The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-08 00:00:00

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD BILL.

Their lordships then went into committee upon this
bill ; Lord REDESDALE in the chair.

Lord CANNING moved the postponement of the
preamble.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said it was very
necessary to postpone it, for unless the bill was mate-
rially altered it would be entirely inconsistent with the
preamble. The preamble recited that the measure was
one for the "advancement of religion ;" but the bill so
far from promoting religion, contained some provisions
which might be considered to have an opposite effect.
(Hear, hear, from the Earl of Derby.) If the bill were
not very much amended, he should certainly move the
omission of these words in the preamble. (Hear.)
The preamble was then postponed.
On clause 1,

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH moved the inser-
tion of the Earl of Harrowby's name in the first portion
of the clause, the object of which was to give precedence
to the noble earl over the rest of the commissioners.

The amendment was agreed to.
On clause 4, relating to oaths, •
Lord BERNERS moved the omission of the words,
"And no oath which may have been taken by any such
officer shall be pleadable in bar of any authorities of the
said commissioners."

Viscount CANNING said he must oppose the amend-
ment. It appeared to her Majesty's Government that
in dealing with this question of oaths, it was very de.
sirable to remove every impediment which might arise
from motives of conscience ; and as the colleges had
administered oaths by virtue of authority given by the
state, so the state, being the dominant power, had a
right to absolve front the obligation of such oaths.
Lord BERNERS said he must persist in the aineiad-
ment.

Their lordships then divided—
For Lord Berners's amendment, 64
Against 77-13
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 5,
The Earl of DERBY observed that the new constitu-
tion was to come into operation on the very day when
the examinations were held, and when the annual ac-
counts of all the colleges were in course of settlement.
This would be very inconvenient, and it would there-
fore be better to postpone for a few weeks the coming
into operation of the new system. He would there-
fore suggest that the words " on or before the 14th day
of December" should be substituted for the words
"upon the 14th day of Michaelmas Term." Again, as
the bill now stood, the powers of the hebdomadal board
were to be transferred to the new hebdomadal council
on the 11th day of Michaelmas Term, 1854, and by the
10th clause the members of the heddomadal council were
to be elected on the 15th day of Michaelmas Term so
that the powers of the preent board were to be trans-
ferred to the new council before they were elected.
(Hear.) There was here a jumble ~f dates which ought
to be rectified. The noble earl suggested an alteration
of the clauses which, without altering the object of the
Government, would carry out their intention in a more
simple manner.

Viscount CANNING concurred in the propriety of
altering the arrangement of the clauses, which would be
an improvement.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 6,
The Earl of ELLEN BOROUGH called attention to
some verbal inaccuracies in the wording of this clause.
In a bill for reconstructing a university, the grammar
ought at least to be accurate. (Laughter.)
e
epts
hloeaenrTussGsoh
eweno
v6hEaeosiari
nartwl ofdhmeeber
ecne DethtnasoEenaßecgetenß:
eenl Yeods
drt
tisaidttouo ,t(
forget
htttheuhayg et
(Laughter.)
newitielneearmt.
seemed
governing
thereavtf rtoei
ern
rhng,
wasnhv tgeohs v
,eubriovpi
ieeoyrria:.-
lected that there was such a person, for two additional
clauses were added to the bill, in which the name of the
Lord Chancellor did occur. (Laughter.) He proposed
to insert in the present clause before " Vice-Chancellor"
the word " Chancellor," which would obviate the neces-
sity of the two additional clauses.
Viscount CANNING, in seconding the amendment,
head
ft the o Chan-
cellor
s et
o
represent him.o
said his noble friend was well aware that he had not
been forgetter',
appoint
oneec because u
professor ethe bill
and e arew heaedd
Lord WARD proposed the insertion of the following
six
shall consist of the vice-chancellor, the proctors,
univer-
sity,
clause in lieu of clause 6 :—" The hebdomadal council
heads of colleges or halls, six
professors of the .
elected by the con-
gregation hereinafter mentioned
of the said university,
together with members of convocation of not
less than five years standing, to be
and the vice-chancellor or his deputy shall be the presi-
dent of such hebdomadal council." His object in pro-
posing this clause was, to bring about unanimity of
action, and to make the principle of representation what
it should be, a free and fair one. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of CARNARVON suggested introduc-
tionthe of the word "Chancellor" before Vice-Chancellor in
the new clause, and the omission of the words "to be
elected." By retaining those words the meaning of the
clause was rendered dubious.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE said that it was desir-
able that the six heads of houses should be elected by
those who were acquainted with them, and the same
reason held good with regard to the professors. They
had to reconcile, he would not say conflicting interests,
but conflicting opinions ; and this being so, it was not
logical that each body should elect the persons who were
to represent them on the council. Not being a member
of the University of Oxford himself, of which the noble
lord was a member for many years, he could not say
what was the object of the noble lord in proposing the
clause ; but there seemed to exist a feeling of hostility to
the heads of houses in the proposition of the noble lord.
(Order, order.)
The Duke of NEWCASTLE and Lord Ward rose
together, but the former addressing the house, said he
earnestly entreated that anything like personality—
(loud cheers)— might be avoided in the discussion of this
question. The noble earl, the leader of the opposition
and the chancellor of the university, set them an admir-
able example, both last night and on the present occa-
sion, which he trusted would be steadily and implicitly
followed. (Cheers.) If the noble earl who had just sat
down had been a member of the University of Oxford,
he would have avoided the observations he made, and he
hoped his noble friend (Lord Ward) would not reply to
these observations, because no one could impute to him
any other motive in the amendment ho proposed than
the good of the university and of all classes in it. (Hear,
hear.) With regard to the amendment itself, he thought
the remark of the noble earl behind him (the Earl of
Carnarvon) was perfectly applicable, and that the clause
as it stood would not carry out the intention of his noble
friend. He hoped that the committee would concur in
the propriety of making the congregation the elective
body. They were of sufficient number, between 250 and ,
300, constantly resident at Oxford, and therefore well',
acquainted with the merits of those whom it was pro-
posed to elect. He thought there was much truth in the
suggestion of Lord Ward, that the heads of houses would
elect the six senior heads of houses. He should therefore
support the amendment of the noble lord.
The Earl of HARROWBY opposed the amendment.
The Bishop of OXFORD said the object was not to
have in the hebdomadal council three sets of men repre-
senting different interests, but men chosen from three
different bodies, all representing their common univer-
sity. This was a vital objection to the clause as it stood.
Men might stand well with their limited circle, the heads
of houses, who had no peculiar qualification as men of
business for this office. Another reason in favour of the
amendment was, that the heads of houses would not
have their proper weight in the hebdomadal council if
they were put in as nominees. (Hear.) This was always
found to be the case in bodies where there were nominees
of the crown and persons elected by popular suffrage in
the same assembly. The former did not enjoy the influ-
ence which belonged to them ; and the heads of houses,
if elected by themselves, would be looked upon as the
representatives of a class. The effect of such a measure
would be to crystallise temporary antagonism, and fix
and perpetuate the differences of the day. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of POWIS thought it most undesirable thai

