The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-10 00:00:00

111 PER lAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Anstruther Union Harbour Bill, and the Dumfries,
Lochmaben, and Lockerbie Junction Bill, were read a
second time.
Lord NAAS brought up the special report of the com-
mittee on group L, to the effect there were strong grounds
for believing- that Thomas Welsh was guilty of corrupt
and wilful perjury in giving his evidence upon the Atoy
Navigation Bill, and on the tuotion of the noble lord the
minutes of the evidence were ordered to be laid on the
table.

HU BILL.
On the orderPEIRS of theAND day for resuming the adjourned de-
bate on the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. LINDSAY said that he had been induced by his hon.
friend the member for St. Ives (Mr. Paull), to place his
name on this bill ; but subsequently he discovered
that the bill altogether differed in its provision.;
to what he had supposed. He felt bound to oppose the bill
on different grounds. In the first place, it proposed to
confer powers to the Admiralty in reference to the erection
of new harbours and the maintenance of those already in
existence, without the necessity of coming to this house for
its sanction. It had been a matter of frequent complaint,
that the Admiralty was burthened with too much work,
and it was well known that during war they were unable
to discharge their duties. The Admiralty had quite
enough to attend to in reference to shipping, having
to deal with no less than £30,000,000 annually—a sum
that was quite large enough to occupy their attention in
dispensing it properly. Indeed the hon. member for St.
Ives seemed to take that view of the matter, for he pro •
posed to have an inspector appointed. That official was to
be paid only when his services were required, and his re-
muneration would not amount to more than 300 guineas,
an amount quite inadequate fora person to whom such im-
portant duties would practically be entrusted. He objected
to other details of the bill, and concluded by moving that
the bill be read a second time this day six months, which
he would press unless the bill were withdrawn.
Mr. BUCIIANAN also objected to the bill, which he
considered would lead to a succession of jobs, and would
supersede the functions of the house, which would be trans-
ferred to the Admiralty.
Mr. PAULL entered into some explanations to show
that he had not recourse to any misrepresentation to induce
the hon. member (Mr. Lindsay) to put his name on the
bill. He denied that the present bill contained any new
principle, for the principle had already been affirmed by
the commissions which had. sat on the subject, and in
conformity with the recommendations of which the measure
was framed. He was satisfied the principle was accurate, and
therefore he should press the bill on the consideration
of the house. The tendency of modern legislation was in
accordance with the principle he advocated, which was in
favour of reducing expenditure. In support of this posi-
tion the hon. member read extracts from different re orts
of parliamentary committees. He defended at some length
the proposed appointment of an inspector and the other
provisions of the bill.
Mr. FEN WICK objected to the bill on the ground of its
transferring a legislative power to the Admiralty. The
effect of the measure would also be that on certain represen-
tations persons might be deprived of their freeholds against
their will. Now, that was a violation of law, for it was
laid down that no person should be stripped of his freehold
unless a case of public necessity was clearly established by
a tribunal such as the house of Commons.
Sir J. PAKINGTON supported the second reading of
the bill, which he did not consider should form the subject
of a lone. discussion. He and the country attached great
importance to the subject of harbours of refuge and accom-
modation, and the adoption of means of saving life along
the coast. He held it to be the duty of the Government to
give effect to the recommendation of the royal commission
on this'subject ; but he thought at the same time that the ,
Government had so thrown away the resources of the coun- I
try that they might not feel disposed to introduce a mea-
sure on the subject. It was most desirable that the recom •
mendations of the commission should be carried out with- i
out the delays attendant on Parliamentary proceedings.
He quite agreed with the hon. member (Mr. Fenwick) in
the principle that the rights of private parties should not
be lightly interfered with, but that was no ground for op-
posing the second reading of the bill. This was a matter
of national importance, and he called on the house to sanc-
tion the second reading.
Mr. M'MAHON supported the bill.
Lord C. PAGET having paid a tribute of praise to the
hon. member (Mr. Paull) for his constancy in bringing the
subject before the house so frequently, said he would not
oppose the second reading of the bill, but it would en-
counter a preliminary objection if, as he (Lord C. Paget)
proposed, it should be referred to a select committee. He
alluded to the vast jurisdiction which it would confer on
the Admiralty, and the increase of duties it would im-
pose on that branch of the public service. The Board of
Admiralty required to have its duties diminished instead of
increased. The subject of providing additional harbours
of refuge, and means of preserving life, was at present
under consideration, and he would suggest that the hon.
member (Mr. Paull) should postpone the bill until after
the report had been made.
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For the second reading
Against
Majority
The bill was accordingly read a second time, and ordered
to be committed next Wednesday.
BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill—
Lord J. MANNERS presented petitions from workmen
engaged in bleaching and dyeing works in favour of a re-
duction of their hours of labour ; and by Mr. W. PATTEN,
from manufacturers, to the opposite effect.
Several other hon. members presented petitions in favour
of and against the bill.
Sir J. FERGUSON said he would not press the follow-
ing amendment, which was on the paper :—" That it be an
instruction to the committee to provide for the repeal of the
existing acts to regulate the labour of children, young
persons, and women in print works,' and to extend to such '
works, and to finishing works, the application of the Bleach-
ing and Dyeing Works Bill." His reason for adopting
that course was that he did not wish to offer any obstacle to
the passing of the bill.
Mr. BAZLEY moved that the bill be referred to a se-
lect committee. The hon. member said he did not know
what new circumstances had rendered legislation at pre-
sent imperatively necessary. Those engaged in bleaching
and dyeing works had been gravely accused, and they were
now ready to submit their characters to the inspection of
the house, and he denied that there was any ground for
imputing to that body a disregard to the health and the
interests of those whom they employed. Having entered
into details to show the peculiarity of bleaching works,
that there was not excessive labour on the part of those
employed in them, he asserted that he would not oppose
the passing of a just and satisfactory bill, in which the in -
terests of both the employers and the employed should be
considered.
Lord ASHLEY supported the bill, and considered that
there Ind been committees enough on the subject without
them going through the tedious process of a select com-
mittee. The promoters of this bill did not intend to throw
any reproach on the body of bleach work employers, but,
on the contrary, they entertained a great respect for that
body. ft was the system of which they complained, and
if, in only one of the bleach works such scenes took
place as were described to the committee on this
subject, a case for legislation was established. He depre-
cated the overworking of women and girls in this country,
which had the effect of deteriorating its stamina. In sup-
port of that statement, he adverted to the fact that we were
compelled to obtain foreign troops for the Crimea, and to
reports of army medical men on the subject of recruiting
the English army. On the ground of humanity those who
agreed with him in supporting the bill would, if it were
thrown out, renew the subject next session, and not dis-
continue their exertions until they had succeeded in obtain •
ing legislation that would remedy the evils of the present
system. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. FATTEN said he would agree to the bill being
referred to a select committee, provided such committee
were furnished with the evidence necessary to enable them
to come to a correct conclusion, which was not the case in
regard to previous committees.

