The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-09 00:00:00

that all should divest themselves of party feeling ; an,l he
trusted that the discussion on this subject would on all
sides of the House be for the fut r carried on in the same
spirit in which it had commenced, and which had suffered
nn interruption, until the interlude which had just taken
place.—(Hear.)
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN said the cpies'ion of the Honour-
able and Learned Member for Tipperary remained its much
unanswered as before. If there was to be a compromise
with the Hens:, of Lords upon this question, let it be
frankly stated.
Mr. A. TREVOR was really very sorry to see so bad
an understanding on this occasion between Ministers and
Gentlemen with whom, in general, they were so friendly,
,nd without whose assistance they could not keep in office
for a week. For his part he did not understand time clamour
raised against time House of Lords, for their very reason-
able request to know the na'u .e of one measure bt,fore they
decided upon another, these measures hiving so intimate a
connection.
Mr. 11. GRATTAN protested against the House of
Lords being permitted thus to hang up Ireland by the neck
till the 9th of June.—( A laugh.) If the Lords were
quietly allowed to shelve this essential measure till the 9th
of June, they would in the same way postpone the Poor-
law Bill till the 9th of July, and the Tithe Bill till the 9th
of August.
Mr. SHEIL said he did not conceive that he had asked
any question of the Government ; he had suggested a diffi-
culty with respect to two measures, but he had not inquired
which course they meant to pursue either with respect to
the Municipal Corporation (Ireland) Bill, or the Irish Tithe
Bill. He, however, had heard with great satisfaction the
declaration that, they would not desert their post while sus-
tained by the House of Commons.—( Much cheering, and
a cry from the Opposition side of " Spoke!") He believed
he had no right to go beyond explination, and he begged
pardon for having said he was delighted to hear Ministers
declare that as long as they were supported by the House
of Commons they would not resign.—(Renewed cheering.)
The House went into Committee, trod the first clause
having been moved,
Mr. O'CO N NELL rose to submit an amendment, but
the noise occasioned by Members leaving the House was
so great that very few of his observations reached the gal-
ery. He said it was his opinion that there ought to be a
Commission apppointed exclusively for Ireland. The relief
afforded in that country now would cease directly the new
system was brought into operation, and the provision, there-
fore, that would be necessary would demand the confiscation
of.property to a much greater extent than had been calcu-
lated. There ought to be a separate set of Poor-law Com-
missioners for Ireland who were acquainted with all the
details of the existing system. What information could
the English Commissioners be supposed to possess ? What
(lid Mr. Nicholls know of the condition and wants of the
Irish ? He had been a sailing captain of an East Indiaman.
Was that an education peculiarly fitting him for a Poor-
law Commissioner? They could not have an opportunity
of practice in both countries ; the circumstances were not
the same.—(Opposition cheers.) It was quite true that the
circumstances as regarded pauperism were not the same.
We pauperised the people, and they produced crime in
Ireland, and in England crime was the result of our Poor-
laws.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
concluded by moving as an amendment that three Poor-
!aw Commissioners be appointed tp carry this Act into exe-
cution iu Ireland.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN concurred entirely with the amend.
ment.

Mr. HUME was sorry to see his Hon. Friends take the
course they were taking with respect to the Commission.
The question was whether they would accept the services
of men who had had two or three years' experience in the
working of the Poor-law system. Were their services to
be accepted to per!'orm what was acknowledged to be a dif-
ficult duty, or would they reject them and support those
who had all this to gain ? He did not think that his Hon.
and Learned Friend had dealt with this matter with his
usual consideration. He objected to Mr. Nicholls because
he was brought up at sea. Was that a way to judge of a
man's abilities? " Why I," said Mr. Hume,' was brought
up at sea."—(Great laughter.) Experience assured him
that the English system of Poor-laws had been well worked
by the Commissioners. The evils complained of had re-
sulted from the abuse of that system, and not from the prin-
ciple which Mr. Nicholls recommended. He would ask
was it possible to put an end to the mendicancy in Ireland
while alms were distributed indiscriminately, and while no
means were taken to distinguish between the idle and in-
dustrious poor ? It was but justice to the Commission to
state, that in the Committee which sat up stairs not the
least evidence was taken reflecting prejudicially either on
the law or on the way in which the Commissioners had car-
ried it into execution.