The Earl of DERBY asked for an explanation of that
part of the clause which required six professors to be
elected, and one professor to he separately elected.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said it was proposed to
omit those words.

The Earl of DERBY said he objected to the govern-
ing power being entrusted to the resident body alone.
He regretted that the system was not ad pted which
had been recommended both by the commissioners and
the university itself—that there should be two governing
bodies. They had now decided that there should be
one, and they proposed to exclude from all representa-
tion about nine-tenths of the members of the universities,
by confining it to the residents. It was very much like
a scheme for throwing the whole power in the university
into the hands of one party, of about 250 wembers. No
such objection could arise if the convocation with its
2,500 members had had its powers reserved. They were
handing over Oxford to be governed, not by a free re-
presentation but by a limited oligarchy, whose views
were confined to the university itiself;wl,-, had had little
experience beyond its walls, and who had not learned,
by mixing with the world at large, to take more liberal
and extended views of the interests of the university.
He, therefore, proposed to omit the words " the con-
gregation hereinafter mentioned," and insert " the con-
vocation."

Viscount CANNING said it was quite impossible for
the Government to accede to tlis amendment. After
stating the considerations by which the Government had
been led to propose the clause as it stood, he observed
that the argument of the noble earl was the same as
that on which universal suffrage was advocated in refe-
rence to Parliamentary representation. He contended
that no body could be so fit to decide on questions of
teaching and discipline as the great body of tutors and
professors resident in the university. If the opposite
plan were adopted, the members of convocation would
be summoned to Oxford rather to support the party they
espoused than to give an independent vote.
The Earl of MA_LMESBURY said that the speech of
the noble viscount was just such a one as might have
been expected some 70 or 80 years ago, if the subject of
Parliamentary reform had been mooted. His noble
friend saw some analogy between the amendment and
universal suffrage. Well, he (Lord Malmesbury) should
not object to universal suffrage if the country were
peopled only with adult and well-educated men. But
who were the persons of whom the noble viscount was
afraid ? Why, men who had been educated like himself
and with himself (for he believed the noble lord was a
a Master of Arts) ; at all events, if he was not, many of
their lordships were ; and yet the noble lord compared
them with an unfortunate class whom they were dis-
cussing the other nig-ht— the dog cart drivers, (Laughter.)
The Bishop of OXFORD said the noble earl who had
just spoken appeared to be under an entire misapprehen-
sion as to the objects of those who supported the clause.
They did not wish the give the government of
the university to congregation ; but they simply proposed
to entrust to it one special function—namely, the elec-
tion of the hebdomadal council, which was itself only the
executive body of the university, fur every measure must
ultimately come before convocation. Neither h•ad they
argued that convocation was unfit to perform that duty;
they only said that it was less fit than congregation,
which would be composed of men whose daily occupation
was university instruction and discipline. (Hear.) Con-
gregation would also possess another advantage ; it
would be less liable to those sudden afflatus of new theo-
ries, to which non-resident members of the university
who usually took their opinions on trust, were occa-
sionally subject. He thought therefore that congrega-
tion would be the safest body to entrust with the duty
proposed to be committed to it. He believed that all
the principal organs of opinion were obliged to resort to
the resident members of the universities for their ablest
writers—a most remarkable circumstance, and one that
completely disproved the idea that the residents were
men of monkish habits of thought and of contracted
views. The fact was, they knew far more of what was
passing in the world around them than could possibly be
the case with a clergyman who gave himself up to the
conscientious performance of the duties of a country
parish. At all events„ he protested agamat bringing
every member of convocation up to Oxford every three
years. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of DERBY said that what he complained
of was that measures would not necessarily go before
convocation, for it would be in the power of congrega-
tion to prevent them from ever being submitted to the
larger body.