Lord J. MANNERS said that when the bill of 1855 was
before the house it was proposed to put the bleachers under
the Print Works Act. It was said, however, that they
ought to be under a bill framed upon the Factory Act. Now
it was proposed to legislate for the bleachers by a special
act Parliament was told that they ought to be put under
the Print Works Act. (Hear, hear.) The object of the
hon. member for Manchester, if the house might judge
from his speech, clearly was, not to discuss the clauses of
the bill, but to reopen the whole controversy. (Cheers.)
What was the reason alleged for referring the bill to a se-
lect committee ? That some of the master bleachers felt
themselves aggrieved by the statements made about them,
and they therefore craved an investigation. If the house
assented to the proposition of the hon. gentleman on
the grounds stated by him they would reopen the whole
question, and plunge the unfortunate select corn-
I mitten in a dreary task like that which he and
other members were engaged in for a whole year, which
resulted in the three great blue-books he held in his hand.
(A laugh.) If the committee were granted members must
make up their minds to shelve the bill for the present ses-
sion. (Cheers.) The principle of the bill, however, had
been affirmed by an overwhelming majority—(hear)—and
it was not fair either to get rid of it or postpone it under the
guise of referring, not the measure itself, but the whole of
the statements made in reference to the bill to a select com-
mittee. (Hear.) Let the house, if it thought fit, appoint
a select committee with the special view of rehabilitating
the character of any of the master bleachers who complained
of misstatements ; but let the bill go through committee
without any unnecessary delay. (Hear.) He felt convinced
that the house would only lower itself in the eyes and af-
fections of the working classes if they entertained the pro-
posal of the hon. member for Manchester. (Cheers.) That
hon. gentleman, in the face of the laborious investigation
to which he had just referred, implored the house not to
legislate hastily. Manchester had the character of not
being very slow in regard to legislation, and if the hon.
member for Manchester thought that to legislate on this
subject now would be to legislate hastily, could the hon.
member ever ask the house to legislate at all P (Hear.) The
matter had already undergone a thorough, minute, and la-
borious investigation ; it was now ripe for legislation, and
he trusted that the house would go into committee and pass
this bill. (Cheers.)
Sir J. GRAHAM was sorry to be once more involved in
a short-time discussion. lie had, however, a confession to
make to the house. On a former occasion, after hearing a
speech from the hon. and learned gentleman the member
for Sheffield, he voted with the majority in favour of the
second reading of the present bill. Having given that vote
nothing should induce him to take a course which should
have the effect of shelving for the present session a measure
the second reading of which he had frankly supported.
(Cheers.) Ho had said he had a confession to make. Ex-
perience had shown to his satisfaction that many of the pie-
dictions formerly made against the Factory Bill had not
been verified by the result, and that, on the whole, that
measure had contributed to the comfort and wellbeing of
the working classes, while it had not materially injured the
masters. That was the conclusion at which he had arrived.
(Cheers.) He still, however, maintained the opinion that
there were many material and necessary distinctions between
bleaching and dyeing and other works which required to be
considered, In 1845 he resisted the extension of the shod-

