The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-31 00:00:00

MI LITIA. COMPENSATION.

Col. GILPIN rose to call the attention of the house
to the compensation proposed to be given to the militia,
and went at some length into the injustice of allowing
the militia, 'after the great 'service they had rendered
the country, to return to their homes in the manner
it was proposed they should do. The hon. member in-
sisted that the paymasters should be treated with greater
respect, and that they should also receive the same
amount of remuneration as surgeons. He trusted that
when an increase of the army was again required the
militia would be applied to before foreign legions were
again raised.
Col. STUART joined in the expression of the same
hope, and thought that they were entitled to at least a
month's pay, to provide them with necessary clothing.
Col. DUNNE said the men could not leave their regi-
ments and go home unless they had some money given
to them. He also wished to know the intentions of the
Government with respect to the staff ; for if it were not
placed on a better footing than at the termination of the
las', war it would be throwing money away. He wanted
aleo to know what was to be done with the Foreign Le-
gion, and whether they were not to be kept up ?
Lord BERNARD thought it very unadvisable to send
thew which
enlitia back to Ireland without necessary clothing,
many
of the men would not have after giving up
their regimentaler in a dress. The ahouri
state,ng classesa nd i t
w6fastthialet
country were
most lamentable labouring
duty of the Government to set them
every example and
ren 4er them every assistance in improving their condi-
tion.

Mr. PEEL wa3 ready to admit that the more liberally
::lie Government behaved on then disembodiment of the
militia the more men ! readily the and
on officers would re-
join the regiments when called upon, and the more po-
pular the Government would Governmentbecome . btut he thought
the Government ought not to look solely question
of popularity in that matter. Both officersoat,hde
oonvernment
men had
performed their duties admirably, buf4tdttihreaG.
were bound to consider whether th duration of their
services had been long enough to lay the foundation for
a geieral system of compensation. With reference to
the appointment of a permanent staff, the only object
was to furnish the means of protecting the stores and
arms of the militia regiments during the period of their
disernbcdiment, and to form a nucleus for obtaining a
supply of officers at a futare time. The Government did
not feel justiied in placing any officer permanently on
the staff, uuless there was sufficient work
_for him to do.

With regard io officers not on the permanent staff, the
paymaster's duty aid continue for some time after the
disembodiment of the regiment, and probably the com-
pensation after the same rate as that to the surgeons, as
had been suggested, would not be found excessive. The
surgeons received twelve months' extra pay en their dis-
charge as a compensation for the sacrifice of their prac-
tice, which could not always be speedily recovered. The
privates and non-commissioned officers would be paid up
to the date of discharge, and also then receive the ba-
lance of the bounty money, which under other circum-
stances would not have been paid until the commence-
ment of the training period next year. With regard to
the new clothing just issued that would be required to
be delivered back, but the men would be allowed to re-
tain that of last year, in addition to the fatigue suit
given by the Government.
Col. DUNNE—That belongs to them already.
Mr. PEEL added that no just comparison could be
drawn between a subaltern at ss. or 6e. a day and a man
who worked for ls. a day, and could get employment at
this season of the year without delay. With regard to the
Swiss, German, and Italian legions, there had been three
separate conventions, but the terms were identical in
each. It had been 'thought that something ought to
be done for those men, and a free passage to the colonies
had been offered them, which, no doubt, many would
accept.
After a few words from Col. GILPIN, in explanation,
Colonel BUCK thought the men were under no great
obligation to the Government for the promise to pay
them that which they were entitled to, namely, their
pay to the time of their discharge. As for the clothing
that the men were to return with (in addition to the
" gratitude of their country"), if hon. gentlemen would
just picture to themselves the well-known figure of
" Jerry," at Ascot, they would have a very good idea of
the appearance of the men in their last year's clothing.
Tae hon. and gallant gentleman then deprecated the em-
ployment of foreign troops at all, and maintained that
England for the English ought to have been the maxim
of our Government, and the honour of the country_ left
in the hands of British soldiers, who never shrank from
their duty:
Mr. WALPOLE reminded the Government that it
would be autumn before the militia were disembodied,
and hoped as that was a bad time for men to obtain work
their case would bo considered, and something done for
them.