AfCersoini;fu rther conversation, the committee d ivided :
For "congregation" 99
For "convocation"
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 11-14 were inserted after clause f.
On clause 15—" the Vice• Chancellor to make a regis-
ter of congregation."
The Earl of DERBY wished to know whether that
register was to be conclusive as to who were members ?
Ttie Duke of NEWCASTLE said it was intended to
be binding.
The Earl of DERBY would suggest to the Govern-
ment the omission of the latter part of the clause, pro-
viding- that "if the vice-chancellor failed to comply with
the provisions of the section to the satisfaction of the
commissioners, the commi,sioners should thereupon carry
the same into effect," &c.

Viscount CANNING had no objection to the omission
of the words "to the satisfaction of the commissioners.
The clause, with this amendment,
was agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 18 inclusive were also agreed to.
On clause 19, relating to the promulgation of statutes,
The Earl of DERBY said, in his opinion, the effect of
the clauses on that subject, as they then stood, would
be to constitute the 250 resident members of the univer-
sity a mere debating society, devoid of any power of
proposing amendments.
Viscount CANNING dissented from that view.
The Bishop of CHICHESTER said he should move
the omission of all the words which gave to the congre-
gation power to constitute themselves an intercepting
body between the hebdomadal council and convocation
in reference to a statute.
After a few words from the Bishop of OXFORD in sup-
port of the clause,
The Bishop of CHICIIESTER said as it did not ap-
pear likely that he would receive sufficient support, he
should withdraw the amendment.
The clause as it stood was then agreed to ; as were
also clauses 20 and 21.

On clause 22, providing that the congregation might
speak in English,
The Earl of DERBY said he thought that in such
matters the hebdomadal board ought to have the power
of regulating its own proceedings.
Viscount CANNING considered it desirable that a
minority should have facilities for making its opinions
generally known.
The clause was then agreed to.

On clause 23,
The Earl of DERBY said that this clause introduced
for
the first
principle, that of the repre-
sentation of the tthiememianenroivtyel—aprinciple which, when in-
troduced into the Reform Bill, met with universal con-
demnation. (Hear, hear.) T
In all cases the minority
must submit to the majority, of which principle they
had several examples that night. (Laughter.) There
might be some show of reason for the introduction of
that principle into the election of members of Parlia-
ment, because in that case there was party organisation
and party division which was not, and which he hoped
would not, be the case in congregation.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE thought it right to ob-
viate the possibility of any dominant k
Prty having the
election of the whole governing body in its hands. He
thought the noble earl was mistaken in saying that the
principle of the representation of minorities was univer-
sally condemned. It was misunderstood for some time,
but the more it was before the public the more it was
appreciated.
Lord MONTEAGLE thought the principle of the
representation of the minority a wise one.
The clause was then agreed to, with the addition of
a proviso to the effect that no elector should have more
than one vote for each candidate.
Clause 24 was agreed to.
The Earl of PO WIS moved the following clause after
clause 24 : "It shall be lawful for the convocation of
the university to provide, if it shall think fit, that votes
may be given either personally or by proxies, being
members of convocation, authorised by writing, accord-
ing to the form in the Schedule B to this act annexed,
or in a form to the like effect, under the hand of the
member of convocation nominating such proxy, at any
election of a chancellor of the university or of a burgess
to serve in Parliament." The clergy being excluded
from becoming members of Parliament; he thought that
every facility • should be given to them to express their
views with regard to those who were to represent them.
It was a great check upon that expression, that the
members of convocation were compelled to come from
distant parts of the country to the university before they
could vote.
Viscount CANNING said .tho Government were
ready to adopt the clause as far as it applied to the chan-
cellor. With regard to the members for the university,
there would, he thought, be a prejudice against its ap-
plication to them in the other House of Parliament.
Lord CAMPBELL said the proposition 'of the noble
earl would be a great constitutional innovation. It
seemed to him to be highly unconstitutional to vote by
proxy for the election of members of Parliament. There
might be a change in the administration, or some other
great change in the interval between the giving the proxy
and the giving the vote. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of CARNARVON said that whilst he be-
lieved such a conititueacy as that of Oxford was the

ceive so good an education as in the colleges. He
thought their effect would be absolutely to destroy all
discipline in the university. Having stated his views on
this subject very fully last evening, he would not say
more than that he should offer the utmost opposition to
the clause.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE addressed the com-
mittee in support of the clause, but was nearly inaudible
in the gallery. He was understood to say that there
was no fear of the system of private halls having any in-
jurious effect on the discipline of the university. He
had looked carefully at the bill, and could not conceive
on what ground such apprehensions were expressed.
There vcas no greater probability of obnoxious novelties
being introduced by these halls than by the existing col-
leges. On the contrary, the discipline in private halls
was necesarily more strict than in colleges. It might
be asked, why establish these halls l Because the col-
leges were overflowing, and numbers were compelled to
connect themselves with smaller colleges, where the
education was not so efficient. The establishment of
private halls would, by stimulating competition, compel
these colleges to modify their system, and introduce the
necessary improvements. They could only be regarded
as a useful and valuable addition to the university,
whereby a much greater number of persons would be
admitted into the pale of the university, and would par-
take of the benefits of its instruction. It was said these
halls would not be cheaper than the colleges. If they
were not cheap they would fail to attract. At Durham
there were halls, and they were much cheaper than the
colleges. In the interest of the university itself, and of
learning, he thought it essential that they should give it
every means of extension, and render it, as Lord Bacon
said, exempt from the wrongs of time, because suscep-
tible of perpetual renovation. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of MALMESBURY said the Vice• Cha-
ncellor would have no power to refuse a license to any
person who had mechanically conformed to the doctrines
of the Church.