Sir T. E. COLEBROOKE supported the bill.
Mr. A. TURNER said that ho had done his best to pre-
vent legislation on this subject, but the principle of legis-
lation having been affirmed, he did not wish' to re-argue
that question, though he confessed himself unchanged in.
opinion. The former committee which had sat had inves-
tigated this subject very patiently, and had come to the
conclusion that legislation was not expedient, but had re-
commended the bleaching and dyeing manufacturers to
make such alterations as would meet the requirements of
the classes for whom it was proposed to legislate. That
recommendation had been carried, and material reduction
had taken place in the number of hours of employment of
those employed in bleaching and dyeing works. He had no
desire to throw any obstacle in the way of the subject being
referred to a select committee, in order that there might Co
a satisfactory measure, the framing of which, he asserted,
would, be attended with considerable difficulties, arising
from the interests concerted.
Mr. PALK considered that the house was in possession
of sufficient information to legislate on the subject, and op-
posed referring it to a select committee.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that he had come to the conclu-
sion that legislation on this subject was required, and he
hoped it would be distinctly understood that the house was
determined to legislate this session on a matter of suck
pressing importance. Ho denied, as had been asserted in
the course of the debate on this bill, that he had thrown
any aspersion on bleachers and dyeing manufacturers, for
his statements ere founded on the evidence which had
been supplied, and which was not contradicted. His blood
curdled when he read of what his poor countrywomen suf-
fered who were engaged on these works, and he thought
the house was called on to come forward and protect the
poor and the young.
Mr. COBBETT supported the bill.
Sir G. C. LEWIS drew the attention of the house to
the difference of opinion on the propriety of legislating on
this subject which prevailed amongst hon. members, as in-
dicated by the report of the Commission, which was op-
posed to any such legislation. There was some doubt also
as to whether, under this bill, bleachers and dyers would
not be subject not only to the operation of the Factory Act,
but partly to that of the Printing Act. However, he did
not consider that, after the vote of the house on the second
readinc, of the bill, it was desirable, on a general prin-
ciple, to refer it to a select committee. He himself was in
favour of a committee of the whole house, but if hon.
members were of opinion that it should be referred to a se-
lect committee, he would not offer any opposition.
After a few remarks from Sir J. Ferguson, Mr. Coning-
ham, Mr. Crook, and Sir H. Cairns, the house divided—
For going into committee
Against it
Majority —37
The announcement was received with loud cheers. .
The house then went into committee on the bill.
On Clause 1,
Sir H. CAIRNS moved an amendment exempting from
the operation of the bill works in which the occupation of
bleaching or dyeing linen, linen yarn, and cambric only is
carried on. The hon. and learned member contended that
it was only in cases where it was shown that working opera-
tions were carried on with excessive hours, or in any way
that was calculated to injure the health of those employed
on those works, that legislation was justified in interfering.
It was proved by the strongest testimony that the work of
bleaching was carried on in the open air in the north of
Ireland and the east of Scotland, and that the occupation
was very healthful. The operatives engaged in this de-
scription of working were not in favour of the extension of
the bill to their labour, as much injury might
Le inflicted en proprietors of those out-door bleaching works,
if the provisions of an unbending act were applied to their
trade. It had been objected that a certain part of the
work even in these cases was carried on in covered rooms,
abnudt theth
erfeacteowulads, ntohte, ethr
oi ernf portions deswcaeriptidoonneofoubtstildsiel
ness,em-
ployed.
e b e excessive hours of work imposed
aonn: washose em
Mr. BAXTER seconded the amendment,pro-
ceeding to address the house, but being a quarter to six
o'clock the hon. member was interrupted, and the house
resumed.
MALICIOUS INJURIES TO PROPERTY ACT
AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
MARRIAGE (EXTRA PA.ROCIIIAL) PLACES
BILL.
This bill, which came from the Rouse of Lords, was read
a sATeichro.onHud
iEtgiLm:Oepa,CladAnAßd%oolaßrddociesbrAteaadßinatdpeodsßbericdogmesmßititleldptaso
"smerthorow.ugh
committee, and was ordered to be read a third time.
leaveo F
to i) HEALTH.ihgin
a bill to
make further provision for the expenses of local boards of
health and improvement commissioners, acting as burial
boards.
The house adjourned at five minutes to six o'clock.

