measure if it was not to be pressed further at present.—
The Attorney-General, Mr. Napier, and Mr. Kinnaird
having spoken in general approval of the measure, the
house divided.—For leave to bring in the bill, 68;
against, 40: majority, 28.

Mr. HEYWOOD moved an address for a copy of the
Alterations in the Book of Common Prayer proposed
by the Royal Commissioners for the revision of the
Liturgy in 1689. The original is now in the library at
Lambeth, having descended through successive
archbishops of Canterbury, from Archbishop Tillotson; and
the present archbishop thinks he ought not to give a
copy, unless it were for publication under the authority of
the House of Commons.—Lord PALMERSTON said that
government did not oppose the motion.—But it was
opposed by Mr. GOULGOURN, Mr. HENLEY, and Mr. KER
SEYMER, on the ground that the document is in a
private library, and that information respecting it can be
obtained from another source.—Mr. LABOUCHERE said
that the library had descended from archbishop to
archbishop, and could hardly be called a private
library.—Mr. GLADSTONE explained, that there was a
difference between this motion and one in which the
House is moved for returns. In the latter case, the
returns are compulsory; but in an address like this,
referred to the discretion of the Crown, the Home
Secretary could frame his communication so as to avoid
any interference in a private matter.—The question was
pushed to a division, and the motion carried by 132
to 83.

On Wednesday, March 15, the second reading of the
Payment of Wages Bill was moved by Mr. FORSTER.—
Mr. CRAUFORD moved an amendment, "That before
any further legislation on the subject of payment of
wages be sanctioned by this house, a select committee
be appointed to inquire into the operation of the laws
affecting the relations of masters and workmen, and to
report whether any and what amendment may be
requisite in those laws."—Mr. Heyworth, Mr. Bright,
Lord Stanley, and Mr. Cheetham supported the amendment;
Mr. H. Drummond, Sir J. Walmsley, Mr.
Booker, Mr. Bouverie, and others supported the bill.—
The house divided, and the second reading of the bill
was carried by a majority of 110, the numbers being 166
to 56.

On Thursday, March 16, Mr. F. PEEL stated that the
Duke of Newcastle had thought it right Not to Confirm
the Appointment of Mr. Stonor to the Judgeship of
Melbourne.

Mr. HEADLAM moved for leave to bring in a bill to
consolidate and amend the Laws of Mortmain and the
laws regulating gifts to charitable or religious purposes.
His object, he said, was to repeal the existing law, and
to enact provisions more suitable to the circumstances
of the times, and more effectual for the prevention of
the particular abuses against which the law was directed,
while they would be less obstructive and inconvenient,
being enabling as well as restraining. He then gave
an exposition of the existing law, commencing with
Magna Charta, of its general result, and of the relaxations
and modifications which it had undergone by the
interpretations of judges, as well as by the legislature,
pointing out the hardships, and especially the onerous
litigation which had grown out of the statute 9th of
George II., and explaining the provisions (of a very
technical character) by which he proposed to remedy
these evils, with reference not merely to devises of land,
but to bequests of personal estate for charitable
purposes. He proposed that, in order that there should be
one general law upon this subject, based upon sound
principles, the cases exempted from the statute of
George II. should not be excluded from the operation of
his bill.—The motion was seconded by Mr. HADFIELD.
—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, without pledging the
government to the details of the measure, offered no
objection to the motion. The subject, he observed, was
one of great importance, and he thought the time had
come when the law of mortmain might well undergo
revision.—Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

Mr. PELLATT moved for the appointment of a royal
commission of inquiry into the state and revenue of
Endowed Schools in England and Wales, the endowments
for scholars, the bequests of libraries, the
character and condition of the books, &c.—Lord J.
RUSSELL said the subject was one of very great importance,
but inquiries had already been made into these
subjects, and a commission had been appointed last
year, which, if necessary, might be clothed with
additional powers, and might have a larger staff; but
all this required great consideration, and he must meet
the motion by moving the previous question.—Mr.
HUME and Mr. KERSHAW urged the withdrawal of the
motion, and Mr. PELLATT assenting, the motion was
withdrawn.

On Friday, March 17, Lord J. RUSSELL moved for
leave to bring in a bill to make further provision for the
good government and extension of the University of
Oxford. His object was to widen the field of education
imparted in the university by comprehending in its
scope, history, modern literature, science, and other
branches of professional teaching for which no, or very
insufficient provision was now made; to remove the
restrictions, and throw open the monopolies which now
hampered the usefulness of the collegiate system; and
to appropriate the vast revenues now belonging to the
separate colleges for educational purposes in the
university generally. This, he urged, if sometimes
resulting in an infringement of the letter of the founder's
wills, would often carry out more completely the spirit
of their bequests, and constitute a change perfectly
justified by its utility. Lord J. Russell proceeded to
describe the successive modifications proposed by his
measure. For the government of the university he
intended to supersede the existing Hebdomadal Board,
and substitute instead thereof an Hebdomadal Council,
consisting of twenty-four or twenty-five persons, of
which the Vice-Chancellor of the current and previous
years and two Proctors were to be ex-officio members;
some of the others were to be nominated by the
Chancellor of the University, but the majority should be
elected for a period of six years by the university
congregation. In the oaths to be taken on entering the
university, he proposed to make a few alterations and
omissions, which he described, and without adopting
the recommendation of the commissioners as to allowing
the undergraduates to live in lodgings out of college,
intended to give power to the professors to open halls
under license of the Vice-Chancellor, in which the
students might be maintained, subject to a modified
degree of discipline, and with greater economy than
they found possible at present. On this point he
intimated his opinion that any direct interference with the
expenditure of the undergraduates would be inexpedient.
Reform in that direction should be left to moral and
parental restraint, but he thought that the University
authorities might remonstrate with the parents more
frequently and sternly, and call upon them to withdraw
their sons, if they proved irreclaimably extravagant.
He intended to throw open close fellowships to a
considerable extent by abrogating the restrictions existing
with respect to localities, founders' kindred, and, with a
few exceptions, maintaining the foundations now
appertaining to certain schools, among whose members he
thought they occasioned a wholesome emulation. When
obtained, the fellowships were to be enjoyed only for a
single year, except by persons engaged in certain
educational duties, holding certain offices in the universities,
or being incumbents or curates residing within a certain
distance of Oxford. For the purpose of appropriating
college revenues to university uses, he proposed to
appoint a commission of five members, who were to
receive and adopt any suggestions they approved of
which might emanate from the colleges on the one hand
and the university on the other, before the commencement
of Michaelmas Term next year. If then the
scheme had not been carried out by the self-action of
the university, the commissioners would be empowered
to draw up statutes of their own for the purpose, which,
after passing a certain official and parliamentary ordeal,
would obtain the authority of law. After stating the
limits within which the collegiate revenues were to be
diverted to the general purposes of the university,
Lord John passed on to the subject of tests. With these
he did not propose to interfere in his present bill; but
he looked upon their abolition as a collateral result
much to be desired, and which might hereafter follow.