The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PAR.LIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTEItDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF INDIA.
The Earl of ALBEMARLE, in presenting a petition
from the landowners, planters, and others connected
with the trade of Bengal, complaining of the construction
of the Legislative Council of India under the provisions
of the India Act of 1853, and praying for an enlargement
of the Council by the admission into it, either by ap-
pointment or otherwise, of persons selected from the In-
dian communities, without distinction of race or creed,
said it appeared no person was eligible to serve in the
Legislative Council but officers who were in the service
of the East India Company ; so that 112,000,000 of her
Majesty's native subjects, be they Mahomedans, Hindoos,
or Christians, were wholly excluded from the Council,
as well as those 10,000 Europeans, who were neither in
the service of the Crown nor the East India Company.
The Council was as remarkable for its ignorance and
inefficiency as it was for it 4 exclusiveness, and the
members of it were not to blame for this,
for they were called upon to legislate for eight
different nations and communities without being
afforded the assistance of any of the natives. The noble
earl having read some extracts from letters in proof of
the facts, observed that the India Act of 1853 was
passed in ignorance of the general character and conduct
of the East India Company. _

EVIDENCE IN FOREIGN SUITS BILL.
This bill, on the motion of the LORD CHANCEL-
LOR, was read a second time.

DWELLINGS OF THE POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the second
reading of this bill.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE • objected to cer-
tain previsions in the bill, and said, when their
lordships went into committee on the measure, he
should move some amendments.
The bill was then read a second time.
EXCHEQUER BILLS (4,000,0001.) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this
bill,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said before this bill was
read a third time he wished to move the omission of a
proviso introduced into the bill last evenin:, on the
motion of the right rev, prelate (the Bishop of Oxford),
which declared illegal any marriage between the
adulterous parties. It was his opinion that the
proviso, instead of discouraging thecommission of adul-
tery, would have a• contrary effect. He did not intend
to divide on the subject, but merely moved the omission
of the.proviso as a protest against the bill.
The amendment was then negatived without a divi-
sion, and the bill was read a third time and passel.
DRAINAGE ACr AMENDMENT BILL.
The report of the committee on this bill was received.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.
Their lordships then went into committee en this bill,
. and the first five clauses were passed without remark. .
On clause 6,
Lord LYTTLETON moved two amendments, the
first that the limit requiring the members of the council
should be eieutel from the electoral roll should he re-
moved, and the object of this amendment was to as-
eirnilate this bill to the Oxford act. The electoral roll in
the Cambridge bill corresponded with thecongregation
in the act relating to the sister university, and id -that
act there was no limitation requiring that the hebdoma,
dal council should be members of congregation, but simply
that they shl;uld, be members of the senate. It had fur-
ther been suggested to him that there was a safeguard
against the non-residence of the members of the se"nateirt
. the Oxford act, which it might be well to adept in the
present case, and if he carried his amendment in reference
to the electoral body, he should move to add the proiise
from the Oxford act, which enacted that if any member
of the senate other than the chancellor should reside
at the university for a less period than 14 weeks in. any
one year, his seat should be declared void and become
. vacsnt.
The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the amend-
meat as involving complications in the clause. The
, amendment was negatived, and the clause with a se-iond
(verbal) amendment, was agreed to.
• Clauses 7to 30 inclusive were agreed to without dis-
cussion.
On clause 31,
•

Lord LYTTLETON moved the omission of all the
words that went to the alteration or modification of the
Lady Sadler or Mr. Wort's trust'.

_ .
The committee divided on the question that the words
proposed to be left out stand part of the question.
Content 2ti
. Not-content - 5l

