state that for 150 years, and, it ap pears, for a considerably longer time, the colleges have sup pianted the university, the halls have become altogether extinct, and that no education has been received by stu dents except through the medium of thz. tutors of the dif ferent colleges. I find that this is stated not only by those who are in favour of reform, but by those who are against .it. There is thus now existing quite a different system from that which was originally established, and the con sequence of that difference is that the education given has beeumti more restricted in its extent, that young men are obliged to enter a college, and., believing that they are obliged to receive the education given in that college, only look to that education, whether they desire to obtain degrees, or honours, or fellowships, and the more substan tial rewards of the university. Now, there is in the evidence of Dr. Pusey a great deal of very acute discus sion upon the question which he puts as an alternative, of education in colleges, or education by professors of the university. I own it appears to me in the first place, that these are not antagonistic questions. (Hear, hear.) It ap pears to me that there is nothing more wholesome and snore advantageous than the existence of colleges, the heads and fellows of which exercise a certain amount of dis fto attend a lecture upon chemistry or mineralogy. It therefore, necessary that, in some way or other, there should be a junction betweea the teaching of the colleges and the duties of the pr o fes sors . I h ave mentioned these matters in order to show how completely the charac ter of the university has changed, and one of the con sequences of this change is, that there being no longer any of those hall„ 300 of which existed at an. early period, the only means of obtaining education at the university is by becoming an inmate of one of the colleges. The result of the enjoyment of this monopoly by the colleges, and of the restrictions which ware established by the Laudian statutes has been that the cheaper modes of living which were available in former times, and which enabled numbers of persons who were comparatively poor to obtain entrance at the university, have ceasnd to exist, and that the num ber of student's at the university has very materially di minished. It was stated, I think by the heads of houses in 1846, that one time the number of undergraduates was 1,460, but that the general number had been about 1,300. Now, when we consider that there were at one time an Trinity College, Cambridge, 1,300 inmates of the college, besides 700 who lived in lodgings and who were held to belong to that college, we cannot but be satisfied that 1,300 is a very small and insufficient number of persons to be educated at a great national institution which has 150,0001. a year of revenue. (Hear, hear.) [Mr. Walpole here made an observation across the table, but it was entirely inau dible in the gallery.] Oneof the defects, therefore, for which we wish to provide a remedy is this—that there aro no means of attending the tuition at Oxford except by belonging to the colleges. The next subject to which I shall call the attention of the house, and which I mentioned last year, relates to the restrictions placed upon the various emolu ments which are the rewards of learning in the university. I must say I cannot but think, although ancient statutes are referred to, that, in point of fact, the fellow ships and scholarships have been more restricted than they were intended to be by their original founders. At all events, there can bo no doubt—for we have one witness after another stating the fact—that in consequence of the existing restrictions, especially of the restrictions to the kindred of the founders and to persons of particular coan ties and localities, the ordinary man is very often pre ferred, while the man of singular talent and learning, who has distinguished himself in the university studies,is re jected, and thereby, undoubt e dly, th e fi e ld of utility is narrowed, and the universities do not produce all the ad vantages which they are capable of affording. Many fel lowships are held by persons who do not live at Oxford— some of them have been held for many years by persons who have had no connection with Oxford, and who have not contributed in any way to the studies of the univer sity; and thereby again the means of this great university are restricted and frittered away by that waste to which Dr. Pusey has alluded. The next point to which I have to refer involves a proposal which undoubtedly may excite some objection, but it is a subject of so much importance that ‘re could not disregard it in a scheme for the reform of the university. It appears to us that some part, at least of the revenues of the richer colleges which are not now applied to the purposes of learning, or to provide teaching in the university, ought to be so applied. We conceived, therefore, that we could not do better than lay down certain rules under which the profeassors, lecturers, and others engaged in teaching at the university, may re ceive a sufficient income from tam) sources, so that the future course of education at the university may be im proved. Upon this point I may venture to quote the lan guage used by Mr. Burke upon another subject; and, al though the views he expressed might not perhaps be very well applied in speaking of the monasteries in Francs, yet the general rules he lays down with regard to the great revenues which are not devoted to useful purposes are so wise and just, that I think the house may well guide them selves by his maxims. "A politician," says Mr. Burke— " To do great things, looks for a power, what our workmen call a pirchase' ; and if he finds that power, in politics, as is mechanics, he cannot be at a loss to apply it. In the mo nastic institutions, in my opinion, was found a gr ea t p ower for the mechanism of politic benevolence. These institutions are the products of enthusiasm ; they are the instruments of wisdom. Wisdom cannot create materials ; they are the gifts nature or of chance 1 her pride is in the use. The perennial existence of bodies corporate, and their fortunes, are things particularly suited to a man who has long views, who medi tates designs that require time in fashioning, and which pro pose duration when they are accomplished. He is not deserv ing to rank high, or even to be mentioned in the order of great statesmen, who having obtained the command and di rection of such a power as existed in the wealth, the discipline, and the habits of such corporations as those which you have rashly destroyed, cannot find any way of converting it to the great and lasting benefit of the country." cipline over the young men who may be sent to the university, who may afford, them the benefit of their so ciety, and who bath by their authority and their manners can put some check upon their excesses and extravagance and 1110,1 M-eta the passions of young men. I consider it a great advantage that this country possesses in the. Univers ity of Oxford, that there should be colleges, and that edu cation should be given within those colleges. (Hear.) But, sir, if the education given is to be entirely confined to those colleges, it is obvious that the tendency will be that those who teach, and the tutors of those colleges, will confine themselves to certain branches of learning ; and not only to certain branches of learning, but that in those branches of learning which they teach they will confine themselves to certain branches and certain particular classes of studies with which they are thoroughly acquainted, and which they find greater facilities in teaching than a more eulighted and comprehensive scheme of education. On the other hand, the professorial system, merely considered.alone, has a tendency—as has been stated by one of those who have given evidence to the commissioners—to a loose and somewhat su erficial, and what is called a "hand to mouth" system of teaching ; and the student, although ho may hear the lectures of the professor, will not have the advantage of being thoroughly examined viva voce by a person in whose room he is sitting, and from whom he is receiving immediate instruction. (Hear, hear.) But, on the other hand, it is to be expected that the teaching of the college tutor should have a tendency to confine young men to certain branches of study, and that they should not be able to obtain from the col lege tutors that large and comprehensive view of different sciences which would be obtained from persons in the station of professors, and who, being gene rally men of eminence, and having devoted their minds to particular branches of study, are able to point out the various branches of learning that