Debates anti Tirocubinp in VarliantEnt.

CANADA CORN BILL.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, was resumed the adjourned debate on Lord Stanley's motion, that the Speaker do leave the chair in order to a Committee of the whole on the resolutions to alter the duties on corn and flour imported from Canada.

Mr. WODEBOUSE, after twenty-five years' adherence to the party of Ministers, must vote against the measure, as it must lead to the dis- couragement of cultivation throughout the country.

Mr. ELLICE supported the motion— He still thought, that of all taxes the worst possible is one upon the food of the people, and that English agriculturists have nothing to fear from com- petition with the whole world : but he was opposed to sudden changes—as he had shown in opposing Sir Robert Peel's currency bill in 1819, though he did not differ with its principles ; and afterwards in opposing attempts to disturb that settlement of the currency. He contradicted Mr. Roebuck's assertion that Canada cannot grow enough corn for its own consumption. If the landed gentry really wished to encourage the agriculture of Canada, and if they wished to encourage the settlement of emigrants, then they would not oppose themselves to the present measure. There was no measure less important to them, or more advantageous to Canada jointly with this country, than the bill now before the House. He thought there was some reason to complain of any taxes being imposed on the intercourse between Canada and the United States ; but be also was aware that it was ruinous to a protected interest to expose it all at once to the difficulties of competition. It had been said that in common years Canada would not be able to supply any considerable quantity of corn : he was not quite sure of that—be thought still that there would be a surplus. He did not apprehend that there was the least risk of smuggling as between Canada and the United States. There are only two districts from which corn could come; the one is Genessee, on the borders of Lake Ontario, and the other the Western States lying above the Falls of Niagara Now, the weight of a quarter of corn is 500 pounds : surely the expense of transit must completely preclude any chance of smuggling such an article as that when the duty was only 3s. He would willingly admit all American corn direct to our ports at a fixed duty of 48.; but he supported this measure as a step towards free trade. He could assure the House, that Canada was now suffering from an embarrassment of trade such as was unknown in the colony; and if the present measure were defeated, she could scarcely ever recover the blow, and they would greatly add to the difficulties which already beset the path of the Governor, who had been sent out to establish peace and concord. Mr. Tacerren upported the fixed 4s. duty in preference to the sliding-scale. Mr. SMITH O'Bamst supported the measure, as an ap- proximation to • own proposition of last year. He only objected that it dad not enough, and include all our Colonies, particularly Prince Edwar island, of which the Legislature has passed an act similar to 3k assed in Canada. He repudiated the idea of supporting Ministers; his vote would turn the scale against their continuance in office, he doubted whether he should not even vote against his opinions for the purpose. Mr. BUCK opposed the attempt to disturb last year's "settlement" of the Corn-law. He deprecated the continuance of these

indirect concessions to Free-trade principles; adding, emphatically—" I

at least am resolved to go no further." Sir CHARLES NAPIER remarked, that Lord Stanley bad truly described the measure as not a Free-trade measure ; and therefore he would vote against it. Lord Saisnort said, that Lord Stanley had under-calculated the cost of importing wheat from Canada, and he should have no apprehension of excessive importation were there no duty at all.

Mr. Hawes stuck to the question of assenting to the act of the Canadian Legislature— He asked the Free-traders in the House, whether they could support that act which asserted the principle of the English Corn-laws ? The practical effect of the whole measure would be to keep out the corn of the United States, whence Canada is supplied in seasons of scarcity; but it could not benefit consumers here. He was astonished that any gentleman connected with an agricultural

county could object to support a measure so essentially protective. He could

contemplate a fixed duty as necessary for revenue, but in this case three-fourths of the duty would go into the Colonial exchequer. He assumed that there

must be some reserved reason for introducing such a measure : could Lord

Stanley have found such a proposition a good means whereby to rule and manage the Canadian Parliament ? He imputed the support of Mr. Ellice

and other Members to the emigration which the measure was expected to en- courage, and which would increase the value of land. But in the case of such a measure, this country ought at least to derive some benefit in return, in the

reduction of Colonial duties on our manufactures : for the last ten years our exports to that colony had been nearly stationary, with the exception of 1840 and 1841 ; in which years, in consequence of the high price of corn in England, there was a much larger importation from Canada. He deprecated the mea- sure, however, as an introduction into Canada of the elements of the Corn- law dispute which now agitated this country. The measure, too, was an un-

friendly one towards the United States, and that at a time when their tariff was likely to come again under consideration, and to be dealt with according to the spirit, whether friendly or hostile, in which we might meet them.

Mr. DARBY advocated the measure— He was surprised that the right honourable gentleman the Member for Taunton, a Member of the Government that carried the union of the two Canadas, should be the man to step forward and ask the House to refuse assent to almost the first act of the joint Legislature. Not wishing to show that disrespect to the Colonial Legislature, he should decidedly oppose the amend- ment of the right honourable gentleman opposite. He regarded the duty of 3s. on the frontier and ls. here as equivalent to the present duty ; and he be- lieved that the introduction of a protective principle in Canada would be building up a buttress in support of the protective system in this country.