Mr. O'CONNELL, in explanation, said he did not im-
pugn the conduct of the Commissioners with respect to any-
thing that they had done in England. He believed
that they had done wisely and well ; but what he con.
tended was, that the principles on which Poor-laws ought to
be administered In Ireland differ, d tote code from the prin-
ciple on which they might be administered in England. In
this country they had to correct abuses in an existing sys-
tem ; in Ireland they were introducing a system entirely
new. He maintained that that they were bound to take
care in introducing such new system that it was based on a
thorough acqu.iintance with all mutters of detail.
Mr. RICHARDS said that mendicancy could not be
put down by the law unless they made some provision for
the really destitute. In his opinion it would be found that
the number of the destitute was far short of the number
estimated by the Hon. and Learned Member. He thought
there should be a board sitting in Dublin, and if the lion.
and Learned Member fur Kilkenny went to a division he
would vote with him.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought the discussion had been
carried further than the principle embodied in the clause
called for, and ;is the system of Poor-laws in England differed
sn matedally from that proposed for Ireland, it e ould have
been better to have postponed a great deal of what had
been said till they came to the clause relative to workhouses.
In allusion to what had been said by the Hon. Member for
Middlesex relative to the Commissioners, he would state
that it was necessary to have fOr Commissioners men of great
experience, and that it would cause very great inconvenience
to appoint three gentlemen totally unacquainted with Poor-
laws, as they would be totally inadequate for the object in
v:ew. He thought it would be necessary for !Mc years to
have a beard sitting in Dublin, composed of gentlemen
possessed of local knowledge, but at the same time it
was absolutely necessary to have a general board to
carry out the system on general grounds not applicable
only to Ireland, but such as might be adopted in other
countries to which a Poor-law might be necessary
lle did not see anything so peculiar in the state f Ireland
to prevent the application of those general pri. cites to th..t
country. With regard to the imputations made against Mr.
Nicholls, he wished the House to understand that that gen-
tleman had been sent over to Ireland at the express rquest
of the Government, and that he was not responsible for
having set aside the Report of the Commissioners. In fact,
he (Lord J. Russell) was more responsible for that alit
Mr. Nicholls.
Mr. O'CONNELL differed entirely from the Hon.
Member for Kriareshorough in his statements about men-
dicity in Dublin. So far from 9,000/. a year only being ex-
pended in that capital, the sum exceeded 100,000/., and
even with that, the scenes of destitution and misery were
gill very distressit,g.
After a few words from Mr. SHELL and Mr. WvsE, rela-
tive to the necessity of having a local board in Dublin,
Lord JO lIN RUSSELL said it was the intention of
the Government that there should be a Board sitting in
Dublin, subsidiary to the Board of Commissioners in
England.

Sir ROBERT PEEL thought it was of great impor-
tance that there should be a local board subordinate to
the general board. The people of Ireland were in the
habit of consulting the authorities in that country, and it
would be desirable that there should be commissioners
in Dublin to whom they could apply fur information arid
advice.

The amendment was th,n withdrawn, and the clause.
agreel to ; the 2d clause was aLo agreed to without dis-
cussion. On the 3d clause being put,
Lord STANLEY said he did not rise to oppose the
clause, but simply to call the attention of the Committee
to one part of the clause which would require alteration.
The English PoJr Law Act delegated powers to the Com.
missioners, subject to certain existing laws. Now, in Eng-
land the powers of the Commissioners were limited by
the established laws, but that was not the ease in Ireland.
If the clause were allowed to remain as it stood, tbc powers
of the Commissioners in Ireland would he uurestrieted or
vague. _ _ _

After a few words from Mr. SHAW and Lord JOHN
RUSSELL,

Mr. O'CONNELL proposed that tho clause b© post-
poa:7.d.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that he would not ob-
ject to the postponement of the clause ; but he wished the
committee to proceeded to-morrow.

Toe CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked leave
to sit again to-morrow.
Tiie House then resumed.
THE REGISTRATION AND MARRIAGES
ACTS ANILNDMENT BILL.
The second mading of this Bill having been moved by
Lord JOHN RUSSELL,

Colon 1 SIBTHORP pro:ested against proceeding with
such a Bill at tho present late how, of night,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL eons:Nat:a to postpone the
Bill till Wednesday.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of and
the House adjourned 4t one ttlehlek.

THE SUN, LONDOIN, TUESDAY. MAY 9, 1837

HOUSE OF LORDS, M-41' 8.

