The House of Lords had assumed that the case was the same with regard to private halls, and that they had provided by the Bill both for their existence and for a number of details respecting them. In place of this, the Bill merely provided for their existence, and laid down no details in relation to them, leaving it to the University to regulate all those details. The only thing, therefore, which would come within the scope of the words, "and respecting private halls," would be the very existence of those halls themselves. He did not think that this could have been the meaning of the House of Lords, and would therefore move that the Amendment be rejected. SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE said, he did not believe that this clause had been inserted by the House of Lords per incuriam. In fact he had raised this very question, and moved an Amendment in these very words when the Bill was formerly before the House. He did so on the ground that this experiment of private halls was one of a very doubtful nature, and that it ought to be competent to the University at some future time to renew and, if necessary, to abolish it. Holding these grounds, he must oppose the Motion that this Amendment of the Lords be rejected. MR. APSLEY PELLATT said, that if the Amendment were agreed to, the benefits which Dissenters expected to derive from the establishment of private halls would be completely neutralised. MR. WALPOLE said, he understood the 42nd clause unquestionably to give powers to alter the 27th clause, which established the private halls; but the extreme limitation under which the private halls could be altered ought to be taken into consideration. They can only be altered in case they have completely failed, not merely in the opinion of the governing body, but in the opinion of the members of Convocation resident in the University. But since it was admitted that an experiment was being made, was it not right to leave the University, that was to say the governing body of the University, the powers to give a veto, which were allowed to Convocation, and further powers to prevent the University from hastily exercising their own powers if the University were inclined to do so? Suppose the private halls failed suppose it became advisable to establish affiliated halls-why was the University to be debarred from superseding the regu lations or the provisions which out not only a failure, but det the best interests of the Unive (Mr. Walpole) trusted that his Friend the Chancellor of the would not persevere in resisting Amendment on this point. THE SOLICITOR GENERAI there were great interests bound establishment and development halls, through which medium principle of University extensi be carried out. If the words struck out, the great object of would be entirely nullified, and t self reduced to a mere temporary This surely was not the intenti House, neither was it the object rial legislation. The whole Bill upon the establishment of two g ciples. The establishment of pri was one-the constitution of th sity the other; and if any alter made with regard to one of t other, the constitution of the U must certainly be subjected to rule. MR. NEWDEGATE said, a was imposed on the Queen in Co respect to private halls, which di ist with respect to the Universit election, constitution, and powe Hebdomadal Council, or to the Convocation. If the House w trust the University, it certain trust the Queen in Council. Al House of Lords had proposed in th ment was very obvious. They why should not this experiment b to the same provisions as the ot of the Bill-why should it not b to the Queen in Council at the s of the University, in the sam every other creation in the Bill not to be expected that the Lords was likely to pass the Bill an anomaly as this, and he did no this portion of the Bill, which was an experiment, should not be s the same regulations as the other contained in it. MR. HENLEY said, that so could understand the Bill it was confused state. It was absolute sary that the University should h powers, and if the right hon. G the Chancellor of the Exchequ attend he would show him why. clause gave powers to the Uni make regulations for private b s to the University | ask the noble Lord opposite two questions. ey had done them- The first was, why should not young men section of the Bill entering the University be called upon to Commissioners to make a declaration of their belief? He case of the private could not for a moment imagine why this y of the provisions was abolished. It could only be to enable the University had foreigners to become Members. He well if these Statutes, knew that the House of Lords were exyears, were found tremely liberal in their accommodations for regulations respect- the reception of distinguished foreigners, observed in these of which they had lately had an instance right hon. Gentle- in the case of Count Pahlen ; but he cerese were to be law tainly did hope that there would be no re matters of two young Pahlens (especially at the present to be given