Majority
The words were accordingly struck out.
On clause 32,
Lord LYNDHURST moved the restoration of all the
words which had been struck out on the third reading of
the bill in the House of C.sramous, excluding Dissenters
from seats in the senate of the university. Ile said that
the change which had been made in the House of Com-
mons would, if allowed to remain, have an important in-
fluence on the religion of the country, and implored tbeir
lordships to vote the restoration of the words which had
been struck out. Their lordships should recollect that
the words were struck out by a small insj wity and in a
thin house ; indeed, he believed that the division was
altogether a surprise. The Government itself hal been
taken by surprise. With respect to the question itself,
be would troub:e the house by reading a few observa-
tions which had been made in the other hOtise. An hon.
member said, "The effect of the amendment will be to
confer on Dissenters who take the higher degrees the right
to interfere in the affairs of the university, and to vote for
/members of Parliament ; and I fear it will mar the
use-
fulness of the bill by exeitiug a feeling of alarm in the
minds of those whose co-operation is necessary for the suc-
cess ul the measure. It is not to be doubted that there is a
strong and intimate connection between the Church of
England and the universities, and a proposal to allow
dissenters to interfere in fixing the theological studies
will excite alarm. The amendment will therefore tend
to impair the usefulness of the university." He (Lord
Lyndhurst) concurred entirely with these Observations,
which Were ascribed to a member of the Government—
he believed the gentleman who in the other House of
Parliament had the conduct of the bill—snd he inferred
from them that the Government was hostile to the
change. Taking these words in connection with the fact
that the Government was taken by surprise in the }Luse
of Commons, be felt sure that their lordships would eon
cur in his amendment, which was that the words omi ted
in the last stage of the bill in the other house be re-
stored, for, the purpose of preventing dissenters from
taking any part in the government of the university.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was quite true
that when the bill left that house. two years ago it
contained the restriction alluded to by his noble and
learned friend, and it was equally clear that they were
in the bill when it was re-introduced in the other house
during the present session. He should have been ma iS.
fled it matters had so remained, but unlesu it could be
shown that the omission of these words reaily did great
in-
jury, or cause real appreheneion to the Courch, he would
submit whether it was advantageous, on questions of this
sort, for their lordships to a54U(1143 au attitude antagonis-
tic to the other house of Parliament.
Lord LYNDRURST—The restriction was in the Ox-
ford Bill.

-25

The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that these fre-
quent antagonisms were not creditable to their lordships,
and he must remind then. that it was only a fortnight
since that that argument had been used by his noble and
learned friend on a subject quite germane to the present.
Their lordships would recollect that his noble and learned
friend had occupied tft emt. on a question on which he re-
gretted to say his noble and. learned friend was defeated,
but which was very like the present. Andlie (the Lord
Chancellor) must say that if it was not dangerous to the
Christian religion to introduce Jews into that house,
neither did he believe it would -be dangerous to the
.Church of England to introduce a few dissenter, into the
nut versities. He believed the proportion would be very
small. [Lord Lyndhurst—l cc,: your pardon.] He
believed it would be infinitely small, and the likelihood
was that the proportiOn would be absorbed by the Church.
He clid• not know whether it was Mrs. Barbauld or Dr.
Aiken who bad said that there was no instance of dis-
senters preserving the character for t .vo greneratiole.
The Earl of DER tiY said he had a great respect for
Mrs. Barbauld—(a laugh)—but he hardly thought the
noble and learned lord's sarcasm worthy of the time or
the place. He could net understand why a law was to
be made for Cambridge which hart been retn,ed to Ox-
ford. Neither could he understand why one principle
should be enforced one session and another in another.
He was as unwilling as any one to be in antagonism to
the House of Commons ; but in a case like the present,
when an important principle was involved, he trusted that
ther lordships would act on their own unbiassed jThlg.
merit Bath Government and the Hou4e of Commons
were inconsistent with themselves in this matter. Two
years since the House of Comm e s dtc:ded in a full
house for the principle advocated by his noble and
learned friend, and Government acquiesced in that deci.
sion. The words proposed to be restored by his noble
and iearne I friend were struck out in a house of 130
members, whereas two years !befcre they were affirmed
by a house of 400 members. Ho trusted, therefore, that
theirierdships would hot allow themselves to be in
by what. he must look upon o 3 oely a casual
nil stolen vote).

Lord AtoNT LAG LE Fupported the bill as it stood,
as being consi-dent with the soundest principles of legis-
lation. H6took the liberty of separating the cases of
Oxford and Cambridge ;'they were entirely dissimilar.
In the days of queenEtizabeth there was nothing which
prevented the admiA%ion of Dissenters at Cambridge.'
Even afterwards a Dissenter could attend the course of
education afforded by the university ; it was only. upon
his going, up to take hie degrees that he was refused the
honour to which bis,indn,try and talent entitled him.
Ent at Oxford the prohibition against dissenters took
p
effect in limine—it occurred upon a candidate rsent-
in.:4 himself for the rnatricula.tion examination.- °Mat
was now proposed to be done was no inors Clan had been
done in Ireland by'Mr. Pitt in 1793, and he defied any
one to say that that step had not been attended With the
happiest result;. Ito denied that this matter had taken
.the member of the other house by surprise ; solemn no
tice was given of the amendment-which made it part of
the bill, and, in fact, two divisions of the house took
place upon it. The noble lord opposite (Earl Derby)
hail, when a member of the other house, expressed an
4bpinien'directly favourable to the principle of this bill.
• • The Earl of DERBY explained that the speech of his
to which the noble lor.l referred had reference only to the
-aireiwion of dissenters to the benefits of a University
education. TES still retained the on'n'ons which ho thrn
expressed •on that subject. But th., question then under
considezitiou mai; the 4firgisictli of dissenters among the