The Earl of CARLISLE said the noble earl (Derby)
had on the previous night most logically established the
connection between this clause and those admitting Dis-
senters. On that ground he should support this clause,
believing that the admission of Dissenters would be an
unmixed good to the university, to the Church, and to
themselves. (Hear.) But such admission ought not to be
merely a nominal one, or one which should operate as an
annoyance. He had been, therefore, grieved to hear last
night that no exemption from attendance on religious ser-
vices should be granted • but he was glad to learn that the
noble earl (Derby) would not insist on requiring from
young men—mere children—on their admission to the
university, subscription to a mass of doctrines which
were difficult to comprehend. He (Lord Carlisle) had
often looked back with something of shame and com-
punction at the facility and the want of considera-
tion with which, at that age, he was called upon to
adopt at once—to swallow down at one gulp—such a
comprehensive system of doctrine. (Hear.) He should
be equally loth to impose the still graver mockery of
compulsory worship. r He thought that they were bound
to retain the provision for these private halls, as the
only possible manner of opening retreats where the dis-
senters, to whom they affected to give admission to the
university, might enjoy that privilege with a due regard
to their own ease, comfort, and dignity ; and where they
might enjoy that liberty of conscience which their lord-
ships proposed to respect, and from which he hoped they
might see many precious fruits. (Cheers.)
The Earl of CARNARVON should support the
clause, for he thought it combined all the advantages
without any of the objections which might justly be
brought against other plans intended to effect simil,r
objects. The noble earl opposite had argued that these
private halls would never be able to compete, even in
the matter of cheapness, with the larger and endowed
colleges ; but the Scotch and continental system of pri-
vate lodging-houses in the universities, had at least been
successful on the score of economy. It was said, again,
that the halls would be injurious to the discipline of the
university ; but that he must also dispute. Amongst
the other beneficial results that might be anticipated
from the proposal would ba the replacing of the system
of private tuition by a far sounder and more legitimate
practice. It would also lead to the real and practical
revival of the professorial system, without which, in-
deed, he felt that the private halls would never work
well. Lastly, as those halls would be the result of pri-
vate enterprise, they would have an effectual guarantee
for their success. They would admit of gradual intro-
duction and of extension as the wants of the age might
require ; and he should, therefore, gladly give his sup-
port to the clause. (Loud cheers.)
Lord LYTTELTON said that as the subject of these
private halls had a considerable hearing upon the ad-
mission of dissenters into the universities, he would take
this opportunity, rather than a later one, of expressing
' his views upon that important question. For his own
part he was prepared to assent to the admission of dis-
senters, so far as this bill proposed to do it ; that was to
say, he was ready to admit them to the university as
distinct from the present colleges. (Hear, hear.) He
thought that this would be a wise and proper conces-
sion ; but, at the same time, he could certainly not
assent to the claim which had been put forward for ad-
mission as a matter of absolute right. That claim had
been grounded on the statement that the universities
were national institutions ; and that the Dissenters,
being an integral part of the nation, were therefore
entitled to avail themselves of them. But the univer-
sities were national institutions only in the sense in
which the Church of England was a national institu-
tion ; and, therefore, to argue that the universities
ought to be thrown open to Dissenters, would be as
absurd as to contend that Dissenters ought to be eligible
to fill Church livings. (Hear, hear.) The real ques-
tion was, what had been the wishes and intentions of the
founders ? It had, indeed, been said that the Refortna-

Lion had introduced an altogether new state of things,
and then came the old question, whether the pr-Refor-
mation Church was or was not identical with the Church
of the present day. Now, he contended that the Refor-
mation had not effected such changes in the doctrines
and discipline of the Church as to make it a new one ;
and he thought it was a mere assumption to say that
the founders would not have assented in common with
the great majority of the clergy and people of the coun-
try by the changes which were made by the Church in
her own formularies and discipline. (Hear, hear.) The
universities, therefore, ought to go with the Church ;
and while he denied that the Dissenters had the least
claim to admission as a matter of right, he must confess
his inability to perceive how their exclusion was a griev-
ance. They had already one university, and as they in-
cluded many persons of great opulence, they were able
to found colleges of their own. Still it would no doubt
be an advantage to them to be admitted to Oxford and
Cambridge, and as their admission would involve no
disadvantage to the Church he should not oppose it.
(Hear, hear.) He differed altogether from the noble
earl opposite in thinking that they might be safely ad-
mitted, provided that they were not allowed to form a
distinct and recognised body. He thought that the
Cambridge plan did not work well ; at least, when
he was there, for he had seen not only Roman
Catholics and Dissenters, but even Jews, attending
divine worship in the college chapels. He thought
that the colleges were domestic institutions ; and that
they ought, much more than elementary schools, to
supply moral training. But that training could not be
administered unless it was based upon definite religious
doctrine. He thought that some test ought to be taken
from students on matriculation ; . but whatever might
be the proper form of that test, he was convinced that
signature of the Thirty-nine Articles was not. (Hear,
hear.) It appeared to him that that test ought to be
of the same nature as the terms of communion re-
quired from a young layman. But the Thirty-nine
Articles were anything rather than the rudiments of
religious teaching. (Hear, hear.) He should support
the clause.