to the time) found in our Universities. Henley) considered cond question he would ask was as to the ncil was a sufficient meaning of the word "office." It was sity did not see its not in the interpretation clause; and he h these halls, and wished to know whether a fellowship was shed by the Com- to be construed as an office within the umissioners having meaning of that clause? s, there would be em at any future venient they might The se THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, according to his apprehension the word "office did not include "fellowship,' although, in certain cases, a fellowship might have attached to it some particular office. "Office" and "emolument" were quite distinct, and in his opinion, the word visal and alteration" office" could not include either fellowship or emolument. ELL said, the meanarded the Statutes oners was, that they ed the private halls, with regard to prind upon experience ere was full power them. What he tered, however, was with respect to the halls. estion put, h disagree with The n page 14, lines 7 and after the word 'Conwords and respecting -Ayes 130; Noes which provides that essary on taking a Lords had inserted MR. HEYWOOD said, he believed that the words alluded to by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) were intended to apply to the masters of grammar schools. Ile did not, for his own part, agree with the proviso at all, and he could not consider the matter settled so long as it remained upon the Statute-book, but he believed that it expressed the present opinion of the other House of Parliament upon the subject, and he had no wish at this period of the Session to raise a difficulty about it. Sir Robert Peel, in the year 1834, in speaking upon this subject, had said not as such constitute ding of any office which s held by a member of land and Ireland, and he said University has of the qualifications, ng such degree shall d subscribed such dew required to be made uch degree, either at gree or subsequently." I said, he wished to "The Dissenters at the Universities never would remain contented with the mere empty degree of master of arts, but would continue to strive after-nay, peremptorily to demand-a perfect equality in all things not necessarily connected with ecclesiastical affairs. He would put the case of two students intending to enter upon the profession of the law, the one a Dissenter, the other a member of the Church of England; either might have, he would suppose, a lay fellowship, if the religious scruples of one of them had not hapThe Dissenter might pened to stand in the way. stand more in need of such fellowship. Ile would then put it to the right hon. Gentleman to say how he could, upon his own principles, refuse the claim of the Dissenter to a collegiate advantage not necessarily connected with ecclesiastical affairs? By wh an invidious dis civil benefit and appear infinitely proceed accordin hon. Member for ters a full and advantages of th an ecclesiastical d sard, xxiv. 706.] He must say th very much hav should have a called by Sir more sound and that this provi duced for the keeping out D ships of gramm all satisfied wit MR. GOULB the language o tible claim upon of Oxford (the concession an manding ever affairs? By what right could he establish such an invidious distinction on a matter merely of civil benefit and advantage? To his mind, it did appear infinitely more rational and consistent to proceed according to the recommendation of the hon. Member for Leeds, and grant to the Dissenters a full and equal participation in all the advantages of the Universities not necessarily of an ecclesiastical or spiritual character."-[3 Hansard, xxiv. 706.] spect to this proviso, it appea that the only effect of it would at the schoolmasters; and th would shut out the Protestant to a man, Roman Catholics w in by it. It applied to "any has been heretofore always held ber of the United Church of E Ireland." Now, many of the He must say that he (Mr. Heywood) should had, no doubt, been formerly h very much have preferred that Parliament man Catholics; and, therefore, should have arrived at this, which was of this concoction by the Disse called by Sir Robert Peel "an infinitely on the one hand, and the right more sound and rational conclusion than tleman on the other, would b that this proviso should have been intro- Protestant Dissenter could be duced for the purpose of pushing out or it was possible that Church o keeping out Dissenters from the master-schoolmasters might be shut ships of grammar schools. He was not at that Roman Catholics alone w all satisfied with the matter as it stood; any advantage. but he repeated that he would not at present make any opposition to the Amend ment. MR. GOULBURN said, he thought that, when the hon. Member for North Lancashire cited the opinion of Sir Robert Peel upon this subject, it was as well the House should know that upon the very occasion on which he had made that speech-in which he was arguing against the views of his opponents, and showing to what