The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-28 00:00:00

THE SUN) LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 28, 1854.

rnglish unive►sities, which were dependent for theology
on the Germans, although many of the doctrines of the
latter were repugnant to English views. And this state
of things he considered the bill was not calculated to
correct.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I, together
with many who sit around me, have listened with great
interest to the speech of the hon. member who has just
eat down, bet at the same time I have not been successful
M gathering his intention as to this bill. T will say a few
words, before I refer to the motion before the house, on
the general tenour of the speech of the hon. member.
sympathise very much with his views as to the functions
of the universities, and the duties incumbent on them un-
der the circumstances of the time, and the dangers to which
they and truth are exposed under those circumstances ; but,
thaugh I sympathise with him in regard to these partieu-
,. lan) and though I am disposed to go some way with him in
hie latneutatioue a,s to the deficient state of the university,
. in regard particularly to theological learning, yet I must
confess, and he will forgive me for so, saying that I think
that his speech was pervaded by a tone of exaggeration.
I eonfess that, both as to the dangers and the means of
meeting them, although there is much of truth in what
has fallen from the hon. member, yet I think the state of
the case is far from being so bad as he has represented.
I confess I do not think, although there are many sad and
ominous signs in the state of the times, yet I do not think
that Christianity is about to be exiled from the continent
of Europe and to come a suppliant to our shores. I
do not think either that we are so wholly deficient in the
means of defending our faith, for it would not be difficult
to refer to the names of many leading divines connected
with bath Universities, who have given forth works of
very considerable importance, and which are quoted with
honour in this and other countries, and their authors are
well worthy of taking rank either with the great theolo-
gians England has produced in former times, or with the
eminent men of other countries distinguished in this great
branch of learning. (Cheers.) I grant, however, that
there is in our universities a defect in this respect, and
that for several generations the benefits derived from them
have been small in proportion to those which under better
legislative regulations they might have yielded. Let me
point out one ereat error into which the hon. member
has, I believe, unconsciously fallen. He has spoken of
the duty of the University as connected with the produc-
tion of learned works; but let him not ascribe to the
University the shortcomings in this respect, as it belongs
rather to the genius of the nation, to the active and prac-
tical character of its people, and to the disposition shown
by all men in early life to hurry into the discharge of
active duties. It is owing to the immense efforts
which they have been making, and to the progress
which they have achieved in all departments of human
action which are furthest apart from speculative
thought. (Cheers.) This much, I consider, ought to be
stated on behalf of the universities. The hon. gentle-
man has said that the tutors were to be regarded, in the
resent condition of things, as the bane of the university.
ere, I think, ho has spoked altogether in error. It was
true, as he had stated, they were not to look to tutors
generally for profound research or an extended range of
learning. This, no doubt, is so, but it is a condition which
attaches itself to the nature of their duties ; but are they
lor this to be called the bane of the university ? [Mr.
Heeasetass.—l said the tutorial system.l Is, then, the tu-
toy dal system to be called the bane of the university ? That
sy stem discharges, in part, at least, a great work. The
greater portion of the minds of England are formed at the
university. I grant that much more ought to be, and I
hope will be so ; but the work to which the tutors are de-
voted is to the forming of certain habits of mind and char-
acter, and I do not think that it can be said that in this
they have been unsuccessful. The hon. member has spoken
of the learning of the Germans, and I can but echo what he
has stated. I often felt ashamed to think that by far
the most considerable and interesting work in the univer-
sities is by a foreigner. I refer to that by Huber, which is
such as to make it a treasure to all interested in the uni-
versities. He has his feelings as a German, and is not
blind to the defects of the university, nor does he attempt to
conceal them, but lie says that it has discharged a great and
essential part in unison with the national character of the
nation, by training that class best qualified to guide the
future destinies of this country. The course taken in this
debate has been of a twofold character. One hon. member
has entered at large into the case of the universities, and
has not directed his remarks to the terms of the present
motion, while on the other hand an hon. member has made
a speech with a directbearingon the motion. I would state,
however, in passing, that in one portion of the speech of the
hen. member for Stroud a question was put, to which I
think it my duty to give an answer, and which I consider it
easy to answer in a way which will be satisfactory both to
the hon. member and the house. The hon. member, after
stating the want of theological and other learning in
the universities, asks in what way this bill proposes to
remedy this defect ? If there were no provisions in this bill
which tended to remedy the defects complained of, I
should have been sorry to have been a party to sub-
mitting it to the house. I feel, however, in answer to
the hon. member, inclined to invert his question, and ask
what provision in the bill does not tend to remedy these
defects? (Hear.) And this is effected by the provisions of
the bill, by infusing a spirit of freedom into the universi-
ties, and by releasing its Government from the fetters which
have lain on it ; it is not easy to describe this by reference
to any particular parts of the bill, but such is its general
tendency. (Hear, hear.) The bill also is full of specific
provisions of the strongest and most direct character. At
present a large portion of the endowments of Oxford are
held by persons chosen to enjoy them, not for any great pro-
ficiency in learning, but on account of the circumstance
that they wore born in souse particular spot or related to
some particular person. As a general rule, by this bill such
endowments are to be converted into prizes, to be bestowed I
on account of merit ; and. I am sure the hon. member will
willingly admit that such provisions have a tendency to
remedy defects. The hon. member, again, complains of
there being no provisions to remedy the professorial sys-
tem. The hon. member has an adequate, I may say, a
sublime, idea of the dnties of the professor who sits aloft
and directs, through his instruments, the education of the
country; and thin bill contemplates to extend this system
and to increase the duties and emoluments of the pro-
fessor, and I am certain that the hon. member will
admit this will have a tendency to remedy defects com-
plained of. But the bill does not stop there, for its pro-
visions go still further, by providing that fellowships and
emoluments at colleges shall only be held on the condition
of active duty or study. I think, therefore, that the last
objection which can be seriously made to the bill is, that
it has no tendency to remedy the defects as to learning,
especially as to theological learning. The house has also
to consider the question involved in the vote, which it has
to give on the motion before the house, and, I think the
member for North Lancashire must more fully understand
the effect of his motion than he did on entering the house
this evening, as he has had the advantage of listening to
the speech in which his motion was seconded by the mem-
ber for North Warwickshire ; and from that speech he must
have perceived the tendency of his motion. The hon. mem-
ber for North Lancashire has long made conscientious and
energetic efforts in behalf of the attainment of the bene-
fits to be derived from the national institutions of edu-
cation ; but he will begin to question whether he
has not made a move in another direction, when he is not
only supported, but cheered, by the member for North
Warwickshire. (Hear.) This motion in effect—and lam
far from saying that such was intended by the hon. mem-
ber who moved it—but, in effect, the motion is to get rid
of the measure. (Hear, hear.) Let us have no mistake as
to this; and I do not apprehend that there can be much,
for the evidence as to such being the effect of the motion is
contained in the speech of the hon. member for North
Warwickshire, and such evidence is unimpeachable as far
as it goes. (Hear, and a laugh.) It is complained, and I
believe justly, that we shall lie under great inconvenience
when we go into committee, because so few of the mem-
bers are conversant with the institutions of the university
or the provisions of this bill. I do not, however, see
how the proposal to refer the bill to a committee of
15 gentlemen up stairs is to have any powerful tendency
to remove the evil as to the want of general knowledge of
the bill and the universities among the members of the
house. I look at the question with reference to the state
of the bill altogether. This is a bill containing 5$ clauses;
many of these clauses branch out into a variety of particu-
lars and call into existence other powers to be placed in the
hands of the universities, colleges, and commissioners,
under which a vast number of processes of what I may
term sub-legislation will go. The history of these colleges
extends over a period of 600 years, during which period
a number of institutions have grown up, no two of
which are precisely alike, and the forms of their
statutes are complicated ; added to this, there are
a number of institutions extraneous to the univer-
sity, with their separate constitutions and the innu-
merable schemes for their interest which have been de-
vised for them through 20 generations either by the bene-
volence or caprice of individuals—every one of these will be
referred to the committee, and there is not a school in the
country interested to the amount of 10/. a-year in any of
these exhibitions which would not come before the com-
mittee. I could not, were I the hon. member's most bitter
enemy, condemn him to a severer punishmezet than that of
conducting the committee which he has so rashly invoked.
I, together with my noble friend, have had some expe-
rience of the preparation which a bill like the present re-
quires, and I may venture to say something as to this. I
will not undertake to say the length of time such a com-
mittee may last, bnt I do not think that the hon. gentleman
heveoul4,findd that after a lapse of six weeks or two months
. efiector
seti lseenhabled to bring back the bill in a shape
as to whether' house. The question, therefore, comes
it is desirable theb 'll should be rejected for a
year, and secondly whether it is desirable that it should
be rejected after thsesecond reading has bee)). affirmed by
the house, without a division. Ido not think that it is
desirable that it at
I
it is desirable thatuilL be
rejected, but if it is thought that
be rejected in a plait
ashno_uld be so, then I think it ought to
made as
t.,:titagn intelligible manner, by a mo-
tion directly
the motives and reasons of thlerits, so that we might know
bill should not be got of(,se who rejected it. But the
formed uner the words oe by a chance combination,
apsurnotion honestly intended,
but which dare used for the
and convenience of
others who have no syrnpathe4,Z
motion. (Hear, hear.) The bill ought not mover of that
pinion
not to be rejected,
and I think I may found this o
summoned from every pargten that of the
uuiversity
England to
hers as-
discuss this measure ; it is shownaithvaidtetalieeonfnElet,a
ambled at Oxford were equally
hon. members were not content with the numbersd if
who d
let
them analyse the composition of those numbers, and it
id
will be found that the great number of theme men
the work of the university—men who were never mens
tioned in this house without respect and honour---aps
proved of the principles of this bill. (Cheers.) I do not
believe the House of Commons will reject or refuse to con.
shier a bill framed by the Government with all the care
and skill it could bring to bear upon the task, and which
has been hailed by the university itself, so far as regards
the majority of its working body, as likely to relieve
them from restraint and give greater efficiency to their
labours, make the endowments more available for the pur-
poses for which [they were intended, and immensely to in-
crease the benefits which the university has conferred upon
the country. (Hear, hear.) Ido stot think the house will
reject a bill so framed and so received, and which, after
ample discussion and time for preparation, was allowed,
without a vote, to receive the sanction of this house on the
second readings (Hear, hear.) When we have gone into
committee and grappled with the difficulties which I freely
admit to exist, and ascertained how near we can come to
one another—where we agree and where we differ—l can I
quite understand how, after that, it be a ra-
tional as
it. would be a perfectly competent
might
course for any
honourable member to say---" I feel myself incompetent
to the full consideration of this measure, and there-
fore I should wish to see it referred to a
committee
up stairs." But this is clearly not the occasion
which such a course ought to be taken, and
repeat
that, if in the circumstances have spoken of this -bill
should be consigned to a committee for the consideration