belong to that particular class of study. Dr. Pusey has drawn a comparison between the tutorial system of the English universities and the professorial system of the German universities, and he has said that the choice is between the tutorial system of Ox ford and that scheme of German rationalism which has been taught by the professors of some of the German uni versities. But the logic and the proof of this assertion are entirely wanting. (Hear.) The system of German rationalism does not belong to the professorial system, and if, instead of going to Germany, Dr. Posey had gone to Scotland, he would have found that the professors in the universities there were such men as Dr. Chalmers and others, whose lectures are as far removed as possible from the views of those German divines whose rationalistic doc trines are the dread of Dr. Pussy. It appears to me that we have an opportunity, and that opportunity we ought not to lose, of combining the advantage of the collegiate with that of professorial teaching. (Hear, hear.) And I should as little listen to a person who said that, because the tutorial system is excellent and colleges are of the greatest value, we ought not to have professors to give young men the benefit of their teaching, as I should listen to a lecture by an agricultural teacher who should say that it is very important to prepare the ground and till it, to plough and harrow it, to break it up and fertilise it with manure, but that with respect to sowing the seed it - was a matter of little importance, to which his hearers might pay little attention. For this seems to me the argument that is used. The argument is, that we ought not only to endeavour to strengthen the mind, but that we ought to throw in all the power we possess to strengthen and discipline the mind, but not to give it in formation. If these ware young men who only st ,yed at the university until they were 16, I could well understand that language. But as these young men usually stay un til they are one or two and twenty, it seems to me advis able that at the beginning of their college tuition they should have information with regard to those groat branches of learning and science which of late years, and not only of late years, but for the last century, have formed the riches of our modern time, and that the science of New tOn and the literature of modern (lays, of England, and Italy, anti France, ought not to he unknown to those who receive a liberal education. (Cheers.) It appears to me that there are two classes of persons for whom this education is lesirable. The one class is those who are will ing to adopt some profession, or who, at all events, expect to derive great advantage from the learning so acquired in the pursuits of life. Now, I do not think you give these young men sufficient education unless you point out the road by which such eminence can be obtaintd. I observe that, with regard to the course of studies proposed in the year 1850, a great advance was made in this respect ; but I think if that scheme of studies of 1850 is examined it will be found that even it has not sufficient scope—that it does not afford sufficient means to young men to obtain that know ledge of science, and of the learning of modern times, which they ought to acquire. I find that at Cambridge every person who endeavours to obtain honours is obliged to have some acquaintance with the Principia of Newton. I do not find, however, that any such obligation exists at Oxford ;-yet it appears to me, whether considered with a view to forming the mind, whether with a view to strengthening the intellect for other species of reasoning, whether with a view to watching the progress of discovery as continued by one eminent man after another, or whe ther, as opening the most sublime views of divine Provi dence and divine intelligence, that following geometrical propositions from the commencement of Euclid to the third hook of the .Principia would be as good and as use ful a study as young men could possibly pursue. It would appear, however, as if the modern date of Newton's dis coveries constituted, be some way, an objection to the use of his Principia in the University of Oxford. I observe that Dr. Pusey takes great credit for the instruction which is given in Butler's Analogy. No doubt Butler's Analogy is as fit to be put into the hands of men whose minds are to be exercised and who are to be taught the process of reasoning, as any book that can well be pointed out; but I find that it is only for a few years past that that work has been used at the university. I may read to the house a statement of the number of pupils who have attended the lectures of the various professors of the university. Those numbers have varied, from time to time, during the last two years, hiving sometimes been, in the case of the Regius Professor of Divinity, 13, 3,6, 26, 16, 14. The attendance at the lectures of the Regius Professor of Medicine was, in former times, rarely more than 10, and often not above four or five. At the lectures of Savile's Professor of Geometry the average attendance was not above three, the numberi having varied from 18 to none. (A laugh.) The average number attending Sevile's Professor of Astronomy was about three; White's Professor of Moral Philosophy, between 40 and 50 ; and Camden's Professer of Ancient History—for the popular lectures about aO, for the others, 10. Tile lectures of the Regius Professor of Modern History having been a great attrac tion on their establishment, the attendance for the first year was 160 on the average, and for the second year 57. Cho attendance at the lectures of the Earl of Lichfield's Clinical Professor was, on the average of the last three 'years, 5, and at those of Lord Almoner's Reader in Arabic, 3,4, or 1. The attendance at the lectures of Aldrich's Professor of Chymistry averaged, from the years 1822 to 183 ' 31 per annum • from 1831. to 1838, 16 per annum ; and from 1833 to the present time, 12 per annum. The average attendance upon Lee's Pt aslertot of Anatomy varied from 12 to 20, upon the Reader in Experimental Philosophy it wee 30, upon the Reader in Mineralogy and Geology it was 107 on the average for four years, and upon Boden's Professor of Sanscrit it was 10. It will he seen, therefore, with regard to the lectures of these professors, that they do not in feet form a part of the education of the university. In some of the publications against the reports of the commissioners stress is laid upon the circum stance that professorships exist at present; but as the attendance upon 'the lectures of the professors does'not form any part of the road to the honours and emolu ments of the university, the consequence is, as might naturally be expected, that the studies of the colleges are preforre ;, anti that young men who devote an hour to Greek plays, another hour to Thucydide3, and ano ther to Aristotle's ,Ethic,s, are not disposed afterwards Now there is, in the present case, no question as to the de struction of these collegiate institutions, or as to any at tempt to deprive the country of the benefit of their great resources ; but the question is as to the application of those resources to the purposes for which, evidently, they were originally intended, in a manner suited to the wants of our own times. I may be told that this is an unhallowed interference with the disposition of property by will— that it is a blow at foundations and endowments which are sanctioned by law, and I find that the Chancellor of the University of Oxford says that the whole frame and spirit of the bill I propose to introduce to-night are utterly subversive of all those privileges of the university which he is bound to maintain. Of a similar purport have been other communications which have reached my right hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford. Now, this is no doubt a serious question, but I think it is impos sible for any man to maintain that we have not the power —as I think it is our right and our duty—to apply these great endowments to those purposes of education for which they were intended. Let us look back to the origin of these foundations. Has everything been done exactly and lite rally according to the statutes of the founders? (Hear.) I need hardly refer—l do n know whether it is fair to refer —to suzh an event as the Reformation, but I may observe that 14 out of the 19 collgges at Oxford having been esta blished before the RefornAtion, many of the injunctions of their founders were changed when that event took place by the orders of the Sovereign who then reigned. That was a great change, but it was a change for the national benefit and it may be said that as there was then a change in the opinion of the whole nation, it was necessary that these