The Earl of DERBY said that the question had been'
put on a very different footing by the speeches of the
noble lord and the noble earl opposite. The noble
Marquis had treated with scorn the idea that any danger
was to be apprehended from the clause ; but now it was
avowed that the Dissenters had a right to claim admis-
sion without beir, amenable to the discipline of the
Church of England.' It would, no doubt, be difficult,
under any circumstar.ces, for the Commissioners to
frame regulations for these private halls ; but one of the
things which the bill expressly stated as the object of
those rules was the attendance of the students on public
worship. Yet they were told that the inmates of the
private halls were not to attend on the worship of the
Church at all. (Hear, hear.) Nor would there he the
least security as to the character of
ant thethe halls ; for the
Vice-Chancellor would have to gr licenses as a
matter of course. (Hear, hear.) He would call the
attention of the right rev. bench that the favoured ob-
ject of this clause was the establishment of separate
dissenting colleges its the very heart of the university.
After a few words of explanation from Lords OAR-
LISLt and LYTTELTON,
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that the noble earl
had entirely misrepresented the Government. The
masters of private halls must be, originally,
at least,
members of the Church of England, and if they de-
parted from that Church their licenses might be with-
drawn, The intention with which these .clauses were
introduced was simply that which had been announced,
namely, the facilitating of education, and the destroy-
ing
of any monopoly on the part of colleges which
was injurious to educa!tion. The noble earl said on
the previous night that, so far from introducing a
poorer class of students, the clause would have precisely

the opposite effect. He observed that the servi-
tors of Christchurch would be admitted for a guinea a
week, forgetting that they were supported partly by
eleemosynary assistance. The whole number of servitors
was ten or a dozen at the outside. In speaking on the
subject of expense the noble earl overlooked the fact that
the social habits of the young men were the chief source
of expense ; and in the absence of sumptuary laws he
(the Duke of Newcastle) knew no means of remedying
the evil except the establishment of private balls. As
regarded discipline, he apprehended that the halls would
have an advantage over the colleges. What was the in-
ternal discipline of the colleges ! The students were
obliged to attend certain lectures, and to be within doors
by 12 o'clock at night; but the authorities would no
more think of entering their private rooms than they
would think of entering any of their lordships' houses.
Nothing like domestic discipline could be said to exist.
He could not understand 'now those who advocated the
system which existed at Cambridge, with regard to pri-
vate lodgings, could object to the establishment of these
halls at Oxford. In the one case the domestic discipline
might be of the most complete character ; in the other
it amounted to nothing at all. He had risen to defend
the Government against the assertion made by the noble
earl in his last speech, that the avowed intention and
object of the clause was to place within the bosom of the
university nests of Dissenters who would make them-
selves antagonistic to the principles of the university—
in short to place within the precincts of that learned in-
stitution a body of men whose sole object would be its
eventual destruction.

Lord CAMPBELL said it was a mistake on the part
of the noble earl (Derby) to suppose that the Vice-
Chancellor would be compelled to grant a license. If
an application were made to him (Lord Campbell) to
compel the granting of a license, he should refuse to ac-
cede to it.

Theiriertlships then divided.
For the clause
Against it .
Clauses 28 to 30 were agreed to.
On clause 31, giving colleges power to amend statutes
with respect to eligibility to headships, &c.,
Lerd WYNFORD said that in his experience he
never saw any great benefits arising from the teaching
of professors. In his time very few of the professors,
except the divinity professors, had any attendants at
their lectures. It seemed to him wholly inconsistent
with the designs of the founders and donors that the
college emoluments should be estranged from the col-
leges and given to professors ; and this being his opinion
he should move the omission of the words which would
have that effect.