Viscount DUNCA NNON said that the Noble Lord had
asked for returns of the panel book and the• sheriff's jury
book of the county Carlow, and he would now lay them
on the table. The Noble Viscount then said, in answer
to another question which had been asked him relative to the
limit to which the Dublin Police Act was intended to extend,
that the present system of Dublin police extended eight
miles from the Castle of Dublin, and it was im-
possible therefore to extend this Bill, and the system
under it to that distance, but it gave the power to
extend it, if it became necessary hereafter. It was also •
thought right by this Bill, that instead of four police
stations there should be only three, and instead of three
magistrates there should be only two at each, and that the
entire time of these magistrates should be required,
which was not now the case. The Bill also gave to
the Lord Lieutenant power to superannuate some of the
magistrates now connected with the stations, which would
be done without any additional expense to the public, from
the saving which would be effected by the reduction of the
number of magistrates and stations.
Earl WICKLOW said, the first point to which the
Noble Viscount had alluded was the opposition which he
( Earl Wicklow) had given to the 2,1 clause of the Bill
on its -second reading. That clause gave the Lord
Lieutenant the poser to extend the operation
of the Bill to any portion of the county of Dub-
lin he thought proper. Now he thought that clause
was very unfair in its operation, because the county
of Dublin was already provided with a sufficient
police. He had stated ou a former occasion that unless
the Noble Lori gave SO:112 satisfactory reasons for retain-
ing it he should move its omission in Committee. As
that had not been done, be (Earl Wicklow) should
certainly move the omission of the second clause. An-
other objection he bad made to the Bill was, not that it
increased the number of magistrates, hut that it en-
abled the Lord Lieutenant to remove the magistrates at
present in existence (of a hom he had heard no complaint)
on a superannuated allowance, and appoint others in their
placaa with a higher salary. In his opinion some reason
should be shown for removing the present magistrates.
Lord E L LEN BOROUG Noble Friend had
very properly complained of the operation of the present
Bill. By the Metropolitan Police Bill no rate exceeding
eight-pence in the pound could be levied, whereas the pow-
ers of the presebt Bill were much more extensive, Ile
thought that the same valuation should apply to all the
local taxes, and that the paving and lighting and the wide-
street taxes should be collected on precisely the same valua-
tion as the watch and police tax. It would be unfair were
it otherwise, and was calculated to create irritation and
discontent.

Lord FITZGERALD sail that he would be very
sorry to throw any obstacles in the way of the mea-
sure ; but, in regard to the provisions of the Bill, he
did not think the Lord Lieutenant should have the power,
without reference to the existing Magistrates, to appoint
others with higher rates of salary. But the Noble Lord
had said that a satin; would be effected, and there
would be a larger amount of duty to perform, as the
number of magistrates would be fewer. In respect
to vesting the power of appointing magistrates in the exe-
cutive, he could not view the appoin'Anent of stipeodiary
magistrates which had been made with such approbation
as would lead him to give them that power in the present
instance. The Noble Lord had sail that some of the
present magistrates would not give up other avoca-
tions which interfered with the performance of their
duty ; but no facts to that effect had been stated, and he
titought that there were persons still amongst the metropo-
litan magistrates of Ireland who were as capable of per-
forming their duty as any who might be appointed. Unless,
therefore, some satisfactory explanation was given, he
thought it would be better to postpone the Bill for the present.
After a few observations from Lord DUNCANNON and
the Earl of WicKtow, the Bill was postponed to that day
fortnight.

THE POLL. BOOK AND SHERIFF'S PANEL
BOOK (CARLOW).
The Earl of RODEN moved that this book be printed.
Lord BROUGHAM said he would put it to the Noble
Lord whether or no it would be worth while to incur the
expense of printing the book ?
Earl RODEN said the expense would be very trifling,
as the book in which the names were inserted was not filled
above two or three pages.
Motion agreed to.
THE UNIVERSITIES.
The Earl of RADNOIt said that several days ngo he
gave notice of his intention to move fur a Select Commit-
, tee relative to the Statutes of the several Halls and Col-
leges of Oxford and Cambridge. He (lid so in consequence
of what had passed on a former occasion, when he had the
honour of moving the second reading of a Bill for the ap-
pointment of a Commission to make a similar inquiry.
Upon that occasion the argument principally used was with
respect to the necessity of the inquiry ; and it was sug-
gested by a Right Rev. Prelate, who took a part in the
debate, that some previous inquiry ought to take place
before a legislative measure was adopted. He (the Earl
of Radnor) still thought that a Commission would have
been the most advisable course to adopt, and that opiniqn
grad been confirmed by his having more rtlitintoly examit e I
the petitions which were proswitea from the different Col-
!pos. an that occasion. Entertaining, therefore, the same
opinion, he now proposed another mode, which he thought
the next best, for carrying on such i94iry, in the
course. of the forr imp4tea to him,
thti th w
o tutitm ha (the ttarl of Radnor) then made,
ho had some ulterior object, and since then the same
imputation had been repeated. He (the Earl of as
nor) stated, on the former occas:ep, ibrit ny had no UltC-
rior object beyqt?d tiult ‘k•bich niotion pt•OfeSsed, and,
qIP o,eSeri( tope, be certainly 114(1 no objection to state

