The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-20 00:00:00

sons attended the lectures of these professors. The colleges
ought to support their own lecturers. He hoped the vote
would be withdrawn ; but if it were not, he should divide
the commit tee against it.
Mr. HADFIELD strongly opposed the grant. The nni-
versifies excluded a large minority of the people from the
advantages which they possessed, yet they had the otiron-
tery to call upon the house to tax the majority of the people
to support institutions from which they by their bigotted
laws, excluded dissenters.
Mr. BLACKETT wished to put a question to the noble
lord the member for the city of London on this subject.
Some time ago the noble lord expressed a hope that the
universities would themselves introduce improvements into
their system ; and he said he should be loth to invite the
assistance of Parliament unless they showed themselves un-
willing to propose certain reforms within one or two years.
There was an unhappy vagueness about this statement ;
and therefore he put it to the noble lord, in the interest of
the universities themselves, whether he would not fix some
definite period within which, if they did not reform them-
selves, he would think it his duty to ask for the assistance
of Parliament. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL, with regard to this vote, must be
allowed to mention that it had been stated by the univer-
sities themselves that they felt aggrieved by the stamp
duties payable on taking degrees. They considered they
were more burdened by this public taxation than benefited
by the votes annually made by the House of Commons.
This was the statement he had heard, and he would say so
far as this, that the whole of the question as to this vote
and the burdens upon the universities should be considered
by the Government. If any arrangement could be arrived
at by which the present vote should be rendered unneces-
sary, he should be very glad ' • but at present the vote
could not be renounced, as it had been adopted on the
faith of arrangements made by former governments. He
did not think he had ever stated that if they thought it
necessary the Government would propose within one or
two years a measure for the management of the universities.
He said he did not think it expedient to proceed at present
•--meaning in the present session, but beyond the present
session he held the Government to be perfectly free to act
as should seem best.
Sir R. INGLIS said the Crown, in its liberality, had in
former years either founded these professorships, or largely
endowed them out of Crown property, and if Parliament
had thought fit to take that property, subject to all charges
upon it, it was a little too much to attempt now to violate
a bargain made with the Crown at the time. About 20
years ago another hon. member for Lambeth brought for-
ward a proposition of this kind, and Mr. Spring Rice, the
present Lord Monteagle, then one of the Lords of the
Treasury, laid on the table the documentary evidence, by
which what he had just stated was proved to be the fact.
With regard to the sums paid by the universities in stamps
for degrees, his noble friend the First Minister in that
house had stated it was double the amount received for
professors. If the Government would not exact the amount
paid in stamps for degrees, the University of Oxford would
not be indisposed to re-consider the receipt of the smaller
sum to the professors. But as to adopting the professorial
system, admitting persons to residence not attached to any
college, and destroying the wills of the founders, as sug-
gested by his noble friend, he could only repeat what ho
had already said, such a change was very improbable. He
would divide against the amendment of the hon. member
for Lambeth. _ _ _

Sir DE LACY EVANS thought the Universities of Ox-
ford and Cambridge stood on a very different footing from
the University of London, for which a similar vote would
next be taken. Oxford and Cambridge had very large
property belonging to them, and the system of education
there was most expensive. It was very proper to promote
the education of the people, but the most opulent classes
of the country received their education at Oxford and
Cambridge, and the charges were abundantly large. Know-
ing that those universities were richly endowed, that they
possessed many sinecure appointments, and that the higher
classes alone were educated within their walls, he (lid
think it inconsistent to ask the public to contribute the
sum of 2,000/. under the name of professors.
Mr. A. PELLATT agreed that the University of London
was on a very different footing from the Universities of
Oxford and Cambridge. The latter not only excluded
those who could not conform to the established religion of
the country, but prevented any divulgement of facts with
regard to finances and endowments, by the imposition of
oaths. They ought to look with great jealousy on societies
that would not give the slightest information as to what
were their incomes, or how they were derived. They must
assume that their resources were'abundant, and, therefore,
a contribution from the State unnecessary. He was a
great friend to education, and was glad to see the system
of instruction by professors extended, but he thought the
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had money enough
of their own, and should oppose the vote.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS would not divide the committee
if he had the assurance of the noble lord that the Govern.
ment would take these matters into consideration.

Mr. H. DRUMMOND thought the argument of the hon.
baronet the member for the University of Oxford had been
either entirely evaded or overlooked. The argument was
this—That this sum was the property of the universities ;
that it was granted by the Crown ; that Parliament chose
to take upon themselves the payment of sums for which
the Crown was pledged ; and now, having done that, they
wanted to break the bargain, and come and. talk there of
honour and integrity. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. WILLIAMS asked, if this sum were granted by
the Crown, why the vote was taken for it annually, why it
was not placed on the Civil List ? There would be a similar
vote for Scotch universities, but there was property in
Scotland belonging to the Crown, which produced an an-
nual revenue to the State, and, therefore, to that vote he
did not object.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND reminded the hon. member that
Parliament took the property of the Crown with all its
incumbrances, and now it was proposed to repudiate the
incumbrances and break the bargain they had made.
(Hear, hear.)
The vote was then agreed to, as were also-
-3,9551. for the expenses of the universities of London.
8,0261. for grants to Scottish universities.
300'. for the Royal Irish Academy.
3001. for the Royal Hibernian Academy.
On the proposal to vote 2,7501. for the salaries of theolo-
gical professors at Belfast and for the retired allowances
to the professors of the Belfast Academical Institution,
Mr. MIALL said he understood this vote would be given
for the purpose of religious teaching in Belfast. A majo-
rity of the committee had objected to a vote of a similar
character with regard to Maynooth College in Ireland.
The principle laid down was, not that they objected to the
Roman Catholic religion as such, but to public money
being given for religious teaching of any kind. In consis-
tency, therefore they were bound to refuse this vote.
Sir R. INGLIS said the hon. member could only answer
for himself and the views which dictated his vote, but he,
for one, had never scrupled to declared ho objected to pay-
ing any money for teaching that which he conscientiously
disapproved. In conscience he disapproved of the teaching
in Maynooth, and on that ground he objected to the vote
with regard to Maynooth • but that was not the ground on
which he conceived himself justified in objecting to any
other vote on the table of the house.
Mr. A. PELLATT said the great objection of the Non-
conformists was to any allowance of the State for the
teaching of religion, and, therefore, he should join in
voting against this sum.
The CHAIRMAN asked if the hon. member proposed to
divide ?
Mr. MIALL said he should certainly divide the com-
mittee upon the whole of this class of votes.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the committee
divided—
For the vote l3O
Against it