Mr. HUME contended, that the only remedy for the perplexed un- certainty of the farmers was to be found in a free trade in corn— He predicted that Sir Robert Peel and his friends would ultimately discover that they could not, because they had a majority, command the price of corn. However, putting the 3s. duty out of the question, as a matter entirely at the disposal of the Colonial Legislature, and very properly left so by Government, he supported the proposition to admit Canadian corn at a fixed duty of Is. But the Canadians had built their calculations of advantage on the supposition that no such distinctions would be made as that between grain and flour ; and in that respect the measure did not fulfil Lord Stanley's pledges : Mr. Hume thought that they were entitled to the admission of wheat passed through Canada at Is. duty. He believed that the fixed duty of ls. would soon bring about free trade direct with the United States; therefore he suppoied the Government proposition. Major Cursxmo BRUCE had promised his constituents to oppose the measure; but he had been convinced by Lord Stanley's speech that it would increase rather than diminish protection : he had pledged himself that no vote of his should damage a Government that had his con- fidence ; and therefore he should vote for the resolutions, on the ground of his own honour and consistency—ready to resign his trust if his constituents disapproved.

Mr. FRANCIS THORNHILL Beanto retraced a variety of declarations and propositions in Parliament, to show that Government could not have intended, when they proposed the new Corn-law, to follow it up with the present measure. He contended that if the measure was good for Canada, it must be so for the neighbouring colonies ; and he asked, if a course of protection were begun in Canada, where would it stop?

Sir ROBERT PEEL would confine himself to two points; the character of the motion, and the circumstances under which Government had brought it forward— He dwelt upon the embarrassing position in which the Crown would be placed if urged by the House to withhold its assent from a measure recom- mended by the Crown to the Canadian Legislature ; while it was well known, that if the House refused its assent to the resolutions, the Crown would with- hold its assent from the Canadian bill; a much fitter course for the House to adopt, than to ask the Crown to withhold its assent from almost the first measure passed by the United Legislature of Canada. In giving power to the Canadian Legislature, the House of Commons took security that acts of the Colonial Parliament relating to rights of the Crown, the Clergy reserves, and ecclesiastical establishments, should be laid before the House for at least atirty days before receiving the Royal assent; but by not asking for reservation re- garding other measures, it was tacitly conceded. He assured Mr. Baring that the measure was contemplated by Government last year. On the 25th Fe- bruary, Mr. Gladstone abandoned the proposed duty of 3s. on corn imported into Canada, which had met with objection on the constitutional principle against duties levied by the Imperial Parliament on articles imported into a colony having an independent Legislature : on the 28th, Lord Stanley made that abandonment an objection to Mr. Smith O'Brien's proposition to admit wheat into this country from places out of Europe at Is.; at the same time saying, that if a restriction were imposed on wheat imported into Canada, the Ca- nadians would be entitled to relief What was the language of the leaders of the Opposition on that occasion ? [Lord JOHN RUSSELL--" I never heard the noble Lord's remarks."] But the mover of the present amendment did; and he said—" The Canadian people are the best judges of the benefit which they will gain from such a measure, and their own Colonial Representatives should decide as to its advantages or disadvantages. I will not assert that it will not be right for the Government to confirm this act, if they agree to the measure: upon that point I will express no opinion; but I do contend that the Legislature of England has no right to meddle with a plan the effects of which are supposed exclusively to be confined to one of her colonies." (Cheers and counter. cheers.) Sir Robert Peel continued—" Now I do not contend for one moment that the right honourable gentleman pledged himself by those expressions to support the Canadian measure ; but I do say that be used language which, in conjunction with the language of the Government, might have fairly justified the Canadians in believing that if they passed such a law as they have passed, he would not be the man to ask the House of Commons to address the Crown to refuse that law its sanction.":

Sir Robert contended that the particular instance constituted no aban- donment of the principle of a varying duty. There was no question of a used ditty ; but the question was, whether for political reasons it was not better to give Canada greater facilities of commercial access ; and his opinion also was, the agriculturists mght give that access without running any risk of injuring our own interests. All the speeches on the Opposition side confirmed that opinion, for they said that the measure would increase protection. And he would ask a question—" I am taunted with adopting a fixed duty : will honourable gentlemen opposite tell me how they would deal with a fixed duty in this case ? There is to be, according to their plan, a fixed duty of 8s. a quarter on foreign corn : now, what will they do with colonial produce? I presume they would not subject that produce to a duty of the same amount ? Bat the American corn—corn of foreign growth—comes to England through Canada : how could they levy a fixed duty of 8s. on American corn brought from New York and New Orleans, and, nevertheless, permit American corn to come to this country duty-free through Canada ? (Loud and repeated cheers.) should like to know how they would deal with that fact ? would not that be opening a hack-door ? ' (Loud cheers.) Would not that be giving a pre- ference to the Western States over the Southern. (Repeated cheers.) Or, perhaps, honourable gentlemen would propose to apply only a duty of le. to corn passing through Canada? But in this case there would be an undue pre- ference given to America over other nations." The point, however, on which he warmly rested his defence of the fixed duty, was, that in Canada the duty can be taken in no other form.