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
at Five o'clock.
Lord COLCHESTER presented a petition in favour
of Church-rates from a place in Sussex.
Lord BURLINGTON presented petitions from places
in Gloucester against Church-rates.
Lord SEMI AYE presented a similar petition from
the mayor and corporation of Tewkesbury.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII presented a petition in fa-
vour of Church-rates from councillors of the same place.
Lord HATHERTON presented a petition against
Church-rates from a place in Staffordshire.
Lord MINT() presented petitions aeeinst Church-rates
from Bideford and other places.
The Duke of I3UCCLEUGH presented a petition in
favour of Church-rates from places in Northamptonshire ;
also from the Synod of Caithness and Sutherland.
Mr. R. CLIVE, and other Members of the House of Com-
ulnas, brought up two private Bills.
Lord MONTAGUE presented a petition in favour of
Church-rates from a place in Leicester.
kNOBLE LORD presented a similar petition from Reigate
in Surrey.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH gave notice that on
Thursday he would present a petition from the Rev. E.
Mulholland, complaining of the way in which the co:lege
of Mawnooth was conducted.
The Bishop of L L AND AFF presented severalpetitions
in favour of Church-rates frcm places in Glamorganshire.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented similar peti-
tions from places in Northampton.
Lord B R 0 UG HA M preaented petitions against Church-
rates from Clerkenwell, Isle of Elv, and places in Suffolk,
Essex, -Lincoln, and Market Harhorough ; and from the
county of Midlothian, in favour of the Burghs of Baronies'
Bill. r The Noble Lord then said that he had now to call
the attentions of their Lordships to petitions of a different
natttie they were from the Commons of the province-
of Lower Canada in Parliament assembled, and were
signed by their Speaker, one of them in the French lan-
guage (which was that spoken in the House), and the other
in English ; they set forth the opinion of the House and of
the people, that a Reform such as they had often sought
for should take place in the Constitution of the Pro-
vince, and of the abuses which existed in it, and the
grievances experienced in consequence.—(Hear.) The
petitioners asked the repeal of the Tenure Act, and a
more effectual control over the revenues of the country
by the Canadian Legislature. He (Lord Brougham)
would give no opinion .of his own upon any of the
statements of the petition generally, but with respect
to that part Which referred to the Land Company, he must
confess that he differed with the petitioners.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND presented a petition
from Mr. Lewis Nockalls Cottingharn, stating that Mr.
Barry, whose plan had been approved of by the Commissioners
for the erection of the new Houses of Parliament, had copied
it from the plan of the petitioner, and praying that an in-
quiry might be instituted into the truth of the allegations
in the petition.
Lord DUNCANNON said that the Commissioners
had come to the determination to adopt Mr. Barry's plan
after the greatest attention.
The larl of WICKLOW presented a petition against
the Constabulary Act.
The Bishop of HEREFORD presented a petition in
favour of Church-rates from a place in Hereford.
Earl FITZW ILLIAM presented a petition against
Church-ratei from a place in Yorkshire.
The-Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a pe-
tition in favour of the better observance of the Sabbath,
and in favour of Church-rates from places in Kent.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition to the
same effect from the President of Sion College, and from
places in Middlesex and Essex ; also a petition from the
watermen of the Severn, in favour of the better obser-
vance of the Sabbath-day ; and to the same effect from
a parish in the City of London, from the coach proprietors
Richmond, and from the inhabitants of Holywood in
he county of Down.
DUBLIN POLICE.

