The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF OF COMMONS.---This Day.

The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter past twelve.
UNIFORMITY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Sir W. HEATHCOTE presented a petition from the
convocation of the University of Oxford against this bill.
The hon. baronet also petitioned to the same effect from
undergraduates of the University.
Mr. WALPOLE presented several similar petitions from
the University of Cambridge.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that in reference to the state of
the bill and of the session, he had considered whether there
was a fair prospect of carrying it this session. He had
arrived at the unwilling conclusion that he
should have no chance of carrying it this
session, and he should therefore ask the house to
withdraw the order this year, in order that he might re-
introduce it next session. It was not a bill to compel uni-
versity authorities to open their doors to nonconformists,
but to remove restrictions which were imposed 200 years
ago, and which had entirely failed. The object of those
who had promoted the bill had been greatly misunderstood.
They had no hostility to the Church or the universities, on
the contrary, the object was to improve the universities and
the educational system which prevailed there. He
attached no weight to the petition from the
University of Oxford, for there had been no
measure of public utility in connection with religion or
education introduced which had not been opposed by the
University of Oxford. The petitioners from the University
seemed to be based upon an error of facts. He begged to
move that the order be discharged.
Sir W. HE ATHCOTE saidthat 2,000 non-resident mem-
bers of the University had expressed their approval of the
course Convocation had taken in opposing the Lill. The
young men, also, of the University, from whom the right
hon. gentleman looked for liberality, had also declared their
opinion that the bill was a dangerous one.
Mr. WALPOLE defended the petitioners from the Uni-
, versity of Cambridge. He himself had presented a petition
from every head of a college but two, from all the tutors,
and from a large body of undergraduates. He hoped the
right hon. gentleman would not next session bring in this
or an amended bill, unless he proved some overwhelming
necessity for it, which he felt sure would not be the case.
Mr. HADFIELD spoke strongly in favour of such a
measure.

Mr. NEWDEGATE deprecated the bill, and considered
that it would endanger the Church of England, which
for centuries had been the great bulwark of Christianity.
Mr. GOSCHEN thought that a full discussion of the
question would have assisted that strong and iniuential
party which existed in both Universities, and which was
desirous of reform. He could not think it could be
said that the right hon. gentleman was disturbing the re-
pose of the university by his bill, for that repose had been
disturbed, and it was not by resisting measures like this
that repose could be artificially maintained. He would not
support such a bill if he thought it would interfere with
the Church, but he considered that the Church of England
was in more danger from those who fainted at every attack
than from those who boldly laced danger. He thought the
Church would be greatly strengthened if she could fight
with a freer hand.
After some remarks from Mr. Blouson, Mr. R. Mills,
Mr. Henley, and Mr. Dunlop, the order was discharged,
and the bill was withdrawn.
MISAPPROPRIATION OF SERVANTS BILL.

Mr. BTANI LAND moved the second reading of this
bill. He explained that the taking of corn by servants to
feed their master's horses was a felony. The punishment
was so disproportionate to the offence that he proposed in
his bill to reduce the crime from felony to one cognisable
by the magistrates. He proposed that the penalty for such
au offence should be imprisonment of not more than three
months, or a penalty not exceeding
Sir G. GREY said the bill would require some altera-
tion in committee.
The bill was then read a second time.
ADMIRALTY BOARD.

Sir IL WILLOUGHBY resumed the adjourned debate
on the question proposed (June 9)—" That a select com-
mittee be appointed to inquire into the constitution of the
Board of Admiralty, and into the different departments
under the control of that Board." He expressed his opinion
that at the present period of the session it would be useless
to appoint a select committee on so large a subject as M'
tniratty reform. His own opinion was, that if the Admiralty
itself would take up the matter, and make those changest
which were necessary in the epartment, no co
wouldt
hbe necessary.
me etsrsaalrt yy t
fTher
sgreatpe pointetetpo
abrel a
m gainedexntcommittee
to
othnearecemouinght toibtehesonmaveye.fficient control over t e e penditure
thaStirait the motion
ar-
rive at any useful result. At the
it,
as
he
jc.o committee t e e agreedat this with
periodth oeef lastsh seestapreamiaekntereeiunldnat thinking
was of opinion
were proposed ho should vote
of action and individual
that something should be done
responsibility
in secure, ifp
depossible,marteuent ity
of
the Admiralty.
LEY opposed the motion, on the
' NSIEL said he had not been long enough at
roes that decided opinion which greater
ground
i\i‘llrr:
bCTt .hAaFt nßcyl CDhEad. already been instituted.
d d
tlociezhPave enable im to o. Ite eon
that the First Lord of the Admi-
tet
ehxnepde Admiraltyee,eavae r
responsible for the conduct of the
ratty was
heads of all the departments which were in con-
stant communication with him, and he did not believe
soy First Lord of the Admiralty would ever; attempt iu
Parliament to disclaim that responeibi;ity. He did not, he
said, wish to rest the defence of the Admiralty on broad
generalities, but he pointed out that a great deal had been
done to early out the recommendations of the select com-
mittee and to comply with the requirements of the house.
The finance and building departments had been placed on
an improved and satisfactory footing, and other reforms
were in progress. The nature of the latter the hon. gentle-
man explained in detail.
Sir J. PAKINtsTON thought the real question at issue
was not what individual reforms had been introduced into
separate department but whether the present constitution
of the Board of Admiralty was satisfactory and such as the
house could approve of. With regard to the motion under
discussion, it would be delusive at the present period of the
session to vote for an inquiry which could not be conducted
with any public advantage. and
Sir F. BAKING said an inquiry had taken place,

he recommended the withdrawal of the motion. It migh
be revived next session.
Sir S. M. PETO also urged postponement.
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY,
Mr. DALGLISH withdrew the motion, giving notico
that he would revive it next session.
LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES
ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. COX moved the second reading of this bill.
Lord ENFIELD moved an amendment that the bill be
read a second time this day three months.
After some remarks from Mr. Doulton, Sir S. M. Peto,
and other gentlemen,
The house divided—
For the motion .
Against it
• •
Majority 000 •
—5l
The motion was ngatived.
THAMES EMBANKMENT (SOUTH SIDE) BILL.
This 'ail( wls read a third time and passed.
HOWTII HARBOUR BILL.
This bill was read a second time.

24

POOR LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE,
Mr. GILPIN obtained leave to bring in a bill-to continw.
the Poor Law Board for a limited period.
The bill was read a first time.
the house adjourned at. 22 mirint!.!s past ;5.

FOURTH EDITION

SUN OFFICE, EIGHT O'CLOCK.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE,---This Day,
NEWCASTLE RACES—THIS DAY.
STAND STAKES.

Erin-go-bragh
Lady of Coverham
Windham

.~

Six ran.
NORTHUMBERLAND PEATE.

Caller Ou
Carbineer ..
Lothian's King

Fifteen ran.
Won by a head.
TOWN PLATE.

1