of its details, the effect will be the postponement of the
bill for the present session. (Hear, hear.) There is one
other tonic which it is necessary to mention, and it is this
—the hon. member for Dumfries, who followed and sup-
ported the hon. gentleman who has made this motion, gave
us to understand that they wished to refer this bill to a
select committee in consequence of its not containing any
provision for the settlement of the question which has been
raised respecting the admission of Dissenters to the uni-
versity. I thought we wore to have had a fair discussion
and debate, both on the whole merits of that important
question and upon the eapediency of mixing the considera-
tion of that with the consideration of the present measure
when we got into committee on the bill. The hon. mem-
ber for North Lancashire gave notice that he would raise
that question on the bill going into committee, and, in
these circumstances, I submit that ho ought not to pro-
pose to take the bill from us altogether on account of its
not containing spontaneous clauses upon that subject. I
will not forestall any question that may be raised in com-
mittee as to the admission of Dissenters into the universi-
ties. The hon. member for North 'Warwickshire says, I
am under peculiar relations and obligations to the consti-
tuency which I represent. I admit that, and one of the
obli-
gations 1 owe to that constituency is, that on all questionsin
which their interests or feelings are engaged I shall be most
circumspect and cautious as to the choice of times and op-
portunities
for discussion. lam unwilling, therefore,
to refer to the question of the admission of Dissenters to
the universities, because it would be impossible to enter
fully and satisfactorily into it ; but I put it to the hon. gen-
tleman whether he will pursue a course so ungenerous as to
attempt to intercept a great measure of improvement for the
University of Oxford because it does not contain some other
improvement which he thinks essential to a full and satis-
factory settlement ? (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for
Dumfries said that, very often, to grant a certain portion
of reform had the effect of stopping all other reforms. I
grant that it has the effect of stopping further reforms
of the same kind; but what I say is, that if you think
it desirable that the real sense, the real mind of the
University of Oxford itself, should in the first instance
be taken into consideration—that it should give full and
fair consideration to the question of the admission of dis-
senters, then do not press your opposition to this
bill. (Hear, hear.) We are going by this bill to restore
the liberty of a corporation which, through the intervening
agency of a particular statute, has lost the ancient liberties
that it possessed. It has come to be in a condition in
which its actual power to say aye or no on a simple ques-
tion depends entirely not on its own sense or judgment,
but on the opinion of 24 gentlemen, of the greatest respect-
ability no doubt, but 24 gentlemen not chosen by the
university; not put in to govern the university by the
university, but chosen by particular societies to manage
the affairs of those societies. (Hear, hear.) Ido not call
that freedom. We are going to give the university some-
thing like a constitution ; we are endeavouring to provide
- and Parliament I hope will approve the proceeding
that the governing body of the university shall be a
real transcription and representation of its mind. (Hear,
hear.) Now, on this subject of the admission of dissenters
to the universities, I say, without prejudging what the
view of the University of Oxford will be, that it never has
had the opportunity of considering that question. (Hear,
hear.) It never has had the means, it never has had the
organs through which to consider that question—to look
into the question, and see how far it is possible without
departing from the essential principle of their body to meet
the reasonable and natural wish of dissenters to avail
themselves of these institutions. (Hear.) We ask you now
to pass this bill which will give to Oxford a representative
government that will eeable them to consider that impor-
tant subject, and thereby advance the question to that
point that will lead to its final solution. (Hear.) On these
grounds I venture to express the hope that the hon. gentle-
man will not persist iu a course of action that is liable
to the imputation of indirectly preventing the im-
provement of the bill in committee. (Hear.) At all events,
the course of the Government is clear. As the effect of
this motion would be the utter ruin and destruction of the
bill for the present year, the Government have no option
but to meet it with a most emphatic negative. (Hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN wished, in one word, to explain that he
spoke of the present system being " the bane of the univer-
sity," and that be did not mean to apply that term to a
body of men for whom individually and collectively it was
impossible not to have the highest respect. (Hear.) He
should have wished the bill to go to a select committee,
as there were corrections which ho was anxious to see made
in it; but, on the other hand, he was unwilling to run the
risk of the bill not coming back to the house in time, and
therefore he could not support the motion of the hon. mem-
ber for North Lancashire.
Mr. HADFIELD hoped the hon. member for North Lan-
cashire would go to a division. What was this bill to him,
or to those who for 150 years and more, had been excluded
from the universities? (Hear, hear.) He would have
been better satisfied if he had received an assurenco from
the Government that it was their intention to admit
Dissenters to the advantages of the universities ; but no
such assurance had been given, and the inference was drawn
by him and all his friends that it was not intended they
should be admitted. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the country
would take notice of the speech which had that night been
delivered by the hon. member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman.)
The exposure which he had made of the university system
could not be passed over very long. (Hear.) He thought
it might be fairly understood that there was a division
among Ministers on the subject—(hear, hear)—and that
there had been a compromise between them, the effect of
which was that they brought in a bill which excluded Dis-
senters from the universities. (Hear.) He had no sym-
pathy whatever with the measure before the house, which
excluded a decided majority of the people, and he hoped
it would be defeated. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I did not intend to take any part
in this discussion, and would not have done so but for the
speech of the hon. member for Sheffield. I must confess
that I cannot agree with him, and I protest against the
spirit in which he has addressed the house. (Hear, hear.)
If there is illiberality in any party—if there is any illibe-
rality on the part of the Church—if there is illiberality
on the part of our laws and institutions, or in any depart-
ment of the State—the illiberality of the hon. gentleman