Col. W. P..k.TTEN said that the men always got rid
of their private clothes soon after they joined, and sug-
gested that as their regimentals were to be given asp,
the shell jacket should be given up too, and a small
gratuity allowed.
Col. NORTH contended that it was no gratuity at all
to give the men their last year's clothing, when they had
paid for it already. With regard to the officers, it should
be remembered that militia officers were formerly men
of wealth and station in the country, but the case was
very different now. Many of them bad given five or six
years oftbeir time in acquiring a knowledge of their pro-
fession, and now they were to be discharged with com-
paratively no compensation.
LordPALMERSTON—I trust the house does not ex-
pect me to enter into any of these matters now; but I can-
n at allow this conversation to close without assuring hon.
members that no men can be more sensible than are her
Majesty's Government of the extreme value of the militia
force of this country. I agree with what fell from the
right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) in reference
to the security of the country, viz., that in all cases of
emergency this militia force would be an invaluable
force for the public service ; and nothing could be fur-
ther from our intentions or wish than that anything
should be done to indispose either officers or men from
pursuing on future occasions the same honourable course
they have pursued on late occasions, by coming forward
in the most gallant and handsome manner, and sacrifie-
ce
in all private considerations out of regard for the
public 6 service. With respect to what has fallen from
the right hon. gentleman as to the probable date of the
return of regiments from the Mediterranean, I may say
that arrangements have been made which I think will
secure their return home certainly before the harvest.
But, sir, there is a material distinction between the con-
dition of the militiaman and the foreigner. The militia-
man is brought back to his own country and to his own
home, and he falls back on the ordinary pursuits of his
country. The foreigner is taken altogether away from
his country, and he is in a more helpleas condition than
the other. Therefore, when the offer made to foreigners
—to Germans, Italians, and Swiss—to join in the ope-
rations of the war, it is only natural to suppose that
some additional inducement would have to be offered for
them to leave their country. It is trot, however, as the
hon. and gallant member seems to suppose, from any
distrust of British subjects that foreigners were engaged.
The simple fact is that we have no conscription. We do
not throw a casting-net over the population and compel
them to come into the ranks the moment they are
wanted. Our army and onr militia were formed by vo-
luntary enlistment ; and although a slower, it is, I think,
a better process. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. O'CONNELL reverted to the suggestion of
presenting a gratuity to the militia on disembodiment.
It appeared to him that employment being so uncertain
iu Ireland, young militia soldiers might find great diffi-
culty in resuming their accustomed occupations, and
they would, therefore, be forced to emigrate. He would
suggest, therefore, to the noble lord at the head of the
Government, that some encouragement. should be held
out to the militia on service, if not in degree at least in
principle to that afforded to the Foreign I,gions, to
emigrate to the colonies. He would also observe that
he thought the Irish regiments of militia had reason to
complain that the offer to volunteer for the Mediter-
ranean stations had been confined exclusively to the
English regiments.
The subject then dropped.
• AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS BILL.

Mr. O. HAMILTON ventured to express a hope
that this bill, which was viewed with great interest by
the agricultural community, would not be pressed on at
a period of the session when it could not undergo the
requisite consideration.
Mr. LOWE said it had been suggested that it might
meet the views of hon. gentlemen opposite if th►s bill,
after it bad been read a second time, wer: referred to a
select committee.
Mr. HENLEY could not ngree to a second reading,
unless some objectionable porticos of it were first struck
out.

Mr. LOWE should propose to send the bill to a se-
lect committee, merely on the understanding that the
principle of collecting agricultural stativtics (that princi-
ple being compulsory) had been agreed b by the house.
Mr. SPOONER said that, before ho could consent
to referring the bill, all idea of arriving at the amount of
stock must be given up. Such, he presumed, was the
view of his right boo. friend (Mr. Henley).
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL.

