The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-11 00:00:00

IMFERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 10.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Cluck, when,
after the presentation of several petitions on private
Bills, the following Bills were read a first time : —The
Preston and Wyre Railway Bill; the Grand Junction
Railway B:11; the London and South-Western Railway
Upward Branch; the Exeter and Crediton Railway Bill;
and the Dublin and Belfast Railway Bill. The Hartle-
pool Pier and Port Bill, and the Taunton Gas Bill, were
read a second time ; and the Thames Navigation Debt
Bill a third time.
Petitions were presented against the London and York
Railway, which was referred to the Committee ; against
the West Riding Junction Railway, the Huddersfield and
Manchester Railway, the Waterford and Kilkenny Rail-
' way, the Derby and Bolton hailway, and the Livefp-ml
and Bury Railway.
Petitions were presented in favour of the Lond,n,
West,rn, and South Staffordshirelway, the Her.-ford
Railway, and the Eastern Union and Harwich Railway.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.

Mr. MINTZ presented a petition from the Mayor
and Corporation of Birmingham, in favour of removing
all the civil disabilities under which the Jews labour.
AYNOOTH.

Petitions from various places in England and Scotland,
against the grant to Maynooth, were presented by Mr.
Muntz, Mr. Buck, Mr. Aaron Chapman, Mr. Powell,
Mr. Packe, Mr. Masterman, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr.
Sheridan, Mr. BusfAhl, Mr. Stafford O'Brien,
Mr. Christopher, Mr. Thornely, Mr. 0. Duncornbe,
Sir Charles Lemon' Lord Ashley, Mr. Hawes, Mr.
Plumpt, e, Captain Plumridge, Mr. Aldam, and several
other Hon. Members.
HILL-COOLIES.

Dr. BOWRlNGpresented a petition from Leighton
Buzzard against the importation of Hill-coolies into the
\Vest India colonies. The Hen. Member also presented
two petitions from the operatives of Scotland praying
the House to limit the hours of labour.
DIC AL REFORM. _ _

Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from the medical
practitioners of Scotland against the Medical Reform
Bill.

COUNTY COURTS,

Mr. ESCOTT presented a petition from Mr. William
Leonard Platt, a barrister of considerable experience,
stating that from his personal knowledge he was con•
winced that great abuses existed in the smaller Crown
Courts of this country', and praying for their removal.
MAYNOOTH. _ . .

Mr. TATTON EGEICTORp;eSented several petitions
against the incre2sed grant to this establishment.
NEW SOUTH WALES. _ _ _

Mr. HUTT presented a petition from the Legislative
Council of New South Wales, praying for an equalised
imposition of duty on all colonial corn introduced into
this country. He said that from the character of
the petition which he had to bring under the
no.ice of the house, he trusted the [louse would favour
him with its best attention. The voice of the peti-
tioners, as heard through this petition to the House,
came from a distance of no less than 12,000 miles
across the ocean, a compass which embraced half
the globe. The petitioners had heard that the
[louse granted a remission of duty on all corn
introduced into this country from Canada, except
at a nominal rate, and they conceived that it was but
rig .t thit all the colonial possessions of the British
Crown should be placed on the same footing ; and he
trusted that no invidious distinction whatever would
be made with respect to them.—(Hear.) The
Governor of New South Wales had received a dispatch
from Lord Stanley, forbidding the imposition of any dif-
ferential duties on goods introduced into the colony from
foreign States, and they conceived that while they were
thus precluded they ought not to be placed at a disad-
vantage with regard to Great Britain. They had also
heard that the protection duty of Id. per pound had been
removed from Australian wool, and they prayed that a
similar protection might be extended to the agriculturists
of New South Wales as was enjoyed in other portions of
the British empire.
Capt. OSBORNE presented a petition against the pro-
posed grant to Maynooth.
Mr. SHAW presented a petition from Dublin com-
plaining of the difference of treatment of the Established
Church in England from that in Ireland.
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

Mr. ORMSBY GORE presented petitions from several
places in Chester against the Maynooth grant.
Colonel T. WOt )l) presented petitions from Islington,
Hammersmith, Pimlico, Chelsea, and other places,
against the grant to the College of Maynooth.
Petitions to the same effect were presented by Sir It.
Ferguson from Dover, Lord Newry from Yorkshire,
Mr. B. Dennison from the West Riding of Yorkshire,
Mr. S. O'Brien from Yorkshire, Mr. Alderman Thomp-
son from places in Westmoreland, and Mr. T. Duncombe
from Islington and other places.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Arbroath,
praying that the heavy charges which are levied on
British shipping for lighthouse dues may be modified
and reduced.
Mr. MANGLES presented a petition from medical
practitioners of Guildford against the Medical Bill.
Mr. C. BERKELEY presented petitions from several
congregations of Wesleyan Methodists in Bristol against
the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. Alderman HU MPHER,Y presented a petition
from the churchwardens and overseers of St. Olave's,
Southwark, against the grant to Maynooth.
_. 31,1..11TalilkT airwaru me' Motion of which he had given
i notice regarding tobacco.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH.

Mr. HUME gave notice that he would, upon that da:,
fortnight, move for copies of all Correspondence con
netted with the rem! of Lord Ellenborough.
DOG-STEALING.

Mr. LIDDELL gave notice that he would move for
leave to bring in a Bill to prevent the offence of dog-
stealing.—(Laughter.)
LUNATIC PATIENTS.

Lord ASIILEY said he would on the 24th inst. move
fur leave to bring in a Bill for the care of insane pa
tients.

SINDE.

Mr. HUME asked whether or not it was in the power
of the Government to lay before the House an estimate
of the revenue arising from the province of S'nde, and
the expenses of maintaining that province ?
Lord JOCELYN said the Government had as yet
received no authentic returns on the subject.
MAYNOOTH.

Sir C. NAPIER said that he wished to put a question
to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's
Government. Havin observed that two gentlemen who
Right Honourable
iash:dwhte):hkernetwhosferemllonthouerable Members were
held office under the government abstained from voting
on the question of the grant to Maynooth--([Lear, hear)
gthne?r—t(hose Honourable
Loud laughter.)
eie
Members of her Gehnet
quest ion ?—(Cheers.)
aubes
Gentlemene n
alsot
wished
lael cd
cc
oi dtboet
nkt
on
000dwr t
odwe
whether
Ma-
jesty's Government, and if they remained so, whether
in reply,
that he could not take upon him to say whether those
thissilquiets,tpioEnEwri,issatiodbtehaant ohpeenhegged
to
say
Honourable Gentlemen to whom the Hon. and Gallant
Member referred were absent by accident or design.
He begged to say that there was no change in the mem-
bers of her Majesty's Goverment, and that there were
no removals. With respect to Maynooth, he considered
that to be a Government question—(hear, hear)—he
considered it to be a question of the utmost importance,
and he would do everything in his power to promote the
success of it.—(Loud Opposition cheers.)
Mr. HUME said that he saw in the notice paper for
to-morrew,oneby his Hon. Friend the Member for Shef-
field, to the effect that any provision for the purposes of
education in Ireland, should be paid out of the funds ap-
plicable. to ecclesiastical purposes, and, as it was important
that they shoukl understand how that question was to
be brought forward, before they went on to the consider-
ation of the Government measure, he begged to know
from his Hon. Friend in what way he intended to bring
on his motion ?
Mr. HINDLEY rose to put a question before the Hon.
Member for Sheffield answered the question of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, but was met with such repeated
cries of " Order, order," that the Hon. Member had to
'resume his seat.

