The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-24 00:00:00

LORD DRUMLANRIG.

Mr. OLIVERI A wished to ask the noble lord the Pre-
sident of the Council a question on a subject affecting the
character and position of a member of the house.
(Hear, hear.) A case occurred yesterday in the
Sheriffs Court, from which it appeared that the
noble lord the Comptroller of her Majesty's Household had
backed a prize fighter, named Johnny Walker, to fight
another—Hayes—for 1,000/. a side, and he wished
to ask the noble lord whether it was the intention
of the Government to institute any inquiry into
the subject, with the view of ascertaining whe-
ther a noble lord, having propensities of that charac-
ter—(la.ughter)—WAS the fittest person to be in constant
perional communication with her Majesty. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL had seen the report of the case re-
ferred to, but:Sa far as h.; at present was informed he did
not think it necessary to institute any inquiry into the
matter. (Hear.)
to3l_ta,rk.ec
ttnESlCtiAonTalio:TtiAlnLates ESTIMATES.
asked the noble lord when ho proposed
Lord J. RUSSELL replied—On Friday neat (this day
week).

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
On the order of the day for; resuming the debate on the
The CHANCELLOR of the B CRoTTER
report on this bill, H
moved the
Nrl ovtis—la—rrowby and the
as Commissioners.
insertion of the names of the Ba
_Right Honourable C. Cornewall
.6e.
concurrence
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. MANGLES moved the omission of the name of the
Hon. Sir J. T. Coleridge from the commissioners, „ ""e
tended that Sir J. T. Coleridge had given hi:ecr-n. lie 'en"
to all the opinions of Dr. Newman ; and on the trial of
Achilli v. Newman, Sir J. Coleridge, the judge o deli-
vered the judgment of the court, delivered a high pane-
gyric on the writings of Dr. Newman, and ho maintained
that the Government had gone out of their way to select
such a gentleman to be one of the Oxford Commissioners.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
with respect to Mr. Justice Coleridge, the hon. gentleman
spokeof it as if it was an analogy to an appointment of
that learned judge by the Government. The wish of the

Government was to place upon the commission the names
of gentlemen approved by the University and the country.
He elieved the bra of the University lay between the
two extremes of opinion, which characterised two parties in
it, and were not coloured by those opinions, and he thought
Mr. Justice Coleridge was highly respected by the large
majority of the university. With reference to the lan-
guage attributed by the hon. member to Mr. Justice Cole-
ridge, the hon. member ought in fairness to have stated
from what source he derived that language, and he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) felt bound to say, that he
did not believe that Mr. Justice Coleridge had used the
language attributed to him.
Mr. WALPOLE said the Government, and not the
House of Commons, must be considered as responsible for
the appointment of the Oxford commissioners, and he
must say, for himself, that the present commissioners were
not altogether the gentlemen he should have selected, but
at the same time, to avoid personal disquisitions of a most
painful and disagreeable nature, he thought the house
should acquiesce in the list of commissioners named by the
Government, and as for Mr. Justice Coleridge, he believed
that that learned judge was far above being swayed in
the discharge of any duty imposed upon him, either by
political, or party, or religious considerations, and there-
fore he trusted the house would not acquiesce in the mo-
tion of the hon. member (Mr. Mangles).
Mr. HORSMAN thought they must postpone personal
considerations in such a matter as this to a grave public
duty ; and he considered that in sending down a com-
missioner entrusted with high powers to Oxford,
they must not forget that that gentleman had himself been
subjected to the gravest censure of the university. The
hon. member entered at considerable length into the re-
ligious movement which has been going on at Oxford
for the last twenty yens, connecting Mr. Justice Cole-
ridge as having been prominently mixed up with that
movement, and he thought that for this particular appoint-
ment there was such responsibility that the house ought
not to shrink from the responsibility of rejecting this
appointment.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that without dis-
cussing the merits of individuals, the list of commissioners
selected by the Government showed a sincere wish to provide
the best qualified men for that important duty. With re-
spect to Mr. Justice Coleridge no one disputed his probity
or honour, and as for his high position as a judge and his
taste for literature, he thought no valid objection could
be made to him ; and he thought the question for the
house to decide was, not the opinions of Mr. Justice Cole-
ridge, but whether the Government had made a selection
of gentlemen qualified to fulfil their important duty.
Mr. DRUMMOND supported the retention of the name
of Mr. Justice Coleridge.
The house was about to divide, when there were loud
cries of " Agreed," and Mr. MANGLES said he would with-
draw his motion.
The motion was then withdrawn, and the name of Sir
J. T. Coleridge was added to the list of Commissioners,
Several verbal amendments in the bill were then agreed