On the motion of Mr. MALINS, the order of the day
for the second reading of this bill was postponed until
Monday.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL,

Mr. BOUVERIE, in rising to move that the house
go into committee on this bill, said hon. gentlemen were
aware that in the year 1852 a commission was appointed
to inquire into the University of Cambridge, its colleges,
its statutes, and the state of its education. The cam-
mission having reported to her Majesty's Government, a
bill founded on that report was introduced in the other
House of Parliament, which subsequently came down to
that house ; but owing to the late period of the session
it was ultimately withdrawn. Well, the measure no e!
before the house was similar in most respects to that
which had been thus withdrawn. Apart from the
attachment which he felt for a place where he had
spent so many happy hours, it was impossible for any
one who felt the least tincture of love for lite-
rature not to have the deepest interest in the wel-
fare of a great educational institution like Cambridge
University. For himself, therefore, he could not approach
the subject with any other feeling than a sincere desire
to improve the university, and extend and strengthen its
foundations. At that time of day it was needless to argue
the right of Parliament to interfere with such a corpora-
tion. Certainly it was not many years since the right had
been stoutly disputed, but the question was new deter-
reined. It was admitted in the passing of the University
of Oxford Bill two years ago that Parliament hal the
right to interfere with the statutes and property of the'uni-
versities. The universities were great national institutions,
founded by act of Parliament, enjoying great privileges,
as well as receiving annually grants of public money, be-
sides k.eing solely entrusted with the education of the
&orgy of the Established Church. He would the e"ore ad-
dress himself to the necessity for the interference of Par.
Lament as the ground upon which he wished to argue the
present bill. The proposition which he would ley down to
justify such interference W3'; this—that the University
and colleges of Cambridge being institutions with vast
wealth intended to be devoted to the education of the
people of the country, that that wealth had not been
turned to the best account ; that, in fact, the results'
produced were very small as compared with the means
of the university. Now let him state what the resources
of the university and colleges were; But first he might
observe that the wealth of the university was not iu pro-
portionate dimensions to that of the college!, which, in
fact, had very much overbalanced the university and had
practically a monopoly of the teaching. The income of
the university available for general purposes at present,
it was stated in the report of the commission, was as fol-
lows :-7,9001. ; appropriated to specific objects, 8,7001.;
salaries of prizemen, 7,8001. ; total income about 24,500/,
a year. Well, now as regarded the colleges. The com-
missioners stated that they had not got returns from the
whole of the colleges ; but they enumerated the incomes
of 12 colleges which did send in returns. St. Peter's
had 7,3001. a year; Pembroke, 12,000 e ; Trinity
3,000/. ; Kind's, 26,0001. ; ,Queen's, 5,300/. ; Christ's,
9,000/. ; St. John's, 26,000/. ; Magdalen, 4,0001. ; Tri-
nity 3,400/. ; Emmanuel, 6,500/. ; Sidney Sussex,
5,6001. ; Downing, 12,0001. The commissioners state,
as the net average income of the eollegee, that it cannot
amount to less than 135,000/. a year. Now, adding that
to the 24,5001. a year, the income of the university, it
made the income of the university and colleges together
not less than 209,5001. Well, that fully justified the
assertion that the appliances of the colleges were enor-
mous. Then came the question, what were the results
of such appliances ? Well, no one would deny that the
fairest modes of testing that would be to settle the num-
ber of degrees conferred by them. But let him recall to
mind the enormous inducements held out to attract per-
sons to the university. A great portion of its revenues
were held out as prizes to members in fellowships and
scholarships, besides which there was a great number of
livings which belonged to the enllegee. Let him give
the number of fellowships open for competition. The
total number of fellowships, including 75 at King's,
which were confined to Eton, were 356, of which
2„ were unr.etric'ed and 45 restricted. Now, what was
tlee ice elle of the different foundation fellowships? Some
of them were' very considerable—as, for instance, St.
Peter's, which was 2581. a-year ; Pembroke, 3171.;
Christ's, 3301.; St. John's, 1401.; Trinity, 3251. The
amount of education in the University was nothing like
what it ought to be ; the institution was a machine which