Mr.VWARD said he felt obliged to his Hon. Friend,
the Member for Montrose, for having given him notice
of his question. He felt it necessary to give some ex-
planation of the course which he meant to pursue.
When he gave notice of his motion, ho never in-
tended that it should he made a rallying point
for all those who wished to oppose the Government
measure.—(Cheers.) Though a Member of that House
for twelve years, he was not ashamed to confess that he
was scandalously ignorant of the form in which the
question was to be put. As he understood, the motion
which the Speaker would put from the Chair in case he
pressed his amendment would be—"
That the words
proposed to be left out stand part of the question," and
in that case he had reason to believe that his amend-
ment would be made the point on which the Govern-
ment measure would be opposed.—(Hear, hear.)
He had made up his mind at present to abandon the
notice that stood in his name for to-morrow, in order to
bring the subject before the House at a future period,
with the view of getting an intelligent expression of the
opinion of the House upon it. He should be sorry if they
lost this measure, which was of great value as a boon of a
conciliatory chars-ter towards Ireland. He begged to
say he should bring forward his motion at a future
period, as he wished first to have an expression of the
House upon the subject.
Mr. HINDLEY wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of the Government if this was not an additional
reason for delaying the second reading of the Bill. His
question was whether the Right Hon. Baronet would
delay the second reading of that Bill? He would appeal
to the Speaker—(Laughter)—if the reason wby Hon.
members put their names to the corner of the petitions
they presented was not to show that they
had read them? They were required by the
spirit of the orders of the House to read
every petition that they might know the nature of them,
and explain to the House properly the wants of their
constituents. He could assure lion. Members that he
had had no time to read the petitions he had rec-ived
that morning ; he trusted that the Right
Hon. Baronet
would give himsel, and other Hoe. Members, the op-
portunity of discharging their duties properly.
Sir R. PEEL s.sid he had come down to the House
under the impression that the Hon. Member for
Sheffield (Mr. Ward) would persevere in bringing for-
ward the motion of which he had given notice, respect-
ing the grant to the College of Maynooth. But though
he (Sir Robert Peel) had just heard the Honourable
Member announce his intention of postponing bis
motion to another stage of the Bill, still that was no
reason why he should delay the second reading of the
measure beyond to-morrow. However, the adopting of
that course would not preclude the Honourable
Member from persevering in his motion on a future day.
Therelore the Hon. Member will see at once that there

will be another opportunity afforded him, or any other
Hon. Member who may choose to do so, of presenting
petitions against the principles of this Bill, even before
going into Committee on the question of the endowment
of the College of Maynooth. But at the same time he
felt bound to say that, under all the circumstances, he
did not think it unreasonable that he should press on
the question at the time he had given notice of his inten-
tion of doing so.
Mr. T. DUSCOMBE would wish to ask a question
of the Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward). It was
this. Would he not be in precisely the same situation
in making_ his motion at the time he had now stated as
if he brought it on to-morrow in accordance with his ori-
ginal motion ? In his (Mr. Duncombe's) opinion he
would, and, therefore, he would wish to ask him, did he
intend to give up his motion altogether ?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUNIE begged to ask the Speaker whether it
would be competent for him to move an amendment ar.
the same time that the Hen. Member for Shefneki (Mr.
moved his upon thi que;tiou ?
The SPEAKER said that t.e
could not entertain the motion of the Hon. Moaner tin•
Sheffield (Mr. Ward), otherwise than as an instruction
to the Committee, which instruction he (the Speaker)
understood would be to the effect that the support of the
College of Maynooth should not be defrayed out of the
Consolidated Fund ; therefore, if the motion of the
lion. Member for Montrose should be to the same effect,
it could not he put, as it would be impossible for the
House to give two such instructions to the Committee at

the same time.
Mr. HUME—Then he understood that the motion of
the Hon. Member (Mr. Ward) was to come before the
House in the shape of an instruction to the Committee.
Mr. HINDLEY said he would wish to know what
course the Hon. Member for Sheffi,•ld intended to

pursue ?
Mr. WARD said he would state that to-morrow.
TIIE UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAM-

BRIDGE.

Mr. CHRISTIE then rose to make the motion of
which he had given notice—" That an humble ad.iress
be presented to her ➢lajesty, praying that she will be
graciously pleased to appoint a Commission, to inquire
into and report upon all matters relating to the privi-
leges, revenues, trusts, and to the state of education,
learning, and religion, in the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, and the colleges of these Universities." He
felt the difficulty of the subject he had to bring before
the House, but looking at its importance he did not
:brink from the responsibility. There was no sub-
ject that was of more importance than the one
he had now to bring before the House.
The subject of the Universities was one that it was diffi.
tult to touch upon, but still it must be considered that
there were many points that were deserving the cell-
sideration of the House. He would

now

refer shortly to what had taken place There
was an endowment for each Regius Professor of
2401. a-year. Th re were endowments for the Lord
Almoners, Professors of Arabic in the two Universities,
of 6404 There were eighteen canonries, three benefices,
and various other pieces of preferment annexed to
different professorships in the Universities. There
were various canonries attached to the headehipe
of different colleges. In addition to this a sum of 5001.
a year was paid to each of the Universities by the Board
of Stamps and Taxes. The history of that payment
was singular. It appeared that in former times the
Universities possessed the exclusive privilege of printing
almanacs ; for the exercise of this prtvilege.,
the Company of Stationers paid to the Universi-
ties 1,0001. a year. In the year 1775 the Com-
pany of Stationers declined to make the payment. and
in an Act which passed shortly afterwards, imposing a
stamp duty upon almanacs the Universities had
interest sufficient to procure the introduction of
a clause authorising a payment to them by the
Board of Stamps and Taxes of 5001. a year each. The
duty on almanacs had been repealed, but the payment
to the Universities of 1,0001. a year by the Board of
Stamps and Taxes still continued. Now no one
would grudge that payment of 1,0001. a year to the
Universities ; but it was only fair that in return
for payment made services should be rendered ;
and he should like to .know what services the Universi-
ties performed in consideration of that payment. The
