The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-10 00:00:00

. ------------....... —_. ,
ho
we 3
Having for its object the exemption of student
(
not members of the Church of England from attendance at
the college chapels. This rule was already fol at
' Trinity College, Dublin.
' Mr. BOUVERIE said that in the general clause thet.col-
loges were now empowered to grant this very
exemp ion.
Be believed that some such rule was already under con-
sideration.
Mr. HEYWOOD said that though the
if colleges might_
grant the exemption, yet it was doubtfulthey would
grant it. He would not trust the colleges, as he knew in-
stances where, though the colleges knew that the students
werenot members of the Church of England, they never-
theless compelled their attendance at chapel.
The committee divided, when there appeared--
For the sub-section
Against it
Majority —3B
Mr. WIGItAM moved an amendment, putting the elec-
tion to the mastership, of Jeans College on the same footing
as that of Magdalen, and the interest of the Bishop of Ely,
in such election should cease.
Mr. BOUVERIE explained that the interest of the
Bishop of Ely in Jesus College was to cease after the death
of the present bishop.
Mr. HENLEY could not see how they were to separate
the nomination of the living which was attached to Jesus
College from that of the mastership.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
Clause 28, with a verbal amendment, was-agreed to.
On clause 29,
Mr. FORTESCUE moved an amendment taking away
the power, now given to two-thirds of the governing body
of any college, to negative the recommendation of the com-
missioners. No body about to be reformed by the provisions
of such a bill as the present was likely to carry thp re-
form out with such a power of a veto given to them. It
was a temptation to the colleges at Cambridge to thwart
the objects of the bill. When a similar clause was intro-
duced into the Oxford bill it was not part of the original
bill, but adopted by the Government when they found that
they could not help it— when they had great difficulties in
carrying the measure, and were obliged to conciliate on all
sides. It was a mere concession to the opposition, and no
part of the views of the promoters of the bill. The noble
lord even said that the proviso would impair the objects of
the bill, and oblige them to come in two or three years to
the house for an amended bill. It was known in Oxford
that the proviso had been a serious hindrance to the ope-
ration of the bill. The governing body of New College
had exercised their veto against a scheme of the commis-
sioners for throwing open the scholarship of the college,
now confined to the students from Winchester. St. John's
College would follow the example, in vetoing the scheme
for throwing open the scholarships now almost entirely
given to Merchant Tailor School. Jesus College was
shout to do the same thidg. He appealed to the com-
mittee to remove this serious embarrassment to the work-
ing of the bill.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that the matter during the pass.
ing of the Oxford Act had been much discussed ; and the
feelings of the house seemed to be in favour of the prin-
ciple. It was therefore introduced into the present bill,
though he confessed that his own opinion was against any
such provision.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE said that the house had never
disputed the necessity of protecting the college against the
irresponsible power of the Commissioners. He thought
that the refusal of the college already alluded to was justly
made, on the ground that the recommendation of the com-
missioners was contrary to the interests of learning and
scholarship. Be this as it might, the principle of the veto
had been decidedly sanctioned by both Houses of Parlia-
ment.
The committee then divided on the amendment—
For the amendment 93
Against it 165
Majority against the amendment —72
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses up to 37, as amended, were agreed to.
On clause 38,
Mr. R. PHILLIXIORE objected to the clause on account
of the unconstitutional and anomalous character as it stood
in the bill. He proposed that the reference should be
under the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and
not to the members of the council as declared by the clause.
He based his opposition to the clause on account of the
difficulty felt in putting a similar clause in operation with
reference to the Oxford University.
Sir G. GREY supported the clause, and said there was
no difficulty in carrying out a clause similarly existing in
the Oxford University Act.
Ultimately the amendment was withdrawn, and the
clause was agreed to.
On clause 39,
Mr. HEYWOOD moved that the words "forty days"
be omitted, and insert "four months."
Mr. BOUVERIE suggested that " two months" should
be substituted as a compromise.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought forty clays was ample time
to get any question that might arise properly brought for-
ward, and the prolongation of that period would be con-
trary to precedent, and most inconvenient to the colleges.
Mr. COLLIER considered that the forty days should
be retained for the same reason.
Mr. HEYWOOD said he was willing to accept the com-
promise of sixty days.
Mr. WALPOLE said that the object of making the house
a court of appeal was to prevent the contingency of the
commissioners flying in the face of the act.
*The clause was then agreed to without the amendment.
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE suggested that certain words
should be added, enabling the present machinery of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be made avail-
ble, which was agreed to,
On clause 40,
Mr. WIGRAM thought that the proposal to repeal all
the existing statutes was quite unnecessary, and that the
discretion upon this subject might be safely left in the
hands of the commissioners.
Mr. BOUVERIE thought that the whole code should
be dealt with at once and in a comprehensive manner.
Mr. WALPOLE regarded the clause merely as an inti-
mation that the commissioners should proceed to a judi-
cious weeding of the statutes, which would no doubt be
done during the two years that would elapse.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 41 was also agreed to.
Clause 42 was agreeeto, with some verbal amendments.
Upon clause 43,
Mr. HADFIELD moved that the Chairman do report
progress.
The motion was negatived without a division, Mr.
BOU VERIE undertaking that there should be an oppor-
tunity of discussing this clause at the next stage of the
bill.

