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

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUN .E 16, 1854.

3/ R. ALBERT SMITH'S MONT BLANC,
A_ including the BERNESE OBERLAND and the SIMPLON,
TDB EVENING, and Every Evening at Eight o'Clock, (except
Saturday) ; and Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Mornings, at Three.
Stalls, 3s. (which can be taken at the box• office every day from l I
till 4 ; area, 2s. ; gallery, Is.—Egyptian Ball,

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

LAURENT'S CASINO, ARGYLE Roams,
(Lessee, CHAS. C. LAUaeNT, 011810W-1101M, Fulh un -road),
—The above Rooms are now OPEN FOR THE SEASON.
an 4 will continue open every evening, with LAURF.NT'S
CELEBRATED BAND. Constantinople Quadrille, Sultan Polka,
Fair Star Waltz, and Overlanl Mail Glop, by D'Albert; also, by H.
La•irent , the following Waltzes - La belle Frarigaise, Leonora, Villi-
kins and his Dinah, Admission, Is. Doors open at half-past 8.
Dancing to commence at 9 o'clock, and ter.alnate at half-past 11.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

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

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

After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM, it was read
a second tune.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (CANADA) BILL.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE moved the second read-
ing of this bill. He said that towards the close of last
session he received a memorial from the Legislative
Council of Canada in favour of bringing the constitution
of that colony more in accordance with public feel-
ing in the colony ; and at the commencement of
the present year he received a further memorial
suggesting a form of bill by which the Council might be
changed from a nominative to in elected body. It then
became his duty to consider how the object of the memo-
rialists could be best carried into effect, and it occurred to
him that there were three modes—first, adopting the draft
sent from Canada ; secondly, inviting the Parliament of
Canada to send home a bill prepared and passed by
themselves, which would require to be sanctioned by an
act of the English Parliament ; and, 3dly, by repealing
these provisions in the Act of Union with Canada, which
prevented the Legislative Council legislating for itself.
The noble duke then pointed out the objections which he
entertained to the first two courses, and intimated that
it was his intention to adopt the third, and to delegate to
the Canadian Parliament the right of legislating in regard
to its constitution, subject of course to the confirmation of
the Crown—in short, simply to remove- the hin-
drances which now existed to local legislation.,
(Hear, hear.) This was the only object of the
present bill, and it was entirely in accordance with the
soundest principles of colonial legislation. The bill
would remove useless and inconvenient restrictions,
which had given the colony a just ground of
complaint, and he hoped their lordships would agree to
the second reading.
Earl DESART thought the bill would give a dan-
gerous power to the Legislative Council, and expressed
a hope that so important a measure would be postponed,
in order to enable Earl Derby and other peers on his
side of the holise to express their opinions upon it.
After some observations from Lord WHARNOLIFFE,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought we had gone so
far in concession to Canada that the question now was,
whether we ought not to sever the connexion between
that colony and the mother country entirely, and thus
get rid of a responsibility from which very little ad-
vantage was derived in time of peace, while great harm
might arise from it in the event of war. He thought it
incumbent on the Government to ascertain the opinion
of leading personages in the colony on this question with
as little delay as possible.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE expressed his astonish-
ment that any one in Lord Ellenborough's position
should have expressed doctrines which were as unpa-
latable to the colonists as they were to their lordships'
house. For his own part, he would never belong to a
Government which was a party to the separation of the
colonies from the mother country, for he regarded such
a step as hostile to the best interests of the colonies, and
as an offence against the Sovereignty of the Crown.
After some further discussion, in which Lords Malmes-
bury, Brougham, and Harrowby took part,
The Duke of NEWCASTLE replied that the bill was
simply an enabling bill, and there was nothing in it to
prevent the local Legislature from so constituting the
Upper Chamber as that it should have an existence
either permanent (the members sitting during life), or
for a definite number of years.
The bill was then read a second time.
HIGH TREASON (IRELAND) BILL.
VACCINATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
EXCISE DUTIES BILL.

This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.