Universities shared with the King's printer the mono-
poly of printing Bibles, Prayer-books, and Psalms. For in
a return, which was made in 1815, of the value of Bibles
and other books printed under this monopoly, it appeared
that in each of the seven years ending the sth April, 1815.
the average va'ue of Bibles, Pre) er-b eke. :1.11"1 Psalms
printed by the University of Cambridge was 21,293/. ;
and by the University of Oxford, 30,4171. ; calculating
the profit of 251. per cent, which might be
considered as a moderate profit, it would
give 5,0001. a-year to Cambridge, and 7,000/. a-
year to Oxford as their profit from the Bible monopoly.
This nionopoly was exercised under peculiar advantages.
There was no paper duty paid on the paper on which
Bibles and Prayer-books were printed, and they also en-
joyed an exemption from paper duty on paper used in
printing books in the Latin, Greek, Northern, and
Oriental languages. The amount of paper duty remitted
to Oxford on this account, for ten years, was 37,345/.,
a,ad to Cambridge, 28,2481, giving 3,7001. a year
to Oxford, and 2,3301. a year to Cambridge.
The Hon. Baronet the Member for the University had
moved for some returns of the amount received for stamp
duties on degrees. Those returns showed that the public
revenue had received from that source 2,730/. on the
Oi7.l.fi'r%-ii wiiilianhy
justified in considering that as a set-off against the
evils which he (Mr. Christie) complained of. The
payment of that money was made by persons who
matriculated at the universities and took degrees.
A master of arts had to pay 61. for stamp duties, but
he also had to pay as much as four times that amount
in fees. In fact, he (Mr. Christie), thought the stamp
duties were a benefit to the Universities, for one and
a half per cent. was returned from the Stamp office,
and this was not given to the person who had
matriculated, but went into the coffers of the
Universities.—(Hear, hear.) By the Copyright Act
a copy of every book that was published in the United
Kingdom had to be sent to the Universities. From the
evidence which was taken before the Copyright Com-
mittee, it appeared that this was looked upon as a
heavy tax by all authors. By the existing law
an author could only possess a copyright in his own
works for a period of forty-two years, but the.
Universities had a perpetual copyright given to
them in any book which they might pub-
lish. There were many other advantages which
the Universities possessed. They were exempted
from the operations of the statute of Mortmain. An-
other important privilege which they possessed
was, that with respect to the medical profession,
the Universities possessed the peculiar faculty of grant-
ing degrees for the purpose of practising in the ecclesias
tical courts. The Universities also possessed the peculiar
privilege of saving time to the students fur the otk r
law courts. for an individual who had obtained
a degree in one of the Universities had the
great advantage in some of the inns of courts of
passing through his novitiate in a considerable less time
than others could do. Another advantage which the
Universities possessed, and one which gave them consi-
derable power, was the amount of church patronage
which they held. The University of Cambridge held
church patronage to the exts nt of 305 livings, and he
saw by the Cambridge Calendar, that their aggregate
value was upwards of 113,009/. a-year. The patronage
of the University of Oxford was still more ex-
tensive, for it comprised not less than 440 livings. The
calendar of this University was not so explicit
as that of Cambridge in stating the annual value
of these livings ; but if he estimated them according
to the rate only of those in the possession of the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, the sum would amount to 308,0001.
a-year; and, beside this, they possessed privileges worth
not less than 173,000/. a year. In addition to
all this, these Universities were, in many in-
stances, by far the most advantageous avenues to the
learned professions, and in some instances the:, were the
exclusive avenues to those professions. lie hoped that it
would not be said that the State had no right to inter-
fere with the Universities, for he had alway understood
that the State possessed paramount authority. But if
this were at all doubted, he would cite a passage which ap-
peared in a State document some years ago. The document
to which he referred was a commission issued at the
time the Right Hon. Baronet opposite was Secretary
of State for the Home Department in 1827. It was a
commission fur inquiry into the state of the Universities
in Scotland. It stated that several omissions and other
irregularities had been committed in these Uni-
versities and giving a power, under the au-
thority of " our sovereign Lord the King," to
inquire into and amend those irregularities. A doubt,
therefore, could not bo entertained of the power of the
Crown to interfere with the Universities ; and he
only asked the Right Hon. Baronet to con-
sent to extend the same inquiries to the
Universities of Cambridge and Oxford. It was
right that the State should see that universities
and colleges were provided with proper statutes and
laws, and that these were properly observed.
The Honourable Member then read from an
Oxford publication an extract, to show that in
that University the statutes were very badly observed.
One point in which the system in operation
in the Universities principally differed from. the
system enacted, and enforced by the statute, was that the
professors of the Universities who, according to the
statute, wre obliged constantly to give lectures,
the attendance on which was enforced by the same
Acts, now formed no part of the system ; for
many of them who ought to lecture gave
none at all, and those who did lecture could
hardly get a dozen pupils to listen to them. All the
education was now conducted by college tutors, who
were not controlled by the statutes. In the University
of Oxford the entire education was too much restricted.
He would quote the testimony of Professor Foyle, the
professor of theology, who baying done all in his power
to obtain a class, could never muster more than six or
seven pupils, and sometimes he had no pupils at all.
The Right.-Hon. Baronet opposite could not say that
that arose from his incompetency. He published a
statement in a pamphlet known to the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet, that in two examinations in mathematics and me-
taphysics he found that only a small portion possessed
the proper knowledge, not more than three being able
to add vulgar fractions. In the year 1836, when an at-
tempt was made by a statute to increase the attendance
of pupi's at the different lectures, a statement was pub-
lished by Dr. Daubeny, the professor of chemistry and
botany in Oxford. With regard to his class in che-
mistry, Dr. Daubeny stated that his pupils greatly de-
creased in number ; that for the eight years previous to
the passing of the statute his pupils averaged twenty-two
in number, but that during the eight years subsequent
to the passing of the statute the number was decreased
to fourteen, and last year they did not omount to four-
teen. The Honourable Gentleman then proceeded
to read a document containing this statement
of Dr. Daubeny in support of his observations.
All the professors of the physical sciences came for and