The Earl of DERBY said there was certainly nothing
to encourage him to propose any amendment in this bill,
because, whatever might have been the case elsewhere,
there at least the government were able to do what they
pleased. At the same time, not concurring altogether in
the view of his noble friend who had just spoken, he
should propose an amendment, for the purpose of mak-
ing the enacting part of the 'clause agree with the pre-
amble. He proposed that the alterations to be made by
the colleges should be subject to " the consent of the vi-
sitor." He also proposed to insert the words " so that
the same be not inconsistent with the main design of the
founders." As regarded the jurisdiction of the commis-
sioners, he would observe that it was desirable that as
soon as a good scheme had been devised it should cease
and determine, and be moved an amendment to that ef-
fect. He did not intend to put their lordships to the
trouble of dividing on these or any other amendments,
but be felt bound to submit them to their lordships.
Viscount CANNING said, in the case of three of the
colleges at Oxford, the visitors were prohibited from con-
senting to any alteration. In the case of Exeter College
the bishop of the diocese of Exeter had refused to sanc-
tion any change in the statutes, and he believed the noble
earl himself (Earl of Derby) in his capacity of visitor of
Pembroke had taken a similar course. He could not agree
to the amendment proposed by the noble lord opposite
(Lord Wynford). But he proposed, on the part of the
Government, to add after the word "emoluments," in
the 4th line of the clause, the words " other than fellow-
ships or studentships." The effect of the amendment
would be,to limit the operation of the 34th clause. (The
clause referring to the retention of the preference of
schools, which was introduced by Mr. R. Palmer.)
The Earl of DERBY said he had a great objection to
the limitation to which his noble friend proposed in the
34th clause—a clause the House of Commons thought
it right on two occasions to affirm in order to protect
the schools. But as he was aware that in the present state
of the house, whatever his noble friend proposed, or op-
posed, he was able to carry, he would not waste their
lordships' time by dividing the house against the amend-
ment. The noble viscount said last night that the designs
of the founders was to benefit the colleges, and not the
schools. He believed that was a perversion of the real
state of the case. In the case of Abingdon School
the design of the founder was to benefit the town
and not Pembroke College, with which it was connected.
The depressed state of some of the schools arose from
their exemption limn the ordinary rules with regard to
the taking of honours, and not from any restriction with
regard to scholarships and fellowships.
The Earl of WINCIIELSEA said that the bill was a
gross violation of all justice. Henceforth no man would
leave a farthing to any charitable institution, for there
would be no security that his bounty would not be di-
verted into a different channel, before he was well in the
grave. He never knew a bill which did so much vio-
lence to all justice as this cursed bill. (Laughter.) It
was the beginning of the separation of Church and
State. The first day that he took a seat in that house
—now some 26 years ago—the noble duke (Richmond)
told him that he was an ultra-reformer both in Church
and State. (Laughter.) On that occasion he declared
it as his decided opinion that if ever that right rev. bench
ever gave itself a political character, the time would come
when it would be the feeling of Englishmen that it would
he for the interest of the Church to separate that bench
from their lordships' house—(laughter)—and that its
occupants should retire to their respective dioceses.
(Laughter.) He believed that day was not far distant—
(laughter)—for they might depend upon it there was a
strong feeling springing up in the country that it would
be decidedly for the interests of the Church if those
right rev. lords confined themselves more to their spiri-
tual duties and less to civil and political matters.
(Laughter.) He pledged himself to say that if he were
to submit a motion for the removal of the right rev,
bench that table would not support the petitions in its
favour. (Loud laughter.) It was because he was a
friend to the Church, which lie valued more than life
itself, that lie spoke thus. (Laughter.)
The Bishop of OXFORD said he would not go to the
trouble of answering the speech which they had just
heard. He had far too deep and refined a reverence for
the honesty, piety, and holy intentions of the right rev•
lord—(laughter)—he had far too sincere a respect for
the feeling which prompted the noble earl to make the
remarks he addressed to the house, to treat it in the only
way he could then treat it. The noble earl said that
this was the first step towards the ruin of the Church,
whereas, if he had not mistaken the noble earl on many
former occasions, they must have got over a great
many steps of the kind before. (Laughter.) This
was not purely a political question, as the noble earl
seemed to think, and for which he censured them for
taking part. If he thought that the result of this bil'
would be to sever the connection between the Univer-
sity of Oxford and the church, he (and he believed he
might say the same for his right rev, brethren) would
endure far extremer penalties than the noble earl de-
nounced against them before they took part in any vote
that would have that result. It was because he believed
that the church would be benefited by the measure, as
well as the university, that he supported it. (Hear,
hear.) With regard to the clause itself, whilst he ad-
mitted that the design of the founders with regard toh
the smaller schools was to benefit the localities in which
they were established, he maintained that the object
particularly the case
with regard to the larger foundations was to
with
colleges. That was
that if
to Saint Mary, Winchester. He wasopinionftheefounders by the
case of
Abingdon,
bingrdeospt:tcwthoinchs
respectfithe
they interpreted the intentions o
rh
rey benefitng
out
theof thein
lsinghhntnlosf
themselves,experience
and,it v
d the • '
•
which now prevented tentions of the founteddersln
and
what was the effect of the
if
wholesometthheey stimulus competi-
tion
depress the school. why 7
othueldrefboeref,orcat
earslch_roefo,elrsf.t wedasto,
ptt the noble is
neinontbtlsehyesset e
havebeen so waste-
fullyded as in
theholding out of a close fellow-
ship expanded
being a benefit
Because the money could hardly •
in a college as to a school like this.
If 10,000/. were given to
establish a close fellowship,
it would give to the person who held it about 300/.,
which he would probably hold till late in life. A single
fellowship of that kind therefore would hold out a very
slight inducement to the parents in the locality to send
their children to that school. But if the 10,000/. went
to establish three scholarships to be held for three years,
one of which would be vacant every year, that would
give a far greater stimulus to parents to send their
children to the school. (Hear, hear.) He therefore
maintained that they would be best carrying out the
intentions of the founders by substituting such a system
for the present one. (Hear.)
After a few words from Lord WYNFORD, the clause
with the amendment proposed by Viscount Canning,
was agreed to.
Clause 32 was agreed to.
On clause 33,
The Earl of DERBY objected that it passed over the
powers of the visitor. His voice ought to be heard
when it was proposed to alter the statutes and regula-
tions of colleges. If he had not a veto he ought at
least to have the power of making objections ; and if lie
declared, in conjunction with the majority of the govern-
ing body, that any proposed regulation was inconsistent
with the interests of the college and the intentions of
the founder, they ought to be sufficient to prevent its
taking effect. He merely threw out this suggestion for
the consideration of the Government.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that in many of the
colleges the statutes. themselves precluded the visitor
from exercising such a power as the noble earl proposed.
As to the intentions of the founder that was a question
that had been already discussed. Some of the coilegose
had been instituted by the founders expressly for the
purpose of opposing the principles of Wickliffe and the