to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed
to add to the 31st section an amendment intended plainly
to express what he understood to be the intention of the
house, viz., that it should be lawful for the commissioners
with the consent of the colleges, to alter the statutes with
respect to the eligibility of headships, so as to ensure the
same being conferred according to personal merits.
Mr. HENLEY thought this might lead to some confu-
sion and suggested that it should be postponed.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that it would be better to
agree to the amendment, which would then be printed in
the bill, and might be considered by those hon. gentlemen
who took an interest in the question. The matter could
then be finally disposed of on the third reading.
The amendment was then agreed to.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE then proposed to omit clause
33, enabling the university after a lapse of 50 years to
alter the trusts of any donation or bequest. He strongly
objected to this clause as against the best interests of the
university. No one would leave any property upon trust
or imike any donation, when, after the lapse of 80 years,
his intention could be set aside. The hon. member pro-
ceeded to quote Burke and other authorities in favour of
prescription, and contended that in everything in which
the education of youth was concerned the Legislature
should be very cautious in permitting any violation of the
intention of donors.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the clause was very similar
in spirit to the clause in the Trusts Act, which gave power
to vary the trust. It appeared to him that they could not
carry out the main principle of the bill without -a secular
power was given. The lion. and learned member had
quoted Burke, but there was another high authority (Lord
Bacon) who suggested that when time and long existence
had weakened any institution, power should be given to
reinvigorate and restore it.
Mr. PHILLIMORE declined dividing the house, and
the clause was agreed to.
Clause N, with some verbal amendments, was agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said with
reference to the veto clause, which had been carried by the
hon. and learned member for Plymouth, that it was not
the intention of the Government to attempt to disturb the
decision of the house by proposing to rescind the clause.
Ho was glad to say that some of the working objections
had been removed by the amendments introduced by the
hon. and learned member himself, while the principle re-
mained intact. Although he did not propose to ask the
house to throw out the clause, he hoped it would agree to
two motions respecting it. He intended to propose a
clause the effect of which would be, that in all cases where
the veto should be exercised, whether by the college or the
governing body of the school, and where no scheme was
accepted, a scheme which had been rejected should, with-

out waiting for the report of the commissioners, be sub-
mitted to one of the Secretaries of State, with a view of
having it brought under the notice of the Legislature. He
intended likewise to propose an amendment to the clause,
adding after the words "every emolument" the words
" other than fellowships or studentships." The object was
to leave to the schools endowments made for specific pur-
poses, but subject to review by the Privy Council.
Mr. R. PALMER was obliged to the right hon. gentle-
man for his explanation, but as the pronosed amendments
would, as be conceived, interfere with the principle of his
clause, ho should feel it his duty to oppose them.
In answer to Mr. WALPOLE,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the third reading would be taken on Monday next.
Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped that the third reading
would be fixed for a later day, as many hon. members
would find it inconvenient to attend on Monday next.
Lord J. RUSSELL was sorry that he could not comply
with the request of the right hon. baronet, but he felt that
the house of Lords were most anxious to have the bill

before them as speedily as possible. The principle had been
so fully discussed that he did not think any further delay
necessary.

The ainendinents were then agreed to.
TOWNS IMPROVEMENT BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 23,
Mr. GEORGE proposed that the Si. rating should be
raised to 81.
Sir J. YOUNG opposed the amendment, thinking that
at the proposed rating the constituencies would not be too
large.
The committee divided—
For the amendment 26
Against it
Sir R. FERGUSON moved to leave out the words " and
all grand jury votes."
Mr. KEOGH opposed it.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Clauses 23 and 21 were agreed to.
On clause 25,
Lord NAAS said the object -of this clause was to incor-
porate wiih this bill a large number of acts of Parlinment,
and as he objected to that mode of legislation, as being
calculated to create confusion in construing the meaning
of the bill, he should move the omission of the clause.

Sir J. YOUNG hoped the committee would not accede
to the proposition of the noble lord.
After a few words from Mr. M.`CANN,
Mr. BOWYER admitted the force of the noble lord's
objection, but the rejection of this clause might endanger
the passing of the bill this session, and he, therefore, pressed
the noble lord not to persevere with his amendment. Ire-
land looked with great anxiety to the passing of the bill
this session, and that, to his mind, was an additional rea-
son for not throwing any obstruction in its way.
Colonel DUNNE also urged the noble lord not to press
his amendment.

