still, he believed, on shore. Respecting the privileges
accorded to neutrals, he feared that they might somewhat
interfere with the vigorous action of the
belligerents, but remarked that they had been prompted
by a beneficent spirit, which Russia had fully reciprocated.
A happy triumph had thus been secured for
the cause of humanity, in mitigating the horrors of war,
so far as they fell upon peaceable traders. In
conclusion, Sir J. Graham confessed to an insurmountable
objection to the system of licences.—The house then
went into committee of supply, and passed a resolution
authorising the issue of £16,024,100 exchequer bills.

On Monday, May 1, the house went into committee
on the Oxford University Bill. Mr. HORSMAN raised
a debate on the first clause, which named and appointed
the commissioners,—the Bishop of Ripon, the Earl of
Ellesmere, Mr. Justice Coleridge, the Dean of Wells,
and Sir John Awdry. He moved that the appointment
of the commissioners should be postponed; urging, that
their duties would be of the most arduous kind, but
that it was questionable whether the Bishop of Ripon,
for instance, could be a practical working member,
absorbed, as he is with the duties of his diocese; while
it was notorious that Sir John Awdry is opposed to
diverting any portion of the college funds to university
purposes.—Lord JOHN RUSSELL defended the course
proposed by the government: the bill, he said, conferred
extensive powers, and it would not be wise to confer
those powers until it were determined to whom they
should be intrusted; many persons would be reconciled
to the bill when they saw the names of the
commissioners.—Sir JOHN PAKINGTON strongly doubted
whether the persons named could discharge the duties
intrusted to them; it would be better to ascertain first
the functions of the commissioners and then appoint
them.—Mr. SOTHERON declared that the names in the
clause reconciled him to the bill.—Mr. GLADSTONE
vindicated the fitness of the persons chosen.—Mr.
DISRAELI protested against the doctrine laid down by
Mr. Sotheron, and re-enforced the arguments of Sir John
Pakington.—Mr. HORSMAN having persisted in dividing
the house, the amendment was negatived by 169 to 141.
On clause 4—empowering the commissioners to require
the production by any officer of the university, of any
documents or accounts relating to such university, and
any information relating to the revenues, statutes, usages,
or practices thereof respectively; and providing that no
oath which might be taken by any such officer should be
pleadable in bar of any authorities of the said
commissioners.—Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE proposed to strike
out all the words after the word "respectively," and
to substitute for them the following: "And it shall be
the duty of such officer or member to produce and
furnish the same, any prohibition or impediment now
existing or arising in or by reason of any of the statutes
thereof respectively notwithstanding."—Lord JOHN
RUSSELL offered to accept the amendment if Sir William
would consent to the introduction of the word "oath."
Upon this subject there was much discussion; Mr.
HENLEY and Mr. WALPOLE contending for the
sacredness of the college oaths; Mr. ROUNDELL
PALMER insisting that every oath in its nature
stopped in point of obligation under the authority of the
law; and Mr. GLADSTONE explaining that it is
undeniably necessary to take the power sought to be
obtained under the present clause, and that if they
intend to have the required information they ought to
say so.—Here Mr. DISRAELI suggested that the clause
should terminate at the word "respectively."—Mr. J.
G. PHILLIMORE and Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER at once
fell in with the suggestion; but Mr. COLLIER
immediately pointed out, what the SOLICITOR-GENERAL
subsequently confirmed, that there would then be no
power of compelling the production of documents, and
the object of the clause would be defeated. However,
Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE accepted Mr. Disraeli's
amendment, and the committee divided upon the question
"that the words proposed to be left out stand part of
the bill"—Ayes, 118; Noes, 69; majority, 49; the clause
being thus agreed to. On clause 6,—providing for the
composition of the Hebdomadal Council, and its election by
the Congregation,—Mr. WALPOLE raised a question that
lead to much discussion. He proposed, as an amendment,
that instead of "six " Heads of Houses being elected by
the Congregation, and one nominated by the Chancellor,
seven should be elected by the Heads themselves.
This raised the whole question as between
Congregational and what is called "Sectional" election.—Mr.
GLADSTONE, Mr. LOWE, and Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
defended the clause as it stood. They contended
that the power given to the Chancellor of nominating
two members of the council was inserted because it was
thought desirable to maintain some of the relations
between the university and the external world. Three
classes, the Heads of Houses, the Professors, and the
resident members, would be represented in the council.
With respect to the Heads of Houses, it was natural
that they who were to suffer, for a moment, an abatement
of long-enjoyed power and dignity, should desire
to elect themselves. Government had every disposition
to meet that feeling, provided they could do so without
sacrificing a great object. Government desired that the
professorial element should occupy a substantially recognised,
but not a dominant place, in the university; and
it might be said this would best be accomplished by
permitting the professors to elect themselves. Many of
the ablest men in the university, however, begged the
government not to adopt the sectional plan. The word
"clique" seemed invented to express a body so elected.
They would form three separate interests, and endeavour
to maintain them, instead of striving to promote the
general interests of the university. The plan would be
most unacceptable to the university.—On the other
hand, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Mr. HORSMAN, Mr.
WALPOLE, Mr. J. E. DENISON, and Mr. HENLEY, argued in
favour of the sectional plan.—Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said,
all he had heard from the university led him to differ
from the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Gladstone. If
the present clause were passed, the professors would be
put into the hands of the tutors. Now, it was said, the
university is ruled by an oligarchy of twenty-four;
under the clause it would be under an oligarchy of
a hundred.—Mr. HENLEY laid great stress on the
influence which congregational election would confer
on the younger, clerical, and Tractarian party; and
urged upon the committee that they would never
secure an independent governing body unless they
guarded against that clerical element.—On a division,
the amendment was carried against the government, by
162 to 149; and the announcement of the result was
received by Opposition with cheering.—The words "one
other Head appointed by the Chancellor of the
University" were struck out.—Mr. WALPOLE, continuing
his amendments, proposed that the professors should be
elected from among themselves; and it was agreed that
this alteration was included in the previous decision.—
Another division took place. As the clause originally
stood, one of the professors was a professor of theology:
it was moved to add to the clause as amended the words
"of Theology"; and, on a division, the amendment
was carried by 148 to 135.—At this stage, leaving the
clause incomplete, the chairman reported progress.

Lord PALMERSTON has obtained leave to bring in a
bill to Amend the Militia Act. As a large part of the
army had been sent abroad, and a much larger part
would almost immediately leave the country, it was
desirable to place the militia in a position fit for home
duty. The object of the measure was to enable the
government to call out the militia when the country is
in a state of war; and also, if a regiment of the militia
has been called out for a shorter period than fifty-six
days, that formal notices may be dispensed with in
calling such regiment out to complete its term.—In
reply to Mr. Grogan Lord PAMERSTON said that
government does not intend to enrol the Irish militia
during the present year, as it is not deemed desirable at
the present moment to incur the expenditure.

On Tuesday, May 2, there not being forty members
present, the house was counted out.

On Wednesday, May 3, the second reading of the
Criminal Conversation Bill was moved by Mr. BOWYER,
who explained that it had a twofold character, it
abolished the system of damages to the husband, substituting
a fine to the crown, and it entitled the wife to
be heard on the trial.—Mr. COLLIER moved that the
second reading should take place that day six months.