institutions should be made conformable to that change in the national faith. Bat that change did not by any means stop there. That change affected the very question of the kind of teaching that was to be adopted at the university. We find that, in early times, certain sums were set apart in many of the colleges for lectures on divinity, on the canon law, and on moral and natural philosophy. What has become of these, foundations? They were intended evidently for the benefit of the whole university. Have they been so applied? I will read to the house on this point the statement of a very vener able man—not only venerable for his age, but respected for the valuable contributions he has made to historical literature—Dr. Routh, the President of Magdalen College, in his report to the heads of houses. Dr. Routh, in reply to the questions put to him, says— "l send, with my respectful compliments, for the informa tion of the Committee of the Hebdomadal Board, 'on what are the particular circumstances respecting readerships or profes sorships in Magdalen College, for the service of the University,' a copy of the college statute relative to our lectures in divi nity, and moral and natural philosophy. As to what is the actual state of such readership or professorship at the present time,' I answer that the usage has been, ever since and before I was a member of the college, for our lecturers to read, each of them, only one lecture at the end of every term." Now Dr. Routh says, and very truly, confining himself to the fact, that this has been the usage since he was a mem ber of the college, and previously, b u t h e d oes no t say th at it is according to the statute. Indeed it is quite clear that the usage is not according to the statute. It is quite clear that these lectureships in divinity and moral and natural philosophy were intended for the benefit of the university, and the statute is complied with by reading one lecture at the end of every term ! Why, here is an abuse ! What we propose to do, then, is to rectify abuses and not to de stroy institutions—to act in the spirit of the founder, and not contrary to his intentions. (Rear, hear.) Dr. Routh, however, goes on to say But it appears by Bishop Morley, our visitor's injunc tions, given in 1663, that the lectures were directed by him to be given once in every week, instead of the times men tioned in the founder's statutes. This injunction he sends, they arJ his own words, 'pro ratione tentporis,' referring, I apprehend, to the change which had taken place in education, conducted, as it now is, principally by tutors, persons un known to the statutes of Magdalen College." The President of Magdalen College, then, acknowledges that these changes were made in a manner unknown to the statutes, by Bishop Morley, pro ratione temporis. Let us a ct pro ratione temporise ; for we in 1854 have as good a right to consider the ratio tentporis as Bishop Morley had in 1663. Let us consider what were the intentions of the benevolent founders of these great institutions, and act as we suppose they would have been disposed to act, for the purpose of promoting knowledge and education. I find also that Walter do Merton, whose statutes, made at a very re mote period, have been followed, I believe, by Trinity and some other colleges at Cambridge, after declaring—" C a 3 - terum, quia casus omnes futuri ab initio certa, lege includi non poterant, sen statuto, idcirco volumes," &c., proceeds to provide that the heads of the college and eight or ten of the senior fellows shall make statutes from time to time which shall be obeyed by all those whom such statutes may concern, thus showing that his view was that with the change of time changes must be made in the regulations of the college. If we look, also, to the foundations of William of Wykeham, William of Waynfleet, and other founders of colleges at Oxford, we shall find in several cases that there was an intention to have lectures and professors in various branches of learning, and that the lectures were intended for the benefit of the wools university. The knowledge at the par ticularfu When the earliest of these colleges were found ed. schol astic learning was held in l founders m acted e of theac according r, 1 ing foundations. to their great repute. It was a time when Aristotle was held in Germany it is said Gospel, the clergy Ethics. The founders of colleges established at that time evidently intended to promote the study of this species of learning. The revival suchus that , e d reverence t i o n r s e t e a a a t a portion that orti reading on o manyf a A chapterstownsteien of of learning followed. Greek was introduced at Oxford, as it was in other universities and schools of learning through out Europe, professorships of Greek were founded, and a new species of learning was adopted with the change of time. have elapsed since that y in many of the sciences. Those sciences have p ro duced. most wonderful results, and it is desirab le that ev ery man should know he nature of those discoverie s an d o f th e period. Three We hcsevnetu maderies an gcriemath p al r f o ticienc_ something of t fortune laws which apply to the m. I co nceive that those who attend the University of Oxford—whether they are in tendedl to pursue some profession, o': whether they are ptheresirmlbresoafd s u ch byany that professional at a national university, not onl y instruction in particular branches of knowledge, but such general information as will enable them to go into th e world , and mix, without discredit, with persons who are well informed upon these they are not obliged to earn pursuit—ought to receive subjects. (Hear, hear.) I cannot think, then, that, in proposing to make a change of thiri kind with regard to part of the revenues of the University of Oxford, we shall be at all trenching upon the will and intention of the founders, but I rather think th at we shall be acting accord ing to the spirit of their intentions. I shall now proceed to state the general nature of the bill ehich I propose to in troduce. In pointing out the defects which I thought ought to be amended, I have expressed my opinion that the govern ment of the university is unsatisfactory. I rely upon the statement of the commission, that statement, I think, being corroborated by the testimony cf various witnesses. What we propose first, then, is to substitute for the heb domadal board, consisting of the vice-chancellor, the proc tors, and 23 heads of houses, a body consisting of 24 or 2 5 members, to be called the hebdomadal council, and to be composed in the following manner :—We propose that the vice-chancellor and the two proctors should always form a part of that council, and when the vice-chancellor of the preceding year shall not have been an elected member, that he also should form part of toe board—that would be three or four members, as might bs. With regard to the others, we begin in the first place 1:or forming a body to be called, in accordance with the ancient name, the " congregation," which would in fact consistof all the resident teaching staff of the university. There vould belong to that body called the congregation, the head) of houses, the tutors of col- Lord J. RUSSELL rose to ask leave to bring in a bill' to make further provision for the good government and extension of the University of Oxford and of the colleges therein. The noble lord said—Sir, in rising to lay under the consideration of the house a most grave and important subject, I feel peculiar need for your indulgence. I feel peculiar need for your indulgence, in the first place,' be cause I have not had the honour of studying at the Uni versity of Oxford, with regard to which I now propose to bring in a bill ; and, in a second place, because I am la bouring under the defect of bodily indisposition. I fear I may not, therefore, be able to convey amply and fully to this house the views her Majesty's Government entertain. with regard to this very important matter. On the other hand, I have had the advantage of having under conside ration a very elaborate and copious report from the coin. missioners appointed by her Majesty to inquire into the state and condition of the University of Oxford, and I have likewise had the advantage of the report which has been made by the committee of the heads of houses, and the able evidence submitted to them upon the questions which have been raised. I have had likewise the assist ance of my right hon friend the member for Oxford Uni venity (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in the prepara tion of the bill which I am about to ask the house to give me leave to introduce. (Hear, hear.) I therefore, Sir, proceed at once to the question, whether or not it is desirable to propose to Parliament great