that this motion professed the same. It was insinuated that
his object was to open the Universities to the Dissenterer.
He conceived that the adoption of such a measure would
he an advantage to the Universities themselves, and nothing
more than act of justice to the Dissenters ; but it was not
the object which he had in view.. The object which he at
present had was, to inquire into the statutes of the Col-
leges, as they existed at present, and by which they were
governed—to inquire into the oaths by which the mu tubers
were bound, to observe their statutes, and to inquire into
any provisions by, which the visitors or the governing body
might alter or amend those statutes. Now, it was admitted
that the governing bodies of the Colleges were sworn to
observe the statutes, and yet those statutes, all of them of
a very ancient date, and totally inapplicable to the present
time, were to be continued. It did appear to him that this
alone was sufficient to sanction some legislative measure.
Some of the Colleges eleimed not only to be bound to ob-
serve their statutes, but also to be hound to repel any at-
tempt at alteration and amendment. Sonic of the Col-
leges, however, stated that they were willing to have their
statutes amended. He had carefully refrained from ap-
plying the word perjury to 'those gentlemen who took
their oaths and who did not observe them ; but he knew
that there were many persons who felt themselves to
be perjured. He knew himself an instance of a mem-
ber of Trinity College, Cambridge, who felt so strongly on
the subject that he threw up his scholarship._ He held in
his hand a printed letter from a Professor of the University
of Oxford, in which that gentleman said that the charge
which he (the Earl of )Radnor) brought against the Univer-
sities was nothing less than a charge of perjury. He (the
Earl of Radnor) only charged them with disobeying statutes
which they were sworn to maintain, and if the Members of
the Universities called that perjury, it was not from him
that the charge or imputation came. [Here the Noble
Earl referred to the opinion of Archdeacon Paley, in his
" Moral Philosophy," on the subject of oaths taken to ob-
serve College statutes, which he thought could not cover
the preserit case.] Now what was the object for which
these Colleges were established ? Much had been said in
opposition to a statement which he had made on the former
occasion than they were established for the benefit of poor
scholars ; but, notwithstanding that opposition, he still ad-
hered to his opinion. The words in the charters were
pauperes et indis,entes ; and what else could those words
mean but poor scholars ? In the statutes of Merton College
he found that the scholars were required to be pauperes ;
in those of Oriel the term indigentes was used ; the same
was the case at St. Peter's College, Cambridge ; and at
Sidney Sussex College the meeebers were to be valde
pauperes. Much indignation had been excited by the
declaration which he had made on a former occasion ;
but in no place had it excited so much anger as in St.
John's, Cambridge, where the members did not appear to
like the designation of pauperes. However, he was borne
out in the view which he took of the nature and- object of
these foundations even by the opinions of Judges, expressed
in law suits. The Noble Lord then referred. to the frag-
ment of a sermon preached by one Thomas Neevan,
Rev. and Learned Man, who had been a Fellow of St.
John's College in 1553, in which that Rev. Gentleman
complained of the sorry and declining state of the Univer-
sities, and attributed it to the growing influx of wealthy
persons, who were taking the places of poorer students.
The Learned Gentleman also proceeded to describe the
behaviour and conduct of those poor scholars, who still re-
mained ; " they were," he said, " content with a penny
piece of beef among four for their dinner—(Laughter)--
after which they proceeded to their studies ; their supper
was not much better than their dinner ; they then again
applied to study ; and being without fires they were fain to
walk about and run up and down for half an hour, in order
to warm their feet before going to bed."--( Loud laughter.)
There was another matter which was open to much ob-
jection—he meant the election to fellowships ; for it
was unquestionable that that was a matter of canvas-
sing ; that many fellowships had been gained in con-
sequence of the canvassing of great Lords, aye, and
great Ladies too ; and that persons had obtained fel-
lowships who were more likely to get invitations for Al-
mack's--(A laugh)—then from any qualifications they
possessed, fellowships in a learned University. In the sta-
tutes of St. John's and Trinity Colleges there were express
provisions limiting the number of the independent men,
who were called pensionarii, to sixty. Ile th.ought then
he had made out his case—that he was not incorrect iu
stating that the object of these Colleges was to afford
means of learning to such poor persons as should be in-
clined to study. Another point was, that the founders re-
quired generally constant residence, and that was evidenced
from the provision that was made for lectures ; and he knew
that, at Trinity and St. John's at least, theie was no inter-
ruption of the business of the Colleges even at the long
vac aims. Upoa the subject of his present motion he had
been met by the objection that Parliament had no right to
inquire into these foundations, for that they were private,
and received nothing from the State ; but these Colleges
were all of them corporations, they all had, or, from their