to corroborate the statement of Dr. Danbeny. Dr. King,
the professor of anatomy,, stated that, from 1819 to 1828,
he had twenty-nine pupils annually ; but. from 1829 to
1838, they had decrensed to seventeen ; and since the
latt,r year' had fallen off to ten. The professor of ex
perimentaf philosophy stated that his pupils had fallen
off from thirty-nine annually to eighteen. Dr. Bu:klAnd,
the professor of geology, stated that, since about 1832,
the number of his pupils had fallen off nearly one half
less than &frith, the fifteen preceding years. The mine-
ralogical class had fallen off still more. Dr. Bueldand
stated also that the cause of this decrease was to be

sought for in the system of eduction pur6ued. Ho (Mr.
Cnristiy) made inquiry from the professors of the Uni-
versity of Cambridge who were included 'n the annual
Parliamentary vote, and the result was this :—The pro-
fessor of anatomy had six pupils, the professor of che-
mistry had five—though the Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir
H. Inglis) knew when a hundred pupils used to attend
the professor of ehrlnistry . . to eral,,Rc ,

11:),1%,,Jv fixo

• 112..tura. rlf 7'
professors at that University, had only five pupil:.
'roe professors of botany (a subject of which one ‘‘ ouid
expect that there would be a large attendance of stn-
dents, as all candidates for medical degrees are obliged
to attend them), can only obli4e the attendance of
fifteen. Degrees of law are given by the Universities, and
tlicy have the exclusive privilege of conferring
tho power of practising in the Ecclesivstical Courts,
and in the Admiralty Courts The professor
of civil law in Oxford is richly endowed, but
yet no lectures upon civil law are given in that Univer-
sity. This clearly appeared in evidence given before a
Committee of which the Right llon. Gentleman the
Member for Taunton was chairman. The Cambridge

professor of civil law does give lectures. In medicine,
also, the Universities had very important duties to
perform, and hail exclusive privileges attached to them. For
instance, these Universities can give the power of practising
in London, and seven miles round it. Oxford did not even
profess to have medical students. The professors gave
no lectures there. The Cambridge Lectures were given,
but the attendance was very small. He foir d, from re-
turns laid upon the table of that House, that Oxford,
during the last ten years, gave 22 degrees of doctor of
medicine, and 29 degrees of bachelor of medicine ; whilst
the University of London, during the last six years, bad
given 33 degrees of doctor of medisine, and 176 d green
of bachelor of medicine. In the average of the last ten
years, Oxford had conferred only two degrees per year of
doctor of medicine, and Cambridge only three. When
the question of admitting Dissenters to that University
was first mooted, the Bishop of St. David's came forward
and stated that Cambridge was a theological seminary,
and nothing more nor less than a theological seminary ;
and the Bishop of Durham went so far as to say, diet so
far from discouraging theology, he looked upon the ad-
mission of Dissenters to the University as a most
eiseful and beneficial rule. Then, with regard
to Oxford, Dr. Pusey had also said that
an attendance for a fortnight in that Uni-
versity, without undergoing any examination what-
ever, or any ordeal of public or private instruction, was
all that was required from any candidate for holy orders.
Long before Dr. Pusey had become such an object of at-
tack and ridicule by many, who should not have for-
gotten what respect was due
_to a man of his age and
learning, he made the most munificent endowments on
one of the scholarships. Since then the Crown had
founded two new professorships ; and a rule was made
that the examinations should be voluntary and not corn
pulsory. Since then three half years had elapsed, dur
ing the first of which there was but one candidate ; the
second there was not one ; and the third there were but
two; and that showed no very great encouragement to
persons to enter. When he looked at the progress that
Puseyism had made in the University of Oxford, end the
results of that progress, he could not avoid calling the
attention of the House to the procsedings which
had been instituted against Dr. Pusey. (Hear.)
The Hebdomadal Board, resuscitated and reconstructed,
sat in judgment upon one of his sermons, and pro-
nounced it heretical. The University then prohibited
him from preaching for a period of two years. He (Als.
Christie) wondered whether for these two years Dr.
Pusey had received the income to which he was entitled.
New he thought these were good specimens of a united
Church or a united University. He did notknow-
whether the lion. Member for the University for Ox-
ford, who was the great foe of Popery, was aware of the
number of conversions which had lately taken place at
the University of Oxford. W, 11. if he were not, he could
tell he Right Hon. Gentleman that he hel ! his h',[l.l
a list of twenty- three persons who had heen esnver
and who were members of the University College. Bu
they could not crush Puseyism by making mar-
tyrs of its votaries, and he was therefore
not one of those who wished to see them deprived of
their degrees. He, however, thought the effects
of Puseyism in Oxford were such as ought to
fill with apprehension all the friends of the University
on both sides of the House. He hoped to enlist on that
occasion the support of some of those Gentlemen who
lately signed the lay address against Puseyism to the
Chancellor and Vice Chancellor of the University of
Oxford, to which the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor
made the satisfactory reply, that Puseyism did not
exist to the serious extent that some persons appeared
to imagine In the Universities distinctions were
maintained with respect to rank. In the University
of Cambridge, all plebeians were required to wait
at least seven years before they could ()train a master
a, b.,. ou, a iv obleman s son, and
all persons having any royal blood in their
veins, were allowed to take the same master's
degree, after three years, as if there yeas a noble
road to learning. Now, he should think, that these
were the very persons who could best afford a larger
time to devote to college education. They cer-
tainly were the persons whose education was
the object of national consideration, for from those
persons came all their future hereditary legislators. In
all Colleges, in both Universities, distinctions of gown,
of table, and of seats, in the College Chapel, were ac •
corded to rank and birth. At Cambridge a Nobles
man in his own right, or a Nobleman's son, was entitled
to wear a full flowing black silk gown, which, on grand
days, he exchanged for a fine gown of purple and gold.
After this gown, which had cost six or seven guineas,
had been worn six or seven times by him, it became the
perquisite of the tutor. The Nobleman on all occasions
took precedence in the College Hall and Chamber. There
was an officer in both Universities, whose duty it was,
when a Nobleman was introduced into the University,
to deliver a laudatory address to him, in praise of his
ancestors. He (Mr. Christie) should have thought that
in such places as the Universities distinctions such as
these would not have been allowed. But no, there
might they see—
" The learned pate duck to the golden fool."
At the time that he and his Hon. Friend below him, the
Member for Dundalk (Mr. Reddington), were fellow-
commoners in Cambridge, he was compelled to go to
chapel only every Sunday, wbile the other undergra-
duates were obliged to go there seven or eight times.—
(Hear, hear.) It was well known that the statutes were
violated almost at pleasure. When the question was
brought forward, in 1837, in the House of Lords, a pro-
mise was given to him by the two Chancellors of the
Universities, in consequence of Lord Railnor's exposure,
that they would direct the attention of the colleges to
the statutes, with a view to their reformation. lie be-
lieved that the Chancellors had done their duty, and
made representations to the colleges, the consequence of
which was that five of the colleges in Cambridge had re-
formed their statutes, but no revision took place in the
Oxford statutes at all. It was well known also that those
colleges had been founded for the benefit of poor
scholars, that they might devote themselves to the study
of theology, and not for the rich. But the advantages
they held forth were enjoyed by the rich, and with regard
to the study of theology he had already stated how that
branch of study was neglected. In Exeter College, Ox-
ford, there was a provision that after a certain number mf
years a fellow should either take' holy orders iei resign,
There was another provision, that after a certain further
number of years, he should take the degree of D.D.
Now a fellow of Trinity College bad an application
made to him, either to take holy orders or to resign.
He said, why require me to do this, when there are so
many others who have neglected to take the degree of
D.D. He appealed to the Bishop of Winchester, who
told him that he must either go into holy ordersor resign
his fellowship. From another provision in the statutes
of Trinity College, it appeared that the fowler
had an objection to the aristocracy, and espe-
cially desired that no fellowship should be held
by a young member of a noble family.
Well, a vacancy in a scholarship had occurred in Trinity
College, and it was filled up by the nephew and heir-at-
law o the Earl of Buckinghamshire.—(Hear, hoar.) In
1842 an election took place for a vacant fellowship in
Exeter College, and as was usual on such occasions, ad-
vertisements appeared in the Oxford papers, requiring
candidates to give in their names, and to send testimo-
nials. Mr. Rowe and two others became candidates. One
of the two, however, subsequently withdrew. Mr. Rowe
and the other candidate were examined, and upon the
day of election it was announced to the surprise of every
body, and even the candidates themselves, that another
person, who had not sent in his name or any testimo-
nials, who had not been examined, was elected.—(Hear,
hear.) Mr. Rowe, feeling that it might be supposed
there was some imputation On his character, determined
to appeal to the visitor—the Bishop of Exeter. Of course
it was important that the statutes of Exeter College
should be inspected, but there was only one copy of
them in existence, and that was kept carefully in the
College. The Bishop wrote for the copy,
but he only received extracts, and on a se
cond application, he received only further extracts
with a request that they would be sent back. The Bishop
gave judgment, but it appeared that his power did not
extend beyond requiring that the candidate should be of
a certain age and standing, and Mr.- Rowe raised no
objections upon those points. There could be no objec-
tion to Mr. Rowe in point of morals or learning; but
the successful candidate adopted peculiar sentiments on
theological questions, which found great favour in
Exeter College. On the very same day another election
took place for another fellowship, and an individual was
elected who had no college testimonials, and who could
not get any because he was rusticated. This questi m
was very different in 1845 from what it was when brought
forward ten years ago. No less a person than the Lord
Chancellor of a Government for which the Hon. Baronet
the Member for Oxford, if he was not a very warm sup-
porter of it, had a very decided preference, held out as
an example of what an enlightened government ought
to be—the example of Prussia, where Jews were ad-
mitted on equal terms.—(Hear, hear.) But the Lord
Chancellor need not have gone so far. for he might have
pointed to the East India College, of which
the Bishop of London was visitor, and cler-
gymen of the Church of England the pro.
fessors, where Jews were admitted and educated,
and where they were amongst the 'mo-t distinguished
scholars.—(Hear, hear.) Through the liberality of the
East India Board (he wished that Cambridge and Ox-
ford would follow their example), a Jew might now rise
to the Supreme Council of India, and in.uP ,Airy long