consequences they would lead his vote, as they would see if they referred to it, had been given against the proposition to admit Dissenters to the Universities. MR. HENLEY said, he understood that the language of Sir Robert Peel, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for North Lancashire, had not been cited by him for the purpose of informing the House of the opinions held by Sir Robert Peel on the subject of admitting Dissenters to the Universities, but had been read for the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and of other Gentlemen who sat near him, and in order to show them that what they had now done had established an irresistible claim upon the part of the Dissenters to have everything else they desired. He understood that that quotation expressed Sir Robert Peel's opinion, then speaking upon this very subject-that if what was then asked should be conceded, which was something very like what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been instrumental in carrying now, the Dissenters would have in that concession an irresistible argument for demanding everything else. Now, with re MR. ROUNDELL PALME did not think that the right h man's apprehension with respec Catholics was very well founde admitted that the clause was worded. He believed that th Church of England and Ireland existed since the Act of Uni would be obvious that, if tha hardly any office could be sa been heretofore always held" ber of that Church; but, of cour of law would give a rational int to the clause. The Lords' Amendment agre MR. CRAUFURD said, he move to restore the 47th cla provided that no member on his rank should be permitted degree sooner than any other duate. THE CHANCELLOR OF TII QUER said, he thought the h man was applying his Cambridge to the case of the University whereas the systems at the ty sities were entirely different. there was no distinction made aminations on account of di birth. The clause had been in the suggestion of the hon. a Member for Leominster (Mr. J more), and no great question had about it at the time, but there this serious objection to it-tha to a matter of detail, and th took upon themselves to legi such a matter, they would themselves responsible, in eff great number of other details might think ought to be ame at the safer course as they had left a ers, to be dealt with f. (saving the powers University and its far as they are ex THE BISHOP OF NEW ZEALAND. Supply. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, in calln away by the pro-ing the attention of the House to the case of the Bishop of New Zealand, he begged said he wished to to observe that when he had complained on subject of the Vice a former occasion of the withdrawal of the en the measures to grant to the Bishop, he was told there was vocation emanated nothing new in it, as the grant had been Board, with which stopped in 1853. He then inquired if any ellor was constantly despatch had been sent out either to the no danger that the Bishop of New Zealand or to the Governor evously exercised in of New Zealand to state the intention of sures. But at pre- the Government to withdraw the grant, dal Board they had or to state the fact that it had been withadal Council, with drawn, and the answer of the right hon. reason to suppose, Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Grey) was, that the Vice Chancellor no such information had been sent to either armony. It was a of these parties. In the year 1853 the he greatest import- income which the Bishop had received from ancellor should not the time of his appointment was withe and neutralise the drawn, without the slightest intimation ebdomadal Council, being sent of the intention either to the eedings when sub- Bishop or to the Governor of New Zea1. When he had land. He would say nothing of the position ad learned Solicitor of the Bishop of New Zealand, of his exce upon the subject, emplary character, and great and admitted Gentleman had ex- capacity. He would assume for a moment at the veto of the that instead of being a bishop of the Church aken away by the of England he was the lowest official of the which was now the smallest colony, and he (Sir J. Pakington) therefore wished to would ask the House whether in the case ed Gentleman now, of any public servant, be he who he may, words substituted it was consistent with good faith and fair of maintaining the dealing, that an allowance once granted ellor on all proceed- by Parliament, and on the faith of which nvocation, which it that public servant had gone out to the ion had been abro- Colony, should be so withdrawn. Putting se, or whether he the case in that way to the House, he d be taken away in begged to say distinctly that he did not words introduced by intend to make any accusation against the Duke of Newcastle, the Secretary of State who arranged the matter. He was quite sure that the Duke of Newcastle was as little inclined as any one could be to do anything unfair towards any public servant connected with his department, and more especially one holding