themselves. Another point was the professorial system,
about which a difference of opinion existed, arising, he
thought, from misconception. The professorial system
was the old system at the university in its golden days,
when it was the embodiment of the learning and
progress of the age, and it was with the decline of that
system that had come the decline of the university.
England was a country in which Christianity found a
refuge. Her universities were the bulwarks which
would withstand the tide of infidelity now overspreading
the nations of the earth. He admitted that the Bill
promised to do much good, even though it left much
more undone.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
had listened with pleasure, not unmingled with regret,
to the speech of the hon. member. He believed that
the hon. member had expressed himself with perfect
good feeling and sincerity of intention, without passion
or prejudice; but still he thought that he had somewhat
exaggerated the defects alluded to, and it seemed
to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that the
dangers were far from being so bad as they had been
portrayed. While the shortcomings of the universities
had been exaggerated, the erudition of their members
had been as much undervalued. The practical defects
of the system were of a far less aggravated character,
and were, as he contended, with considerable detail, to
be dealt with by the bill, in a manner that promised to
provide practical remedies for each of them.
Altogether, he submitted that the principle of the
measure was sound, and that no reason had been
shown for delaying its progress in committee. The
inevitable consequences of the amendment must be to
suspend the bill altogether for the present session.—
Mr. HADFIELD denounced the measure, which he attributed
to a compromise between members of the government,
to the prejudice of the dissenters.—Lord J.
RUSSELL condemned the illiberal spirit manifested by
Mr. Hadfield, and declared that the compromise he had
assumed was as unfounded as the principle of his speech
was uncharitable.—Mr. HENLEY supported the motion,
thinking it was likely that the bill would come out of
the select committee in a less objectionable shape.—Mr.
MIALL retorted the charge of illiberality upon the bill,
which, he said, had been framed to conciliate the good
will of the episcopal bench, while it excluded dissenters.
He supported the motion, which would afford an
opportunity to tender evidence regarding the provisions of the
bill, and to discuss them fairly.—Mr. DISRAELI thought
the motion was not on the face of it an irrational one,
and that the objection of Mr. Gladstone was not on the
whole satisfactory. If the reform of the English constitution
could be delayed, it was not unreasonable to ask
on fair grounds to delay the consideration of the reforms
of the university. But he denied that a reference of
the bill to a select committee would be necessarily a
postponement either of the measure of the government,
or of any measure that the select committee might
recommend. He objected to the bill, not because it
attempted to reform and reconstruct an ancient institution,
but because it might lead to changes, not only in
the structure, but the administration of the university,
which struck unnecessarily a fatal blow,, at the self-
government, the freedom, and the independence of the
university. Of the changes introduced by the bill, the
private halls and the revival of the professorial system
would, in his opinion, end in disappointment, while the
dealing with the collegiate property was neither more
nor less than an appropriation clause. If the changes
produced no results, the measure would furnish standing
ground for future and more dangerous assaults, and
there was a morbid desire on the legislature to deal
with the institutions of the country, which was not
shared by the people. He adverted, in conclusion, to
what he characterised as an extraordinary argument
used by Mr. Horsman, that this bill should pass and
Oxford be reformed, because, from the state of religious
opinion in Germany, Christianity was in danger.—Mr.
BRIGHT said, it seemed to him that two principles had
been at work in the formation of this bill, which was
the result of a compromise between them, and he
thought it was a question whether a cabinet that could
not agree on the fundamental principles of a measure
should bring it forward. He felt a repugnance to assist
in the tinkering amendment of an institution from
which, though national, he, as a dissenter, was excluded,
and with which he had no sympathy. He should
support the motion for referring the bill to a select
committee, believing that its postponement for a year would
be cheaply purchased by the expulsion from it of that
compromising spirit by which the government bills
were now so often emasculated.—Mr. V. SMITH
observed that the question was placed upon a false issue,
if it were represented that the motion for referring the
bill to a select committee involved the admission of
dissenters to the university. The dissenters would gain
nothing by such a reference; it was for the house to
decide the question of their admission, which he had
always supported.—Mr. BLACKETT should vote, though
reluctantly, for referring the bill to a select committee.
The more he considered the bill, the more he was
convinced the house was not in a condition to appreciate
its results or its operation upon the university. He was
satisfied that the bill would emerge from the committee
in a very different shape.—Mr. W. J. FOX protested
against the division upon the amendment being taken
at a division upon the question as to the general admission
of any class of persons to the university.—Upon a
division the motion of Mr. Heywood was negatived by
172 against 90.—Mr. HENLEY moved that the
committee on the bill be postponed for a week.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER resisted this motion,
which was negatived, upon a division, by 160 against
101.—The house then went into committee on the bill,
but, after some conversation, the chairman was ordered
to report progress and to sit again on Monday.

On Friday, April 28th, a number of questions
addressed to members of government, on topics connected
with the Conduct of the War, elicited information of
considerable interest. Replying to Mr. D. O'Connell,
Sir J. GRAHAM regretted that it had been found
impossible to place roman-catholic chaplains on board
her Majesty's ships of war.—To Lord D. STUART, Lord
J. RUSSELL stated that Servia was not yet occupied by
Austrian forces, nor was any such event anticipated.—
Mr. D. Seymour was informed by the SECRETARY at
WAR that every care had been taken to provide for the
comfort and accommodation of our army in the East.
All statements to the contrary were greatly exaggerated,
if not wholly erroneous.—Mr. COBDEN, in moving that
the house should on rising adjourn to Monday next,
adverted to the treatment of the Greeks in Turkey, and
inquired whether any papers would be laid before
parliament regarding the insurrection of the Greek
christians, explanatory of our present relationship with
the court of Athens.—Lord J. RUSSELL hoped that the
papers relating to this subject would very soon be ready
to be laid on the table. When produced, he regretted
to say, they would show the commission of great
atrocities on both sides. These acts were but the
natural consequence of the extreme irritation that had
arisen between the christian and mahometan population,
and which had been stimulated by the policy of
Russia. There was also ample evidence to prove that
the government of King Otho had fomented the
insurrection by every means in their power.—Mr.
BRIGHT contended that the interest of the Anglicised
Greek and the Greek subjects of Turkey were closely
connected, and that the injuries inflicted on the latter
would seriously affect both.—Mr. LAYARD defended the
policy of the Sultan towards the Greek residents in his
dominions, and eulogised the tolerance which the
Porte had constantly exercised. Passing on to remark
upon our military preparations, he accused the government
of serious negligence with regard to many practical
details of both services.—Sir J. GRAHAM vindicated
the government, especially with respect to the operations
in the Black Sea, requesting the house not to take for
granted all the narratives given in the St. Petersburg
Gazette.—Mr. M. GIBSON referred to embargoes,
blockades, and the treatment of neutral ships. He
dwelt upon the case of the Ann McAlister, trading
vessel, now detained at Cronstadt, and on board of
which the effects of Sir. G. H. Seymour were said to
be stowed.—Sir J. GRAHAM replied that the Ann
McAlister would probably be allowed to prosecute her
voyage, but that Sir G. H. Seymour's property was