changes with respect to that university. I will no at the present moment enter upon the objections which have been made against any interference ,by Parliament with the 'con stitution of that university, but, after having stated the / views that we take, I wilt endeavour to meet those isrgu- THE SUN. LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 18, 1854. leges, the urofessOrs. the persons bearing certain offices in the university, and those who are resident, upon certain c•mlitious, and complying with certain rules laid down. That body, which would therefore be numerous, we pro pose should elect a certain number of the remaining 21, who are to form the hebdomadal council. They would elect six heads of houses, and the seventh head would be named by the chancellor of the university. To those seven would be added eight professors. six being chosen by the congre gation, one being named by the chancellor, and one being from the professors of theology of the university. The re maining six would be chosen out of the resident members of the congregation. The greater part would thus be elected by the congregation under these restrictions and conditions. There would be the vice-chancellor and two proctors, the heads of houses named by the congregation, the head named by the chancellor, the eight professors, and the six resident members of the congregation. That we propose as the governing body of the university. We propose that of those first chosen a certain number should go out at the end of three years, but that after the first election the period for which they would be chosen should be six years. - The next subject which we propose to insert in the bill has reference to the oaths, and upon that subject I will observe that it is very clear that we ought not any longer to permit oaths to be taken by members, either not to repeal any statutes of the university, or to obstruct any change of those statutes. Every oath, there fore, directly or indirectly binding the juror not to declare any matter or thing relating to his college, under any in quiry appointed by law, to resist or not concur in any change in the statutes of the university or college, or to do or to forbear from doing anything the doing or the not doing of which would tend to any such concealment, re sistance, or non-concurrence, shall be an illegal oath. The next subject is that of which I have already stated the effect—namely, the exclusive character of the college edu cation. We propose, therefore, that there should be a power to open private halls, which may be done by any master of arts obtaining a license from the vice-chancellor for that purpose ; and he will obtain that license only under certain rules and regulations made in a particular manner. Those members of the house whe have attended to the recommendation of the Oxford Commissioners of Inquiry will recollect that they propose that the under graduates should be allowed to live in lodgings with certain regulations ; but, upon considering that matter, we have thought it would be a safer plan that those who are not in colleges should be in private halls, where they can be sub jected to some discipline, but where, at the same time, they can have a more economical mode of living than is to be obtained at present. Of course this must be a matter of experiment. Its success will depend very much upon the means which persons provide for making that mode of living more economical than it now is ; but I think that 'there is every prospect that such a measure will succeed. (Hear, hear.) I will here say a few words—and they shall be but a few words—with respect to a subject which takes up much attention, and upon which many observations have been made by all who have written upon this ques tion—l mean the habits of expense and extravagance upon the part of the young men attending the university. (Hear, hear.) I believe, Sir, that this is a very serious evil, but that it is not to be corrected by a law passed for the purpose, but rather that it should be corrected in the first place, by inducing better manners and morals, and, in the second place, by the rules and regulations made by the rulers of the University themselves. (Hear.) Ido not think that any law which was passed by Parliament would be likely to be free from the objection that means might be found to evade its strict letter. When parents send their sons to Oxford with very considerable incomes —they having already had some 2001. or 3001. a-year expend ed upon their education at schools—l think that in such a case it is out of the power of the masters, or the heads of colleges, or the ruling bodies, if they keep such young men among them, to control their habits of expenditure. It would require a degree of inspection which is very averse from the habits of English society, and I think that they are right in not attempting so inquisitorial a system. I think, however, that it would be right that the heads of the university should say to the parents of such young men, " Ours is a place of education. We want young men to come here that we may instruct them in learning, and at the same time give them habits of virtue and religion ; but if you send your sons here to indulge in extravagant expen diture, and to set a bad example to other young m en w h ose parents, perhaps, can very ill afford such an expenditure, you are not coming within the scope of the university, and for no single breach of discipline, or offence, but simply because your sons are extravagant, and give a bad example to the university, we must request you to withdraw them from this university." (Hear, hear.) I think that this sort of discipline ought to be exercised more frequently, and, perhaps, I may say, more fearlessly than it has been done. At the same time, of course, these halLs, under the conduct of a man whose character is well-known, and who would preserve a kindly but useful discipline over those committed to his charge, would be a security for those under him that no extravagant expense would be incurred. I come next to a question into which I do not propose to enter at any great detail—first, because it would lead me too far, and next, because I think that the house had better wait for the bill before they form an opinion upon the proposal of the Government,-1. come to the question, on which I have already touched, of preferences granted, owing to sta tutes arising out of wills, to those who come under one of these different denominations—that they are related to the founder, that they come from a particular place or county, or, lastly, that they belong to a particular school. Now, I think the house will agree with me that the first two of these distinctions are very different in their nature from the last, and that such distinctions, drawn by the founder, must continually lead to the obtaining of emoluments by young men who are by no means deserving of them, and who may be wanting, perhaps, in industry or talent—that restriction to particular counties must very often lead, as Archbishop Whately says it does, to consequences directly opposed to the intentions of the founder, and to lower the standard of education imparted to the University. Upon the other hand, the restrictions with regard to schools, pro vided that there is fair competition to those schools, and that the authorities at Oxford always have the power of choosing persons from among the best, may be very useful. We propose, therefore, to do away with the restrictions— with rare exceptions —as to founders' kindred and particu lar localities ; the only exceptions being with regard to those founded within the last hundred years, to the lineal descendants of founders, and in favour of large districts, which on account of their property_or peculiar circum stancesmay deserve to be exempted. With respect to schools we only provide that there must be in every case at least two scholars from whom the fellows may choose, We go on to make a further provision with respect to fellowships —that unless the person holding a fellowship be engaged in certain employments or occupations, which are stated, he shall not hold a fellowship for more than one year. The oc cupations which we propose that a fellow should hold are, that he should be habitually engaged in the tuition or dis cipline of the said university, or of some colege, hall, or private hall thereof ; or that he should hold some one of the offices in the university named in the sche dule ; or that he should be the incumbent or licensed curate of a parish situate within three miles of Cs. fax, in Oxford • or should hold a certificate of study under this act. This relates to resident fellows. With regard to non resident fellows we provide that he must be the resident in cumbent, or licensed curate of a parish