BISHOPRIC OF SYDNEY.
In answer to a question from Lord REDESDAL%.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE entered into an explana-
,am of the circumstances from which delay had occurred
.n the appointment of a successor to the late Bishop of
Sydney, who died in England on the 20th of February,
1853. He bad himself recommended the translation of
Bishop Selwyn, of New Zealand, but the Bishop only a
few days ago declined to accept the appointment. Under
these circumstances, he anticipated that a clergyman
resident in the colony would be promoted to the vacant
metropolitan see.
Lord REDESDALE was understood to express him-
self satisfied with the explanation.
Their lordships adjourned at eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
NEW MEMBER,.
Lord J. RUSSELL took the oaths and his seat on his
re-election for the city of London. The noble lord, who
was received with loud cheers, was introduced by Sir C.
Wood and Lord Harry Vane,

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' Amendments to the following bills were con-
sidered and agreed to :—Accrington Gas and Waterworks ;
Doncaster Cemetery ; Havering, Dagenham, &c. Sewers.
The Caledonian Railway (Wishaw and Coltness line) Bill
was read a third time and passed.
Mr. GEACH moved that the Sydenham andFarnborough
Railway Bill be recommitted to the former committee,
with leave to sit and proceed on Monday next.
Mr. JACKSON seconded the motion.
Mr. JAMES MACGREGOR defended the course taken
by the South Eastern Railway Company in this matter.
Lord H. VANE supported the motion for the recom-
mittal of the bill.
After a few words from Mr. Rion,
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. GEACH then moved that the West London and '
Crystal Palace Railway (Bromley and Farnborough) Bill
be recommitted to the former committee, with leave to sit
and proceed on Monday next.
The motion was agreed to.
PETITIONS.
Petitions were presented by Mr. JAB. WGREGOR, from
Leeds, praying for closing public houses on Sundays; by
Mr. ROEBUCK, from Sheffield, praying the house to take
measures to assist Poland in regaining her nationality;
by Mr. VERNON SMITE, from the town council of
Northampton, praying the house not to allow any
interference with municipal corporations or their police ;
by Lcrd HOTHAM, from Driffield, against the sale of in-
toxicating liquors on Sundays ; by Mr. BRIGHT, from two
poor men, parishioners of Ringmoor, in the county of
Southampton, and that for non-payment of church rates,
and kept imprisoned for 19 hours without food, that
next morning they were sent to Winchester gaol and
treated as common felons—the sums being ls. 9d. and ls.
10Ad. demanded of thorn, and th.tt they were only liberated
by public subscription. The petitioners prayed for inquiry
into the matter.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
The house then went into committee on the now Oxford
University bill.
Clause 1 was agreed to.

On clause 2,
Mr. E. DENISON called upon the noble lord the Presi-
dent of the Council to disclose the names of the persons
who were to be appointed commissioners under the bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, in addition to those already
mentioned in thA former bill, it was proposed to appoint
two other commissioners. Two gentlemen had been re-
quested to undertake the office, but their answers had not
yet been received : and he could not, therefore, give
their names. He proposed to add their names to the
bill in bringing up the report.
Mr. HENLEY asked if the number of the commissioners
was to be limited.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied in
the affirmative, and the limitations would rest with the
house.
Mr. WALPOLE thought there was every prospect of
this bill passing into a law this session, as, in its amended
shape, it was merely an enabling bill.
Mr. HORSFALL remarked that this was not the bill of
the Government, but the amendment bill of the right hon.
gentleman opposite. There was, perhaps, no necessity for
discussing the clauses which were disposed of by the for-
mer bill, but at the same time he felt that it would have
been much better to have had a compulsory than an
enabling bill. This bill, as altered, was an entirely differ.
ent measure to that which be consented to on the second
reading.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE insisted that many of the clauses
of the bill were of a compulsory character, but, at the
same time, as amended, he thought the bill would be much
more acceptable to the University than the bill first intro-
duced.
The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses from
three to twenty-nine both inclusive without discussion.
On clause 30,
that
Mr. MO WBRAY suggested as the university would
not have sufficient experience of the working of new halls
by Michaelmas, 1855, so as to form statutes for them, there
should be an extension of the time.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
these was no need of that, for under clause 38 the univer-
sity would have the power of making alterations in any
statute.
Mr. HEYWOOD proposed to strike out the words " in-
struction and" from the clause. The effect of the omission
I of these words would be to leave the students to select
their own tutors, and to prepare for examination in the
best way they could. At present the university knew no-
thing of what was done in the halls, and thirty per cent.
of those who came up for their decrees failed—principally
in divinity and Latin composition.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER heard the
amendment with surprise, and hoped it would not be per-
severed in. In a place of instruction, whatever else they
might control, he should have thought that they ought at
least to control instruction. It would be absurd to allow
persons to bo matriculated and entered as members of a
university over whose instruction it had no control what-
ever.
After a few words from Mr. PHILLIMORE and Mr. FEL-
LATT, the amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. HENLEY wished to know what was the meaning
of the term " great halls."
The CHANCELLOR of the XCELEQUEB, fibid the