did net do the work it ought to dz. Then, with respect
to the nature and quality-of the education, he contended ,
that it did not confer those decided advantages which
induced persons who could afford it to send their sons to
Cambridge. He entered into details, from which he ar-
gued that in the three learned professions—theology,
law, and medicine—the state of education in the Univer-
sity was eminently unsatisfactory, and that in those
branches of science and learning which, though not
immediately remunerative, were of the last import-
ance in a commercial country, its shortcomings could
net be disputed. If the University had enjoyed free
action, the blame of these deficiencies would rest with
it ; but he did not blame the University, which he ad-
mitted had made great efforts to remedy them ; its
powers were, however, restrained and controlled, not
only by external but by internal causes, and therefore it
required the assistance of Parliament to enable it to
amend the existing state of things. The University was
troubled, he said, with a most antiquated and confined
constitution, the nature of which ho explained, and then
shortly detailed the changes proposed by the bill with
reference to the University and the colleges. In regard
to the former, it got rid of the Caput, and substituted a
Council, endowed to a great extent with the chief func-
tions of the University, and the power of amending its
constitution and laws ; and it authorised, as in the case
of Oiford, the appointment of a Parliamentary commis-
sion.

Mr. WALPOLE thought the right hon. gentleman
had been led into exaggeration when depreciating the
results of education at the University of Cambridge.
The object of the bill should be to impose as little restric-
tion as pJssible on the colleges—to leave them as free as
possible consistently with the improvements which it was
deemed desirable to carry out. Judging by what had
been den(' by the university itself within the last 30 years
in the way of improvement, he must say ho doubted
much if more would not be done by the university of its
own accord than ever could be arrived at by means of
this bill. I[e was opposed to the establishment of pri-
vate halls in the case of Oxford ; but as they were given
to Oxford he would not oppose them here, for he thought
it of great importance that the two universities should
be as nearly as possible alike in their discipline. There
Was no power in the Oxford Bill for a Parliamentary
commission to control its action, and he could not see
the necessity cf it hero. He had the strongest possible
objection to that portion of the bill, as calculated to in-
terfere with the peace and tranquillity which it should
bo their object to maintain undisturbed. lie would
oppose in committee the points he referred to, and those
only, although he thought they. would have probably
done better to have loft the improvement attempted to
the care of the university itself.

Mr. POLLARD•URQUHART sapported the bill,
and thought Mr. thuverie might have gone further. He
would especially recommend that the governing council
should be elected by the Senate, and generally he would
opposo the amendments prop med by Mr. Heywood.
Mr. J. HEYWOOD condemned that portion of the
bill which excluded dissenters from being members of the
Senate, which was equivalent to excluding them from
voting for the members of the University. He thought,
generally, that the condition of the University was not
sufficiently considered by the framer of the bill, but there
was enough in it to induce him generally to support it.

After some remarks from 111 r. J. G. PHILLIIIORE and
Mr. WIGRAIi,
The house went into committee.
Clauses 1,2, and 3 were agreed to.
Upon clause 4,
Mr. WALPOLE said he had objected to this clause in
the Oxford Bill, and thought it very objectionable.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIIVIOitE said that every man took
an oath'subject to his duty to his country, and the obli-
gation to do nothieg unlawful. Now, if an act of Pz.rlia-
meet declared a thing unlawful, the obligation of the
oath was done away with.
Lord PALMERSTON said ho could not agree with
the argument of the huh. and learned gentleman upon
the obligation of the oath.
Mr. WIGRAM said he could not understand an ac
of Parliament dispensing with an oath.
The committee divided. The numbers were—
For the orginal clause
For the atalndment
Majority
The clause was then agreed to.
Upon clause 5,
Mr. HEYWOOD moved that the word "sixth" be
left out at line 29, and the word "first" (of November) be
loathed, in order that the election of vice-chancellor
might take place under the new regime.
Toe committee then divided. The numbers were—
For the original clause B6
For the amendment l9
Majority
Mr. HEYWOOD then moved another amendment at
line 31, to insert, after the words "exercised by," "the
beads of houses in their collective capacity and," the
object being to place the powers now exercised by the
heads of houses in the caput senatus.
The amond.usent was put and negatived without a di-
♦ision, and the clause agreed to.
Upon clause 6,
Mr. HEYWOOD moved that the words " four heads
of colleges, four professors of the umiverity," be omitted.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that this was a question of
the constitution of the council, and he confessed he
should like to see the different interests represented.
After some remarks from Sir W. HEITLICOTZ and Mr.
CRACTFURD mbe committee divided, when the numbers
wer e