Upon clause 41,
M. HADFIELD asked that some time should be fixed
for the discussi,n of this and the previous clause.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that the convenience of hon. mem-
bers should be consulted. In all probability it would not
be discussed this week.
Clauses 45 and 46 were then agreed to.
Upon clause 47,
Mr. HEYWOOD moved the exception of "Downing
College" from the operation of this clause, which was
agreed to.
Clause 47, with some verbal amendments, was agreed to,
as were also the remaining clauses of the bill.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE proposed the addition of the fol-
lowing clause :—" If two•thirds of the governing body of
any school or other place of education beyond the precincts
of the university enjoying any right et preference in elec-
tions to any university or college emolument by virtue of
any statute, deed of composition, or other instrument of
foundation or endowment, shall be of opinion that it is
desirable to amend the statutes, ordinances, or directions
by will or deed of the founder or endower of such school
or place of education in any particular in which the same
cannot be amended by the council of the senate, or by any
college is the university, by virtue of this act, with a view
to reader the same more available for the promotion of the
interests of religion and learning, due regard being had to
the main design of the founder or endower, it shall be
lawful for them to frame such new or additional statute or
statutes, or to propose such amendments in the existiug
statutes of constitution of the school or place of education,
as may appear to them to be required for such purpose as
aforesaid, and to submit the same to the commissioners,
and also to the commissioners appointed under " the Cha-
ritable Trusts Act, 1853," for their approbation ; and if
the c.enamissionera, and the said commissioners appointed
under " the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853," approve of the
same, such new or additional statute or, statutes, or such
amendments, shall be laid before her Majesty in Council,
in like manner as is herein directed with reference to the
statutes framed by the commissioners; and if her Majesty
shall be graciously pleased to give her assent in Council to
such statutes or amendments, the same shall thereafter
take full effect, anything in the deed of foundation or en-
dowment, founder's or endower's will or deed, or any de-
cree or order confirming or varying the same, or any part
thereof notwithstanding.
Mr. BOUVERIE objected that the clause was not rele-
vant to the objects of the bill.
Mr. HEYWOOD thought the best way would be to have
a separate bill and a distinct body of commissioners in re-
ference to them.
The clause was negatived.
The preamble was agreed to, and the bill was reported
to the house.
The Oxford University Bill was read a second time.
THE DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
bill,

. O'BRIEN objectel to proceed with the bill at that
late hour of the evening.
Mr. HORSMAN said that there was no objection to the
principle of the bill, and he hoped, therefore, that the
second reading would not be opposed
Mr. GROGrgyipie o
entertained the greatest' possible objec-
tion to the principle the city of the bill, and so did the corporation
Dublin, which had unanimously petitioned
against it. He would assent to second reading of the
bill if the Government it to be referred to a
select committee, who shouldiajewer full power to take evi-
dence. Unless that concession
six e.made he should move
that the bill be read that day
mouths.
Mr. HORSMAN said if the concession required
r
sition
made the bill could not be passed during thepresento were
sion. He could not, therefore, agree with
wthtat
ap z
see-
of the hen. and learned gentleman. i
bill, and would occupy a considerable time in very long
passing
through committee.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN said that the citizens of Dublin enter-
tained a strong objection to the bill, which they believed
would tend to the perpetuation of a irost pernicious sys.
tern, which had too long prevailed. The 149th clause of
the bill gave the police power to take Wore a magistrate,
without warrant, any person exposing to view any paper
containing seditious or obscene language. Some time ago
one of these policemen took a man before the magistrate
for using obscene language, and what was the obscene lan-
guage? When the man was put upon his oath, he said
the obscene language complained of was, "D—n the
',Ake !" (Laughter.)
Mr. VANCE thought there was a strong prima facie
case against the bill, inasmuch as it !went directly iu the
face of the constituted authorities of Dublin.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD explained the provisions of
the bill, which he said was subst:mtially a consolidation
bill. If any of the !clauses were, upon consideration,
Proved to be oppressive, ho would be one of the first to ad-
vise their omission.

Mr. WHITESIDE was of opinion that the bill should
be referred to a select committee. He knew nothing more
unmerciful on the part of the Attorney-General to inflict
this bill, containing 185 clauses, on a committee of the
house. No doubt it would be a rich intellectual treat,
bat he thought with so many details the matter should be
referred to a select committee.
Col. TAYLOR moved the adjournment of the debate.
Lord PALMERSTON hoped that the house would agree
to the second reading of the bill, as it would be impossible
to get it through this session if it were referred to a select
committee.
Mr. GROGAN complained that none of the authorities
of Dublin had been consulted upon the bill.
719BADIAZi acrid the %nonracial had not toinnited