After pointing out some inconsistencies in the several opinions of his op- ponents, Sir Robert described the circumstances of the colony when the mea- sure was proposed—" We found a strong and almost unanimous feeling in Canada that the greatest advantage would arise to Canada if its wheat and flour could be admitted into this country. Their two great articles of com- merce were timber and cora. The Canadas differed from other provinces in being a corn-growing country, and able to export it. Their situation was pe- r. The hazardous experiment of the union of the two Legislatures was tried : we looked at those things, we regarded the expenditure of 2,000,0001. for suppressing the rebellion, and the cost of the twenty-two battalions of in- fantry to maintain peace there; we bore in mind the unsettled question on the frontier, and that we were involved in a dispute with a powerful country at a great distance from our resources; and we added to this that the honour and security of England were not safe unless you carried with you the cordial good- will and cooperation of the people of Canada. You have professed your readi- ness to support your relationship with Canada, and you are bound in honour to support it ; and there can be no doubt that the Government in introducing the measure attached this important consideration to it, that it would be taken as an indication of cordial good feeling towards Canada. And I now say, that unless you carry that cordial cooperation of the people of Canada with you, the weakest point of the whole empire will be Canada. It is easy to talk of dissolving that alliance; but in point of honour, and in point of policy, you can- not set that example. If your connexion with Canada is to be dissolved, your connexion with New Brunswick, with Prince Edward Island, and with Nova Scotia, may follow ; indeed, you will never be able to determine the point at which, in point of policy—apart from a feeling of honour—you must terminate

your course. The more of the more of dissension and unwillingness to submit to connexion with this.country there are, the greater will be the temp- tation for foreign powers to interfere." Sir Robert remarked a tendency in the Opposition to undervalue Colonial Legislatures; which are popular assem- blies, and best able to judge of Colonial interests. Any advantages to be de- rived from the principles of free trade would be but a sorry equivalent for the disappointment caused to Canada by the rejection a the measure.

Lord JOHN RUSELL replied to the foregoing speaker— He characterized Sir Robert Peel's declaration that the Canadian Colonies would be endangered as imprudent ; and he ridiculed the argument—first ad- vanced by Mr. Roebuck, "her Majesty's learned counsel "—(Laughter)—about the affront to the prerogative of the Crown. It was most constitutional and proper to go up to the Queen and say, " Your Majesty has been ill-advised ": a mortification to Ministers it might be, but that it would be a mortification to the Crown was really an assumption of the honourable and learned gentle- man who bad identified himself with the Throne. (Loud laughter.) Such a departure from the usual decorum of language he scarcely bad expected. Lord John also questioned Sir Robert Peel's accuracy as to the right of intervention reserved by the Imperial Parliament : the 43d section of the Canada Act re- tained the whole power that Parliament previously possessed with respect to the levy of Customs-duties, provided only that any duties levied at the frontier should form part of the revenue of the colony. Not only was the act im- posing the Ss. duty on corn by no means the first act of the United Legislature of Canada, but Canada had before rejected such a measure ; which showed that their legislation now was not spontaneous. Lord John was ready to grant the Canadians any boon they wished : he would admit their corn at ls.; but he would do it without imposing di' able conditions on the colony—without any condition at all. Lord John quarrelled with the phrase that Canada was to be considered as " an integral Part of the empire," "an English county ": it had been an integral part of the empire since the peace of Paris in 1763, and our soldiers and sailors have shed their best blood for it : as to its being an English county, the phrase seemed to have a very mischievous meaning—namely, to extend restriction and monopoly to the whole Colonial empire ; and how could that province be an English county which imposed a duty of 5 per cent on our manufactures ? If Parliament were to give such preferences as that now proposed, and were to take our whole Colonial empire into the circle of their view, there was hardly an article on which they must not impose some legislative bar to the enjoy- ments of the people. They had no wine of their own, and could have the best wine from all parts of the Continent ; but the Cape of Good Hope produced wine, and they must give an advantage to the Cape of Good Hope. Their own country did not produce sugar, but the West Indies produced it, and they must give an advantage to their West Indian Colonie/, and prohibit their people from having sugar which might be obtained better and cheaper from other places. It was the same with regard to Colonial corn. Restrictions had been found useful to protect the produce of our Colonies against the introduction of produce of foreign growth ; but all the papers which had been laid on the table of the House only tended to show the mischief and the evils which re- sulted from such a system. He maintained that such a system ought not to be supported in any case ; and still less should any measure be adopted the effect of which would be to create new difficulties. The proposition of the Government was to contrive, by means of new restrictions, to force the transit of corn through a particular channel. The only effect of this would be to create new monopolies—to raise up some new landed interests in Canada, in order that some time hence, when the question of the reduction of the duty on foreign corn should be raised, they might be again embarrassed by all those questions of mortgages and settlements which now afforded them such ample fields for discussion. Government appeared, indeed, to have some abstract love of protection and restriction—to love it for its own sake. After some further remarks in the same spirit, Lord John ridiculed the variety of corn-laws pro- posed by Ministers : yet these were the men who called themselves " Con- servative Ministers"1—men who made innovations and changes only for the sake of change !

The House divided ; when the numbers were—

For the amendment, 156; against it, 344 ; Ministerial majority, 188. The House went into Committee pro forma, and the farther consi- deration of the resolutions was adjourned till Friday.