completely distances any illiberality of which he can com-
plain. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman asks, " What is
this bill to me, and what good will it do to us who are ex-
cluded from the universities ?" I may be permitted. to
mention that I have always been a member of the Church,
but I belong to a society the principle of which is that
schools shall be established without reference to the cate-
chism or the Church, and thereby Protestant Dissenters
are enabled to obtain the benefit of education for their
children. But what if I were to say, "Of what use is this
to me ? Of what use is it to me that Dissenters should have
the benefit of this education, and not Churchmen ; there-
for I will not support such schools." (Hear, hear.) Pro-
testant dissenters ever since the commencement of the
reign of the house of Hanover have always professed
liberality on these subjects, and this is the first time I have
heard it urged, with reference to a case of reform, that it is
one that does no good to the Dissenters, and will only suit
some 5,000,000 Churchmen, who will be the only persons
benefitted in the matter. (Hear.) I ask, are not these
Churchmen the fellow-subjects of the hon. gentleman ? Are
they not inhabitants of the same country as himself ? If
their education can be improved—if poorer members of the
Church are to be better rewarded for their learning, can
the hon. gentleman not support such claims—has ho no
fellowship, no sympathy but for those who belong to his
own communion ? (Hear.) I really think the members
of the communion to which the hon. gentleman belongs
will hardly approve or sympathise with such sentiments.
Then the hon. gentleman says this bill is a compromise be-
tween the members of the Government. He is equally un-
unfounded in that imputation as he is in his sentiments.
(Hear.) When I aseented to the proposal for a commission
when the hon. member for North Lancashire—who has
been most earnest and zealous in this question—proposed
a reform of the universities, and when I stated that the
then Government had advised her Majesty to issue a com-
mission, I stated expresslythat I thought the improvement
of the universities should be made a subject of itself, and
that the admission of Dissenters should be reserved for
separate consideration. (Hoar.) My right hon. friend who
sits near me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was not
connected with me in a political party at that time. We
had no political connexion whatever. (Hear, hear.) I said
at the time that I thought such a course was the best that
could be followed for both branches of the subject—that it
would be of advantage for the cause of university reform,
on the one hand, and that it would be an advantage to the
cause of the admission of Dissenters on the other. (Hear,
hear.) I have 'always been—as the hon. gentleman well
knows, having at no time disguised my sentiments—l have
always been in favour of, and given my vote for, the ad-
mission of dissenters to the universities, whenever that
question was brought forward. (Hear, hear.) Twenty
years ago I voted in favour of their admission : but there
have always been presented by the universities great ob-
stacles to the granting of that prayer. It was stated, for
example, that it would interfere with the discipline and
the organisation of the colleges now existing in Oxford.
By this bill it seems to me that those who might bring
forward a measure on that subject will stand on a far
better ground than before. (Hear, hear.) The hon mem-
ber for North Warwickshire says that is an objection to
the bill. I can understand how the heads of houses who
oppose a formidable obstacle, that is not successful in this
house, whatever it might he in the other house of Parlia-
ment, should oppose the admission of dissenters. But I
can understand also, when a master of arts has opened a
private hall in the University of Oxford, if this bill passes,
that he should say all dissenters ought to be admitted to
the universities, because he, in his private hall, could
make such rules as would not render it obligatory on dis-
senters to attend that kind of religious instruction which
did not accord with their own conscientious views. I say,
then, that in promoting this bill I am promoting the cause
which gentlemen on this side have at heart ; but I feel
quite sure of this, that if, because we cannot obtain all
our objects at once, we will take care that the Church of
England obtains no advantage, that a poor boy who dis-
tinguishes himself by mathematics, or a knowledge of na-
tural philosophy, shall not gain the advantage he might
otherwise obtain, because thre is another boy who is not
admitted—if wo act upon a maxim so unfair, so illiberal,
I say the reform we seek will be postponed for an indefi-
nite period. (Hear, hear.) I ask, therefore, in the cause
of practical reform, that the house will not allow an
objection of that kind to operate with regard to
this measure. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the hon.
gentleman who has made this motion, it seemed to me
that his objections, whatever degree of force might belong
to them, were questions specially for the committee, and
that they are stions that can be freely discussed in com-
mittee alone. With respect to many of the suggestions that
he has made, it may appear on discussion that my bon.
friend is right, and at all events he will have a fair hearing
for those suggestions. My right hon. friend has truly said
that, if he persists in his motion for a select committee,we
may expect that that motion will be decisive of the fall of
the bill. (Hear.) What my hon. friend can least of all ex-
Peet is, that this house will name a committee favourable
tlico_loisrahaineslev:ti:eesdveesr.
would get
It is evident that if he proposed
Id gentlemen, with nine or ten of them holding his views,
should
foofr,hioasu
it „ise, up and propose that seven of these
leftwo uoluat —b afalvaoungrha)b—l
ea
to
od
maintainingt h sth einajtohrei majority
noifvtehre.
sthitey heads of
as a
hpmseame,ostitticeao:alr
tnThohiteshrtieinfi
„go
er
bueobject,
jli.
themselves
ygt ihi ;autpi.tpni. reformooelnfedoifv.
ourd
(Hear.)
discussion
s nand I hope that, seeing the turn
Mr. HENLEY that
hth reference select
upon the house. (Hear, hear,) ,—teahort,gicthare;l'illlostrsist in
tpressing it
ech could be adopted.
committee was the best course
Mr. MIALL assailed the measure
salactri
subservience to episcopal authority,asa ennti'inaslnekdly
sectarian spirit for a national object, dho thought that
the dissenters would obtain a. hearins;beforethe ee
Mr. HEYWOOD regretted that he could not conn'slaenite;
t to
withdraw his amendment, and expressed his determination
to divide upon it.
air. DISRAELL—Str, if the hon. Member for North
Lancashire had consented to withdraw his amendment to
the motion now before the house, I should have remained
inasmuch ashehael
it
my dutydetermin to expressedtod the
opinions tthee
housesilent upon;btt, i
the subject, I feel
relathtievehtoen.itm.
member
haepriaernsett, in
ome
thatop i n itohnes
amendmentwhi c which entertainm ad eby
fact, an irrational one ; became Use question which wo are