within three miles of Carfax, in Oxford, or of a parish whereof at the time of the passing of this act the college owned the great tithes, or wherein at the same period it owned property in land, such ownership then also continuing ; or, that he shall per form some duty requiring his absence from Oxford, the per formance of which is now enjoined by statute on the holder of such fellowship ; or perform some duty, the perform ance of which may by some future statute to be made in pursuance of the powers conferred by this act be declared to confer on the holder of a fellowship at Oxford the pri vilege of non-residence. We likewise provide that, after holding a fellowship for 21 years, and having been in the performance of one of those duties, a person shall be free from the conditions and restrictions which I have laid down. There is likewise, in certain cases, and for the pur poses of study, a proposal to give licenses of non-residence for a period of five years. I come now to state the powers which we propose to give of applying part of the revenues of colleges for increasing the funds for the purposes of education. And this, perhaps, will be a convenient time for me to state that, as some f these last provisions and those which I am about to state require a great deal of consideration in certain cases—that as the rules must be adapted as far as possible to the statutes existing, and as each college will have to consider its statutes very care fully—we propose that there should be, , for a certain limited time, a commission of five persons, who shall have the power which I will now explain. They shall have the power, in the first place, of approving statutes in con formity with the provisions of the bill proposed by the university, if they regard the university, or by the col leges, if they regard the colleges. We provide that that power of approving what the colleges may propose shall last until Michaelmas term 1855, and that after that time, if the university and the colleges shall not have performed that which is expected of them, which is within the limits and compass of this bill, the commissioners shall have power to enact by statute rules in conformity - with this act and that those rules, having been laid before the Queen in Council, having been approved by hor Majesty, and having been laid upon the table of this house for a certain period, shall have the force of law, and shall be binding as statutes upon the university and the colleges. Such being the con stitution of the commission, it is proposed that the colleges should have power to contribute from its annual revenues any sum not exceeding one-fifth part to the foundation or better endowment of professorships or lectureships, for the instruction of the members of the university at large ; to regulate the tenure of such professorships or lecture ships, and provide for the discharge of the duties thereof ; to diminish the number of fellowships belonging to such college, or suspend payment of the emoluments of any of such fellowships, with a view to the foundation of such professorships oriectureships ; or to the supply of pensions upon retirement therefrom of the professors or lecturers, or to the foundation of scholarships in the college : or to raising the income of the remaining fellowships to any sum not exceeding 2531. a-year ; or to the erection of new buildings for the purpose of accommodating an increased number of inmates ; or to the establishment of halls, to be affiliated to such college, and the acquisition of grounds and buildings for the same. We propose, also , that they shall have various powers , to which I have already referred, with respect to the grounds of preferences, and that they may appropriate any number, not exceeding one-fourth, of the fellowships belonging to any college to the encouragement of the special studies of the schools of mathematics, natural science, or modern history, or of any other studies recognised or to be recognised by the uni versity. These are undoubtedly very large powers, but they are powers which it is proposed to give entirely for the benefit and improvement of the university. The re maining parts of the bill I think only refer to that to which have already alluded—the statutes to be made in future, and some other provisions which it is not necessary to trouble the house with at this time. I have now gone through the statement which I had to make, including the proposals for a change in the constitution of the governing body of the university, the change proposed to be made with a view to the extension of the benefits of the univer sity by the erection anti maintenance of private halls; the abrogation of oaths which are contrary to public policy and to the public welfare, and the abrogation of those prefer ences which now exist by law, and which so much limit the advantages which are to be derived from the university. I have also stated, iu the last place, the powers which it is proposed to give with the view either to endow new fel lowships or to increase the salaries and endowments of existing ones. I cannot but believe, if a measure of this kind should pass into a law, that the University of Oxford would derive very great advantages from these proposals, and that the nation at large would also derive very great advantages, because they would tend to bring a far greater number of young men to enjoy the opportunity of study ing at the university, and to obtain the rewards of learn ing. (Rear, hear.) It is obvious, at all events, that the fellowships and other emoluments which were intended as a reward and encouragement to learning would thereby be given to men who have qualified themselves for them, and that they would not be disposed of in the present unsatisfactory manner. There remains one ques tion upon which there is no provision in the bill ; but upon which I shall be ready at any time to give my opinion, and my vote in conformity with the opinion which I have always given. (Hear.) I cannot think that • the purposes of the university are advanced while there is a test at the cemnicuccment of entrance, into the university j —The noble lord, at this juncture, turned co:npietely round to the moaibers behind him, who cheered so lustily in the mi bile of the sentence that the concluding portion of it was entirely lost.] I never would consent to any measure by which the discipline of the colleges, or the conduct of the religions instruction in the colleges, or the attendance upon Divine worship was in any way inter fered with; but I do expect certainly that by the addition of these new halls facilities will be afforded which induce Parliament not to interpose the obstacles which have hitherto been interposed to the enjoyment of the benefits of those great schools of learning by a far greater portion of her Majesty's subjects than now enjoy them. (Hear, hear.) Ido not think that it would be wise, and her Ma jesty's Government have decided accordingly, to insert any provision upon this subject in the present bilL It is a sub ject which divides both this and the other house of Parlia ment, and it should be, I think, a su bj ec t reserve d f or a separate measure, and for separate consideration. I cer tainly shall be always prepared at any time to give my vote in the same manner that I gave it 20 years ago. That vote I gave in company with the present Chancellor of the University of Oxford. I am afraid that I shall no longer give it with the sanction and countenance of such autho ritv ; but I shall be quite ready, nevertheless, to give my vote in favour of the admission of Dissenters. As I have already said, however, that forms no part of the present bill. Still, I think no one will deny that this is a large and comprehensive measure of reform. (Hear, hear, and a laugh from the Opposition.) No one will dispute that we have not undertaken this question in any narrow spirit; no one will dispute that we have not listened to those objec tions which we thought were founded in prejudice or error, • but I trust all will admit that we have introduced this mea sure with the view of rendering those two groat universities of Oxford and Cambridge worthy of the nation, and that, while we preserve the spirit of the forinders of those rich endowments, we at the same time are determined, as far as possible, to allow the people of this country to have the benefit of a sound, a religious, and a liberal education. Mr. BLACKETT regretted that the bill contained no provision for the admission of Dissenters. _ _ - Mr. MALL had heard with deep pain the announcement that the advantages, emoluments, and honours of the uni versities were still to be withheld from the Dissenters. Ac cording to the last census, the population of this country divided, generally speaking, into