time might be Governor-General. of their Indian empire"
He would ask of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
(Sir R. Peel), he who had emancipated the Ron an Ca'
to
tholics, who was new braving a powerful oprosition
carry out the work he had begun, by increasing the
grant for the education of the Roman Catholic clergy,
whether he could oppose a motion fur inquiry, for he
only asked for that, as to the propriety and practice-
bility of adinitinie jees, aye, and Christian Dissenters
into their natienii I Unhersitie,;?—(Cheers.) This gigs'
lion was different new fr• m what it was ten years ago,
They had eot then heard the word Puseyism—the re wall
nothing of Traciarianism—no persons ventured to :BY
in the newspapers that they subscribed the articles in
the non-grammatical sense—there were no con-
fessionals in the professors' rooms in Oxford----
no rosaries and crucifixes publicly exposed
its
the Oxford shops.—(Loud cheers.) There Ix"
no reason now aby the) should admit Dr. Newman
eed retire Dr. Wi ,reeen.—(.llwir and cheers Then.
e: iee teeir do ir Pr'"
,;:ne ;: fl vv had they II"'
tiiied, how were they fuliiling their vocation as re-
presentatives of the national literature ? A long time
ago the literature and learning of the country were M'
tered in the Universities. But what had the Universi-
ties done of late? The great works of Bacon had re'
mained for a long time neglected by Oxford, and Hobbes
spoke of the Universities, in his time, in the worst
terms. 'The great. Locke, after having enjoy ed the Ern'
pathies and homage of the philosophers of Europe, was
driven for his political opini ns from his studentsbill•
What had the Universities to do with what was called
the Augustan age of literature in England ? While
Scotland became renowned throughout Europe for heir
school of metaphysics, and while her young men ha ° '
formed a union which influenced the literature,
and even the Government of this country,
England le mained far behind.—(Hear, hear.) Ile
would only name the two persons most distinguished
throughout the intellectual world, for their knowleaFe
of and service to speculative philosophy ; and when De
did state those names, he believed there would be ne
dispute as to the title which those gentlemen possesse4l to
the high station which he had assigned them, The first
was Mr. Bailey, of Sheffield, who, not amid the quietude
of academic groves, but amid the busy din of manufne;
tures, and the hurry and bustle of a large compere's'
town, had written with the most eminent success on,
almost every subject of intellectual contemplation ; and
had contributed works which were surpassed by nova
in the language for the comprehensiveness an
depth of their views. The other was no professor, 0,0
quiet and retired student, but an active and constant*:
engaged public servant, who had himself been edacatca
at 6; College of the East India Directors at Hailer
bury, and who was now, he believed, COw
netted with the East India House—he mean!
Mr. John Mill, th > son of one of the most profoua°
and distinguished historians that this country
had ever produced. He did not hesitate to proncunc2
this vulegium on the author of the " History of Britise
India," and he would ask what had been done by eitbef
of the Universities for history, or what historical WI
whatever either of them had produced during the 10
three cars, and yet neither of these gentlemen had hee..ll
connected with Oxford or Cambridge. Agate' „7,
another instance, he would cite that of unquestionsug
the most
week
and learned historian of the country'',
whose werk was an nonour to England, and whose fir
was spread through every University in Europe, yet D's
Liugerd was excluded from the Universities on Beaus,
of his religion. Since her accession to the throne bgeti
Majesty had visited Cambridge, and every exertion be
been made to make her Majesty acquainted with. til
rules of College life, and to show her all the varititi
ceremonies which were gone through,
of
order to attain the several gradations
college life. Doubtless the authorities were aneiou
trb
to treat their illustrious guest with every respect. .ea
newspapers of the period he well remembered had stsAtit
that her Majesty had evinced, in the course of those 10
and tedious ceremonials, slight, but surely not unnatate
symptoms of f itigue. Nor did he wonder at it ;
surprise only was, that her Majesty had at all been sat,
to endure them. But he thought that the expense, ye
tending all this ceremonial might by this time ,%4
brought forth something more of that learning which "_„,
in other countries been exhibited, by far more scantily 67i,
dowed establishments. his object was to destroy the °Yoe
tem of narrowness and exclusion which had marked
to
mode of instruction pursued at the Universities, anado c,
return to that sesteir which hid been adopted in to 6 e
so-celled. dark sg, ei" our fathers. when those enliefiela
were feuedeel, up to tie, time of Edward III: It slid(' je
he recollected, that those colleges had been founde
rO,
times when the Roman Catholic religion was the PO
fessed religion of the State, when all the liberality,
en,
the munificent liberality, had provided for the e2tt to
sive education of persons from all classes of socleice
and as her Majesty passed through those noble It!
and as she surveyed those fretted roofs, perhaPhet
thought might dash across the royal breast, that iaol,
reign the system of exclusion should come to a 0 :ire
that the last blow should be given to that practice the
justice which took from those who gave ever
endowments for purposes which those donors 1.1 be
contemplated. On those grounds, he trustel!,voi
should be allowed the indulgence of the House, and ~ae
those views he would leave the question in their be"oo..
The Hon. Gentleman sit down amidst loud and CO
tinned cheering.
Mr. RWART said that his Honourable -e•-b.
had truly said that the question which he had see,
mitted to the House was now in a very similar
sition to that in which it stood a few years ago, and 7,
thought the House ought to give its co ID
be
to the ays
floe of his Hon. Friend, on account of the fact that !cab
Universities had departed from the system on .whlito
they were founded, and he could truly say, that the r
which had been adopted in the time of Edward Iths.gob
more comprehensive in its character than that on v 1,4,,
they acted now, and he thought that unless a ore
mission were issued for the purpose of obtaining a ,t 73 es
extensive system of academical education, the purfb, ejt
of the University would be almost entirely last. If tee
looked at the two Universities, they- would see that ja
systems pursued were of a most exclusive character' ors
the University of Oxford the attention of the profeesibe
was turned chiefly to classical literature, and in vie
other to insthematics. But how different was the sia of
eursued in former times. In those times the emir° 0
ducation had comprised instruction in no lessthe 01
seven sciences. This course was called the trivial'
,anel
retrivium, and together constituted what was ter
curriculum, through which the students run to
to a full competence for their future duties. But ins to
ford and Cambridge the principle appeared to biers
carry a student up to a certain amount of elente°- es
information, and then left him to gain instruetilast
best he might, when he came to fulfil any duty in "pot
House, or in any other part of the country. It wes eel
to the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge that abbe
must look for any useful or learned works, but t°
Well
of Germany, for he believed it was 5 11,10
known fsct, and he bedeved that, notwithstandinCoo,
smile which he saw un the countenance of the bto
Member for Cambridge (Mr. Manners Sutton), he'll:1o)
state that there were no works used in the educat,l°-,01
course at Cambridge, whether they treated
the profound points of Greek or of histoer
which were not either entirely translated the
at least derived from the German. The whole of 0,
system pursued at Cambridge went on the tutorial P
and he believed he should be justified in the asset tea
that this system could not be altered until they reveir
to the system on which these colleges had been founuegcl
Mr. Whewel himself; one of the most distinguite
members of the University, had stated it as his opiolfer
that it was al.e,olutely necessary to revert to ther,er
social plan, if they meant to do the students, the ee
sity or the country justice, and to give the young :led
who came to them for instruction that which was ne, ld
for their future lives. On those two grounds he seviiie
support the motion of his Hon. Friend—first, b4icausei",ey
Universities had departed from the -plan on which t"re
were emnded, and it was necessary to proca d On a! lip
extensive system than new prevailed ; and, see°,"eo
because they had nut produced men equal to those wee
had been educated in other nations. He might add 188
only Heithorne and Muller in Germany, as fair e%atilrei%
of modern times, and Guizot in France. Notwithsta%o
ing the ironical exclamations with which this elleatel
had been formerly treated, he believed the House syfte,
now take a different view of it, and that, if the °"`.;01
Gentleman.opposite thought that he hada majority; Witthim in that Ilouse, he felt quite sure that the n3a./°210;
were against him in the country.' On
~yes
objectionable usage too, in the Universities, "be
the distinction observed between the different W
way
The noblemen and fellow commoners were differee_w
robed and differently served from those of other gres;
and a distinction was thus created which was odious tc, be
feelings of the country and revolting to his own ; Put. et
would ask why, because a man was simply a sized'ies
Cambridge or a servitor at Oxford, wby this invidionsaae
tinctiori was made between them and students in the sr—fia4
University? But the most important of all quesll:
to the Universities was the promotion of religious feeltbe,
in the country. Now, in his opinion, nothing Could .„e
come a greater obstacle to the promotion of that feelts
than the system of exclusion which was adopted at b°te
the Universities, and he did conceive that this great °er,
ject would be etter promoted by opening the IThival
sities to the admission of students from other creeds dc
sects than those connected with the Church of Englaftes
and if not by introduction into the colleges alreadY eof
Wished that an opening would be made by the erection b$
other colleges for that purpose. His Hon. Friend elligbe.
not succeed on this occasion, but he felt assured that t.ce
time would come when he would see these Universit,to,
opened, and when he would have not only a resPrite.
but the whole of the House with him, and with the sta.
went of this conviction he would second the motion.h
Sir R. INGLIS testified thegreat ability of the en:et
with which the Hon. Member had brought this sueo,
before the Howe ; and though he dissented from 03' et
of his facts, and differed from all his conclusions, hej b-
must heir his testimony to the great ability with volya
the matter had been introduced. At the commencetneha
of his speech the Hon. Gentleman had promised that of
would say nothing disrespectful of the learned bodiesb,
sP bad
This Universities of which he was about to
This promise he (Sir R. Ingli felt bound to sayh gcb
most faithfully kept, for in the whole course of his sPen
114
there was notaword that could be construed into insujiis)
reflection on those learned bodies. Ile (Sir R. Iltrdes
was at the same time bound to express his acknowletse tl
ments for the court•:sy which he had experienced aS
hauds of the Hon. Gentleman, and he rejoiced t° "bol le
that he had been more fortunate this year than be .00 di
been last, and that he was successful in his introductlieb
of the question on the first occasion ill Wilt he
he had attempted to bring it before
nits
House ; and he must take that opp?rto°oo,
kt
of expressing his thanks, and he thought he might bot
the thanks of those learned bodies to whom allusion bad
Co
been made, for the moderation and calmness which ens
tat
charcterised his speech. But with that, his cotor°
Itt
dations of that speech must conclude. He. gityre: of
Inglis) trusted that he should uct be deemed gu'e'"etee,
presuraltim in rising tint in crpoatim to the ,xlav"-