now sailed upon to consider is one of great magnitude and
importance. (Hear.) It was admitted by the noble lord,
when he introduced this measure, that the right hon.
gentleman the member for the university, whose name is
on the back of this bill, and the noble lord himself had not
agreed upon what appears to be one of the main subjects
of discussion—namely, the admission of Dissenters into the
university. (Hear.) The noble lord and the right hon.
gentleman had since expressed opinions on this subject
quite contrary to, and the reverse of, each other, and
therefore it was certainly not very absurd in the hon.
member for North Warwickshire to think that somo other
arguments might be used and some other reasons suggested
relative to the scope and application of this measure. The
arguments used by the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to-night have most assuredly not been
very satisfactory, and I cannot in any way lend myself to
the belief that, by acceding to the amendment of the hon.
member for North Lancashire, we should necessarily be
creating unlimited delay, or, at any rate, be subjecting the
measure to useless procrastination. Surely this is not a
class of argument to which the Government ought to have
recourse, especially this session—when we have seen re-
forms of much greater importance than even those of the
University of Oxford postponed. (Cheers and laughter.)
Surely, sir, if we can afford to delay a reform of the Eng.
lisle constitution, it is nut a very unreasonable thing that an
hon. member should suggest the propriety of deferring for
some time, or until proper inquiries should be made and
satisfactory evidence obtained, the consideration of these
university reforms. (Hear.) But I deny the assertion
which has been made, that a reference of this measure to a
select committee is necessarily a postponement of it. (Hear.)
If this bill were sent before a select committee it would be
possible to produce a bill from it for the consideration of
the House, which might accomplish great advantages, and
which would still be from the objections which, I think,
are obvious on the face of the Government project. What
I object to in this bill is, not that it attempts to reform
and reconstruct an ancient institution of the country—it is
not that it may lead to very great changes, not in the con-
struction but in the adminietration of the university—but
that it strikes a blow—a fatal blow, in my opinion—at the
self-government, the freedom, and the independence of the
university. That blow I think, is an unnecessary one,
and I am sure that if this bill were referred to a select com-
mittee, all the results might be obtained which are required,
without dealing the blow which, I am sure, every gentle-
man on both sides of the house must greatly reprobate and
disapprove. That is my great objection to this measure.
You propose to form a uew constitution for the University
of Oxford. Grant that a necessity is now admitted to
exist for the establishment of a new constitution—why do
you attempt also, at the same time, to realise what should
properly be the results of the action of that new constitu-
tion? What you propose is not only to establish a new
constitution for the university, but alsotoenterinto minute
details into all those subjects the ordering and management
of which are the proper office of the new constitution
which you are about to establish. If the House of Commons
is to settle how students are to belodged—if it is to adjudi-
cate upon a scheme so important as the education to be
given by the university—if it is to be decided what portion
of the revenues of a college. are to be devoted to the main-
tenance of the particular objects for which the college was
founded, and what portion is to be dedicated to the more
general purposes ofthe university—if the House of Commons
is to decide on all these subjects where, I ask, is the necessity
for creating a new constitution for the university at all ? If
you establish a newconstitution for the university,and if you
left to it to decide upon all these questions of detail, which
are comprised in the sections of this bill, you would not be
attacking the power of self-government in the university
—you would rather be increasing it, and you would be
giving strength and expansion to its freedom and indepen•
dence. I may be asked, however, how it was that, enter-
taining these objections to the bill, I allowed it to go to a
second reading without opposition ? Perhaps, sir, if I had
altogether followed my own inclination, I should have
opposed the second reading, and it certainly was not I may
say, without great anxiety and consideration that I acceeded
to that stage of the bill ; but I thought the motion of the
hon. gentleman the member for North Lancashire gave me
an opportunity for expressing my sentiments with regard
to the measure. The result at which the house has at
present arrived is, that there must be some change in the
present constitution of Oxford ; but if the Government
project is referred to a select committee, it may make alte-
rations in the proposed new form of Government, or it may
omit all those clauses which refer to what I think ought to
be the natural results of the action of that constitution of
the university. Take, for instance, the question of private
halls—establishments which, perhaps, I may say, are
rather 'hostile to the colleges than not. Surely this ques-
tion, if the university has an adequate constitution pro-
vided for it, is one which will be much more profitably
decided by the university than by the House of Commons.
But, sir, I doubt very much whether this bill in any one
of its proposals will effect any groat and considerable change
in the aspect and general character of the university. I
do not believe that if you consent to pass this bill, that if
you do actually provide for the entertainment of the stu-
dent at what are called private halls, you will at all provide
for that class of indigentes of whom we have heard so
much. The extension of the university in this manner
is one of the great objects which you have in view, but I
doubt very much whether this bill, if passed into law as it
stands, will effect it. Look, too, to another point—the
professional system, of which we have heard so much. I
doubt very much whether by this bill you will be able to
accomplish that great change -in the system of Oxford
which has been so much talked of, and which by many is
so much feared. A professor—at least, such a one as is
expected by the supporters of this bill—is not a man that
can be suddenly created, even if you increase his income to
a considerable extent. We have heard much to-night
from the hon. member for Stroud of the results of the pro-
fessorial system in English universities, as compared with
its results in foreign universities. Sir, I believe there is a
great fallacy in that argument. (Hear, hear.) Take Ger-
many, for instance. What sphere is there for the genius,
the intellect, and the energy of Germany but in the pro-
fessorial chair? (Hear, hear.) Give Germany A House of
Commons, and do you think that she would then produce
those men of profound erudition, of commanding eloquence
men who can bury themselves in speculative abstractions,
and produce those results of erudition which, we are told,
shake the world more than territorial institutions? (Hear,
hear.) The fact is, that in Germany, with a gifted popu-
lation double the extent of ours, there is no avenue for
any man by which he can make the world conscious of his
powers but the chair of the professor. In this country
you may increase the salaries as much as you please, but
to suppose that you can ever produce a class of men like
the German professors is one of the most vain conclusions
at which you can arrive. Look at the events of 1848,
when you had popular chambers springing up in all direc-
tions all over Germany. Who wore then the members of
Parliament? Who were the Presidents and Vice-Presi-
dents of National Conventions ? Who were Secretaries
of State, and even Prime Ministers, but these very pro-
fessors? I should like to know what was the condition
of the German universities when half their chairs were
engaged in public affairs ? The eloquence that had
formerly adorned the professorial chair now attempted
to influence a division; the man who had been the orna-
ment and glory of a university was now lost in
the depth of a Cabinet, acting with the respon-
sibility of the fortunes of his country and of Europe on
his conduct. Why, sir, you had the whole ability of the
country devoted to politics ; and if we have not these pro-
found professors in England, it is because the character of
this country is different—(hear, hear)—the character of our
life is contrary to it. We are a nation of action, and you
may depend upon it that, however you may increase the
rewards of professors—you may give them 2,000/. year in-
stead of 200!.—ambition in England will look to public
life—mon will look to the House of Commons, and not to
professors' chairs. (Hear.) I believe, therefore, that there
is another great point in which you will not find any ma-
terial change effected by what you contemplate with regard
to this revoution—this great revival of the professorial
system. You will not be able, however you think you
may, to lay your hand upon 25 or 30 professors suddenly,
capable of effecting a great influence on the youth of Eng-
land. You cannot get these men all at once; it will be
slowly, by degrees, with great difficulty—by fostering and
cultivating your resources, that you will be able to produce
one of these great professors—a man able to influence the
public opinion of the university. Whether, then, you look
to the great change which you propose with respect to
these private halls—which is, in fact, a revolution of the
collegiate system—or whether you look to the great alte-
ration you contemplate by the revival of the professorial
instead of the tutorial system—on both points you will
meet, I think with great disappointment. With regard
to that part of the bill which deals with the property of
the colleges, I think it is neither more nor less than an
appropriation clause. It may not at first assume the
hideous aspect of such a proposition, but if you analyze
it—if you calmly reflect upon it—it is neither more
nor less than an appropriation clause. (Hear, hear.)
But if you find, on the other hand, that the university
is not extended by your private halls, and, on the other,
that this new system of education by professors instead
of tutors is ono which works very slowly—(hear)
and which does not, even with the long sequence
of time, effect the changes which you anticipate, you may
say that the property of the colleges will not be consider-
ably assaulted or diminished. Grant all this. But you
grant at the same time that the bill before us is a harmless
bill; because, in fact, it will affect little or nothing. ,
Upon subjects of so great importance I cannot say that I
am iu favour of supporting a bill simply because I think
it may do no harm—according, of course, to my view of
moral and social injury ; the very fact that you are dealing
with great subjects and great interests, although you may
ultimately accomplish little, is iu itself a very great evil.
But I do not rest my objection on this, what may be con-
sidered, limited ground. Admitting that this bill is not
an effective measure—admitting that it does not produce
any considerable change—admitting that it does not mate-
rially affect the character and condition of the university
—will there not, I ask, be a feeling of great disappoint.
nient excited by it ? The real university reformers will
naturally rise and say, " This bill of yours which we sup-
ported turns out just as wo suspected from the first—it
does no good at all; Oxford is open to all those objections
which we have always urged against it ; it is characterized
by all those evils which we have so often denounced it re-
mains ; somewhat modified, perhaps, in form, but in spirit
in the same, and, therefore, what we require now is a
thorough and real reform." But will not these real re-
formers find some advantage in the bill before us, although
it may not have produced any results ? Will they not
take advantage of the clause in this bill which appropriates
a portion of the revenues of the colleges, studiously and
subtlely as the application of that clause may at present
be guarded, and will they not come forward with re-
doubled force, appealing to your failure as a fatal pre-
cedent for a stronger measure ? I see in a moment what
must be the consequences of the legislation now recom-
mended ; if this bill be successful according to its
avowed objects, you do not meet the difficulties
with which you have to contend, and if it fails
to produce any absolute and actual change in the
general character and condition of the university, it gives
a standing ground of immense advantage for the future as-
saults of those whose designs I cannot sympatise with, and
whom I wish to oppose. But if this bill be referred to a
select committee, shall we not have means to counteract
this difficulty? We shall then have the opportunity of
framing the constitution of the university in that manner
which we may think most likely to accomplish all that is
necessary, and we can invest it with all the power which
is necessary to produce the desired results. Then, if the,
universities ever effects changes—if it deals with the ques-
tion of increased accommodation for students—if it deals