On Thursday, questions were put by several Members, to Lord STANLEY ; whose replies may be thus summed up— Canada has a surplus growth of corn to export, but it is the only one of the North American Colonies that has it. Canada had for some years been peti- tioning for such a boon as that now proposed ; and to that colony alone was Government pledged. He saw no chance of any other colony's being in a con- dition to seek such a boon. He had no official information that Prince Ed- ward Island had imposed on the import of corn a duty heavier than heretofore; but he had reason to believe that such a duty was contemplated for one year, as a means of increasing the revenue. The bill which had been passed in Canada had been so with the general assent of the Legislature; there was no division on its principle. He would not pledge the Government to extend the present measure to Prince Edward Island.

Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN inferred that Government did not preclude themselves from so extending it ? No answer.

REPEAL OF THE UNION OF ST. MAPS AND BANGOR.

Having presented several petitions to the House of Lords, on Tues- day, against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, the Earl of Fowls moved the second reading of a bill to repeal that part of the Act of the 6th and 7th Will. IV. which provided for uniting those sees on the occurrence of a vacancy— The Earl relied upon the petitions to show the prevalence of the feeling against the union. The measure was intended, by incorporating two Welsh sees, to provide an income and a seat in the House of Lords for the Bishop of an intended see of Manchester : but, if it were not advisable to increase the number of Bishops in the House, Lord Powis would meet the difficulty by allowing the junior Bishop to remain without a seat in the House until one of the number of seats should be vacated; and instead of Manchester waiting any longer for a Bishop, an income might at once be provided for him by mort- gaging Queen Anne's bounty for the purpose, without resorting to the revenue of the Welsh Bishoprics. Lord Powis complained, that as it is Wales is robbed of its ecclesiastical revenues, especially those of certain sinecure rectories, to swell the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission ; though they might very well be employed in providing for spiritual destitution in Wales. He contended, that, though not populous, the extent and ruggednels of the country included in the two Bishoprics forbade the depriving them of a Bishop; and he asserted, on the authority of a letter by Mr. R. W. Huntley, a proctor of the Convoca- tion, that at its last meeting, in 1841, that body tacitly condemned the measure by striking a passage commending it from the draft of an address to the Queen.

The Duke of WELLINGTON met the motion by an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months— Ile said that the provision which it .proposed to repeal had passed without a word of objection, and the whole measure with very little in either House. He described the means taken to render the Church establishment more effective,—the appointment of the Ecclesiastical Commission ; its proposal that the Crown and the dignitaries of the Church should make sacrifices to establish a more equal distribution of revenues and patronage ; and the establishment of two new Bishoprics, Ripon and Manchester, by uniting those of Bristol and Gloucester and of St. Asaph and Bangor. Great advantages have resulted from the erection Ripon into a Bishopric, and as great are expected from the institution of a Bishopric at Manchester. To increase the number of Bishops in the House would awaken great jealousy in the country ; and the carrying. of Lord Powis's bill would render impossible the formation of the Bishopric of Manchester.

A debate of some length ensued; in which all admitted the paramount importance of establishing the Bishopric of Manchester. The Bishop of BANGOR and the Bishop of SALISBURY supported the new Bill. The Earl of Rime opposed it. The Archbishop of CANT6RBuitx defended the arrangement made by the Ecclesiastical Commission. The Bishop of LONDON did the same : the real difficulty, he said, was not to provide an income for the Bishop of Manchester, but a seat in the House of Lords : to create a Bishop without a seat—to say nothing of the techni- cal difficulty that all Bishops sit by right of their baronies—would beget odious comparisons, and eventually a general disposition altogether to dispense with the attendance of Bishops in the House. The Bishop t EXETER would largely increase the Episcopacy of the country and of the House ; though he thought that some arrangement like that of the Irish Representative Bishops might be made, to free Bishoprics from the necessary connexion with seats in that House. The Bishop of Si. DAVIDS, the Bishop of LINCOLN, and the Bishop of NoRwica, reluctantly consented to the sacrifice, for the sake of in- stituting the Bishopric of Manchester. Earl Firzwitazite voted for the second reading of a bill to unsettle a paltry reform of the Church, desiring a real reform. Lord LrrrEurois would increase the number of Bishops in the House. At the suggestion of the Bishop of EXETER, the Earl of Powis withdrew his bill, probably to introduce it again next session.

THE CauRcH or SCOTLAND.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Duke of ARGYLL asked what proceeding was intended to be adopted by the Crown as to the filling up of the vacant livings in the Church of Scotland ? The Earl of ABERDEEN replied, that it was intended to adhere strictly to the letter of the law. Lord CAMPBELL, alluding to the recent secession from the Church, asked whether Government had any intention of seceding from its position, and granting the claiins put forth by the seceders in the protest recently made. The Earl of ABERDEEN was unable to answer the question— He could only say that nothing had happened to make him change his in- tentions on the subject in question. He could not answer for the views her Majesty's Government might take ; but he did not consider that what had taken place would alter its intentions. At the same time, it was not possible for him to say what course her Majesty's Government might pursue.

The subject was also alluded to in the House of Commons. In reply

to Sir ANDREW LEITH HAY, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that the Lord High Commissioner stated the number of endowed ministers who had seceded from the General Assembly at 93, with a number of lay mem- bers and quoad sacra ministers. As to legislative measures, he had nothing to add to previous declarations of Ministers.

ADMISSION OF DISSENTERS TO THE UNIVERSITIES.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Mr. CHRISTIE moved for leave to bring in a bill " to abolish certain oaths and subscriptions now imposed in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and to provide for the extension of education in the Universities to persons who are not members of the Church of England."