lit
Wi
sit

but allusion so personal had been made to himself, that
he felt as if he sl,ould rather be shrinking from his duty
than treepa,sing to address the Hens, rt, th : Tee
Hon. Member who brought the untie.. leeward bad
talked much of the advantages which the Univ--reities
possessed, and wished a commission to be issued, to ob-
tain information respecting the state of the Universities;
when he had himself already shown that he was in pes-
session of that information. He had talked much of
drawbacks on paper and allowances from the Con,oli-
dated Fund, and of ihe great patronage of Governmeet.
What had the government done ? They had p,id
7L 195. 6d.-a year for a preacher ; 11/. Gs. 2.1. a year fur
a professor of divinity ; and 351. 3s. for a professor of
Philosophy, and all their other grants put together did
not amount to 3001 a year. The Government might
have done something for some educational establish-
ment. but he believed that there was no country in
Europe in which less had been done by the
Government than in this, for promoting the
intellectual he n • neee ,sf .ple. Th. 500!
granted to th: U v reity of t satubr:dee woe
still less. It was not, therefore, on the ground that
enormous grants had been made to the two Universities
that the Hon. Member could found any claim to the
exercise of this inquisitorial power of the Crown. It
Was not the amount, but the use or abuse of that amount
!licit could alone justify the exercise of this inquisi-
torial power. But had either of the 11, n. Members who
had preceeded him suggested any instance where the
money granted to the two Universities by the nation or
the Crown had been misapplied ? The Hen. Member
for Weymouth drew attention to the pre-eminence
our Universities had attained with so little en-
couragement on the part of the State. How
!nail was that encouragement compared with that
given by other nations less rich than our own ? And yet
the non- Member wished to appoint a Commission of
enquiry which would practically impede the progress, if
not diminish that pre-eminenee of which the Hon. Mem-
tier sPoke so warmly. The Hon. Member had, there-
?", laid no ground for inquiry in respect of the abuse
either of the funds received from the Crown, or the
funds inherited by the Universities from their founders.
But it was said, our Universities had produced no works
theanY great eminence. Now, it was not necessary that
thi.le Works should be written within the limits of the
hePeraitY• Was it necessary that Mr. Allen should
Christ
written his works actually within the walls of
hadreceived
C.hurch College ? No. It was sufficient that he
reeeived within those walls that education, without
which it would have been hardly possible for him to
produce them. But he defied the Hon. Member
to produce any work calculated to advance the histiry
or literature of the country, either in respect of po-
litics or science, which had not been written by men
Who had been connected with one or other of the Univer-
sities. Then again it wassaid, that the possession ofdegrees
in either University was essential to the establishment
Of any man's fair claim to professional employment, but
that argument would cut two ways. Was, however,
he fact so ? Why with respect to the law, he thought
need not remind the House that, of the last six
compelled to attain honours by passing through that
Course of education pursued in our Universities.
'rue,
also, some of the most eminent medical prac-
titioners of the metropolis had never been connected
With either of the Universities, but this was no argu-
It!ent in favour of the assertion that the education pre-
"l tied at the Universities in this particular did not tend
to (tearer benefit or advantage upon the great body of the
people. In the law the Hon. Member bad declared th
.L? Universities had something like n monopoly ; but
is was certainly not the case with respect to the
common law. But with respect to the civil law, there
Was
a distinction which ho could not help think.
Its the Honourable Member ought to has e stated.
Was this:—Our civil courts and th it practice
Were materially if not exclusively connected with th
welfare and well-being of the Church. With respect to
the third profession, namely, the profession of theology
kid holy orders, he thought it was necessary that some
Particular form of education should be gone through by
Persons who intended to adopt that profession, but it was
not absolutely necessary that a young man should take
it IT •
ntversity degree before entering the Church. . In the
northern parts of England there were many young men
Who had been invested with holy orders by the Bishop,
notwithstanding they had never been at either Oxford or
Cambridge. In another part of the Hon. Member's
sPeech, he alluded to a question which, however im-
Portant it might be, could not be settled by any inquiry
tin‘tituted by a Royal Commission. Whether Mr. Ward
ine or be not correct, whether Mr. Hampden
ue or be not a heretic, or whether Dr. Pusey be or be
not a heretic, were propositions which were never sub-
raittcd to the University of Oxford or Cambridge, and
therefore they could not have decided the question.
With all due respect to the House he must say, judging
either from experience or analogy, a Royal Commission
could not affect either of these three cases, or affect any
case which might hereafter arise. The facts connected
with them had already been before the proper and con-
stituted tribunals, namely, a convocation of the
University, and he could state firmly, and with
all due respect to the House, that no inquiry,
Instituted under the authority of the Crown,
could change or alter the result of that inquiry.
LeThe fourth case to which the Hon. Gentleman had re-
'erred occurred in Trinity College, Oxford. That case
had been referred to the visitor of the college, who
decided that the Senate had net exceeded its powers.
e thought that after that decision there could be no
to of complaint against the College. The case
which the Hon. Gentleman had laid most stress was
that of Mr. Rowe, in Exeter College. The Hon. Gen-
ti an had stated that the College had issued an adver-
einent of the vacancy for a collegiate office. He (Sir
nglis) would admit that there was no occasion to
11_ •
‘ertise. But it was also quite clear that the College
C! exercised a sound discretion in rejecting Mr. Rowe,
an
1,120 electing his competitor. The fact that a man had
been spier wrangler was not in itself enough to show
the he was superior in academic acquirements to
e° _
el person who might afterwards be brought into
ef. p.etition with him. In that case the visitor
korttle College, the Bishop of Exeter, who was
,ecprnpetent to defend himself than any one else could
• `o defend him, ought to have acted upon the advice
judgment Lord Chancellor, who said that in giving
that the he ought to give no reason. He regretted
tne Bishop of Exeter had not acted upon that ad-
thee, but vshad chosen to go into a full statement of his
e....,°11 the whole case.—(The Hon. Baroet then read
kerglnent of the Right Rev. Prelate, which was of
.1" eh )
• c •
thet • fIRTEIS said that the matter of complaint was
. th
athletic. e•ease of Mr. Rowe, there had been no exa-
Sir RIL
tee • INGLIS
cam replied that the qualifications of' the
cote, !dates had already been ascertained, in previous
thittrlisqlollS for collegiate honours. The College thought.
big 1,:19 • Unsuccessful candidate was not equal to
the ittr3oent, in the requisites set forth by
eljeed Cte ; and the decision was not influ-
fee
,hany pecuniary consideration. He apolo-
t.' had fo,""ing so long occupied the Reuse ; but
ons raisrs it his duty to go minutely into the
rts eennevli by the Hon. Gentleman, in coesequenee of
~"entlem 51°n with the University of Oxford. The Hon.
forferds. 8,411 referred to a speech made in th • House of
e,.ou_rtle ten years ago, by Lord Radnor, which called
ustabrii''afations from the Chancellors of t oxford and
Mouth& ge' lint he could inform the Honourable
t
4tatetes .that the University of Oxford had revised the
h eo
at if an nsequence of that discussion. Ile admitted
menus ofauuse were proved, and that all constitutional
the or redress were exhausted, the authority
renTher r Ought to be invoked. But the Honourable.
,e wohi, eel made out no case for such interposition.'
allies not deny that the endowments of the Univer-
es w
ature hod originally Roman Catholic ; but the Legis-
the est for. three centuries, confirmed the possession
tEtt reeteetant Church. He would ask, then, had
tetate
,e, to - a power which was repudiated in private
The resume a gift, without allegetion of abuse ?
of th 'act Was,
d ati e end() • ,however, that a large proportion
wenents in Oxford were of Protestant foun-
D! Thep,o,_s number of Catholic foundations was 297,
tleeern.,_‘e tent 232, and in Cambridge the Catholic en-
kiantts,were not more than one-fourth of the whole.
ulteem ue recollected that a great body of the resident
the aetr,!_cif the University were those whose age and
poi "e of whose circumstances may not admit their
13/4%4,7 a large portion of their time to the study of
4t.tie ed-g!: The Hon. Gentleman stated that at Oxford
4nitt tl,_`etion was now elementary. He should state
ttndi,,"..education bestowed qualified those who had
tee,t'ue there to give the most detailed answers to the
etttie there
questions. With reeard to their edu•
listol4 to Greek literature, both poetry and
IVekental:" in logic, it was by no means
greater
eleeeej' Their religious knowledge was
,eitter tarY, a great many of them possessing a
,43, anoveledge of theology than was exhibited for-
re teen'',"tial examinations. In order to obtain a degree
• t e a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures
ileieh the ; this was the result of that system with
for
tree Member desired that the Government
the
hi, it
ei'T re. The Hon. Gentleman made no grounds
ega, cht
of ae I.l°ll- There was nothing unconstitutional in
thgact which he complained of. The practical re-
417 Y of thetat.lge had been most beneficial to the great
n versity. He also stated that the University
4!itiltletii.clrthedae.e!l the pledge made by the Noble Chan-
k•t that
_:.HIeY would revise the statutes. He could
ki44,3
ruerent Colleges proceeded to form Corn-
?llea.eal_ the purpose, and in many instances several
ei::en-oe.uaGuennetade such alterations as were required.
1110 t t, Which eman presented a petition from Gower-
-11, t was signed by many who were not the
Welrr!goished in the University, and several of
I,er at: connected with that which is now
it„ University College. Their opinions
in. entitled to
itution weight, because they belonged to
stir 1'1,44 • founded on different principles, and not a
lng it utton, for he would not do it- the honour of
%tow a rival. but an institution which had attempted
intlh • Ish itself in kis vile ridge am the rYisition of the Universities of
Oxford. The Hon. Gentleman stated
tu.oo the three great evils that the professors were
1,1,1 tlnwwe-e.ci t° tile governing body of the Univ r it\
~,gt heti street they were not allowed to he the geevern. - 'tete, 3' of the u • .
gelle_sera haci University. He also stated that those
see,•!Li state of pupil', and ought to superintend the
Greer veal . the Lniversitiee The petition he pre,
4pil-e•ses_esta_
ene
ant to the • •
12 qaest;or!, that her Mejcs.t.,
institute edd tern, of ut"11 ute a commission to inquiretnto
afd "%rid education in the Untversities of Oxford
I 3' • b ge•
ege, t ut the„ complained of the ecclesiastical
did ea
they made
look to the Statut. a of the Coi-
f! not pees made any alterations. The statute
iN4 tie w. hat the Hon. Gentleman complained
aide lineitee'amP(l that
Articles, the elective franchise
those who signed the Thirty-
.% e tie.. Which Admitting that, however, to be
Z°lllpelllttitsip,l(l, not riternwaeds not, the Hon.' Gentleman's proposi-
tilettalliVtitsetilitttthe He also made it a subject of
cdffeltrences of rank was so aristocra-
' A ill, aud especially in Cambridge'
Be Oxfor
n— e -
411; ot the expense and colour of

