The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-16 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, J UNE 16, 1854.

R. ALBERT SMITH'S MONT BLANC,
LTA_ including the BERNESE OBERLAND and the SIMPLON,
THIS EVENING, and Every Evening at Eight o'Clock, (excel,.
Saturday) ; and Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Mornings, at Three.
Stalls, 3s. (which can be taken at the box. °files every day from 11
till 11; area, is.; gallery, ls.—Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly.

GREAT GLOBE, LEICESTER-SQUARE.-SEAT
of WAIL—TURKEY in EUROPE.—LEC rURES on the
Geography of Turkey in Europe and Asia, and the Baltic, and the
surrounding countries of Russia and Persia.—Open from 10 A.m. to
10 p.m.—Admission is.; schools half price.

LAURENT'S CASINO, ARGYLE Rooms,
(Lessee, Cuss. C. L&TRENT, Onslow-house, Fulham•road),
—The above Rooms are now OPEN FOR THE SEASON.
and will continue open every evening, with LAURENT'S
PELEBRATED BAND. Constlntlnople Quadrille, Sultan Polka,
Fair Star Waltz, and Overland Mall Galop, by D'Albert; also, by H.
Laurent , the following Waltzes - La belle Frangaise, Leonora, VlM-
kins and his Dinah, Admission, le. Doors open at half-past 8.
Dancing to commence at 9 o'clock, and terminate at half-past 11.

IMPERIAL PARLIAgENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The house met at five o'clock.
WITNESSES BILL.

Lord BROUGHAM, in moving the second reading
of this bill, said its object was to .compel witnessea
in civil cases to attend a trial in any part of
the United Kingdom when subpcened in the or-
dinary manner. In consequence of the present
state of the law the greatest inconvenience was
felt, as in order to obtain the evidence of a wit-
ness in Scotland or Ireland, in a case tried in
England, it was necessary to issue a 'commission,
which involved great expense. (Hear.) A clause would
be introduced to provide for the expenses of witnesses.
The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed his approval
of the bill.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM, it was read
a second time.