three classes—the absen tees, the Dissenters, and the Church of England people, each numbering about 5,000,000 ; yet, according to this bill, all the advantages of the universities were to be mono polised still by one only of these classes. He begged em phatically to enter his protest against this one-sided legis lation. The noble lord, indeed, said that his inclination was to abolish the test by which Dissenters were excluded. If the noble lord was sincere in this declaration, let him in sert a clause in the bill to carry it into effect. Should such a clause procure the destruction of the bill elsewhere, the responsibility then would lie on those who had resisted the concession, and not on the noble lord and the Government. Mr. WALPOLE said the noble lord had characterised his bill as a large and comprehensive measure of reform. That it was a large measure no one could deny ; whether it was a comprehensive measure of reform remained to be seen. In his opinion, the course should have been to remove by statute those disabilities which, under various charters and statutes, now prevented the colleges and universities from effecting those improvements in their system of education which they were most competent by their knowledge and experience to introduce and to carry into effect. The noble lord might be assured that it would be far better, by consulting the wishes and feelings of the university governing bodies, to conciliate their wil ling co-operation iu the development of any sound prin ciples that might be laid down than arbitrarily to impose this extreme external force and pressure upon them. The constitution of the university was one of the points which he should especially consider it most expedient to leave to the university itself rather than to have settled by the House of Commons—an ever fluctuating body—where the plan of to-day might be considered quite unwise five years hence. There could be no doubt that it was well univer sity statutes should be revised periodically pro ration teinporis ; the universities themselves were loud in their enunciation of this proposition, and all they asked was that they might be enabled by Parliament to make the changes which were required ratione tem poris. (Hear, hear.) Free them from the disabilities which statutes and charters imposed upon them, and they were quite willing, as they had manifested, to make the requisite impr o v emen t s i n their system of edu cation. With regard to the principle that the universities should be opened t o persons not annexed to any particular college, this question w as mos t a bl y di scusse d i n t h e Cam bridge University Report. At Oxford, indeed, undergra duates must re side in the u n i vers it y, b u t a t C am b r id ge they might reside in lodgings without the university. There was no doubt that by such a re l axation generally the amount of education at the universities might be enlarged indefinitely, but this one guard must be rigidly enforced, as the Cambridge Report pointed out, th a t, w h erever th ey resided, the student must be under the su p er i n t en d ence and control of the governing body, or the discipline of the university would be at an end. (Hear.) With regard to the extension of the professorial system, as distinguished from the tutorial system, there were already professors in almost every class of instruction ; the defect was that the young men had no inducement to attend these professors by the prospect of such prizes and honours as attended the meritorious frequenter of the more special courses of uni versity study. It should be recollected that the great ob ject of education at the university was not to oppress the young mind with indigestive heaps of incongruous matter, but to train and discipline the moral feelings for the after purposes of life. It had hitherto been found that, to culti vate the intellect, to develop© the moral feelings, and to improve the heart, that training had been most effective which relied mainly upon the severe but unerring rules of mathematics, and upon the study of those ancient classics in which we possessed the noblest thoughts clothed in the noblest language that ever emanated from the mind of man. (Hear.) The study of these, he fer vently trusted, would ever continue, as they had ever been, predominant and pre-eminent at our universities. The pro position to extend endowments from limitation of foun ders' kin and particular localities, he entirely approved of, with one qualification, satisfied as he was that the founders themselves would be the first to apply that extension to the altered circumstances of the time. (Hear.) He was afraid that if they took away endowments made by parti cular people for particular purposes, they would put an oud to the inducement to make such endowments--(hear, hear)—and he trusted that the bill of the noble lord would be guarded in that respect. If he followed the noble lord's words rightly, it was not his intention to interfere with endowments which had been made within the last 100 years. Possibly that might prevent the evil he antici pated, but he hoped they would never by any legislation put a stop in the slightest degree to that charity and that voluntary benevolence that liberal people showed not merely for the benefit of the present but succeeding gene rations, which he trusted might reap the fruits of such endowments undisturbed by anything that might be done by that house. But the point on which he entertained the most serious apprehensions was the compulsory ap plication of the college funds. The noble lord gave colleges a year's grace to dispose of one-fifth of their annual revenues to the foundation or better endowment of professorships or lec tureships for the instruction of the members of the university at large, whatever might bo their demands or wishes or the objects to be accomplished, and if within that year they did not alienate a fifth part of their revenues, certain com missioners were to be appointed who were to take away, whether the colleges consented or not, that portion and apply it to the purposes in question. Surely the university should be consulted on such a matter as that. The 'wheal defect of the Government measure was that, instead of re moving disabilities, they were forcing alterations upon col leges and universities, and they could not judge whether such alterations would be for their benefit, or whether Parliament five years hence, considering them not beneficial, would not make the greatest alterations at some future period. Feeling strongly on these points, he could not help calling the attention of the Government to them, for he had always been of opinion that the proper way to deal with the report of this commission would be, as it was an nounced in the speech from the Throne in 1852, to pass au enabling bill defining the points on which universities and colleges might be empowered to alter their statutes, pot with a view of leaving them unreformed, but of making them, as national in s tituti ons , as largely beneficial as they could be to the people of this country. (Cheers.) Sir W. lIEATHCOTE said, he had given every consid eration to the question, whether the bill should be made an enabling bill, or one of a compulsory character—and he confessed that the more ho had considered the point, time more he was convinced that the passing of merely au enabling bill would be to do nothing at all. (Hear, hear.) He should observe that this bill might be divided into two distinct parts for consideration. The one relating to the university, and the other to the colleges. With respect to the university, the question was not whether there should be an enabling or a compulsory bill—but there was a prior question which was a grave one—namely, whether they should legislate upon the subject at all, (Hear, hoar.) It was quite clear that the university, with the consent of the Queen upon one statute, and without the Royal consent on others, could legislate already for itself, except upon some minor points. (Hear.) With respect to the constitution of the uuiversity—with the consent of the Crown, and by previous arr angemen t s, a new const i tut i on might be framed. And if it had been so framed under such circumstances, all the questions of form, and. all ar rangements of the university might be settled without the necessity of consulting Parliament. He thought that there had been a most unfair obloquy thrown upon the govern ing authorities of Oxford in respect to a plan brought for ward for amending the constitution of the university. At the same time, he did not think it was wise for them to have so long delayed suggesting an arrangement upon which the whole plan was to hinge. When the plan pro jected by the heads of the house was charged with not