with the question which system of education should be
most encouraged by the university—if it deals oven with
the appropriation of college property—it will be from its
own action, with entire independence, with entire. free-
dom, with entire self-government, which, in my opinion, it
is of the utmost importance for us to encourage in those
great seats of learning whose fortunes are now under our
consideration.. I know it may be an observation distaste-
ful to many, though I make it with every respect—but I
cannot help feeling that if we do that which is somewhat
difficult, if
we fro% ourselves for the moment from that
,
heated political atmosphere in which we all of us move,
and if we take a
general glance at our conduct for the last
o years, say, we must observe that there has been what
may be called a morbid tiodre on the part of the Legisla.

tura of this country to effect changes in the institutions of
the country. (Hear.) I say, on the part of the Legisla-
ture, because I am bound to say, that I do not see that
desire and intention on the part of the people of this
country. On a point like this there is nothing like refer-
once to facts. About 20 years ago, or less, there was oa the
part of the Legislature an assault on the estates of the
church. Then it was said that the ecclesiastical revenues of
a considerable portion of the church were not directed
and devoted in the manner most advantageous to the
State ; there were anomalies and imperfections which
ought to be removed, arid an appropriation clause was pro-
posed in this house with respect to those revenues. It
was not the will of Parliament or the authority of the
Sovereign that prevented that appropriation, but it was
the good sense and the good feeling of the great body of
the community. (Hear, hear.) Twenty years have now
elapsed, and I should like a question of that condition to
be brought before the House of Commons at present. I
have no doubt that the verdict of the House of Commons
would sanction the good sense and the good feeling of the
great body of the people. There is no one at the present
moment but recognises that that was a proposition on the
part of the Legislature of a revolutionary character, which
was not justified by circumstances, and which futurity has
not sealed with its approbation. (Hear, hear.) Well,
sir, there is another great question in which I see the same
morbid desire evinced by the Legislature to deal with the
institutions of the country, which, in my opinion, is not
shown by the people of the country, and that is the re-
construction of Parliament. During the last 20 years there
has been no scheme, however wild or however matured,
which has not been brought forward by statesmen and by
gentlemen opposite upon this subject. From the charter
down to the last scheme of the noble lord you have had
propositions brought forward in their turn to effect great
changes in one of the most important institutions of the
country—the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) But I
say that the morbid desire evinced by the Legislature to
deal with the institutions of the country in that respect has
not been shared by the people, because, certainly, with re-
gard to Parliamentary reform, as well as with respect to
the attack upon the ecclesiastical revenues, it has not been
the Opposition that has prevented the measure passing,
but it has been the good sense of the people of the
country. (Cheers.) In these changes we have had
the estate of the church attacked, and we have had
the construction of the House of Commons assailed by
the Legislature. The unhallowed hand is now laid upon
the ark of the universities, and the same plea is urged on
the same fallacy. And what is that plea? The plea is, that
there are anomalies and imperfections that ought to be
removed; the fallacy is, that in removing these anomaliesand imperfections we never calculate and we never consider
that much greater injury is done to a country like the pre-
sent by outraging the principles upon which our institu-
tions thus depend than by removing a few anomalies and
imperfections. I have had occasion to say before, and lam
not ashamed to say it now, that this country is ruled by
traditionary influences. You might have a stronger Go-
vernment than you haVe at present, by getting rid of these
traditionary influenceseeyou might have a standing army
—you might have a logical, inexorable, and vigorous sys-
tem of centralised administration—you may have State
education or secular education ; you may have a stronger
Government, but you will have a weaker people. And, sir,
among these traditionary influences the influence of the
universities of the country has not been the least consider.
able. Its direct action has been great ; its indirect action
has been greater. If I were asked, " Would you have
Oxford with its self-government, freedom, and indepen-
dence, but yet with its anomalies and imperfections, or
would you have the university under the control of the
Government ?" I would say, " Give me Oxford, free and
independent, with all its anomalies and imperfections."
(Cheers.) But, sir, the painful alternative is not placed
before us. We have a propitious occasion at present before
us in which we aro invited, as it were, by the universities to
increase their powers—to give them an enlarged sphere of
action. Why do we not take advantage of that opportunity ?
Why do we not come forward and say, " We will construct
for you a constitution (which, indeed, under this bill you are
professing to construct) adequate to the occasion. We will
leave it to this new constitution, with all its independence
and freedom preserved and respected, to make all those
alterations, and to effect all those changes which the course
of time and the altered circumstances of the country, of the
age, and of the university require ?" So far you could
advance with truth, with justice, and, I believe, you
would advance with success. But the moment you quit
that line you are degrading the university, and you are
destroying one of those influences which, in the aggregate,
forms one of the elements by which you govern this coun-
try. Remember what is at stake. It is the national cha-
racter of the country that depends upon your respecting
the institutions of the country. (Cheers) I know well
the objection may be made, and it has been made by an
hon. gentleman opposite, that the university has had the
opportunity to make the necessary changes, and that the
university has been found wanting. But is that true ?
I t is very true that in 1847 the University of Oxford ac-
knowledged that considerable changes should be effected,
and that in 1850 all the changes deemed necessary had not
been accomplished. But was the task easy ? It is not true
that in the interval nothing was done. Much was done,
but it was not an easytaskfor a university which had existed
for 800 years to accomplish in a short time all that was re-
quired. I have said before, you will have much to answer
for if you place the universities of this country under the
control of the State. I believe that is the great point in
the question, and I cannot understand how gentlemen oppo-
site, though they may bo university reformers, and though
they may be extremely anxious to see great changes, espe-
cially in the University of Oxford, for reasons that may in-
fluence them, I cannot understand how they can consent to
obtain such results at so costly a price as to place a univer-