terms had reference to a scheme which one or two mem-
bers of the university thought likely. to prove very useful,
that of uniting private halls together.
Lord SEYMOUR thought the word " great" had better
be left out, as it did not add anything to the simple word
" hall."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
"great halls" would be an aggregation of the private
halls.
Mr. HENLEY said that while power was given to unite
these bodies, no power was given to separate them. It
would appear as though it were intended to unite them in
perpetuity.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the clause clearly
fixed the condition on which the aggregation and its con-
tinuance depended.
Clause 30, with verbal amendments, was then agreed to.
On clause 31.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE said there were two or three re-
spects in which this clause appeared to him to require
amendment. For instance, as the clause stood, he thought
it would still be open to the commissioners to deal with
the preferences as they thought proper, and they might do
away with them. Again, as regarded the right of appeal
to the Privy Council, he thought the clause was too vague.
The Privy Council would hardly know what to do when
applicants came before them. The first alteration which
he would propose was to omit " it is expedient to enable,"
and to insert " the interests of religion and learning, and
the main designs of founders and donors would in many
cases be advanced by enabling."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the adoption of the amendment would lead to consider-
able confusion in the adjustment of the rest of the sen-
tence. There were one or two changes which he himself
proposed to make in the clause. As regard the word
" merits," he did not wish now to insist that in no case
should a college emolument be obtained except through the
test of an examination. He did not mean to say that the
Government had receded from the views which they had
expressed on that subject; but in the bill as it originally
stood there were provisions for cases in which other con-
siderations than personal merit were taken into account.
He should be alarmed at the adoption of the words of his
hon. friend ; for if they were inserted, merits, though form-
ing ever so small an element, would not be admitted. He
thought it would be best to introduce the word " fitness,"
which constantly occurred in the college statutes. Two
other changes were contemplated, to which he did not anti-
cipate any objection. It had been pointed out that the
enabling powers did not distinctly include a power of in-
troducing into the statutes provisions under which amend-
ments might be made ; and he therefore proposed to insert
certain words to remedy that defect. Lastly, this clause
gave power to override the statutes of the college ; he pro-
posed that there should be power to override all docu-
ments.
Mr. L. WIGRAM supported the amendment.
The committee divided—
For
Sir W. Heathcote's amendment
Against 94-14
Mr. WALPOLE proposed in the same clause, after the
word colleges to insert with the consent of the visitors."
He trusted that the Government would consent to this
amendment, as otherwise there was no party to stand in
the place of the founders upon the question of any altera-
tion in the college statutes.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was sorry
he could not fall in with the proposition of his right hon.
friend. It really amounted to this that the visitors should
be invested with a vote enabling them to undo what was
proposed to be done by the bill. (Hear.) Thus Parliament
could have planned a difficult and intricate machinery, all
of which might at one moment Vss stopped by the caprice of
one individual. And again, he would ask who were the
visitors? He believed them to be men, generally speaking,
of eminence and position; but their connexion with the
colleges was of so exceptional a character that he did not
think they were altogether fitted to give a decided opinion
upon questions as to improvements or alterations in the
statutes of any college. Take, for instance, the ease of the
Bishop of Winchester,—a man who could bring a good
judgment and high principle to any question whioh might
come before him. The right rev. prelate was the visitor
of a college, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did
not suppose that his lordship had been thrice referred to
in this capacity of visitor since he stood in that position.
Under such circumstances he did not think it right to give
the visitor a final and overruling judgment upon so
momentous a question.
Mr. WALPOLE did not think the right hon. gentleman
took a proper view of the position of visitors. He (Mr.
Walpole) considered the visitor to stand in the position of
a trustee for those institutions which were connected with
colleges. Thus in all questions concerning schools, unless
the visitor had the right he prepo.ied to give him, there
would be no one to represent the interest of the schools,
and thus alterations in the statutes, of 'a
very disadvan-
tageous character, might be made without any one to pro-
test against them.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer reduced the visitors to mere ornaments. The
committee might depend upon it that the founders lb
naming them, meant that they should stand in a different
position.
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE held a middle course between
the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought that an abso-
lute veto was too much power for a visitor to have, and at
the same he thought he ought to have some voice in the
matter of the alteration of statutes. He would suggest
that it should he enacted that colleges ought to take coun-
sel with their visitors before any alteration being made.
Sir W. HE ATHCOTE doubted whether the suggestion
of the-ItOn. gentleman (Mr. R. Palmer) would lead to any
practical good whatever. It was no use declaring that the
colleges should take counsel with their visitors, if they
were allowed to disregard the visitors' advice. (Hear.)
He thought it would be better to give the visitors a right
of appeal to the Privy Council-against alteration in the
statutes which they might deem improper.
Mr. G. VERNON was decidedly opposed to giving the
visitor a veto at the same time, he thought it was only
proper that the visitor should have some voice in the