MAILS FOR THE MAURITIUS.—Unier the exist-
ing arrangements, the mails forwarded from this country
to the Mauritius arrive at Port Louis a few days after the
homeward mails have been despatched, and a long interval
has consequently to elapse before replies can be cent to the
letters from England. As an improvement on this state
of things, and to apportion more equally the intervals for
replies at the two ends of the line, the mails for Mauritius
will in future be despatched one week later than at pre-
sent; viz., via Southampton on the morning of the 20th of
the month, and vie Marseilles on the evening of the 26th of
the month. The first mail under the new scheme will be
despatched on the 20th instant. By command of the Post-
master-General. ROWLAND HILL, Secretary.
TIIE SATURDAY HALF-HOLIDAY IN HOUNDS-
DITCII.—We are glad to find that the Saturday half-holi-
day, which is becoming so general, and which is about to
be adopted by the banks, is extending itself into many loca-
lities and trades hitherto unconnected with the movement.
The proprietors of the wholesale Birmingham, Sheffield,
and foreign fancy goods warehouses in Houndsditch, with
scmeats at
an
two
o'clock
exception,
(ns haveSaturday
daT
greellft teorn closeoons,m
theirfro e s
theta hbtli
Saturday in May until the last In September.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.

Yesterday afternoon the members of the Senate
ad Council of this University assembled at Bur-

ington-house for admission of candidates to de-

Tees. As usual on these occasions there was a

numerous attendance of ladies and gentlemen. Of 1
the members of the Senate there were present Sir
J. S. Lefevre, Vice• Chancellor, Sir Jas. Clarke, Sir
Edward Ryan, Professor Faraday, Mr. G. Grote,
and Mr. Osler ; and of the professors, Messrs. Mor-
ris, Hall, Taylor, Williamson, Newman, Greenwood,
Doctors Gull, Barlow, Bloxham, Cromwell, Hall,
Angus, Sharpey, &c. Among the general company
were Earl Stanhope, Lords Wensleydale, Teynham,
and Lyttelton, Col. Sykes, M.P., Sir C. Fellows,
Sir John Liddel, Mr. Brady, M.P., Mr. S. Gurney,
&c. Earl Granville, as Chancellor, presided.
Dr. CARPENTER, the Registrar, read the report,
from which it appeared that 254 candidates matri-
culated during the past 'year. Of these 7 distin-
guished themselves in mathematics and natural
philosophy, 11 in classics, 12 in chymistry, 4 in
botany, and 2 in zoology ; 67 candidates passed the
final examination for the degree of Bachelor of
Arts, and 30 passed the first examination for the
degree of Doctor of Medicine. The report showed
that a very large proportion of the students distin-
guished themselves in examination in mathematics,
botany, midwifery, ehymistry, classics, natural phi-
losophy, Scriptural history, conveyancing, common
law.

The following gentlemen were then presented to
the Chancellor, and received their degrees as under :
Andrew Commins, LL.D., Queen's College, Cork.
Michael Foster, M.D., and Thomas Lewis, M.D., Uni-
versity College.
George William Lawrence, M.D., Edward Evan Meeres,
M.D., and Richard Wilkinson, M.D., King's College.
John Langdon Haydon Down, M.D., London Hospital.
Alfred Carpenter, M.D., and John Ward Cousins, M.D.,
St. Thomas's Hospital.
William Newman, M.D., St. Bartholomew's Hospital.
Samuel Giles, M.D., Guy's Hospital.
Robert George Hardwick, M.D., Leeds School of Medi-
cine.