The two Universities were incorporated by.acts of Parliament passed during the reign of Elizabeth to promote godly learning and the virtuous education of oath. Incorporated with them were the Colleges, originally eleemosynary institutions of a private nature, but now constituting with the Universities public institutions richly endowed. He did not think that the Universities had any right to limit to one portion of the community the benefits which they had the power of conferring. In Oxford, however, before a student can matriculate, he must subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, and take the oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance ; and the same test is exacted on his taking every successive degree. At Cambridge the system is more liberal : no preliminary subscription is required, nor is there any until the taking of a Bachelor's degree ; but from that point upwards the same tests are enforced. Considerable privileges attach to the possession of an University degree: the Inns of Court allow the student who has it to be called to the bar two years sooner ; the degree of Doctor of Civil Law is indispensable to practice in the Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Courts ; a degree alone obtains admittance to the College of Physicians. Thus, many men of literary and scientific attainments are excluded from advantages if they do not conform to the discipline of the Established Church. It was the power of Parliament which bad created this evil, and be now called upon the same power to do it away. He called upon them to give Roman Catholics the benefit of a liberal education in those seats of learning which the munificence of Roman Catholic donors had endowed.

He proposed to abolish all religious tests before the taking of degrees at the Universities, except the degree of Doctor of Divinity ; to grant to Dissenters special exemptions from attendance at religious lectures and examinations, and at chapels; and in the third place, to repeal that part of the Act of Uniformity which required that no other service than that of the Church of England should be used in the chapels of Colleges or Halls. The Bishop of Ely had expressed an opinion that the prayers used daily at Colleges and Halls might be shorter— like those, for instance, at Ring's College.

Mr. Christie cited collateral precedents and authorities for his proposition ; beginning with instances of laxity in the practice of some Colleges in Cambridge —such as exemption from attendance at chapels ; admission of Roman Catho- lics at Magdalen and Christchurch ; and while a Jew was obliged to leave Trinity College, a Mussulman was educated at Trinity Hall. At Trinity College, Dublin, the orthodoxy of which could not be disputed, Roman Catho- lics and Dissenters were freely educated : so likewise they were at King's College, London ; an institution under the full sanction of the highest ecclesi- astical authorities—Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Gladstone were members of the Council of that College; and yet there Jews, Dissenters, and Roman Catholics received their education. Mr. Christie quoted at great length opinions for- merly delivered by Lord Stanley in 1833 in support of a petition presented to the House, signed by 63 Masters of Arts of Cambridge, praying that Dissenters might be admitted to degrees in that University ; and in 1834 in support of Mr. George William Wood's bill with a similar object.

Sir VALENTINE BLAKE seconded the motion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER must resist it— He began by appealing to the ability of Mr. Christie's own speech as proof of the superiority. of the Universities in this county over those in France, Ger- many, and America; and as in those Universities the teaching of all religions prevails, he inferred that the superiority of our Universities is owing to the re- ligious education. Mr. Christie had referred to opinions in favour of his views delivered ten years ago; but the circumstances of the present day are totally different, for the University of London has been established, with power to con- fer degrees in Arts and Medicine ; whereby Dissenters are admitted to advan- tages from which they were before excluded. Nor are Dissenters altogether excluded from the Universities : there is no obstacle to the education of a Dis- senter at Cambridge so long as he conforms to the regulations of the Univer- sity, and has no objection to attend the theological lectures ; nor is there any obstacle to his attaining the highest honours,—an instance of which is afforded in the honourable Member for Leeds, who rendered himself illustrious in the Col- lege to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the honour of belonging.

He apprehended that if young men had the discretionary power of absenting themselves from lectures on account of religious scruples, the example would be contagious : some idle Dissenting friend would teach the young Church- man how easy it was to rid himself of the attendance, and serious im- pediments would be thrown in the way of his sound education. He also feared that if the honours of Universities were extended to Dis- senters, without the emoluments and share in the Government, there would be even more discontent than at present. Nor must it be forgotten, that the Universities were instituted for the maintenance not less of the religion of the Church than of sound learning. [Lord John Russell made a re- mark.] The noble Lord'spoke of the Colleges having been generally established in Popish times. The noble Lord was, in the first place, historically wrong, seeing that the major portion of the Colleges had been endowed since the Reforma- tion : but, in the next place, surely the noble Lord yielded not to the vulgar error of imagining, that because the Catholic faith had been purified from its errors and abuses, therefore the Reformed religion was not entitled to retain the endowments which had been bestowed upon it before; or that, in other words, the established religion ceased to be so when it had been reformed. Why, the answer to the noble Lord was similar to that which had been given to a Catho- lic who inquired tauntingly of a Protestant, " Where was your faith before the Reformation ? " and received the reply, " Where was your face before it was last washed ?" (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. Goulburn further objected, that the proposition would introduce agitation into the management of the Univer- sities, and destroy their beneficial influence.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON claimed the admission of Dissenters to an equal sl,r^ in the benefits, not only of education, but of all lay-fellowships and endowments, as a right— There is not less than 80,0001. or 90,0001. a year of emoluments for scientific ability at the disposal of the Universities, which should be within the reach of Nonconformists. He disputed the position that the Universities were princi- pally intended to teach religion to the youth of the country : for instance, the statute for the.foundation of Trinity College, Cambridge, provided that the study of theology should not begin until the student attained the degree of Master of Arts. Was it pretended that the attendance at chapel—merely a kind of muster-roll, from which the student staid away if he could, constituted religious instruction ? Many leading divines had been of opinion that the compulsory attendance at chapel bad better be dispensed with. As to the lectures, he had never attended any on divinity. The present Bishop of St. David's said that the teaching of theology and religion formed but a small part, if any at all, of the statutes of the University of Cambridge. Yet, because they taught what they were pleased to call religion, the advocates of the Universities claimed to exclude their fellow-subjects from the benefits and advantages of a University education.