being boon fide, ho must say that such an assertion was a hard one to make, and was not justifiable. Now, it was consistent with all their legislation in that house, that there should not boa waste of legislative power, and that they should not attempt to apply remedies whore no evils existed. But to return to the question whether the act should be enabling or compulsory. The case of the colleges was no doubt different to that of the university. The cor respondence which was published on the subject showed how anxious all the colleges were to improve their own statutes. There were three or four colleges which had power to amend their own statutes, and to apply them to the existing state of things. The rest of the 19 colleges were all bound by statutes, and about one-half by such stringent rules, that whatever statutes they possessed in respect to thorn they would have no effect. He hoped that this house would not . arrogate to its e lf th e power to d ec l are oaths void. Even if the house assumed such a power, the conscientious men connected with the university would never consent to such an arrangement, but would still feel themselves bound by thei r oaths. Well, then, the form of proceeding in reference to this subject must bo compulsory As to many of the colleges their proceeding must be by the . influence of external power ; certainly not by any hostile proceeding. Until th e names of the commissioners were placed upon the biil, this point could not be ascertained satisfactorily, for it would turn upon th© par ticular names themselves wheth er thi s proceeding should be viewed as hostile or otherwise. There was one proposition of the noble lord which he confessed he felt as much di diculty or doubt about as the the right lieu. gentleman the member for illidhu rs t. H e a ll uded to the proposa l t o dives t from the colleges the funds that had been given them by their foun ders for certain defined objects, and to apply them to the purpose of establishing professors. Now ho looked upon this proposition with great suspicion. Surely the colleges were en titled to as m uc h pro t ect i on as any other charitable funds. If the colleges insisted pertinaciously upon extending the university beyond its limits, there would, perhaps, be some justification for adopting some such proposition as that of the noble lord. If they were going to endow pro fessorships to which the appointments were in the hands of the Crown, or some other authority than that from which the money was to come, then he considered that such a course would be nothing but confiscation. (Hear.) Ho was not contostiug their power. Ho kne w that Parliament had powers absolute and despotic. Ho was aware that they had passed acts of confiscation and attainder, and they might do so again, but those were acts of uncontrolled ' 1 power, not legislation. They were p l l v it eg i m , not laws, --................---......._~ s,ur'n ,1 i C3:l , ' (Hear, hear.) ITo aperehendell, however, that this part 0 - sl t es._ the bill was not to be extended to the length antiata . e)gentlemaniei.V. • by the right hon. gentleman the member fen Mldhnrst . e s ' se le Vasa , He (Sir W. Heatiecotee thought that the neibledord said. ku• - 4, , ,, 7 , that it should not exceed one fifth of the re vnereien,4iicl etofeV, ' !t, ':,— that one-fifth was in every case to he taken. 1, Wessi s eae l ea r . ...- ~..., e ap e et : the colleges show that they had important tse;sf .th .L.: "`''' , 4411.7 Nu p own, and that the revenues were properly app ied out the intentions of the founders, he did not Undea:e A. e A ,' the noble lord to say th a t, never th e l ess, t h ey s h ou ld bel ' 8 applied in a different m anner . (H ear h ear, f rom Lord J. —"" Russell.) He thought that every friend of the university should meet and consider the measure in no obstructive spirit ; and he hoped, from the remarks of the noble lord, that there would be every disposition to give effect to any fair objections that might arise. If that should be the case he was not without a hope that the result would bo to give increased powers to the university to do good—to give her expansiveness, and to enable her to keep the youth of this country, who had escaped to a lamentable extent from her influence. (Hear, hear.) Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER was inclined to think favourably of the measure on the whole, as conceived with proper consideration for the independence of the university, and the principles of self-government. Mr. HEYWOOD felt grateful to the Government for having proposed such a measure as this. He regretted that it did not include a provision for admitting dis senters to the full benefits of the universities, and should feel bound to move a clause to that effect in committee. Mr. HENLEY thought that the indiscriminate admis sion of persons of all religious persuasions to academic privileges must necessarily lead to confusion of opinion, indifference and infidelity. The professorial system ap peared to him one well calculated to promote rationalism, and the present English system much better able to resist it. Ho looked with considerable doubt at the provisions for the removal of restrictions in the admission of fellow ships, and entertained apprehensions of the whole change proposed as one that must disconnect the Church of Eng land from the universities. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—Sir, on my own behalf, and, I am quite sure, on the part of my noble friend and her Majesty's Government, I venture to express my satisfaction and my thankfulness with regard to the manner in which this important measure has been received by the house. (Hear, hear.) The tone of the speeches which h ave b een made to-night satisfies me t h at this subject will have the advantage of a dispassionate and impartial consideration. (Hear hear.) We have heard two gentlemen express their sentiments, who occupy i pro minent positions in what is called her Majesty's Opposi tion ; but I am bound to say that neither in the speeches of those gentlemen, nor in any of the speeches which have proceeded from any other quarter, can I trace the slightest disposition to deal with this question as a question of more party politics. (Hear, hear.) lam con fident, sir, that whatever good can accrue to any one (and I know of no good that can accrue to any one) from mixing up the University of Oxford with the struggles and the contests of party, nothing but unmixed evil can result to the university from the adoption of such a course. (Hear, hear.) Sir, various questions of detail have been opened in the course of this discussion, and especially by the right hon. gentleman who has just sat down ; and I am sure he will excuse me if I do not endeavour to follow upon those questions of detail, because this is eminently a subject on which I think it is desirable that the house should suspend its judgment with regard to all those matters, until each member holds a copy of the bill in his hands. The struc ture of the ancient universities of this country is so curious and comprehensive, they have so much of history and tradition within themselves, and such infinite variety and diversity attached to them, that it is impossible to deal with all the interests justly and con siderately, and at the same time to do it in a few general and sweeping clauses. It was, therefore, necessary, ill framing this bill, to endeavour to adapt it in some degree to this extraordinary diversity—thus rendering unavoid able a deviation from that simplicity of form and paucity of provisions in which it is abstractedly desirable that every measure should appear before this house. On this account, and on account of the bearings which the differ ent provisions have upon one another, that I hope hon. gentlemen will consent to wait, for the few hours that must elapse before the bill will be in their hands, with re gard to questions of detail. But several questions have been touched upon that are questions of principle, and to these I wish to advert for a few moments. I will refer to the first of them merely to say why I prefer to postpone its discussion for my own part. I mean the important ques tion raised by the hon. member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall), which has since been discussed with great ability by the hon and learned member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), and to which the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Hen ley) just adverted with a serious earnestness and a concern for the interests of the universities which everybody must respect; I mean the important subject of the admission of dissenters. The hon. member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) has given notice in the course of