I gowns of the different ranks and classes in the Univer-
sities, and the ucca to which the worn-out garments were
afterwarile applied. lie helieved that the colour end
texture of the clothing in mans instances pr wed to be
no barrier to the wearer's acquiring distinguished
bituiiire in the University. The first instance he would
give was Lord Lvttelt,iny who, though he wore a gilt
robe, ilitingtti shed himself in a manner that no one less
favoured by birth, or less endowed by fortune, could
have exeeeded. 'Diem were many other instances, many
of whom were within these walls to-night, who, though
they had a great amount of wealth, who, at the same
time, received, in the course of their academic life, the
greatest testimony of their proficiency. There
were also men born in a low rank of life, who
had acquired the same attainments. The late Bishop
Heber, whose name was not to be mentioned without creat-
ing respect, stated that their differences were to be re-
garded more as an encouragement to the literature of the rising
poor than as a degradation. The Archbishop of Canterbury,
who heed in the commencement of the present century, was
himself ene of those individuals, and nevertheless raised him-
self to the highest episcopal dignity. The Hon. Gentleman
ought not to consider their temporary inferiority for the first
few years, but ought to take into consideration that their posi-
tion was inferior before they went to the Universities ; and it
was that inferiority that raised one of them to the highest situ-
ation in the Church, and many others, if not to the same, at
any rate to something like analagous distinctions. The Hon.
Member for Weymouth introduced many subjects, and he
thought it his duty to endeavour not to omit mention of any.
If he did omit any, it was not from an unwillingness to meet
anything to which the Hon. Gentleman called the attention
of the House. Full as his speech was of facts, it had not
contained anything which proved that there were abuses in
those Universities which could not be remedied by existing
tribunals. He concluded by expressing his determination to
oppose the proposition which the Hon. Member had intro-
duced, but could not sit down without uttering his thanks for
the tone in which he introduced it, and to the House for so
patiently permitting him to address it.
Mr. WYSE wished to congratulate the House on the tone
in which this measure was proposed and opposed. However
well disposed the Universities may he to remedy those abuses
by internal regulations, the public opinion ought to be directed
towards them through the introduction of some remedial mea-
sure to the Legislature. All the Universities of Europe were
conducted upon a principle of efficiency well worthy of imita-
tion. In the University of Paris, there was a rule by which
boys wishing to enter, should enter at fourteen years of age,
and should remain there for three years. in a probationary
school ; but in Oxford University the colleges had. by their
practice, acquired too much of the character of grammar
schools, and, therefore, that accounted for the manner in which
attempts had been made to reduce them to a level still lower.
He did not think that the Hon. Baronet had given by any
means a satisfactory answer to the arguments of his Hon.
Friend. The Hon. Baronet appeared to him (Mr. Wyse) to
argue in a manner which tended rather to confirm than to
weaken the arguments of his Honourable Friend beside him.
The Honourable Baronet had not said anything in
support of the assertion that the Universities of 'Oxford or
Cambridge were too elementary in their codes or practice.
He (Mr. Wise) did not mean to say that those noble institu.
tions should not continue to keep up the rule requiring the
study of the magnificent languages and history of ancient
times ; but he did contend that the course of education ought
to embrace a department in which pupils would be able to
acquire information such as would suit the state of society in
our day, and the station in life they were ultimately to fill. The
Universities of the Continent differed not only from each
other in their systems, but different from all of them were Ox-
ford and Cambridg e On the Continent, a University was
reearderf as a corporation which extended all over the country
to which it belonged, as fur instance the University of Paris,
which extended all over France. And in Scotland the Univer-
sities somewhat resembled those of the Continent, for they had
their different departments for each branch of education,
while in Oxford and in Cambridge it was professed only to give
a general education for the benefit of all classes, and hence the
lamentable deficiency in the English Colleges in this respect.
These were points which he feared the Hon. Baronet had not
considered, for if he had. he would not have condemned the
proposition of his Hon Friend.
Mr. ALF XANDER HOPE said he congratulated the
Hon. Member for Weymouth upon the speech he had made
in introducing this subject ; and he congratulated him, not
only as the Member for Weymouth, but also as a scholar of
Trinity College, Cambridge. Two years ago the Hon.
Member made a sneech, which appeared in the shape of a
pamphlet, on this question ; but he ( Mr. H.) feared that the
arguments of the Hon. Member to-night would lead to nothing
better than a leading article in Punch. —(Laughter.) He
(Mr. Hope) did not think that the issuing of this Com-
mission of Inquiry would at all tend to the refornia-
tion of the system pursued in the English colleges.
The noblemen, and fellow commoners at the Universities sat
on higher seats in the chapels, but in every other respect they
were placed on the same footing as the others in the Uni-
versity. Did the Hon. Gentleman remember that Trinity
College, Cambridge, had instituted some time ago an inquiry
which had resulted in placing the sizar in the same position
with respect to the election to university scholarships as
the other members of the college? There was, under these
circumstances, no necessity for a Government commission to
issue, since one of the first colleges in the country had been its
own reformer. What was the course which a student had to
go through before taking a degree at the University? Even in
taking the degree of senior optime or second class classical
tripos, he must have a knowledge of moral philosophy,
mathematics and algebra. He must have a fair knowledge
of Greek and Latin, and a certain power of composition.
This was as much as any young man could reasonably acquire
in three years. He (Mr. Hope) would caution the House
against raising the standard of the University too high. At
present the age at which a young man entered the University
was eighteen or nineteen ; but raise the standard too high,
these young men would stay at home, and perfect themselves
for the University, and then run up, and carry away the fellow-
ships, and thus, instead of the. Universities being schools for
young men, they would become lottery offices.
Mr. HUME thought the arguments of his Honourable
Friend who had introduced this motion had not been
answered on the other side. Certainly not by
the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who might con-
sider himself lucky if during the next fortnight he should es-
cape appearing in the columns of Punch.—(Laughter.) The
ground on which he (Mr. Hume) supported this motion was,
that the Universities were national property. They were sup-
ported by the public, and could consequently be the objects of
inquiry by that House. He was anxious for inquiry to ascer-
tain why none but Protestants should benefit by a national
establishment. When these colleges were established there
were none but Roman Catholics; now, half the population of
the United Kingdoms were Catholics, but they could not par-
ticipate in these advantages. He would limit his reasons for
supporting the motion to this one, that they were national in-
stitutions. Nothing was more important than throwing open
the doors of these great seminaries to the people at large, and
casting aside all sectarian and narrow-minded feelings. He
would give this motion his best support.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that if
he addressed the House as a Member representing the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, he would not be disposed to say any-
thing, on the present ',cession, upon the subject now under
consideration, for, having listened attentively to the speech
of the Hon. mover, he had heard nothing imputed to the Uni-
versity which he represented like misconduct, or a breach of
the sacred trust reposed in it—nothing which implied censure
in its proceedings—nothing requiring the strong arm of power
as a remedy for any existing or supposed abuse. He should,
therefore, be content to rest on the judgment and good sense
of the House, the impropriety of bringing forward the ma-
chinery of a Commission, by an address of the House of Com-
mons to her Majesty, to inquire into an institution against
which no censure, and no abuse of trust had been
imputed. But he was anxious, upon a question of this kind,
after the speeches made, to state the ground upon which, as a
Member of Parliament and as a member of the Government
he objected to the course which the Hon. Gentleman recom-
mended to the House. The institution of a Commission such as
the Hon Gentleman recommended, and the interposition of the
House to advise the Crown to adopt it, were no light matters.
A Commission such as that proposed was an instrument which
the House of Commons used in contending with great evils
existing in the institutions of the country. They were not the
weapons to be brought out every day for the purpose
of gratifying individual curiosity or satisfying indivi-
dual spleen. Honourable Gentlemen might think the
system in the English Universities was inferior to that pursued
in the Universities on the continent. They might think it
better that young men should be educated under the care of
professors. rather than under the care of tutors. These were
questions for deliberation and discretion—for the discussion of
literary and other men, who took an interest in these natters,
and who were acquainted with all the details of those institu-
tions; but it was not a case which called for the interposition
of Parliament, or for the appointment of a Commission. The
Hon. Member for Montrose said that if there was nothing to be
corrected in the Universities, why should they resist the ap-
pointment of a Commission? They would, if the system
pursued in them was found to be salutary, come out of the
inquiry with triumph. The same argument must be used of
an innocent man being put upon his trial. The result would
show his innocence, but would not the accusation imply censure
in the first instance, and censure once implied soon swelled
into chat ges of an aggravated character. The public mind
was prejudiced and the man's fair fame must receive irreparable
injury. Then, with respect to the Universities—a charge pre-
ferred against there in a serious manner, and investigated with
the formality of a commission, must be productive of injurious
consequences. Why should they make inquiries of this kind
into places of education which di charged their duty zealously
and sedulously. If the motion . were acceded to it would
materially interfere with the duties of those connected with
the college, prevent that attention to education and instruc-
tion which were the main objects of the institution, beget dif-
ference of opinion, engender controversy, and be most
injurious to the best interests of academical education. It
would unsettle men's minds, invite the discussion of particular
systems, and disarrange the whole arrangements of collegiate
education in these places. He believed that the sanctioning of
the inquiry would produce no good, but a great disarrange-
ment. He was sure that the course that had been pursued by
the Government was the best to instruct the people. It had
been said that the Government had not looked to the education
of the people in any appointment that had been made. Why,
let them look to the appointments in the law of Chief Baron
Pollock, Mr. Justice Mamie, Mr. Baron Alderson, Mr. Baron
Parke, and several others—were they not all men that had risen
from the people, and it was to their honour that they had done so.
Then look at science—they had such men as Herschell and Airey.
With respect to what had fallen from the Honourable Member
upon the medical profession, it might be true that the Uni-
versity had made only twenty doctors, while the University of
London had made one hundred and twenty doctors ; bat he
would beg to observe that the number by no means guaranteed
the eminence; and he would further say that the man most
eminent in the medical profession at the present moment was
a member of the University of Cambridge, and if Cambridge
had conferred no other medical degree than this, it would have
perfectly justified herself in tha eyes of the world. With re-
gard to the minor topics of distinctions of dress and seats in
hall, he conceived that it was only in accordance with the no-
tions of propriety entertained in this country, that where there
was a distinction of rank there should be an expression of re-
spect; and he did not see that there should be any less respect
shown to a nobleman in college th -n was felt to be his due in
other places in society. But this much he must assert, that if
there were distinctions of rank there were no other distinc-
tions, and he could, with the greatest pleasure, affirm that those
in the lowest grade might rise to the highest rank. With re-
gard to the Commission to which the Hen. Member for
Montrose had particularly referred, for inquiry into the state
of the Universities in Scotland, it should be observed that
the circumstances of the two cases were widely different.
lhei'e trace ie tie Universities of Scotland,
ohich that Commission ha'd done much to rectify ; hut such
was not the case with regard to the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge; and if there were any abuses the Universities
themselves had ample power to amend them. He thought
that the Hon. Gen, leman had made out no case for exercising
this the most extreme power of the Constitution, for he had
stated no fact which impugned either the utility of the Uni-
versities without their precincts, or the excellence of their
discipline within them, and he should consequently oppose the
motion.