The Bishop of OXFORD regretted that these clauses
had been inserted in the bill, for he should have preferred
that the university should have been left to grant the
admission of dissenters as a matter of grace and favour.
The object of the clauses was only to remove those ob-
stacles which had hitherto prevented the university from
dealing with the question. But did the noble earl think
that the admission of dissenters, and even of Jews into
the colleges would be a safer thing for the church or
the university than to admit them by means of private
halls ? (Hear.)
The Earl of DERBY considered that the admission of
Dissenters into colleges on the understanding that they
were to submit to their discipline, did not alter the cha-
racter either of those colleges or the university. 'But he
considered that if Dissenters were to be placed in halls
by themselves, and exempted from the general religious
teaching of the university, it would be a great blow upon
the character of the university. What he should have
been willing to have acceded to was the extension of the
Cambridge system to Oxford.
The Bishop of ST. ASAPH should have been glad to
have had subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles at ma-
triculation abolished ; not so much with reference to the
case of Dissenters, but because he did not think it was
proper to ask a boy coming from school to say that he
assented to them. When he had to matriculate a young
man, he used to say to him, " Yon, are not going to' -as-
sent to the Thirty-nine Articles because you understand
them—(laughter)—but you are going to declare that you
have no objection to them." He thought that the exa-
mination in the Thirty-nine Articles was one of the most
valuable exerci,es in the university, for young men often
came there very ignorant of Christianity, and very indis-
posed to study it. He had known cases in which a man
had on his deathbed thanked God that he had been com-
pelled to study the Articles, because he had then for the
first time obtained that knowledge which concerned sal-
vation. What he should have proposed was that the
university should grant only honorary degrees to persons
who were indisposed to sign the Articles.
The Duke of ARGYLL wished to impress upon their
lordships the importance of any religious body placing
the most liberal construction on their rules, so as to
admit Dissenters, provided that the general management
and discipline were not altered. He thought the clause
would very materially strengthen the Church of Eng-
land.

The Earl of HARROWBY supported the clause.
The Bishop of RIPON expressed his dissent from the
clause.

After some further discussion, the clause was agreed to.
On clause 46 a division was taken.
For the clause
Against it 47-26
The clause was then added to the bill.
The rest of the clauses were agreed to, and the house
resumed.

The other orders of the day having been disposed of,
their lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendment to the Rannow Reclamation
Bill and the Traethbach Bridge and Road Bill were con-
' sidered and agreed to.
On the motion that the Lords' amendments to the
Middlesex Industrial Schools Bill be considered and
agreed to,
Lord D. STUART moved that the consideration of
the amendments be postponed until this day three months.
He made that motion because the Lords' had struck
out of the bill the proyisions which it originally
contained for enabling offenders to obtain religious in-
struction, notwithstanding that they dissented from the
Established Church. Offenders of all denominations
were entitled to the consolations of their own religious
teachers, and it was nothing less than an act of bigotry
and intolerance to refuse them that consolation. There
were other amendments of the kind which he objected
to, but it was the striking out of this provision relative
to the religious instruction that he principally found
fault with, and since the amendment made by the Lords
had made the bill worse, which he had always objected.
to, he had no alternative but to move that the Lords'
amendments be considered this day three months.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY seconded the amendment, be-
Having that the reformation of juvenile offenders should
be made the subject of a general Government measure,
and not dealt with in an isolated manner, throwing the
expense of the reformatory schools upon the particular
districts in which they were established. The time had
;one by for tolerating religious bigotry, it should be
discountenanced no matter from what denomination it
came ; and be trusted the house would reject these
amendments of the Lords, as they were a complete
embodiment of the spirit of Protestant bigotry directed
against the civil and religious liberty of Roman Catholics.
Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the amendments,
believing that it was at variance with the interest of the
State to recognise the authority of Roman Catholic
priests, even in a private bill, as this one undoubtedly
was. The bill, as it had been amended, would be most
useful and salutary.