Majority

. 109

A vote of 1,6811. to defray the probable expenses of the
Queen's University in Ireland was agreed to.
Votes of 55,8401. for the establishment and expenses, of
22,7101. for the required new buildings, and of 1,5001. for
the purchases of the British Museum, were agreed to.
A vote of 4,2621. 19s. 10d. for the expenses of the Na-
tional Gallery was agreed to.
A vote of 2,2131. for scientific works and experiments
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, on the motion of
Lord J. RUSSELL, and the house resumed.

HACKNEY CARRIAGE (METROPOLIS) BILL.
On the motion that the Speaker leave the chair,
Sir R. INGLIS urged that the bill before the house was
one which ought, to be referred to a select committee, as
the amount concerned in it was so largo, and the number of
persons' livelihoods which it affected so numerous. The
sum of 1,700,0001. was involved in the decision referring to
hackney carriages or omnibuses; the sum of 800,0001. in
that referring to cabs ; and there were other considerations
in the matter higher than those of pounds, shillings, and
pence. In various cases bills affecting large classes—for
instance the Buildings Regulation Act, and a measure on
the subject of hackney carriages in 1835—had been referred
to a select committee, and he thought that there was no
reason why this should not be so too. Had his honourable
friend examined any great body of the persons with whose
property he meddled ? Had he investigated the matter,
and was he prepared to allocate the amount which they
should receive?? And was he to be supported by the advo-
cates of free trade and unrestricted competition in an at-
tempt to induce the house to adopt a minimum of wages
for a particular class of individuals? (Hear, hear.) But
there were other and higher considerations. This measure
involved also the liberty of the subject. In clause 14, he
found a large class of undefined offences to which no penalty
was attached by the clause itself. But that clause must be
constructed by clause 7, which provided that for every of-
fence to which no specific penalty is appended the offender
shall, at the discretion of the magistrate, be liable to a
penalty not exceeding 405., or an imprisonment for any
period not exceeding one month. (Hear, hear.) Such a
power as that ought not to be hastily granted by the house,
•Ind certainly not without previous inquiry. (Hear, hear.)
In case of summary conviction before a magistrate, there
ought to be a power of appeal. (Hear, hear.) And what
was the objection to that proposition ? Why, that there
had been a conviction by a magistrate quashed. When an
analogous bill was introduced in 1835, the Government of
that day thought it not unbecoming to submit the matter
to the consideration of a select committee, and he trusted
the house would follow that example in the present case.
(Hear, hear.) He admitted that the hon. gentleman pro-
posed to give the supremo decision to a person of whom he
had never spoken, except with honour ; but he did not
think that even Sir Richard Mayne ought to be entrusted
with such a power as that conferred by the present bill.
(Hear.) He had previously asked his hon. friend to give the
power of appeal, but that request had been refused. He
now proposed to go further, and ask the house to refer the
bill to a select committee. (Hear, hear.) Before con-
cluding his remarks, he would just state to the house the
amount of property respecting which it was asked to
legislate. Before a single journey was made by the omni-
buses now in use, a capital of 414,0001. had been sunk
in their construction. The annual cost to the pro-
prietors for wages was 436,800/. ; for repairs, 62,400/. ;
for corn to the horses, 358,0001. ; for hay, 117,0001. ;
for straw, 56,000/. ; for wear and tear of horses and
shoeing, 94,000/. ; for duty, 202,0001.—making a general
total of not less than 1,709,600. The amount for cabs was
of course smaller ; but before a single journey could be
made by 3,500 cabs, the capital expended had been
352,500/. ; the annual cost for 7,000 horses was 272,0001.;
athnolounetxopfennseeawrlays upwards2,soomo
the wear and tear, 50,0001.; and, including the duty, the
Where the pro of
700,0001.
—ymaking
bya these
vehicles amounted
railways did not amount to more than 262,0001.
bY all the railw to
nearly
many persons NIN)-er0y300,0001., whilst the duty paid
case for the motion involved,iv h•wi
and the livelihood and liberty of so
namely, that the bill he referrediehheitiehtowouogarselect
h aw
ccdoo
nan shownerilu(titee—e a.
(HLeaorr,ahDea.
rSIIIIARTg=ded the amendment. There was
~pole connected with hackney
doaubt
caagnriesaate
aenj uadni coe
itiyable members had at
with a cabman—(a
it the house looking
some time or other had an altercate
rp4ozrseicr
the Thee
details that its
laugh)—but that ought not to
carefully into the bill and amending
bill was so full of minute
sidoration of a select committee, who would bestowhe con-
upon