this debate that he will take au opportunity, when the bill goes into com mittee, of moving a clause on this subject. Well, sir, 1 shall, with the permission of the house, reserve myself till the hon. member proposes his clause, when I shall be pre pared to state, I hope clearly, the reasons which induce me to meet his intended clause with a negative. For the present, then, I pass on to other questions of great importance. One of these questions is the interference with the independence of the universities, and another is the interference with the property of the colleges. Now, as regards the question of interference with the independence of the universities and of the colleges, by inviting Parliament to enter upon the task of what may be called compulsory or coercive legislation, I am free to admit that it would bo most desirable if the constitutions of the universities and the colleges had pos sessed in themselves such elasticity and such facility of adaptation to the various wants of the active age in which we live as would render it unnecessary to come to Parlia ment in order to meet this exigency. (Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Government, however, after long consideration —after exhibiting, I hope, no want of patience—have come to the conclusion that the constitutions which the uni versities have inherent in themselves do not afford those facilities, and have therefore thought it t o b o th e i r impera tive duty to make a proposal to Parliament on the sub ject. But here we are met by the right hon. gentleman the member for Middleshurst (Mr. Walpole), and lay other hon. gentlemen, with the doctrine, broadly laid down, that the right course would be to confine ourselves simply to the removal of disabilities and to leave everything in the hands of the universities and the colleges. Now, in the first place, I must demur to any doctrine of this kind laid down upon abstract grounds. I cannot admit that there is any right whatever in those who are the life tenants of any corporation whatever to sot up a title to the absolute and exclusive management of that corpora tion's affairs as against the supreme authority of the legis lature. (Cheers.) I grant as fully as any man—and I have often asserted it in this house, and am ready to maintain it again —that it is most desirable that the legis lature should practise great reserve, and great self-control in the exercise of its interference ; but that is a matter of prudence and consideration—a question, supposing the in terference to be authorised, whether the occasion for its exercise is an adequate and imperative one. As to the right, I hold that there can be no doctrine so inconvenient —none of such dangerous consequence —none more certain to produce violent reaction—than to attempt to set up a multitude of divided and independent authorities, each contending for suprema c y i n th e con d uc t of institutions and the management of property, which owe, if not their being, at any rate their safety and prosperity, to the guar dianship of the general law of the land. But this case does not stand merely upon general prudence —it is a case for the interference of Parliament, clearly and conclusively, on grounds altogether special and peculiar. The hon. baronet the member for the university (Sir W. Heathcote) has himself stated the case as regards the colleges, and I venture to say that that case does not admit of an answer. I am not surprised at hearing my hon. friend who comes from Cambridge (Mr. Wigram), where they are so free —for in that university there is only the case of a single college which is entangled in the meshes of the oath which attaches to as many as eight of the most important colleges of Oxford, viz., the oath by which the whole of the governing body of the college directly, or by inevitable implication, are bound to make no change, and to permit no change or alteration, in the statutes. Why, what would be the use of giving the colleges enabling powers ? Wo should be entangled with questions as to whether Parliament can make an oath void and the like ; and supposing some member of the college should think that Parliament possessed no such eight, are you ready to enter into questions of conscience, and to tell him that his scruples are idle, and that he must do what you require, whether he thinks so or not ; and this too, forsooth, under the notion of preserving their freedom and independence? Well, this is the position iu which you place these great colleges ; I will not mention them all, but there are amongst them several of the wealthiest and greatest colleges of Oxford, including Magdalen, New Col lege, Brasennee, Corpus, All Souls, Lincoln, and one or two snore. Are we to say, when we know that the governing bodies of those colleges are restrained by per sonal and common oaths from devising any scheme of change, that we will simply pass an act enabling th em to devise such schemes o f c h ange , an d th en thi n k eve have done all our duty in the matter ? But then my honourable friend and colleague (Sir W. Heathcote), who hims elf p ut this argument, which I believe admits of no answer with respect to the colleges, stated that, as r egards the uni versities the case i s a lt oge th er diff er ent, because the university, ho said, i s un d er no suc h disability, and the university, with th e li cense o f t h e C ro wn, is perfectly free to proceed to s na k e any c h anges w hich it may think fit in its own constitution, and as respect s other matter s is free to snake cha nges, generally speakinge.in the governs meat and intern a l condition, without any license from the Crown. That is perfectly correct, but the hon. and learned member for Plymouth said, and said most truly—when you speak of a university, who and what do you mean ? Look at the present constitution of the universities. Have the universities power to appoint their own representatives, with power to deal with you as their representatives, and, express their views upon their own interests, wants, and necessities ? Th e y h a ve no such power at all—they h ave no power wh a t ever , 'through the convocation, except that of saying a ba re "aye" or a bare no to such questions as may be propounded to the convocation . by simple view of the the governors of the ase U . I wish to speak of unnecessaryOxrd. to Th s a a t y is th th at e the governors w ith every possible respect ; there is no n i i I re l i s s i ty at man among them who is not respectable in his sphere—a great many of thorn are able, eminent, and. even distin guished— but they are appointed, generally speaking, and almost without exception, by the different colleges to ma nage the affairs each of their particular college; and the prominent idea in the minds of those who have the choos ing of them is that of choosing the managers of a college, and not of choosing governors for the university. The con stitution of a college is so peculiar that almost exclusive power is in the hands of a board of this description, the members of which are almost all chosen for such purposes, it is with great limitation and reserve that you can speak of them as representing the opinions of the university, which opinions: they have no means of bringing before Par liament. I was endeavouring t o count them up during the st •te ment of say noble friend (Lord John Russell), and I think we have had six different constitutions sent up from the universities, all of them recommended on very respectable authority. There aro two constitu tions recommended by the committee of the board of heads of houses, and two constitutions recommended by the tutors, making four. Then there is a fifth constitution recently by a ' which was recommended large b o dy o f res id en ts • and there is also a sixth constitu tion, recom men ded by the hehdomadalboard, and for which convocation presented its petition. You may say perhaps that you regard that as the petition of the university. Then look at the difficulty under which this constitution works. When we speak of the con st i tution o f the Uni versity of Oxford, although i t is p erfectl y true th at all the members of the convocation have gone through a certain term of residence, and passed certain degrees, and k ee p their names on the books, although it is perfectly true th a t they are invested with the parliamentary franchise, yet this does not enable every country clergyman, or every London lawyer or member of parliament, to exercise practically a judgment upon the affairs of the university, with which he is never conversant, like those who reside in the university and carry on its work. Now, look for a moment at the working of the present constitution. The constitution re commended by the board of heads of houses to con vocation '~I