Sir ROBERT Isaias opposed the motion as a boon to the Dissenters, and still more if claimed as a right— He pointed to the virulence with which Dissenters assail the Government education scheme, as indicating their hostility Io the, education and religion of the Church. He contended at great length, that the Universities were founded for the purposes of "godly," that is religious learning; that if they admitted to the Universities men hberated from the burdens of religions education, they would destroy the objects for which those institutions were founded; that the Colleges were not founded by persons holding the opinions of the Roman Catho- lics of the present day; and that while, in Oxford, seventeen Colleges and Halls were founded before the Reformation and only seven after, three-fourths of the fellowships and endowments were founded subsequently to the Reformation. Upon the whole, the religious state of England, in the higher and middle classes, had advanced in the last fifty or sixty years to a degree that could scarcely be believed ; and he thought that was mainly owing to the predominance given to subjects of religion in education.

The motion was supported by Sir HENRY BARRON, who enlarged on the hardship of excluding Roman Catholics ; and opposed by Mr. SHAW.

Lord STANLEY spoke against it— Circumstances had entirely altered since 1834, when he uttered the opinion which Mr. Christie had quoted, and to which he still adhered ; and he thought it calculated to revives sense of grievances which had been in a great measure obviated. He still thought that some alteration might be made in the present system at the Universities, and particularly in the requiring very young men to sign the Thirty-nine Articles ; and he did not apprehend that the con- nexion between the Universities and the State religion would be endangered if greater facilities were given to the admission of Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catholics: but that was a consideration for the Universities them- selves.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL contended, that since 1834 the grievance of Dis- senters had only been mitigated, not redressed— He advanced arguments already used; and argued that the three different systems of exclusion enforced at Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, could not all be right. He insisted that the original endowments of many Oxford Colleges were for strictly Roman Catholic purposes ; the wills of many founders even enjoining the performance of mass. When Mr. Goulburn asked, " where was your face before it was washed ?" Lord John retorted, that such an answer might be apt to a Roman Catholic, but not to a Dissenter, who would think it hard to be excluded from University privileges because he bad washed his face a little cleaner than the Church had done hers. He thought that the Universities rested too much on the supposition that persons were to be made religions by the observance of certain texts and formularies.

The motion was supported by Mr. WYSE and Mr. REDINGTON ; op- posed by Mr. WYNN. Mr. ROEBUCK was sarcastic on the requiring boys to subscribe the abstruse doctrines of the Thirty-nine Articles, and on toleration, which professes to allow the right of private judg- ment, but punishes its exercise with civil disabilities. Describing all that Dissenters and Churchmen may achieve in common as students at the Universities, except the one thing exacted before granting honours, he entrapped Sir ROBERT INGLIS into implying that a Church-of-Eng- land man is a better man than a Dissenter, and Sir WALTER JAMES and Mr. MILNES into openly signifying their assent to that position. Lord SANDON against, and Mr. REDHEAD YORKE for the motion, closed the debate.

On a division, the motion was rejected, by 175 to 105.

KNUTSFORD GAOL.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE moved a resolution, stating, that after inquiry into certain circumstances connected with the discipline of Knutsford House of Correction, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had thought it proper that the Governor of the pris.on should be dismissed; that the Magistrates in Sessions assembled had, after an alleged careful examination, deemed the charges referred to by the Secretary, with one exception, unim- portant and not meriting the withdrawal of their confidence, and there- fore they had continued the Governor in his office ; that the Reverend William Browne, the Chaplain of the prison, alleged that he has been dismissed for giving evidence against the Governor before the Prison-Inspector ; and that under such circumstances a Select Com- mittee be appointed to inquire into the management and discipline of the said House of Correction. Mr. Duncombe supported this resolution with a statement of some length— The charges against the Governor were originally preferred in the House of Commons by Mr. Duncombe himself. The Governor was accused of treating some Chartist prisoners who had been tried before Lord Abinger with great severity ; the accusation was subsequently denied by Mr. Tattoo Egerton ; Mr. Duncombe's informant maintained that they were true; and Sir James Graham ordered an inquiry. Captain Williams, the Prison-Inspector, was sent down ; and he bad some conversation with the Chaplain of the prison, whom he also formally examined; and all the charges made by Mr. Dun- combe were proved. He had since received a communication from a respecta- ble tradesman of Knutsford, stating that persons of respectability avoided in- tercourse with Burgess, the Governor, on account of his brutal demeanour; and that it was his habitual boast, that in a very short time he could break down the constitution of any prisoner intrusted to hie care. According to the Chaplain, the Governor frequently said, that " as to reforming prisoners, it was all damned nonsense: a gaol ought to be made a sort of hell upon earth." The Prison-Inspector's inquiry discovered more cruelties. The Magistrates, however, refused to remove the Governor. They examined Mr. Browne, and made him disclose what passed at the private conversation with the Prison-Inspector. He was asked why he had not reported the sub- tance of his charges to the Visiting Justices ? and he replied, that he had on several occasions been told to confine himself to his spiritual duties. Sir James Graham recommended the Magistrates in Quarter-Sessions to remove the Governor; the Visiting Justices recommended them to remove the Chaplain ; and the Chaplain was removed, but not the Governor. The exception made by the Justices in declaring the charges against the Governor unimportant was the case of a boy Trainer, who had been flogged by order of the Governor after the Surgeon of the prison declared that the punishment ought to be stopped. There had been a boy in Parkhurst Prison, eleven years old, who had lost an eye from a blow of the lash while being whipped at Knutsford. The Chaplain who had been dismissed had received the very highest testimonials from the same Magistrates, when he was candidate for the Chaplaincy at Pentonville Prison.