the high position of the Bishop of New Zealand. He might add, that he knew too much of the Colonial Office to feel surprised that occasional mistakes of that kind should arise, and he could only suppose that this was a mistake, and that in withdrawing this grant from the Estimates of 1853, without the slightest warning to the Bishop, the ENERAL said, it 19th clause that by the Hebdomadal submitted to Conds to Convocation; he exercise of the sion, effectually re 0. to draw up Reathe Lords for disnents to which this the Exchequer Duke of Newca ently, and in th say that he felt he was willing to gave no reason VOL. CXX Duke of Newcastle had acted inadvert- course, worded very politely, bu ently, and in that view he looked to its substance of it was, "I am so speedy and effectual rectification. He (Sir that I have to inform you that y J. Pakington) would not advert to the at- is stopped." To this letter the B tempt that had been made to throw the an answer. It was written in a blame of this upon him. He could only dignified tone, and he made no c say that he felt extremely innocent on the and if there was anything like subject. It was true that in the year the letter, it was only the severit 1852, he expressed a hope that after two inseparable from the nature of th years New Zealand would cease to be a tunate circumstances. The Bisl charge upon this country. Perhaps he had the facts on which the questio not been so cautious in making a distinct turned. The salary was taken aw exception with regard to the salary of the Government in 1853, and he neve Bishop as he should have been, but nothing any notice of the fact until th would induce him to be a party to such a June, 1854. It was true that withdrawal of the grant as had actually Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) taken place, and that without due notice. Colonial Minister when the arrang He would remind any hon. Gentleman who specting the bishopric was origina attempted to throw blame on him of the had said that he would not be r fact that it was stopped in 1853 without for the permanence of the salary any warning or notice, and, at all events, saying that the noble Lord could he was innocent of that, because it did not one of two things-first, that he devolve on him to send out notice. But if answer for Parliament being a hon. Gentlemen thought he was to blame, posed to continue this grant, a he was willing to bear his share of it, but some future day the income of t he would not be a party to stopping the ric might be transferred from t grant under such circumstances. In a mentary grant to some other sou letter written by the Under Secretary for (Sir J. Pakington) did not b the Colonies, by the direction of the right noble Lord had intended to intin hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), it was stated Bishop the possibility that he, that, until it had appeared incidentally, the Minister who made the arrangem Governor was under the impression that the turn round on the Bishop and Vote for the salary of 6007. had been con- come was to be taken away wi tinued. Now, he appealed to the right warning, or any provision being hon. Gentleman if those words did not it elsewhere. It was well know establish his (Sir J. Pakington's) case? Bishop of New Zealand did not Why was the Governor under the impres come for income's sake. He be sion, or how did he discover it incidentally? income in a manner that was w If the intention had been courteously com- Bishop of the Church. He b municated, no such erroneous impression with liberality and generosity, would have existed. The right hon. Gen- the fact of his devoting his inc tleman then proceeded to say that the benefit of his fellow-Christians, Estimate of 1853 had been diminished by making it a source of profit to 1 previous engagements to 5,0901., and he might have been exposed on rec (Sir J. Pakington) must beg to correct intimation to the want of pecunia the right hon. Gentleman with respect to He (Sir J. Pakington) did not that passage of his letter. The right hon. the salary of the Bishop of No Gentleman would not find that anything was to be a permanent char that had been said by him would render it funds of the country. Ie necessary to reduce the grant in 1853 to might be desirable to do in th 5,0901. He (Sir J. Pakington) had talked had been done in others, an of gradual reduction, but said nothing with it to some other source; but respect to the reduction of the grant to had done so, they were bound that amount. He then said the salary of the faith, and by a regard for the d Bishop, with other items, was omitted, but he welfare of the Church, to con gave no reason why they were omitted. It salary until they had otherwis was perfectly clear from those extracts that for it. He asked the noble Lor the right hon. Gentleman did not intend President of the Council, and to give any reason for the withdrawal of the hon. Gentleman who filled the salary. His letter to the Bishop was, of Secretary of State for the Cold VOL. CXXXV. [THIRD SERIES.] 2 F |