Mr. J. BA LL Opposed the passing of the bill with the
clause appended to it, by the committee of the Lords.
Sir G. GREY explained the course taken by the com-
mittee of the Lords in reference to this bill. He read a
portion of 7th Geo. IV. c. 74, which enacted that three
chaplains shall be appointed for every county prison in
Ireland, one Protestant, one Presbyterian, and one
Roman Catholic, and which further provided for the
celebration of divine worship according to each of those
three forms of worship every Sunday in those prisons. He
was prepared to disagree with the Lords' amendment,
but he was not disposed to support the motion of Lord
D. Stuart as it would have the effect of rejecting the bill
together. At the same time, seeing the prospect there
was of the passing of the Juvenile Offenders Bill which
contained the provision struck' out of this bill, if the
house thought the Lords would not be induced to recon-
sider their decision, perhaps the best course would be to
reject these amendments altogether.
Mr. MILES opposed the motion to reject the bill.
Lord D. STUART said after what had fallen from the
right hon. baronet the Secretary of State for the colo-
nies, he was prepared to change his motion for another,
namely, that the house disagree with the Lords' amend-
ment.
Mr. M. MILNES hoped the bill would be withdrawn.
Mr. LUCAS argued that the object of the Lords'
amendments was to change the character of the bill from
a reformatory bill to a proselytising bill, and therefore
he called upon the house not to reject the bill alto-
gether,n but simply to disagree with the ,Lords' am d.
ments.
Lord D. STUART, as the member in charge of the
bill, begged the house to allow him to
debate was another illustration ofreligiousdiffer.
way of ue f
ase
that legislation.
co ur
s e (
wHoeua
Ird,
how remark that this
in theallhe asked the house to do was, not
ehneacer.s)coHnldowse stand in
to reject the Lords' amendments,
be tantamount to throwing out the bill for the session.
Mr. ADDERLEY said, the clause which had been
struck out by the Lords was wholly impracticable; if' it
had remained in the bill the measure would have been
useless, and although he was by no means deficient in
religious tolerance, he thought the Lords had
acted wisely in rejecting the clause. (Hear, hear.)
The clause was simply this ; it empowered the children
of all denominations to be instructed by their own re-
ligious teachers, according to the religious persuasion of
their parents, so that, if a child's parents were to pro-
fess infidelity, this clause would insist upon the child
being
brought up in these reformatory schools to entertain
the
same opinions. (Cheers.)
After some observations from Colonel Blair, Mr.
Williams, and Mr. Dunlop, the amendment that the
Lords' amendments be considered this day three months
was withdrawn.
A. portion of the Lords' amendments, which were of
a verbal nature, were then agreed to.
Lord D. STUART moved to disagree with the Lords'
amendments, which prevented children of other religious
denominations than the Established Church from having
divine worship celebrated in these schools according to
their own faith.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said if the house rejected these
amendments the bill was lost for this session.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not think so, the Lords
might be induced to ;reconsider their amendments, and
since he thought children of all denominations were en-
titled to the religious instruction of their own pastors
he could not agree with the Lords in their amendaient.A.
After some observations from Mr. V. Saliiiirt the
house divided, when there appeared—
Against them ...
....................... to.
. . 1542_1
For the Lords' amendments ........ 27
The lords' amendments were accordingly agreed
There was another amendment of a less important
character, which Lord Dudley Stuart moved the house to
when there appeared—
disagree with.
Th e house For
Majority ........................... 135
t h again
Lords'divided,
Against them ........................ t.
67
The Lords' amendments were then agreed to.
Lord D. STUART said he was informed that an hon.
gentleman who gave his vote with the ayes gave his vote
ey
crreiiess
of "Name.") The hon. member
of
" Evesham," and laughter)RETUßN. S
Mr. Grenville Berkelfwoirticitheietennobeasm.
Unopposed returns relating to Irish whiskey were moved
for by Mr. COGAN.

THE INNS OF COURT.
EWART begged to ask his hon. and learned friend
the Attorney-General what progress had been made in their
inquiry by the commission appointed to inquire into the
inns of court, and whether there was any chance of their
making a report.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL begged to state in replY
that the commissioners were diligently prosecuting the
inquiry, and were in the habit of sitting two dap! in over"
week. They had progressed a considerable way in the ta•

vestigation that was necessary to satisfy the terms of the
commission, but he could not say when the report would
be made. It would be made when the examination was
concluded.
THE VACANT GROUND NEAR ST. PAUL'S.

Mr. HANKEY begged to ask the noble lord the President
of the Council whether it was the intention of the Govern-
ment to take any steps to prevent the erection of buildings
on the site now vacant at the south side of St. Paul's ?

Lord J. RUSSELL—It would be well for the public if
the ground now vacant should be left unoccupied ; but
when the hon. gentleman asks me if the Government in-
tend to take any steps to prevent the erection of buildings
on it, I can only say that I know only of one way of doing
so, and that is, to pay for the site a very large sum of money
to the corporation of London, to induce them to part with
the land ; and I do not know that this house would agree
to that course.

TRANSMISSION OF LETTERS TO AND FROM THE
NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS
IN TURKEY.

Lord HOTHAIf begged to make an inquiry from the
Secretary for the Treasury relative to the existing arrange-
ments for the transmission of soldiers' letters to and from
the army now serving in Turkey. A letter from the com-
manding officer of one of the regiments in Turkey had been
sent to him—he was well acquainted with the writer, the
I otter was addressed to one of his most intimate friends, and
he could rely on the authenticity of what the writer men-
tioned. It was stated by the commanding officer, that as
regarded the officers' letters, they had been received with
laudable regularity, but not as regarded the non-commis
sioned officers and men. (Hear, hear.) He stated that
during the time his regiment was in Malta and at Scutari,
there were, within his own knowledge, at least one
thousand letters sent home from that regiment. He
stated that vast numbers of the men of his regiment
were desirous of remitting small sums of money to their
wives and families at home, but, inasmuch as not a single
letter had been received in answer to any one of the
thousand, and, moreover, as non-commissioned officers and
privates of his regiment had not received a single letter
since they left England, they were unable to carry their
wishes into effect, inasmuch as they did not know where
their wives and families might be. (Hear.) It was under
thew circumstances that he ventured to ask the hon. gen-
tleman whether he was aware of the detention of the let-
ters to which he had alluded, or whether there was any
Pre-payment required from the non-commissioned officers
and privates, which the absence of currency might render
impossible. If the hon. gentleman were not aware of the
cause of detention, he trusted he would cause an inquiry
to be made on the subject, in order that the non-commis-
sioned officers and soldiers might receive advantages simi-
lar to those enjoyed by their officers.
Mr. WILSON would be very glad if he had known more
distinctly the object of the hon. and gallant member's
question than he was able to infer from the notice on the
paper. As it stood on the paper, it was so very general
that he though it rather referred to the rate of postage than
to the particular case to which the noble lord had ad-
verted. All he could say, therefore, was, that he would
cause an inquiry to be made of the Post-office authorities,
and endeavour to get the noble lord such information as
he could obtain. He could only say generally that the ar-
rangements of the Treasury and Post-office were entirely
the same in respect to the modes of conveyance and of
payment for the non-commissioned officers and privates as
for the superior officers. Therefore, he could not account
for the difference that had taken place between the men
and the officers.