sity, which, of all institutions, should be independent and
free, under the control and management of the State.
(Hear, hear.) There is one point upon which, though I
touch upon it with reluctance, I cannot allow the debate of
this night to pass entirely in silence. It is that strange
appeal which has been made to the house to-night in sup-
port, as I believe, of this policy of interference in the
management of the universities of the State by the hon.
member for Stroud. Isay I believe it, because lam totally
at this moment at a loss to understand whE s course the
hon. gentleman is about to take. [Mr. HOMMAN made a
remark which was inaudible in the gallery.] I ate told that
the hon. gentleman has, said at a moment I had not the
pleasure of listening to him that he intends to oppose the
amendment of the hon. member for North Lancashire, be-
cause until he had heard the statement of Government, he
had not been exactly aware what the object of that
amendment was. lam surprised that an hon. gentleman
who goes so far into futurity—
Mr. HORSMAN said he had been misunderstood. He
had not stated what the right hon. gentleman had repre-
sented him to have said, but what he really had stated was
this, that if the bill were sent to a select committee and
would come back to the house this year in time to pass the
Legislature, he would have supported the amendment of
the hon. member for North Lancashire, but that, as he
believed, if an amendment were carried, the bill would be
rejected for a year, he preferred giving his support to the
proposition of the Government.
Mr. DISRAELI—That is an objection which I have al-
ready noticed. I do not think upon the subject of the
university that delay can be more fatal than upon the sub-
ject of the British constitution. (Cheers.) And, if we can
postpone the reform of parliament, not for a year, but for
even an indefinite period, I am disposed to think we shall
not incur too grave a hazard in voting for the amendment
of the hon. member for North Lancashire. (Laughter and
cheers.) But the point upon which I wish to touch, and
which I touch upon in this house always with great regret
and concern, is the appeal made to the House of Com-
mons to support a measure which I believe in itself
would be ineffective for the ptirpose it asserts and al-
leges, and which I think would lead to most dangerous
consequences, upon the strange and startling grounds
alleged by the hon. member for Stroud. We are to
pass this bill because Christianity is in danger, because we
have a prospect before us of the religion in which we all
believe finding a solitary refuge in the British isles. Sach
is the statement of the hon. gentleman, and such is his
opinion of Divine revelation, that that is a contingency
more than probable, and it is a result we must arm against
by the immediate institution of professors at Oxford.
(Hear, hear.) But I must presume to remind the hon.
' gentleman that, whatever he may think of the erudition
and the philosophy of Germany, there was a period when a
country not less enlightened, not leas civilised, not less
qualified by human accomplishment, under Divine favour,
to influence the fortunes and the opinions of mankind—l
must remind the hon. gentleman that there was a time
when such a country produced men who, in genius, in
acquirement, in brilliancy of conception, and in splendour
of diction would not yield even to German professors.
That country was France—a country enlightened by Vol-
taire and inflamed by Rosseau. That was the country
where all the philosophers of Europe assembled, it was a
country where they devoted themselves to the destruction
of that system which the hon. gentleman thinks now in
danger—which ho thinks can only be preserved by uni-
versity reform. But that was a country, and that was an
age in which the highest genius directed to an end was
eminently successful. There was not a sacred image in that
country that was not desecrated. Every holy tradition,
every divine thought in the inspired literature of the
Hebrew people, in whatever language it was written, was
treated with contumely and contempt. You had the
triumph of philosophy (I know not who were the pro-
fessors of philosophy at Oxford at that moment)—you
witnessed the fatal success of that insurrectionary at-
tempt which now appals the honourable gentleman.
Long years have passed since that catastrophe. I and
all of us have probably visited that laud. I have seen
the churches in that country supported by no State
endowment, but upheld by the sympathy of be-
lieving millions. I and all of use who have been
in that country have seen devoted to the Christianity
which the hon. gentleman thinks in danger all the re
sources of art and all the divine attributes of genius, and
I cannot forget that at this moment, when, after a peace of
nearly half a century, England is again embarked in war—
when England has entered upon a contest the fortune of
which may alarm the boldest and make the most sanguine
timorous—l cannot forget that the ruler of the nation to
which I have referred is our most trusty, and I believe
most trustworthy ally. (Cheers.) When I remember this,
I defy the efforts of the German professors ; let them shut
up churches, lot them tear down sacred images, and what
will happen in Germacy is that which has happened before
in France—the altars will again be adorned, and the cause
of truth will be upheld by an influence more powerful
than university reform. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT felt himself incompetent to discuss the
details of the bill, but it appeared to labia to be, like other
recent measures, a compromise of a doubtful character. A
clause that was good seemed immediately counteracted by
a clause of another description. He did not think that
the Government, not being agreed as to the measure, ought
to press it on their supporters. Ho was invited to co-ope-
rate in a tinkering amendment of a bill said to be of a na-
tional character; and then he, and five millions who
thought like him as to the Establishment, wore told that
they had no sympathy and no part in the matter. He re-
marked that the boasted university system had not pro-
duced union even in the Church itself. The Dissenters
would, if this bill were passed, find themselves forgotten.
If Government could not carry the measures which ought
to be carried, they ought not to meddle with them at all,
and he called on Lord John Russell to make a stand for
the Dissenters, and take the opinion of the house upon it,
and he would obtain a majority.
Mr. VERNON SMITH did not believe that the Dis-
senters would gain anything by referring the bill to a select
committee. It was in the house that their admission must,
and he believed would, be carried. He explained that he
considered the committing the education of youth to the
clergy, who were ignorant of business and of the world,
was a mistake.
Mr. BLACKETT gave his vote in favour of the amend-
ment, but reluctantly, because he would not appear to un-
dervalue the pains the Government had bestowed on the
measure. But the more he considered its provisions, the
more he was convinced that the house was not yet in a
position to discuss the bill.
Mr. W. J. FOX protested against the coming division
being taken as one on the question of the rights of the dis-
senters. The universities, which ought to be national,
were a spiritual monopoly, and ought not to be in the
hands of a sect which had lon comma to command the ro•