Marcus Nathan Adler, M.A., Samuel Hesse Behrand,
M.A., Samuel Wardlaw M'All, M.A., and Henry Nesbitt,
M.A., University College.
Walter West, M.A., King's College.
Edwin Smith, M.A., Manchester New College.
John Francis Rotton,M.A., and JamesDickers.on Davies,
M.A., New College.
Silas Mead, M.A., Regent's Park College.
Thomas Green, M.A., Spring-hill College.
Archibald Hastie Dick, M.A., Huddersfield College.
Daniel Slater, M.A., 'Western College, Plymouth.
Thomas Williams Mays, M.A., Hackney Theological
Seminary.
John Baker Greene, LL.B., Trinity College, Dublin.
Robert Johnstone, LL.B., University of Edinburgh.
Ebenezer Charles, LL.B,, Andrew Thompson, LL.B.,
John Warren, LL.B., and Henry Selfe Page Winter-
botham, LL.B., University College.
Decimus Sturges, LL.B., and John Shoard, LL.B.,
Xing's College.
George Henry Rouse, LL.B., Regent's Park, College.
Samuel Hague, LL.B., and Richard Marsden Pankhurst,
LL.B., Owen's College.
Samuel Hoppus Adams, M. 8., Joseph R. Gasquet, M.B„
Matthew Berkeley Hill, M. 8., Philip Sydney Jones, M. 8.,
Charles Hayes Marriott, M. 8., and Henry Simpson,M.B.,
University College.
William Liddon, M. 8., William Edward Robbs,
Arthur Ernest Sansom, M. 8., and Edmund Symes Thomp-
son, M. 8., King's College.
William Miller Crowfoot, M. 8., and Theodore Davis,
M. 8., St. Bartholomew's Hospital.
Walter Maxon, M. 8., Guy's Hospital.
John Allen, 8.A., John Anstie, 8.A.., Henry Charlton
Bastian, 8.A., James Bithell, 8.A., Thomas Bryer, 8.A.,
Valentine Chodron De Courcel, 8.A., John Dolleymore,
8.A., George Elliott, 8.A., Julian Goldsmid, 8.A., Thos.
Horsman, 8.A., James Cole Jackson, 8.A., George Lake,
8.A., Edward Miller, 8.A., Richard May Miller, 8.A.,
William Manning Needham, 8.A., Henry William Porter,
8.A., William Edwin Price, 8.A., Edward Baines Pye
Smith, 8.A., Geo. Antonio Ralli, 8.A., Richard Vicker-
man Taylor, 8.A., John Robert Vaisey, 8.A., James Lam-
bert White, 8.A., and_Thomas Wilson, 8.A., University
College.

Henry Nelson Capel, 8.A., Christopher Robert Cuff,
B.A„ Henry James Newbury, 8.A., Arthur William Par-
sons, 8.A., Joseph Smith, 8.A., Matthew Henry Starling,
and Thomas Tyler, 8.A., King's College.
Edward Thos. Goldsmid, 8.A., St. Cuthbert's, Ushaw.
Henry Edwards, 8.A., John Gerard, 8.A., Geo. Segar,
8.A., and Henry sergeant, 8.A., Stoneyhurst College.
Raymond Wallace Esmonde White, 8.A., St. Patrick's,
Carlow.

James Jones, 8.A., Springhill College.
Charles Cecil Stevens, 8.A., Melbourne University and
Springhill.
William Trotman Hewett, 8.A., Regent's-park College.
Denis Maurice O'Conor, 8.A., St. Gregory's, Downside.
Colmar Boaz Symes, 8.A., Cheshunt College.
Robert Henry Roberts, 8.A., Baptist College, ➢ristol.
John William Bradley, 8.A., Arthur William Carver,
8.A., and William Willis, 8.A., Huddersfield College.
John Thomas Barker, 8.A., William Burrows, 8.A.,
and Henry Griffin Parrish, 8.A., Lancashire Independent
College.
Adam Clarke M'Lean, 8.A., George Robert Samuel,
B.A„ aid William Henry Sutcliffe, 8.A., Wesley College,
Sheffield.
William Connon, 8.A., and Joseph Groves, 8.A., Wes •
loyan, Taunton.
William Frederick Clarkson, 8.A., Peter William Darn _
ton, 8.A., Samuel Dyer, 8.A., John Gammell, 8.A.,
Walter Hardie, 8.A., William Howgill, 8.A., Robert
Vaughan Pryce, 8.A., Frederick Hughes Seavill, 8.A.,
and Robert Jermain Thomas, 8.A),, New College.
Thomas Douse, B.AI, Thomas Jones, 8.A., Henry Math-
win, 8.A., Henry Parry, 8.A., and Robert Burchal Tonge,
8.A., Owen's College.
William Crosby Barlow, 8.A., Hackney Theological
Seminary.
John Thomas, 8.A., Trevecca College.
Charles Morgan, 8.A., Working Men's College.
PRESENTATION FOR HONOURS AND PRIZES.

