benefit of the companies.—After some remarks
generally favourable to the bill, leave was given to bring
it in.

On Friday, April 7, the motion for the second reading
of the Oxford University Bill having been read, Sir
W. Heathcote recognised the friendly intention of the
bill, and the soundness of the principle on which it was
based. He should vote for the second reading, reserving
for the committee any objection he had to urge on its
details.—Mr Byng approved of the measure, believing that
a change in the university system was become absolutely
necessary, and noticing that one solitary measure for
improvement only had been adopted by convocation,
and even since that was virtually revoked—Sir J.
Pakington observed upon the complicated nature of
the bill, but expressed his readiness to pass the second
reading, and urge his amendments when it came to be
committed. Much of his objection to the measure had
been allayed by the judicious selection of the members
who were to constitute the proposed committee, although
he still considered the powers they were to exercise
extraordinary and arbitrary. The right honourable
baronet proceeded to indicate various particulars in
which he thought that the government project required
modification. In the course of his observations he
complained of the serious inroads to be effected under the
bill upon the self-government of the university, the
rights of private property, founders' intentions, close
fellowships, and the collegiate system. He appealed to
Lord J. Russell to infuse a more conciliatory spirit into
his bill, so as to carry with him the sympathies of the
university and remove the sense of injustice which its
members now could not help feeling.—Mr. Blackett
gave credit to Lord J. Russell for much courage in
issuing the university commission, and venturing to
invoke legislative interference with those seats of
learning. In the measure now before them, however,
he found a lamentable falling off; and believing that
the university required a far wider measure of reform,
entered upon a minute examination of its system, to
show how restricted and inefficient were the educational
purposes upon which its capabilities were lavished.
Nothing but total re-construction would cure the
evils that pervaded the present organisation.—Mr.
Phillimore, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Vernon
supported the bill.—Mr. Roundell Palmer expressed a
general approbation of the measure, but objected to
some of its details.—Mr. Goulburn also approved of
the principle of the bill.—Mr. Henley apprehended
much danger from the bill, and feared that it would
ultimately lead to the separation of religion and learning.
—The Chancellor of the Exchequer, briefly
noticing the strictures passed upon the bill during the
debate, said that they almost entirely related to matters
of detail, and he therefore postponed replying to them
until the details of the bill came to be settled in
committee. Referring to the demand urged by Sir J.
Pakington for a more conciliatory measure, he pointed
to the empty state of the benches, as proving that
change in that direction was hardly wanted. They
had, in fact, conciliated all interest out of the debate,
and almost all the members out of the house. The bill,
he proceeded to argue, did not destroy the collegiate
system, but extended it. Their object was to introduce
a far more free, elastic, and comprehensive scheme
of education than now existed at Oxford. In attempting
this, they did but revert to the ancient plan, and
restore the original spirit of the institution. It was
the hand of the government that forged the fetters
which the hand of the government was now
interposing only to remove. This was the principle of the
bill. It had not heen impugned, and he considered it
unimpugnable. Upon the working clauses he would
be ready to meet objections in the committee.
Meanwhile he cursorily alluded to a few of the criticisms that
had been offered, exhibiting the futility of some, and
remarking that others were of so conflicting a character
that they neutralised one another. Complaints had been
made of the predominance of the clerical element in the
university; but it was most inexpedient to attempt to
regulate such a matter by legislative interposition. The
result must be left to the natural tendencies of society,
and these, as was shown by the character and managers
of other educational establishments, undoubtedly ran in
the direction of committing to members of the clerical
body the instruction of the majority of the rising generation.
Respecting the alleged infraction of founders'
intentions, he maintained that the endowments were
chiefly intended for the promotion of learning; that
even the local or family restrictions were designed for
no other end, and that by throwing them open the real
object of the founder was carried out with no greater
change of plan than was justified by the change of
circumstances. The bill was emphatically an emancipation
bill, releasing Oxford from the fetters that restricted her
utility, and enabling her to adapt her magnificent
endowments to the enhanced wants and more liberal
spirit of the age.—Mr. Walpole viewed the measure
as being stringently compulsory, and condemned the
provisions, which, if they removed impediments in one
direction, built them up again in another. He
condemned also the attempt to supersede the tutorial by
the professorial system, and the violation of the conditions
under which endowments had been bequeathed.
The only bill that could justly be enacted was an
enabling one, and such he contended would be sufficient
as well as just.—Lord J. Russell briefly vindicated
his measure. Experience showed that the university
would not commence in earnest the work of reform; the
colleges by themselves could not; and the interference
of the legislature became necessary. He then narrated
the proceedings of the commission, justified its appointment,
and eulogised the results of the inquiry it
conducted. Upon that inquiry the bill was founded, and
the noble lord recapitulated and defended the principal
alteration which it was designed to accomplish.—The
bill was then read a second time without a division.

On Monday, April 10, Lord J. Russell, in answer to
Sir E. Dering, who inquired whether it was his
intention to move the Second Reading of the Reform Bill
on the 27th of April, said that he would make a statement
on the subject this day.

On the motion for going into committee on the
Bribery Bill, Lord J. Russell signified the assent of
the government that the measures on this subject should
be referred to a select committee.

The house then went into committee on the Colonial
Clergy Disabilities Bill, which consists of a single
clause, designed to indemnify the "metropolitan of any
province or the bishop of a diocese," for attending
meetings for the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs.—
Mr. Dunlop moved to omit the words in inverted
commas, and to substitute "bishops and clergy." His
object was to prevent according to the clergy of the
church of England any status not belonging to them by
law.—The Solicitor-General assented to the amendment.
—Sir J. Pakington dissented, and considered
that the amendment was calculated to deprive the
church of England of its just distinction.—The committee
divided, and the amendment was carried by 81 to 34.—
Several other amendments were proposed and discussed
at much length. Ultimately the chairman was ordered
to report progress, leaving the first clause still unsettled.

The house was counted out, on a motion of Mr.
French on the Judgment Execution Bill.

On Tuesday, April 11, Lord John Russell, in
moving the adjournment of the house to the 27th inst.,
proceeded to announce the Intentions of Government
regarding the Reform Bill. When, he observed, Lord
Aberdeen formed his cabinet, he declared to those who
joined him that measures of reform were part of his
policy, and they accepted office with that undertaking.
He mentioned this because it had been stated, in an
invidious manner, that his personal honour alone was
connected with this measure, whereas from the moment
of Lord Aberdeen's declaration the question regarded
the whole cabinet. He then adverted to the introduction
of the measure, which he saw no reason to consider
inadequate, based on wrong principles, or carried too
far. It was brought in at a time when war was probable,
though peace was not impossible, and while that great
question was before the house he had proposed to
adjourn the subject. Recapitulating the arguments he
had then used as to the non-necessity of postponement
on the ground of the war, he said that he still saw
no reason to alter the opinion he had then expressed.