Terence of the majority of the nation. But there would
be ample opportunity for discussing the larger question.
He should not support a proposal for procrastination.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in answer
to an observation of Mr. BRIGHT'., denied that he had de-
clared himself opposed to the admission of dissenters, but
said that he had merely reserved the expression of his
opinion.
Tho house, after five hours and a half of discussion,
divided, and the numbers werc,--

For the amendment
For going into committee 172
Mr.joritT for Govern=ent ---32
lir. HENLEY then moved that the committee should
be postponed for a week. The bill, as last amended, had
not been in the hands of members until that 'Joining, and
there were mats rial alterations from the old bill.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that these alterations were not material.

Some discussion followed, and Mr. HENLEY pressing his
motion, the house divided, and the numbers were—

For going into committee
For the week's postponement
Majority for Government --59

The house then went into committee on the bill.
Mr. WALPOLE had predicted the difficulties that had
arisen ; but the noble lord had said it was too late. The
house was therefore now in the position of considering a
bill of which few hon. gentlemen knew the nature, unlss
they had, like him, carefully followed all the changes that
had been made in it. He (Mr. Walpole) had a great num-
ber of amendments to propose, and he had not as yet had
any opportunity of consulting his friends on them. He
therefore asked the noble lord, now that he had gained the
advantage of progress, to postpone the bill for a few days,
in order that all the amendments to it might be teen
together.
Lord J. RUSSELL could nit understand why the right
hon. gentleman had not consulted his friends on the sub-
ject not only a few days, but a few weeks ago, as the bill
was now six weeks before the house.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said this was not the case.
Mr. HORSMAN had several amendments to propose,
but had not had time to prepare the whole of them.
Mr. WAL eOLE assured the noble lord he had lost no
time in preparing the amendments ho wished to propose.
Lola J. RUSSELL named Monday.
Mr. DISRAELI would like to have had a longer time,
but would accept what had been so graciously offered.
The Hon. CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked
leave to sit again.
The Conventual and Monastic Institutions Bill debate
was postponed till neat Thursday.
BRIBERY BILL.
Mr. WALPOLE moved for leave to bring in a bill to
consolidate and amend the laws relating to bribery, cor-
rupt treating, and undue influence at elections.—Agreed to.
Mr. BAINES moved for a select committee to inquit e
into the operation of the law, Bth and 9th Viet., c. 117,
relating to the removal from England of chargeable poor
persons born in Scotland, Ireland, the Isles of Man, Scilly,
Jersey, or Guernsey; and also into the operation of the
law Bth and 9th Viet., c. 83, relating to the removal from
Scotland of chargeable poor persons born in England, Ire-
land, or the Isle of Man.

Lord J. RUSSELL laid on the table a copy of the con-
vention between her Majesty and the Emperor of the
French.

The house adjourned at a quarter past eleven.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—APRIL 27.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order for committee read ; motion made, and question pro-
posed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "that"
to the end of the question, in order to add the words
"the bill be committed to a select committee," instead
thereof. Question put, "That the words proposed to be
left out stand part of the question." The house divided ;
ayes 172, noes 90.

AYES-172. •
Acland, Sir T, Gaskell; J. Palmerston, Viscount
A lcock, T. (leach, C Patten, J.
Atherton, W. Gilpin, Col, 11. Peel, F.
Bavihaw, J. Gladstone, W. Phdlimore, R. J.
Baines, Rt. Hon. M. Gladstone, Capt. J. Phinn, r.
Berkeley, G. Goderich, Viscount Pigott, F.
Bethell, Sir R. Good, W. Pilkington, J.
'Eddalida, Col. R. M. Goulhurn, H. Price, Sir It.
P.Ergs, W. Graham, Sir J. Price W.
Bland, L. H. Greene, Thomas Ramsdell, Sir J.
B iiam•Carter, J. Greg son, Samuel Ricardo, 0. ..
Bouverie, Hon. E. P. Hall, Sir Benjamin Rice, E.
Bowyer, G Heard, J. Bichanison, J.
Boyle, Lt -Col. Heneage, Geo. H. Bolt, P.
Brady, J. Henea4e, Gco. F. Russell, Lord J.
Brainston, T. W. Herbert, H. Bussed, F. C.
Brand, II B. W. Herbert, S Russell, F. W.
Brotherton, J. Hervey, Lord A. Sadielr, James
Isrown W. Higgins, G. G. Mohair, John
Bruce, Lord E. Hindley, C. Saudars, G.
Bruce, H. A. ilm.sinan, E. ' Sawle, C
Buckley, Gen. Howard, H n. C. Scholefleld, W.
Bulkeley, Sir R. Hudson, G. Scubell, Capt. G.
Byng, G. 11. C. Hutchins, E. Scrope, G.
Cairns, H. Ingham, It. Scully, F.
Cardwell. E. Jermyn, Rt. lln. Earl Seymour, Lord
1 Chambers, M. Johnstone. Sir J. Seymour, H.
Chambers, T. Keogh, W. Seymour. W.
Child, Smith Kershaw, J. Shaft°, R.
Cholmondeley, Lord Kinnaird, A. Shee, Sent. W.
Christy, Samuel Kirk, W. Shelley, Sir J.
Clinton, Lord R. R. P. Labouchere,Rt.Hon.H Shirley, E.
Cobbett, J. M. Langston, s. H. Smith, R.
Cockb ,rn, Sir A. J. E. Langton, IL G. Smyth. J. G.
Cocks, T. S. Lawley, F. C. botheron, T.
Collier, It P. Lee, W. Strutt, E.
Compton, IL C. Lewis, Sir T. F. Sutton J.
Dent, J. D. Lockhart, A. E. Tattered, H.
Hering, Sir E. C. Loveden, P. Thicknesse, H.
Drumlanrig, Vis. Lowe, It. Thornely, , T.
Duncan, G. Mac iregor Jas. ThoriMill, W.
Dunlop, A. MacGregor, J. Vernon, G.
East, Sir J. 31eTaggart, Sir J. Walinsley, Sir J.
Egerton, W. Mangles, it, Warner, E.
Egerton. E. Massey, W. Warner, E.
Elinley, VW. Mills, T. Whitbread, S.
Esinonde, J. Ilolesworth, Slr W. Wickham, U.
Feilden, M. Moncri,tr, J. Wilkinson, W.
Ferguson, Sir It. Monsell, W. Willcox, B.
Ferguson, J. Moody, C. Williams, W.
Fulmer, Sir E. Morris. D. Wise, A.
Fitzgerald, W. Itio w bray, J. Wood, sir C.
Fitzroy, Hon. 11. Muntz, G. Wo dd, B.
Forster, C. Oakes, J. Wynne, W.
Forster J. O'Brien, C. Wyvill, M.
Fortescue. C. Oliveira, B.
Fox, it. Osborne, R. TELLERS.
Fox, W. Otway, A. Hayter, W.
French P. Palmer, Roundel! Muligrave, Earl of