antiquity, were supposed to have had, charters ; and he
could not understand' what a private corporation meant.
lle admitted that already, in some respects, the Colleges
were improved ; but still, as learned bodies, the two Uni-
versities at the present time stood very low, except at one or
two places, and they were at Cambridge. Cambridge certainly
did produce a few eminent men, hut Oxford stood very low
in respect of theolOgieal and scientific knowledge. The cause
of complaint was, no person stayed after a certain age, and
that those who were best fitted for the instruction of youth '
either left the Colleges or remained merely in consequence
of pa: ty connections, Then, again, too many pupils were
allotted to each of the public tutors, as it was a notorious
fact that, independently of all the opportunities which the
College afforded, any young man who wished to obtain
academical honours was obliged to have recourse to a pri-
vate tutor, in order to stand any chance of sueceA? but
there was another thing connected with this part of the
subject which, he most say, was most unfair ; it was this,
that the examiners, the persons who had to award these
honourable distinctions, took themselves pupils. The ob-
ject of his present motion was to get a Committee to in-
quire into the filets of the case. Ist. As to the statutes
under which the different Colleges were instituted, and
what was their present practice. 2dly. To inquire whether
they were bound by oaths ; and whether in the governing
bodies there was any power of altering the statutes ; and
to report to the House whether any legislative measure
ought to be adopted. It had been admitted that inquiry
was necessary, and the strongest possible grounds had
been given him by those who were concerned in the in-
quiry.—( Hear.) The Master and the eight Senior Fel-
lows of Trinity College' had entered into a resolution to
petition the King to enable them to draw up a code of
stet tes more congenial to the state of existing circumstances.
--(Opposition cheers.) At all events, then, they admitted
that something must be done. He would now, in conclu-
sion, move, " That a Select Committee be appointed to
inquire into the statues by which. the several Colleges and
Halls of Oxford and Cambridge are instituted ; into the
present practice of those Colleges ; int., the nature of the
oaths which are therein administered ; and into the powers
that are vested in the governing bodies, and to report to
the House as to the expediency of adopting any general le-
gislative measure on the subject."
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the Noble
Lord had adverted to something that had fallen from him
on a former occasion, and he certainly at
,that time, net
seeing, as he confessed he did not, any grounds for the mo-
tion which the Noble Lord made for the second reading of
the Bill then proposed to the House, had adverted to the
Noble Lord's conduct formerly when he moved for a Bill
to facilitate the introduction of ,Dissenters into the Univer-
sities, and he had adverted to it for the purpose of point-
ing out the object of the measure then before them. He
could assure him he had not intended to cast any imputa-
tion on the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord had himself
very fairly stated to-night his opinion that there ought to
be greater facilities fur the introduction of Dissenters into
the Universities than at present existed ; and what he (the
Duke of Wellington) had said was nothing more than
that such was the object of the Noble Lord's
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had also referred to an
admission made by a Right Rev. Prelate towards the close
of the debate on that occasion, to the effect that it was
necessary that there should be certain inquiries into the
state of the Universities, although those inquiries should
not he made by Commissioners appointed under an Act
of Parliament of that description. Now he thought that
the Noble Lord had mistaken the intention of the Right
Rev, Prelate. Ile (the Duke of Wellington) apprehended
that Right Rev. Prelate had wished to exerees an opinion
that there ought to be inquiry, but that he had not in-
tended such inquiry to he carried into effect by a Com-
mittee of that House. He the (Earl of R ulnas) had stated
that in the Universities there were various obsolete sta-
tutes which had become useless and impracticable, in con-
sequence of the length of time that had passed since they
had been enacted as statutes for the government of these
oolleges ; but it hal been stated by the Noble Lord that
the members of those colleges were sworn to the observ-
vance of the statutes—that the members did swear to the
observance of them, and that they violated those oaths That,
certainly was a very grievous charge against those persons ;
and he did wish that the Noble Earl had examined the
matter a little further before he had twine forward, with all
has weight and authority, and made that charge against
persons of high respectability —(Cheers.) NOW he was
prepawd to say that, with
.reseCt to) same of them, the acts,
for the non-performance of which they were accused, had
I:emu Magid—as was the case, for instance, with all those
which had reference to the Roman Quleelie religion ; others
were entirely obsolete, 4;4;1 others had become wholly ine,
practical*, she times in which they lived; But before
the Noble Lo;d.proceeded to itttiglatet that those persons
who did not carry iritµ eaecution such statutes must be
ggiity of perjury he ought certainly to have inquired whe-
ther, in the first elace, there existed any pwci ikk tile go-