The Graduates having been severally presented to the
Chancellor, the presentation of Scholars, Exhibitioners,
Medalists, and Prizemen then took place in the following
order :

Henry SeHa Page Winterbotham, L.L.8., University
College, to receive Law Scholarship.
William Miller Crowfoot, M. 8., St. Bartholomew's llos •
pital, Scholarship and Medal in Physiology and Compara-
tive Anatomy.
Edmund • ymes Thompson, M. 8., King's College, Scho-
larship and Medal in Medicine.
William Miller Crowfoot, M. 8., St. Bartholomew's Hos-
pital, Scholarship and Medal in. Surgery.
Joseph Raymond Gasquet, M. 8., University College,
Medal in Physiology and Comparative Anatomy.
Matthew Berkeley Hill, M. 8., University College, Medal
in Surgery.
William Edward Robbs, M. 8., King's College, Medal

in Medicine.
William Miller Crowfoot, M. 8., University College,
Medal in Midwifery.
Arthur William Carver, 8.A., Huddersfield College,
Scholarship in Mathematics.
Henry Charlton Bastian, 8.A., University College, prize
in Chemistry.
Henry Charlton Bastian, 8.A., University College, prize
in Animal Physiology.
Henry Charlton Bastian, 8.A., University College, prize
in Botany.
Further Scriptural Examination.—Henry Mason Bora-
pax, University College, prize; Silas Mead, Regent's-park
College, prize ; George Henry Rouse, Regent's-park Col-
lege, prize.
First Scriptural Examination.—Samuel Conway, New
College, prize; James Dickerson Davies, New College,
prize ; Joseph Hammond, University College, prize; Philip
Poppleston Rowe, Regent's Park College, prize; George
Southey, Spring-hill College, prize; Joseph William Walker
Spring-hill College, prize.
First M. B. Examination.—Charles Hilton Fagge, Guy's
Hospital, Exhibition and Medal in Anatomy and Physio-
logy ; Charles Hilton Fagge, Guy's Hospital, Exhibition
and Medal in Chymistry ; Samuel Jones Gee, University
College, Exhibition and Medal in Chymistry ; Charles Hil-
ton Fagge, Guy's Hospital, Exhibition and Medal in Ma-
teria Modica ; Henry Charlton Bastian; University College,
Medal in Anatomy and Physiology ; William John Smith,
University College, Medal in Materia Mediea ; Charles
Hilton Fagge, Guy's Hospital, Medal in Botany.
First B.A. Examination. =Thomas Barker, Trinity Col-
lege, Cambridge, Exhibition in Mathematics ; Thomas
Garrett, Caius College, Cambridge, Exhibition in Latin;
William Jardine, Regent's Park College, Exhibition in
English ; Hermann Nathan Adler, University College,
Prize in German.
Matriculation.—Thomas Dale, Trinity College, Cam-
bridge, Exhibition in Mathematics; • Walter Dickinson,
Stonyhurst College, Exhibition in Classics ; William John
Hurst, Owens College, Prize in Chymistry ; John Makens,
Guy's Hospital, Prize in Botany ; Henry Sammerhayes,
Crewkerne Grammar School, Prize in Zoology.
Earl GRANVILLE then rose, and was received
with loud cheers. He said he would make no pro-
mise as to btevity, as he, did on the last occasion,
although he was desirous to avoid prolixity. it
was most satisfactory to find that in January last
there were 108 candidates examined for matricula-
tion, and with success. The number of gentlemen
who presented themselves for matriculation this
time exceeded by 27 those of the previous year.
This was a very satisfactory result as regarded