Mr. TATTON EGERTON controverted Mr. Duncombe's statement— He admitted that the Justices' retention of the Governor, who had not his

.

own confidence, might have been an error in judgment. But thirty-four Ma- gistrates, of all parties, had decided; and they must be better judges than the House. As to the case of Trainer, the Prison-Inspector knew it in January 1841, and he had not thought it necessary to report it. On the contrary, he reported moat highly of the Governor ; and recommended that the officers of Pentonville Prison should be sent down to Knutsford to be instructed in the best manner of performing their duties. Mr. Egerton charged the Chap- lain with misrepresentation and falsehood. He said that political motives caused his dismissal : the Visiting Magistrates, one half of whom were Liberals, unanimously came to the conclusion that he must be removed, for so long as he staid discipline and good order could not be maintained; he was

dismissed at Quarter-Sessions, by a majority of 34 to 5, and one-third of the majority were of Liberal principles. He said that the Chairman of the Ma- gistrates told him to attend solely to his spiritual duties, and not to interfere : at had been found that the Chaplain was constantly interfering in the manage- ment of the gaol; so much so, that when the Governor offered to punish a prisoner, he was told that they would apply to the Chaplain : he was conse- quently reprimanded by the Chairman, who told him to report complaints he had to make to the Visiting Justices ; adding, that his province was to attend to his spiritual duties. Mr. Browne had also apologized to the Visiting Justices for making incorrect entries in his journal, and for altering and erasing entries in the journal signed by the Quarter-Sessions. A Liberal Magistrate reported that Mr. Browne was very remiss in his spiritual duties : he never spoke to the sick on any religious subject ; and on Friday s he read prayers on the landing- place of the stairs, that he might be heard in three rooms at once; the prayers, together with an exhortation, never lasting above ten minutes.

Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND and Mr. CURTEIS thought the Committee ought to be granted in order to the fullest investigation. Sir JAMES GRAHAM could not accede to the motion—

Additional inquiry could bring to light no new facts, or he would not resist it. The most difficult part of his administration lay in the management of the gaols : in that he actually received the most efficient assistance from the Magistracy ; and therefore he thought that in that respect any change of the law could not be advantageous. The Cheshire Magistrates decided by an overwhelming ma- jority that the Governor should remain in office. He did not regard as a ju- dicious use of their discretionary power the dismissal of the Chaplain ; but he thought that legislative interference would be better than a needless inquiry. Government would carefully consider the matter: he was disposed in the course of the present session to offer some legislative remedy ; and be trusted that the House would give the Secretary of State a power concurrent with that of the Magistrates to dismiss the officers of prisons.

After some further discussion, in which Mr. W. 0. STANLEY supported the motion, Mr. LEon opposed it, and Mr. HENLEY insisted on the ne- cessity of a general revision of the prison system, Mr. DUNCOMBE with- drew his motion.

MILLBANK PENITENTIARY.

On the third reading of the Milibank Penitentiary Bill, on Tuesday, Mr. HENLEY attributed the occurrence of several epidemics to the low diet of the prison. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, it was not low diet, but the site of the prison, that caused such epidemics. It would no longer be used as a place of lengthened confinement : in future, adults would be sent to Pentonville ; juvenile prisoners to Parkhurst ; and the Peni- tentiary would be used as a depot for prisoners under confinement for nine to twelve months. The bill was passed.

MISCELLANEOUS'.