NOES-90.
Arkwrlght, G. Farrer, J. Milligan, R.
BagKe, W. Floyer, J. NI ic.,e•l, Dr. W.
Baldock, E. Forbes, W. Mitchell, T.
Bankes, lit. Hon. G. For:4er, Sir G. Mu ndy, W.
Barnes, T. Proven C. Mu rrourgh, f.
Barrington, Vist. Galway, Viscount Nei-legate, C.
Beach, Sir M. Gardner, R. Borth, Lt.-Col. J.
Bell, J. Graham, Lord M. PaAra, C.
lienthick, Lord H. Greene, .'apt. John Pal ;ington, Sir J.
Bentinck, G. Gwyn, Rowel Palk, L.
Bernard, Vist. Hadfield, George Peohell, Sir G.
Blake, M. J. Hanhury,Capt. tion.C. Pell •tt, A.
Boldero, Lt.-Col. H. G. Hastie, Archd. Phi Jimore, J. G.
Booker, T. w. Henley, J. Roebuck, J.
Bright, J. Hume, W. Sm'ltn, J. B.
Brocklehurst. J. Jolliffe, Sir W. Stafford, A.
Brown, H. Jones, Capt. T. Stanley, Lord
Buck, L. W. Keating, H. Swill, B.
Buller, sir J. Kennedy, T. Trollope, Sir J.
Cecil, Lord Kerrison, Sir E. Tyre!, Sir J.
Cheetham, John Lf.ffan, Capt. It. Vyvy an, Sir R:
Christopher, Robt A. Lennox, Lord H. G. Walcott, Rear-Ad.
Clay, Sit W. Rt. Lindsay, W. Whit more, A.
Clifford, Lt. Col. H. M. Lisburne, Earl Wig:TAM, Loftus T.
Cliaton, Lord C. P. P. Lockhart, W. Willoughby, Sir H.
Cobden, R. Long, W. Wy nu, Cap:. H.
Codrington, Sir C. W. Lowther, Capt. H,
Craufurd, E. H.J. Matins, R.
Davies, 1). A. S. March, Earl of TELLERS.
Devereux, J. T. SI astennan, J.
Disraeli, lit. lion. B. M a unsell, Col. T. Heywood, J.
Duke, Sir J. Alia% E. Blackeit, J. F. B.

ART AND PHOTOGRAPHY.—There is a battle going on
between the high-toned artists and the prActical men, as
to the extent to which photography can justifiably be
used in art. The aesthetic advocates vie yr the optical
stranger with some distrust, and fear that. the power of
taking dozens of copies of works of art with very little
trouble will disentitle those copies to 'be designated
works of art at all. Some of our eminent men, how-
ever—eminent as true artists—declare the y are ready to
avail themselves of the art of photography, in certain
tedious details of their art. A story is t. )1d of a noble
peeress, whose portrait was painted by Sir Thomas Law-
rence ; both the peeress and the artist became tired and
cross during the imitation of a satin dres e ; the impa-
tience of stillness in the one, and the renuirement of
stillness insisted on by the other, nearly occasioned a
collt,ion of tempers. Now it has been urged that the
photograph might render admirable aid 1:o. an artist in
hundreds of instances such as this. Mee h 'mical exact-
ness the photograph can realise, beyond the power of
the eye or the pencil to imitate ; and th ere is ample
reason to believe that, after accepting aid 01 'this kind in
mechanical details, there will always be abundant scope
left for the genius of the true artist.—Dick. ass's House-
hold Words.

THE DEFENCES OF THE NORTH EAST CO! AST.—TYNE-
MOUTH, THURSDAY AFTERNOON.—The Inspt actor-General
of Ordnance is down here to-day surveying the harbour,
mouth, and line of coast. The Sappers and Miners
have staked out ground for a powerful lbattery com-
manding the estuary of the Tyne and a considerable
range of the south-easternmost point of the Northumber-
land coast. It is stated that the line of ci cut from the
Tyne to the Humber will be immediately sizif.veyed, with
a view to the defences. The battery staked, out in this
garrison is about forty feet from the east and south walls,
and will occupy a commanding altitude. Clifford's
Fort, at the mouth of the harbour, will also be fortified.
The company of Artillery will be removed flonr. hence
on Saturday week to Woolwich. They will be r elieved
by a detachment of the 2d battalion from Leith.
[ADVERTISEMENT.J—HoIIoway's Pills for Invigo. rating
the Weak, and Strengthening the Debilitated.— These
wonderful and efficacious pills are the only met licine
adapted to invigorate weakened constitutions, pers( tns of
low and nervous habits, or those who are suffering from
bad digestive organs, or those whose health has bet tome
deranged by bilious affections, disordered stomael 1, or
liver complaints. Those affected with coughs, co *le ts,
asthma, or shortness of breath, should have recourse' to
these invaluable pills, as their mighty powers will I tie
fund a certain and efficacious remedy for all these con '-
plaints, imparting, at the same time, strength, new
vigour, and buoyancy of spirits to the afflicted, and iou Y
be taken with perfect safety at any period of life.— -Solt 1
by all druggists ; and at Professor Holloway's est.4.bli, 31>< -
ment, 244, Strand, London.
[AIfiVERTISEMENT.3—A most Interestin! recovery from a vast COT s-
r) of olleases, without Vie aid of medicine, is rec riled in t, re
following letter :

" Rridgehouse, Frlmley, 3d April, 1854.
" Gratefid for the benefit I have derived from 1:u Barry's Neva.
lenta Arablca Food. I feel It my duty to express to you my unfeigned
thanks for the invariable kindness I have met with at your hands.
My case is an extra rdinary 0.. e, and as it may benefit of er suf-
ferers I think it but right to place its details at your disposal. I
have suffered these 33 years continually from diseased lungs, spitting
of blood, liver derangement deafhess, singing in the ears, consti-
pation, debility, shortness of breath and cough, and during' that
period taken so much medicine that f can safely say I have laid out
upwards of a thousand pounds at the chemist's and doctor's. I have
lug any improvement in my health. Indeed I was in utter despair;
and never expected to get over it, when I was fortunate enough ',A)
become acquainted with your Revalenta Arahica, which, Heaven be
praised, restored me to a state of health which 1 long since despal red
or attaining. My lungs, liver, stomach, head, and ears are all right,
my hearing perfect, and my recovery is a marvel to all ray acquain..
tances.—l am, respectfhlty,
~Jeans
ROISEILTS, Wood Me' chant.'
In canisters, suitably packed for all climates, aid with MU Instruo.
tions-1 lb., 2s 9,1; 2 lh., 4s 6d ; 51b., Ifs ; 12 lb., 22s : super re
fined, 5 lb., 225; 10 lb., 335. The to lb. and 12 lb. carriage tree, cg,
receipt of Post-oMce order Barry, Du harry, and Co., 7 Revern
street, London; Fortnum,3lasou, and Co., purveyors ti her midestY.
Piccadilly; also at 63, Oxford-street; 60, Graceahurnb,Street ; 49.
7314opagate•stron ; 4 cheapsicle ; 330 Awl 4511 Strand, •