nchic:st

verniug holies of the Colleges -to di,pens
tutes, and whether, secendl3,
visitors to dispense with the
(cuillaerar, poliine)
ti.rOf the':en ;lie
rte sel.o:a.s on th fOund..
of these Colleges. The Noble Eed eaid that o.e panpers
were properly the scholars of the foundation. Now, how-
ever, they were a distinct and separate class. They %Acre
not among the highest, but generally in the middle class of
life. The Noble Duke then alluded to the constitution of the
College of Ail Souls and other Colleges not particulariscl,and
said he thought as they had been in some instances designed
for the benefit of the relat ions ai:d descendants of the founders
their statutes should be carried into execution. There
were many Noble Lords Members of that House,-others
in his Majesty's Government, and others in the highest
situations in his Majesty's service who bad received the ad.
vantages of those c,.tatilislirnents, and he mild not sec %AY
they should he interfered with, nor why a difleteot disposition
should be made of their property thin) the one thine origin-
ally intended. The Noble Lord had also brought forward
the subject of non-residence of Fellows in Colleges. sow,
in some cases the founders admitted, and in others the
visitors had the power to prevent it, and he found in every
instance the statutes had been preserved intestate. The
Noble Lord said that a Right Rev. Prelate had slated that
at Trinity College, Cambridge, and at Oxf,rd, it Ives the
general opinion that an inquiry should be instituted into
existing evils, those evils being considered to be obsclere
statutes, not only useless but injurious, eiid that some ma-
sure should he adopted for procuring their amelieration.
After he had been elected Ctemeellor of Oxrerd he hod en-
tered into a correspondence ..vith the gover.iing partii s of
that University, and they had taken into consideration, and
were determined to adopt, any ittpuliorations that might be
found necessary, and he had been informed, and was autho-
rised to say, that these ameliorations would be made. He be-
lieved, too, that the Colleges of the University of Cambridge
had directed titer attention to the same subject. At Trioity
College, Cambridge, they bad applied to his. Maj -sty on the
subject, as visitor of the College, and they were desirous
of making every necessary alteration ; and every College its
the University of Oxford entertained a similar desire. He
would briefly advert to those charges which the Noble Lord
had offered to substantiate before a Committee of their
Lordships' House, and on which he proposed to found any
measure that he might subsequently introduce. One of
them was respecting the Latin language being taught in
Hall ; and supposing it could be proved that this was not
done in the way the statute directed, or even something
mere important than that was proved, he would ask his
Lordship whether, having those proofs on record in that
House, it would be desirable to act upon such a proof,
where it might involve the forfeiture of the property of the
College ? The Noble Lord had been pleased to say that
the Universities were my longer the seats of learning. He
must have a little forgotten what he saw around him, and
forgotten, too, all the events that bad been passing in Coe
c,untry for tnany years when he hazarded such an assertion.
The Noble Duke then expressed his determination of op-
posing the motion.

.at:on h

e e ih

The Marquis of CAMDEN thought that many of the
subjects, such as that of non-residence, was a mach Letter
subject for a CollcTiate than for a Parliamentary inquiry.
Ile was so much out of his element, not being in the habit
of attending Parliament, that he would not enlarge upon
the subject, but hoped that the Noble Lord, instead of
looking into minute circumstances, would permit the Uni-
versities to reform themselves, and refrain from pressing his

motion.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF said that the Noble Earl,
in having attributed to him the suggestion for a Committee
of Inquiry, was totally and fundamentally in error. From
the first he had strenuously opposed such a course. But
he did suggest that such measure should be adopted, but
one saving the interest and honour of the University, and
of relief, rather than of censure. But what the Committee
now proposed must, in limine, have the effect of convey:.ng
that censure. He had the same objection to the Conr,mit-
tee that he entertained with respect to the Comadssion.
The gravamen of the charge brought against the Universi-
ties was the abuse of their oat!►. Now, he believed they
obeyed them in the full spirit of the founder's intention ,
but, as many of them had fallen into desoetude, and for
other reasons had become obsolete, they were not punc-
tiliously observed. He admitted the fact that this was
an embarrassing state of things ; but even the Noble
Earl allowed that it was not perjury, and that the
oath was taken without prevarication or mental reserve.
He could not see the necessity of this Committee, more
especially as the subject was about being taken up by the
Learned bodies themselves, and it would be better to post-
pane any proceedings until the result of their J::l►berations
were seen.