THE TOWNSHEND PEERAGE BILL passed in the House of Lords on Mon- day; and it was brought from the Lords to the Commons, and read a first time, on Tuesday. PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS. Sir VALENTINE BLAKE moved the House of Commons, on Thursday, to grant leave to bring in " a bill to apportion and re ate the overwhelming labour and business of Parliament in a manner cal- to allay discontent, and to preserve and maintain the inviolability of the United Empire upon a satisfactory and permanent foundation." His bill proposed to restore the Irish and Scotch Parliaments; such Parliaments dele- gating to the Imperial Parliament as many Members as now sit for those parts of the United Kingdom. He recommended his scheme as a means of prevent- ing the Speakership from being a stepping-stone to the Peerage or the grave ; as preventing the attenuated forms now observed in the most active Members ; and as a method of superseding the Irish Repeal agitation. The motion, find- ing no seconder, fell to the geound. TROOPS roa IRELAND. In reply to Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN, on Wednesday, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the transfer of troops from one part of the kingdom to another occasioned no expense to the public. Should events in Ireland, however, require an expenditure beyond that in the Esti- mate, Government would of course propose it. Lusa REPEAL. Some remarks were made in the House of Lords, on Tues- day, on Dr. Higgins's violent language at Mulliugar. Lord CAMOYS doubted whether he had used the unjustifiable language attributed to him. The Earl of WICKLOW knew that several of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland were opposed to Repeal : of two, Dr. Curteis and Dr. Murray, he could speak from personal knowledge. Lord BROUGHAM said, that he knew from a gen- tleman high in office, that at a meeting of the Catholic clergy, headed by the Primate, it had been proved that the Catholic clergy were not, as a body, op- posed to the Union. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Bishop Of EXETER, condemning the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill before the House of Commons, asked whether it would be pressed through Parliament at a time when the Bishops could not be present ? Some amusement was created when the Bishop was called to order by Lord RADNOR, for discussing a measure while it was before the other House. Dr. PHILLPOTTS answered, that he was not discussing the bill, but a circular sent by Government to all the Bishops before the present session, and not exactly corresponding with the bill. Upon which the LORD CHANCELLOR asked, what was the use, then, of discussing a paper which did not correspond with the bill ? Lord Lyndhurst, however, promised that the measure should not be pressed upon Parliament at a time when the Bishops could not attend. In answer to Mr. YORKE, in the House of Commons, on Wednesday, Dr. norm. said that Government did not intend to abandon the bill this session.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. Sir GEORGE GREY moved, on Wednesday, the second reading of the Charitable Trusts Bill. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that Government hoped to introduce a similar measure, for the proper visitation and improvement of charities ; and therefore he hoped that Sir George would not press his motion. After a brief discussion, it was withdrawn, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS BILL was read a second time, on Wed- nesday, with general concurrence. Its object is to fulfil the understood inten- tion of the English and Irish Reform Acts, by abolishing the oaths that the Relief Bill directed Roman Catholic electors to take at the time of voting. CORN-z.Aws. Lord JOHN RUSSELL has fixed his motion of a Committee of the whole House on the Corn-laws for the 8th June. NEW TARIFF: COAL AND WOOL-DUTIES. Lord HOWICK has given notice, that shortly after Whitsuntide Le will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider so much of the act of 5th and 6th Victoria as relates to the imposition of a duty upon the export of coal. Mr. CHARLES WOOD has given a similar notice respecting the duty on the import of wool. TAXES ON SCIENTIFIC BODIES. Mr. G. W. WOOD obtained leave, on Thursday, to bring in a bill " to exempt scientific and literary institutions from the payment of parochial and municipal rates and taxes for such parts of their buildings as are used exclusively for scientific and literary purposes." BUBBLE COMPANIES. Mr. LABOUCHERE asked, on Tuesday, whether inflaters intended to take the evil of bubble companies into consideration; and whether they intended to inquire into the alleged rnaleadministration of the Merchant Seamen's Fund ? Mr. GLADSTONE replied, with respect to the first point, that he intended to revive the Committee of 1831; with respect to the second, that the best way would be to bring in a bill for the perusal of Mem- bers during the recess. QUEEN'S BENCH RULES. The Liberty of the Rules (Queen's Bench) Bill was read a second time in the House of Lords, on Monday. The object of the bill is to amend the Act of last year, which took the privilege from cer- tain prisoners who bad paid fees for the rules : the present bill allows the Mar- shal the discretion of restoring the privilege. DANISH CLAIMS. Mr. HAWES drew attention, on Tuesday, to the claims of certain British subjects for compensation for losses by the transactions in Denmark, recommending payment of the claims. The SPEAKER pointed out, that Mr. Hawes was irregular in not having obtained a Committee of the whole House before proposing a grant of money. Mr. HAveEs renewed his notice of the motion for a future day. GREEK LOANS. Mr. BLEWETT drew from Sir ROBERT PEEL, OR Wed- nesday, that the representatives of France, Russia, and England, in Greece, had instructions to take steps for procuring the reimbursement of the loans made to that country and the regular payment of the interest. The guarantee of this Government for a fresh loan had been refused. SCINDE. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE drew the attention of the Lords, on Monday, to Lord Ellenborough's proclamation of 1st October 1842, in which he announced that the Indian Government would remain "content with the limits which Nature appears to have assigned to its empire," and that he was "resolved that peace shall be observed " ; which Lord Clanricarde contrasted with the invasion of Scinde. He asked what conditions had been demanded of the Ameers after they had signed the recent treaty ; and what was the im- mediate cause of the hostilities ? The Duke of WELLINGTON, who recapitu- lated some of the events, narrated by the Indian newspapers last received, said that Government bad no official information as to the circumstances that led to the hostilities; but when all the accounts reached this country there would be no objection to give the House every information. THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS. The House of Commons is to adjourn from Friday the 2d June to the Thursday following.

CONTROVERTED ELECTION.

The Cambridge Election Committee came to a conclusion yesterday. They resolved, that it had been proved in evidence that one William Smithers had been bribed, by the payment to him of 131. Is. 9d. for a tavern bill, but without the knowledge or consent of the sitting Mem- ber, Mr. Fitzroy Kelly ; and that he was duly elected.