-44

For tho amenciserit ..e. 3B
Against it
0

- Majority against --64
Mr. HEYWOOD moved, in line 3, to leave out from
"provided always" to the end of the clause.
A discussion took place on the motion, in which Lard
Palmerston, Mr. Bouverie, Sir W. Heathcote, Mr. Hey-
wood, and other hon. members took part, when the
committee divided. The numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against
The clause, as amended, was agreed to,
Clause 7 provided the time of residence should be 20
weeks.
Mr. HEYWOOD moved as an' amendment that the
residence should be for seven weeks or one term.
Mr. EOUVERIE had no objection to the time being
altered, but proposed it should be for 14 weeks or two
terms, which was consented to without a division.
The clause as amended was then agreed to.
Clause: 8 to 14 were agreed to, after some verbal
amendments..
Clauses 15 to 19 were agreed to without discussion.
On clause 20,
Mr. WIG RAM said it provided that of 17 members of
council five should be a quorum. He thought that too
small a number. He proposed at the end of the clause
to insert these words :—" Provided always, that in case
of a difference of opinion between the Chancellor, or the
Vice-Chancellor or his deputy, and the majority of the
members present at auy meeting of the council, the ques-
tion as to which such difference may exist shall not be
deemed to be carried by such majority unless the same
shall constitute a majority of the whole council ; but in
such case the question shall be adjourned to the next
meeting of the council, and such adjourned question
shall be finally decided by the majority of the members
of council then present."
The clause as amended was agreed to.
C ause 21 was agreed to, with some amendment'.
Oa clause 22, which had reference to certain oaths,
Mr. STAFFORD proposed to leave out the words
" not be an oath legally binding the juror," and to in-
sert the werde, " be an illegal oath in the said university
and the collet,►e thereof."
Mr. BOUVERIE said he had gone over the bill very
carefully with an eminent member of the university, an 2
he recommended that the words should be retained.
Mr. HEYWOOD said the words were justified by the
statutes of other universities, and he could hardly see
how the university could go on without some such pro-

.... 63
... 111
-.----f3

vial! n.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER thought the committee
should follow as nearly as possible the words of the Ox-
ford Act. If any differences were allowed it would tend
to introduce an element of doubt and confusion.
Mr. BO UVERIE said he hardly thought the matter
was worth discussion, and ho would agree to the amend-
ment.
The amendment was then put and agreed to.
Clause 23, with some verbal amsndments, was agreed
t).

On clause 24,
Mr. HEYWOOD said the heads of halls did not like
to be called "licensed masters," which was very like
"licensed victuallers." He moved to leave out those
words, and to call them "principals."
Mr. BOUVERIE assented, and the amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. WIGRA.M. proposed to leave out the word
" hall" wherever it occurred, and to substitute the word
" hostel."
Mr. BOUVERIE said he saw no objection to the sub-
stitution suggested.
The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as
amended, was agreed to.
Oa clause 25,
Several hon. members suggested that alterations
should be made so as to assimilate the 'measure to the
Oxford University
Lord PALMERSTON said that if it was intended to
make the two bills identical, the course to be pursued was
of course clear ; but if any improvement were to be con-
sidered, it would he for the committee to make, if pos-
sible, amendments in the Oxford Bill.
Mr. WALPOLE said the clause provided for two
classes of students in the university, which would involve
two sorts of discipline.
By this clause one class of stu-
dents might attend divine worship according to the rites
of the Chinch of England, while another class would not
have that necessity imposed on them. This was such a
vague recommendation that he thought it would lead to
great confusion. He believed the matter might safely be
left to the University.
Mr. HEYWOOD had no confidence in the university
in this respect. He had known a Jewish gentleman and
a Roman Catholic compelled to attend divine service at
Trinity College, and he, as a Dissenter, had also been
obliged to attend.
Mr. WIGRA.II,I denied the statement as regarded the
Jew, He knew there was a Jew in the university, and
he did for some time attend the service, but when the
attention of the Dean of Trinity College was called to it,
his attendance was no longer required.
Mr. HEYWOOD said his authority was the Rev.
Mr. Carus of Trinity College.
Mr. WALPOLE- said that he did not wish that the
university should prescribe the form and regulate the
precise manner in which students should attend Divine
service, but merely that measures should be taken to se-
cure that they did attend some Divine service.
Lord PALMERSTON said that this matter was left
to the discretion of the colleges, and he thought, there