The Bishop of LINCOLN. did not think the Noble
Earl had made out a case calling for a Committee.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER, in reference to the
oaths, observed that there e ere many who, like himself, had
taken the oaths in early life, and, notwithstanding, felt their
consciences unfettered and inviolate. He admitted the ob-
jections made to all unnecessary- owns, and would rejoice to
see them done away with in these. colleges, if the attempt
were made by the Societies the.oselves, and executed in a
legal and constitutional manner. if the Noble Earl had
made out a case to show that the Colleges had abused the
trust reposed in them by the foundcrs—ifit had been shown
that they corruptly tithumistered tire funds of the institu•
lion, or did mat pay proper attention to the instruction of
the yout4 entrusted to their charge—then, indeed, he would
have grounds for calling for a Committee. But, so far from
this being the case, they fulfilled the duties which they were
appointed to perform with singular zeal :aid energy.
the
Noble Earl would consent to withdraw his motion he would
rejoice to see the matter taken up and carried into execu-
tion by the Collegcs.themselves.—( Hear.)
The Archbishop of DUBLIN would admit that it
would be highly desirable to see the alterations come front
the Colleges themselves.

Lord BROUGHAM said, if he had at any time :luring
the course of the debate had a disposition to accede to the
suggestions of the Noble Duke opposite, the speeches of
the three Right Rev. Prelates who had just preceded him
( Lord Brougham) would have diminished it. The Right
Rev. Prelate who spoke first had been betrayed into the
expression of opinions respecting his doctrine of the nature
of an oath, which he (Lord Brougham) was quite satisfied
he would be the first to repudiate if he was aware of their
tendency. With the ethical doctrines respecting " sub-
scription" advanced by the second Right Rev. Prelate he
(Lard Brougham) felt bound to agree; but from the con-
stitutional doctrines of the third Right Rev. Prelate he
shoOd certainly dissent. With respect to the question
under consideration, be (Lord Broughatn) thought it.
would be well if the Legislature had the power, and exer-
cised it, of regulating the statutes of these Colleges. If
the founders of many of them were now alive, they would
be most astonished at the explanation given in many
instances of the simple rules they had laid down at their
foundation.

The Bishop of GLOUCESTER, in explanation, said
tliat in respect to residence, Masters of Coll( ges had the
power of calling the Fellows into resilence when t'..cy
pleased.

Lord BROUGHAM—The question now was as to the
cc n truction of the words of the Statute. What was it his
Noble Fiend (Earl Radnor) wished ? What was the ob-
ject of his motion ? To have the Statutes of the Colleges
altered, so as to accommodate them to the exiiting state of
things, for the benefit of the Colleges themselves, as well as
for that of the public at large. That was the tenour of his
entire argument. How far did they require alteration ?
At present, though a dead letter,' they were the law of the
Colleges : and the gravamen of his Noble Friend's case
was, that one party was swearing to observe them while the
other was swearing to cause them to be observed, they being
observed by neither in most instances. The evil was hot
denied—the only difference of opinion which existed was as
to the best mode of remedying it. His Noble Friend's
object was to make the practice conform more to the law
than it did, by making the law more conformable to the
practice and to make the cooduct of men coincide
better with their oaths, .by making those oaths more
coincident with existing circumstances. • But what most
damped his (Lord Brougham's) hopes of a Reform
from within the Univers:ties themselves was, that in many
cases the Colleges, under the demise of their founder, had
no power to change the laws laid do.vn at their foundation.
He was, therefore, oF opinion, that recourse should be had
to Parliament. He was inclined to think that the most
natural way to go to work would be to appoint a Com-
mittee of their Lordships ; but still as he could not but
fi)resee that very great inconvenience ►night result from
the adoption of that course, he, for one, should have no
objection to the temporary adoption of the suggestions
made by the other side of the House.
The Archbishop of DU BLIN explained.
Lord WVN FORD denied the prevalence of abuses to
the extent stated by the Noble Lord opposite, and con-
cluded by expressly a hope that he would withdraw his
motion.

The Earl of WI/'•iCHILSEA would tell the Noble
Earl openly, and above board, that he strongly suspected
the object of his motion to be, under the guise of repealing
certain obsolete statutes of thes..! Colleges, to break down
the barriers which surrounded then), and to let in Dissen-
ters on the several foundations. Parliament, he (the Earl
of Winehilsea) maintained, had no more tight to interfere
with these Colleges than they had with any other private
or trust property whatever. fie should offer his most de-
cided opposition to the motion of the Noble Earl.
','ho Earl of RADNOR replied, and then agreed to
nithdraw the motion, on the assurance which came...from
the Noble Marquis at the other side of the House, that the
CoHews. were ready to enter into the inquiry sought for.
The motion was withdrawn accordingly.
Several Bills were then advanced a stage.
Adiourned at Eleven o'Clock.