terms had reference to a scheme which one or two mem-
bers of the university thought likely to prove very useful,
that of uniting private halls together.
Lord SEYMOUR thought the word " great" had better
be left out, as it did not add anything to the simple word
" hall."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
"great halls" would be an aggregation of the private
halls.
Mr. HENLEY said that while power was given to unite
these bodies, no power was given to separate them. It
would appear as though it were intended to unite thern'in
perpetuity.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the clause clearly
fixed the condition on which the aggregation and its con-
tinuance depended.
Clause 30, with verbal amendments, was then agreed to.
On clause 31.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE said there were two or three re-
spects in which this clause appeared to him to require
amendment. For instance, as the clause stood, he thought
it would still be open to the commissioners to deal with
the preferences as they thought proper, and they might do
away with them. Again, as regarded the right of appeal
to the Privy Council, he thought the clause was too vague.
The Privy Council would hardly know what to do when
applicants came before them. The first alteration which
he would propose was to omit " it is expedient to enable,"
andeto insert "the interests of religion and learning, and
the main designs of founders arid donors would in many
cases be advanced by enabling."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the adoption of the amendment would lead to consider-
able confusion in the adjustment of the rest of the sen-
tence. There were one or two changes which he himself
proposed to make in the clause. As regard the word
merits," he did not wish now to insist that in no case
should a college emolument be obtained except through the
test of an examination. He did not mean to say that the
Government had receded from the views which they had
expressed on that subject ; but in the bill as it originally
stood there were provisions for cases in which other con-
siderations than personal merit were taken into account.
He should be alarmed at the adoption of the words of his
hon. friend ; for if they were inserted, merits, though form-
ing ever so small an element, Would not be admitted. He
thought it would be best to introduce the word " fitness,"
which constantly occurred in the college statutes. Two
other changes were contemplated, to which he did not anti-
cipate any objection. It had been pointed out that the
enabling powers did not distinctly include a power of in-
troducing into the statutes provisions under which amend-
ments might be made ; and he therefore proposed to insert
certain words to remedy that defect. Lastly, this clause ,
gave power to override the statutes of the college ; he pro-
posed that there should be power to override all docu-
ments.
Mr. L. WIGRAM supported the amendment.
The committee divided—
For Sir W. Heathcote's amendment
Against 9l-1t
Mr. WALPOLE proposed in the same clause, after the
word colleges to insert " with the consent of the visitors."
He trusted that the Government would consent to this
amendment, as otherwise there was no party to stand in ;
the place of the founders upon the question of any altera-1
tion in the college statutes.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was sorry
he could not fall in with the proposition of his right hon.
friend. It really amounted to this that the visitors should
be invested with a vote enabling them to undo what was
proposed to be done by the bill. (Hear.) Thus Parliament
could have planned a difficult and intricate machinery, all
of which might at one moment he stopped by the caprice of
one individual. And again, he would ask who were the
visitors? He believed them to be men, generally speaking,
of eminence and position; but their connexion with the
colleges was of so exceptional a character that ho did not
think they were altogether fitted to give a decided opinion
upon questions as to improvements or alterations in the
statutes of-any college. Take, for instance, the case of the
Bishop of Winchester,—a man who could bring a good
judgment and high principle to any question which might
come before him. The right rev. prelate was the visitor
of a college, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did
not suppose that his lordship had been thrice referred to
in this capacity of visitor since he stood in that position.
Under such circumstances he did not think it right to give
the visitor a final and overruling judgment upon so
momentous a question.
Mr. WALPOLE did not think the right hon. gentleman
took a proper view of the position of visitors. He (Mr.
Walpole) considered the visitor to stand in the position of
a trustee for those institutions which were connected with
colleges. Thus in all questions concerning schools, unless
the visitor 'had the right he proposed to give him, there
would be no one to represent the interest of the schools,
end thus alterations in the statutes, of a very disadvan-
tageous character, might be made without any one to pro-
test against them.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer reduced the visitors to mere ornaments. The
committee might depend upon it that the founders iff
naming them, meant that they should stand in a different
position.
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE held a middle course between
the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought that an abso-
lute veto was too much power for a visitor to have, and at
the same he thought he ought to have some voice in the
matter of the alteration of statutes. He would suggest
that it should be enacted that colleges ought to take coun-
sel with their visitors before any alteration being made.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE doubted whether the suggestion
of the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. Palmer) would lead to any
practical good whatever. It was no use declaring that the
colleges should take counsel with their visitors, if they
were allowed to disregard 'the visitors' advice. (Hear.)
He thought it would be better to give the visitors a right
of appeal to the Privy Council against alteration in the
statutes which they might deem improper.
Mr. G. VERNON was decidedly opposed to giving the
visitor a veto; at the same time, he thought it was only
proper that the visitor should have some voice in the
matter.
Mr. HENLEY complained that the clause contained
no safeguard that the will of the founder should be fol-
lowed in the smallest manner.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that it did not appear to him
that the appointment of visitors was made at all with a view
to such an enactment as was now under consideration.
The founder appointed a visitor with a view to the keep-
ing in force of the statutes which were imposed by him
upon the college. Now, it might happen very well that a
person of eminence and position was fit to see that these
statutes were observed, but it by no means followed that
such a party was the one who should be selected to hare a
veto against those alterations and improvements which
Parliament might think desirable. Their time and their
attention might be taken up too much with the other
duties to enable them to enter upon such a task. With
regard to the suggestion of the hon. baronet (Sir W. Heath-
cote) of giving a right of appeal to the visitor, lie (Lord J.
Russell) thought that was very reasonable in its nature,
and ho thought, when the proper part of the bill came be-
fore the committee, that tho Government would not object
to some such proviso.
Mr. PHINN thought that this was one of the objections
which must arise in the endeavour to apply a general enact-
ment to the varying statutes of different colleges. He
could not but think himself that if former visitors had ful-
filled their duty, there would have been no need of this
enactment. He thought this neglect of duty was the rea-
son of the present state of Magdalen and All Souls.
The amendment of Mr. Walpole was then negatived
without a division.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE moved to alter the words "to
insure the same (i. e. college emoluments) being conferred
according to personal merits," into " to prevent the same
from being conferred without reference to personal merits."
He thought the wording of the clause as it stood was too
loose and not in accordance with what he understood to be
the real view of the Government upon this question.
Mr. R. PALMER considered this clause as it stood was
against the principle on which the bill was originally
framed. Ho had thought that in some circumstances it
was intended to hold sacred the preferences expressed in
the will of the founder so far as regarded a preference
being given, other things being equal to the inhabitants of
certain districts. The affirmative character of the pro-
posed enactment made it absolutely requisite to be guided
by personal merit only. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
learned gentleman would best understand the introduction
of the words as they stood in the clause by a consideration
of the principle of the bill itself. The best course would
be to combine together the word " merits" with the word
" fiuess, ' which was the simple English translation of the
standard now recognised by the statutes.
Mr. HEY WOOD thought the clause was exceedingly
good as it stood. He did not see any great advantage in
having the word " fitness" ; the term personal merits"
would be quite sufficient.
Mr. J. G. PIIILLIMORE remarked that if the object of
the Government was to abolish the existing standards, they
ought to use words that would distinctly convey that
meaning. On the other hand, if they did not, let them
put in words which should show clearly that they did not
intend to exclude considerations arising out of birth or
particular schools, and thou there would be no ambiguity
about the matter.
Mr. CARR suggested the insertion of the word "both,"
which would make the line run thus : " both according to
personal merits and fitness."
Mr. HENLEY believed the words as they stood would
not exclude any claim to preference.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER moved to leave out the
word " according," in order to insert the words " with a
due regard."
Tho SOLICITOR-GENERAL reminded the committee
that the words of the clause had been chosen in conformity
with the preamble of the bill, which would enable the col-
legea to retain the preferences when thz school, or institu-
tion, or body enjoying the preference could present a suffi-
cient number •of properly qualified candidates for the
scholarships.
Mr. L. WIGRAM objected that the words, as they then
stood, would enable the colleges to abolish preferences which
he, for one, wanted is avoid. The candidate entitled to
preference might be perfectly fit for the scholarship, but
the working of the clause would enable the college to take
the best candidate without reference to preference at all.
For instance, in one of the colleges there was a Welch
foundation now devoted exclusively to Welchmen ; but ac-
cording to this clause the college would have to select the
most fit candidate that might offer himself, without re-
ference to the part of the country he came from.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
would appear as if the hon. and learned gentleman wanted
to saddle upon. Oxford restrictions which the sister univer-
sity had almost entirely abolished. The hon. I:unearned
gentleman would give Oxford no power of liberating her-
self from the restrictions of the statutes, but the doctrine
of the hon. and learned gentleman wont to the whole root
of the bill in its present form. The hon. and learned gentle-
man says he would give no power
_tithhat could possibly be
abused ; but to accomplish that end }they must throw over
this enabling bill, and revert to the original compulsory
measure. explained that the intention of
Sir W. HEATHCOTE
the amendment was to give the colleges, and the commis-
sioners power to deal with preferences if they so thought
fit ; and he confessed he thought that discretion ought to be
left to them, subject, of course, to the guards against an
abuse of the power which other parts of the bill provided.
Mr. H. -VERNON bad no fear whatever of the power
being abused. What he complained of was that the bill
but at the same time rile
did not give sufficient powers ;