The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause was
agreed to.
On clause 26,
Mr. J. O'CONNELL took exception to the clause, and
moved an addition to it, with the view of removing his
objections.

After some conversation the amendment, like the for-
mer one, was withdrawn, and the clause was agreed to,
with some verbal amendments.
Clauses 27, 28, and 29 were then agreed to, with some
verbal amendments.
On clause 30,
Sir p. NORREYS moved, as an amendment, to leave
out the words " shall approve," and, to substitute the
words " shall not disapprove," the object being to give the
person elected, as chairman of the commissioners, the
jurisdiction of a magistrate, if the Lord Chancellor did
" not disapprove" within ten days after notice of the elec-
tion.

Lord NAAS and Mr. GEORGE opposed the amendment;
and after a desultory conversation, the amendment was
negatived without a division.
Sir R. FERGUSON moved as an amendment, in lines
15 and 16, to leave out, " then in all cases arising under
this act, and cognisable by one or more justices of the
peace." _ . _

- Lord NAAS opposed it, as it went to make country ma-
gistrates elective ; and it was negatived.
The clause was agreed to, as were clauses 31, 32, and 33.
Oa clause 34,
Sir R. FERGUSON objected to the powers given to the
commissioners to take land.

Sir J. YOUNG promised to consider the matter before
the report.
The clause was agreed to, as were clauses 35 and 36,
and the clauses up to 53.
Clauses 53 ti 65 inclusive were agreed to.
Upon clause 73,
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the penalties in this
clause were very unequally arranged. The alternative of a
penalty of Os. was fourteen days' imprisonment ; surely
thii was too much.

Mr. KEOGH promised to take the matter into conside.
ration.

. The clause was then agreed to.
Upon clauses 74 and 75'
Mr. COGAN objected to mendicancy being considered
as a crime, in the vague terms of these clauses, and pro-
posed that the clauses be struck out.

The clauses were struck out accordingly.
On clause 76 a discussion arose, in the course of which
Mr. MAGUIRE suggested that the clause should be
altered so as to make people who sent out children to beg
amenable to tho law.

Mr. KEOGH promised attention to the suggestion, and
the clause was negatived.
Clauses 77 to 103 were agreed to without amendment.
On clause 104, which enumerates the boroughs exempted
from the operation of the bill,
Mr. VANCE moved that Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and
Waterford should be described as cities, and not as bo-
roughs.

After a conversation, the amendment was agreed to, as
was another substituting Londonderry for Waterford.
The scheaules and some new clauses were agreed to.
The remaining clauses wore agreed to, the house re-
sumed, and the bill was reported.

IMPROVEMENT OF TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL.
The order for the second reading of this bill was read
and discharged.
CONVICT PRISON (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order for the second reading,
Mr. BUTT thought that before the second reading the
house should have some explanation as to the scope and ob-
jects of the bill, and the amount of expense it would entail.
Sir .1. YOUNG said that the necessity for legislation
had arisen from the fact that there was at present no law
regulating the management of convict prisons in Ireland, ,

and the governors had no power to punish convicts in pri-
sons, nor to employ them out of prison. A bill passed last
seision commuted transportation in many eases, and the
consequence was that when he (Sir J. Young) last visited
Ireland there were upwards of 4,000 convicts of whom the
authorities could not dispose, likely to be let loose upon the
country, and considerable apprehension was felt in Ireland
on the subject. There were only one or two prisons in Ire-
land where the separate system could be carried on, and it
was proposed, under this bill, to make Spike Island available
by employing 1,000 convicts on the fortifications. The re-
mainder would be accommodated at Philipstown, Mount-
joy, and other prisoners, amongst others a new one to• be
built for women, and another for juvenile offenders. It
was proposed also to have moveable iron houses, and to
employ a portion of the prisoners on public works. A gen-
tleman who had had much experience in carrying out the
convict syLeni at Bermuda, formed one of a commission
now employed in making inquiries, and as a first step
they recommended the passing of this bill. There was
not a single provision which was not in force in every con-
vict prison and depot in England.
Col. DITNNE would not oppose the second reading, but
trusted that there would be no unnecessary augmentation
of the various prison staffs in Ireland.
After a short conversation, the bill was read a second
time.