Lord PALMERSTON thought that if any Member of the
House had been csnvinced by the able -and very eloquent
speech of the Hon. Gentleman who introduced the motion,
their convictions were not likely to be unsettled by the speech
of the Eight Hon. Gentleman the Chancellcr of the Exche,

quer, who had just sat down. In the course of that speech he
had used strong expressions against issuing of a commission,
expressions and arguments which might have done very well
in the mouth of the Hon. Member for Lincoln, who was known
to be decidedly opposed to any commission—( Hear, hear, from
Sibthotp)—bnt which came but ill from one who
had had so much to do with commissions, and he must say
that this commission seemed to him to be necessary,
for it was not sufficient that no blame should attach to two
great Institutions like these, it was sufficient to justify the in-
quiry if it could be shown that improvement could be made in
the mode of education. He did not attach blame to the heads
of these institutions, but he doubted whether they had the
power or the disposition to carry out those improvements if
they were necessary. The last point to which his Honourable
Friend alluded was one which afforded strong grounds for in-
quiry. He meant the expediency of ascertaining whether they
could not extend the means for persons of different religious
persuasions attaining, not only the education, but the honours
of a University. It was all very well to say that our Universi-
ties were open to Dissenters, but the honours and
incentives to study were not given to them.—
( Hear, hear.) They gave them all the benefits of the
education, but debarred them from attaining those honours
which were given as inducements and impelling causes to
study. Take, however, a larger view of this point. If they
considered a University education as a means of making and
seeking friendships which were to last for life, for bringing to-
gether persons of different ranks in society, and for producing
that equality by means of feeling and accidental circumstances,
nothing could be more desirable than that the system should
be open to all parties, because it not only contri-
buted to improve the social, but the political condition
of the country. Upon that ground also he thought his Hon.
Friend had made out a good case for inquiry, and he should
therefore give him his vote with great pleasure.
Strangers were then ordered to w►thdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
_

For the motioia.
Against it
Majority
Mr. HUME then moved for the following returns :—Re-
turn of the total charge of a regiment of Life Guards (con-
sisting of the strength as in the Army Estimates for :844.5)
of 436 men and officers of all ranks, for the year 1844; stating
in detail the numbers of each rank, and the pay and allowances
of the same; also all other charges, distinguishing so far as
may be possible, the amount for clothing, for contingent, for
commissariat, for medical, for barrack, and all other expenses
under separate heads, stating also the average charge per man
in such corps, for the year. Return of the total charge of a
regiment of Horse-guards (strength as per Army Estimates
for 1844), stating in detail the numbers of each rank, and
the pay and allowances of the same ; also, all other charges,
distinguishing, so far as may be possible, the amount for
clothing, for contingent, for commissariat, for medical, for bar-
rack, and for other expenses, under separate heads, and the
average charge per man in such corps. Return of the total
charge of a regiment of Foot Guards (strength as per Army
Estimates of 1844), stating, in detail, the numbers of each
rank, and the pay and allowances of the same • also all other
charges, distinguishing, so far as may be possible, the amount
for clothing, for contingent, for commissariat, for medical, for
barrack, and ether expenses, under separate heads, and the
average charge per man in such regiment. Return
of the total charge of a regiment of cavalry of the line
(strength as per Army Estimates, 1844), stating, in detail, the
numbers of each rank, and the pay and allowances of the same ;
also all other charges ; distinguishing, so far as may be pos-
sible, the amount for clothing, for contingent, for commis-
sariat, for medical, for barrack, and for other expenses, under
separate heads ; distingishing also the total charge of a regi-
ment of the same strength at home and 'a regiment abroad,
and the average charge of such regiment per man. Return of
the total charge of a regiment of infantry of the line (strength
as per Army Estimates for 1844), stating, in detail, the num-
bers of each rank, and the pay and allowances of the
same ; also, all other charges, distinguishing, so far
as may be possible, the amount for clothing, for contingent,
for commissariat, for medical, and for barrack and other ex-
penses, under separate heads ; distinguishing, also, the total
charge of a regiment at home and a regiment abroad, and the
average charge per man of such regiment. Return of the
total charge of a regiment of the West India regiments
(strength as per Army Estimates for 1844), stating in detail the
numbers of each rank, and the pay and allowances of the same ;
also all other charges; distinguishing, as far as may he pos-
sible, the amount for clothing, for contingent, for commissa-
riat, and medical, and for barrack and other expenses, under
separate heads, and the average charge per man for such corps;
and the same return for each colonial corps (as per army esti-
mates of 1844). . .
. - -

Colonel SIBTHORP was surprised at the motion for such
expensive returns from a Gentleman who had long laboured
to reduce the public expenditure.
Mr. HUME made a few observations repudiating his in-
tention to throw any opprobrium upon the regiments in
question.
The Hon. G. BERKELEY wished to ask the Hon.
Gentleman opposite, whether he had any objection to lay on
the table the warrant by which part of the allowances and pay
were taken away from the Life Guards, and given to the
Royal Horse Guards Blue.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT stated that he had no objection
to comply with the Hon. Gentleman's request, as he had no
doubt that the arrangements would prove satisfactory. He
was also willing that the returns moved for by the Hon. Mem-
ber Cm Montrose should be made.

The motion of Mr. HUME was then agreed to, and the
House, after the third reading of the Mutiny and Marine Mu-
tiny Bills, adjourned at Twelve o'Clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)
TIIURSDAY, APRIL 10.
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE.

Motion made, and Question put, " That an humble Address be
presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased
to appoint a Commission, to inquire into and report upox all matters
relating to the privileges, revenues, trusts, and to the state of educa-
tion, learning, and religion, in the Universities of Oxford and Cam-
bridge, and the Colleges of these Universities." The House divided :

MINORITY-AYES, 82.
Aglionby,M. A. Duncombe, T. Pechell, Captain
Aldam, William Ebringt,m, Viscount Pigot, David
Armstrong, Sir A. Elphinstone, H. Pulsford, Robert
Baring, F. T. Etwall, Ralph Rawdon, Colonel
Barnard, E. (4. Evans, William Redington, T. N.
Bellew, R. 31. Ferguson, Colonel Russell, Lord E.
Berkeley, Craven Forster,:Matthew _ Itutbertlird, A.
'Hewitt, It. J. Gibson, T. 31. Shelburne, Earl
Bouverie, E. P. Ileathcoat, John Stanley, W. 0.
Bowes, John Heneage, Edward Stanstiold, W. R. C.
Bowriug, Dr. 11111, Lord M. Stewart, P. M.
Brotherton, Joseph Illndley, Charles Stuart, W. V.
Browns, W. Horsman. Edward Strickland, Sir G.
Bulkeley, Sir R. Howard, C. W. Strutt, Edward
Bustbild, William Hume, Joseph Tancred, H. W.
Byng, G. S. Hutt, William Thornely, Thomas
Chapman, B. Langston, J. H. Trelawny, J. S.
Childers, J. W. Marjoribanks, S. Tufnell, Henry
Colborne, W. R. 31arsland, Henry Warburton, 11.
Collett, John Matheson, Janus Ward, 11. G.
Currie, It.tikes Mitcalfe Henry Wawn, John T.
Curteis, H. B. Mitchell, T. A. Williams, William
Dahneny, Lord Morris, David Worsley, Lord
Dawson, T. V. Murray, Alexander Wyse, Thomas
Dennistoun, J. Oswald, James Yorke, 11. It.
Divett, Edward Paget, Lord A. TELLERS.
Duke, Sir J. Palmerston, Viscount Christie, W. D.
Duncan, George Parker, John Ewart, William