matter.
Mr. HENLEY complained that the clause contained
no safeguard that the will of the founder should be fol-
lowed. in the smallest manner.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that it did not appear to him
that the appointment of visitors was made at all with a view
to such an enactment as was now under consideration.
The founder appointed a visitor with a view to the keep-
ing in force of the statutes which were imposed by him
upon the college. Now, it might happen very well that a
person of ensinence and position was fit to see that these
statutes were observed, but it by no means followed that
such a party was the one who should be selected to have a
veto against those alterations and improvements which
Parliament might think desirable. Their time and their
attention might bo taken up too much with the other
duties to enable them to enter upon such a task. With
regard to the suggestion of the hon. baronet (Sir W. Heath-
cote) of giving a right of appeal to the visitor, he (Lord J.
Russell) thought that was very reasonable in its nature,
and he thought, when the proper part of the bill came be-
fore the committee, that tho Government would not object
to some such proviso.
Mr. PHINN thought that this was one of the objections
whioh must arise in the endeavour to apply a general enact-
ment to the varying statutes of different colleges. He
could not but think himself that if former visitors had ful-
filled their duty, there would have been no need of this
enactment. He thought this neglect of duty was the rea-
son of the present state of Magdalen and All Souls.
The amendment of Mr. Walpole was then negatived
without a division.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE moved to alter the words "to
insure the same (i. e. college emoluments) being conferred
according to personal merits," into "to prevent the same
from being conferred without reference to personal merits."
He thought the wording of the clause as it stood was too
loose and not in accordance with what he understood to be
the real view of the Government upon this question.
Mr. R. PALMER considered this clause as it stood was
against the principle on which the bill was originally
framed. He had thought that in some circumstances it
was intended to hold sacred the preferences expressed in
the will of the founder so far as regarded a preference
being given, other things being equal to the inhabitants of
certain districts. The affirmative character of the pro-
posed enactment made it absolutely requisite to be guided
by personal merit only. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
learned gentleman would best understand the introduction
of the words as they stood in the clause by a consideration
of the principle of the bill itself. The best course would
be to combine together the word " merits" with the word
" finess," which was the simple English translation of the
standard now recognised by the statutes.
Mr. HEYWOOD thought the clause was exceedingly
good as it stood. He did not see any great advantage in
having the word " fitness" ; the term " personal merits"
would be quite sufficient.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE remarked that if the object of
the Government was to abolish the existing standards, they
ought to use words that would distinctly convey that
meaning. On the other hand, if they did not, let them
put in words which should show clearly that they did not
intend to exclude considerations arising out of birth or
particular schools, and then there would be no ambiguity
about the matter.
Mr. CARR suggested the insertion of the word "both,"
which would make the line run thus : " both according to
personal merits and fitness."
Mr. HENLEY believed the words as they stood would
not exclude any claim to preference.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER moved to leave out the
word " according," in order to insert the words " with a
due regard."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL reminded the committee
that the words of the clause had been chosen in conformity
with the preamble of the bill, which would enable the col-
leges to retain the preferences when the school, or institu-
tion, or body enjoying the preference could present a suffi-
cient number of properly qualified candidates for the
scholarships.
Mr. L. WIGRAM objected that the words, as they then
stood, would enable the colleges to abolish preferences which
he, for one, wanted to avoid. Tho candidate entitled to
preference might be perfectly fit for the scholarship, bat
the working of the clause would enable the college to take
the best candidate without reference to preference at all.
For instance, in ono of the colleges there was a Welch
foundation now devoted exclusively to Welshmen ; but ac-
cording to this clause the college would have to select the
most fit candidate that might offer himself, without re-
ference to the part of the country he came from.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
would appear as if the hon. and learned gentleman wanted
to saddle upon Oxford restrictions which the sister univer-
sity had almost entirely abolished. The hon. and
learned
gentleman would give Oxford no power of liberating her-
self from the restrictions of the statutes, but the doctrine
of the hon. and learned gentleman wont to the whole root
of the bill in its present form. The hon. and learned gentle-
man says he would give no power that could possibly be
abused ; but to accomplish that endithey must throw over
this enabling bill, and revert to the original compulsory
1N09.811T8.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE explained that the intention of
the amendment was to give the colleges, and the commis-
sioners power to deal with preferences if they so thought
fit ; and he confessed he thought diet discretion ought to be
left to them, subject, of course, to the guards against an
abuse of the power which other parts of the bill provided.
Mr. H. VERNON had no fear whatever of the power
being abused. What he complained of was that the bill
did not giye aufficient power', but at the same time the