spirit towards the universities, but from a desire to
throw open their portals as wide as possible, and to make
them, not monastic or narrow, but once more national
institutions.—Mr. CAMPBELL, after some remarks upon
the abstract question of religious tests, observed that,
unless some great emergency arose, reform in this
matter would be more happily and more harmoniously
effected by the internal agency of the universities
themselves.—Lord J. RUSSELL stated very shortly his view
of this motion. Referring to a speech of Lord Stanley,
he expressed his concurrence with the opinion of that
noble lord, that there was a distinction between admitting
persons to the universities for study, and allowing
them afterwards to become part of the governing body,
a concession which would introduce an element of
confusion into the discipline of the university. He was a
cordial friend to the former object, but he was afraid
that the motion went to the latter, and he could not
assent to it.—Mr. M. GIBSON thought it most inconsistent
to exclude dissenters by religious tests from the
universities, where, it was said, they would receive the
fittest education for those high offices they were allowed
to fill. Apart from this, as a churchman, he objected
to a system which required youths of sixteen to give a
blind subscription to the thirty-nine articles, containing
disputed propositions in theology. The house being
counted at the requisition of a member, and only thirty-
eight members being present, an adjournment took place.

On Friday, June 20th, the house went into committee
on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.—Mr. MONSELL moved
the insertion of the following words at the end of the
second clause: "Provided always, that nothing in this
act contained shall be construed to interfere with or in
any manner to restrict the free action of the Roman
Catholic church in the United Kingdom in matters of a
spiritual nature." After a short conversation the
committee divided, and the proviso was negatived by
160 to 42. The committee next divided on the question
that the clause stand part of the bill—For the clause 150;
against it, 35; majority in favour, 115.—In the third
clause, Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved the following amendment:
"To expunge all the words after the word
'place,' and to insert the following words: 'used as the
designation of office in such church, or to the assumption
or use of the title of archbishop, bishop, or dean,
taken by any person solely as the designation of his
office, for the government of any voluntary church
according to its rules and usages, and not claiming or
assuming to have by law, in respect of such title or
jurisdiction, authority, or pre-eminence in the United
Kingdom.'"—Sir G. GREY opposed the amendment as
ambiguous in construction, either nugatory, or neutralising
in effect all the provisions of the bill. The
committee divided, and the amendment was negatived by
118 to 33. Clause 3 was then ordered to stand part of
the bill.—Mr. S. CRAWFORD then moved a clause
enacting that the bill shall not extend to Ireland.—The
SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the clause, as laying the
bill open to all the charges of inconsistency, discrepancy,
and confusion which had been brought against it. He
looked in vain for any principle on which the bill could
be rested that was not equally applicable to both
kingdoms.—After a discussion, in which Mr. Roche, Mr.
G. H. Cavendish, Mr. H. Drummond, Mr. Anstey, and
others took part, Lord J. RUSSELL said, if the bill was
to proceed at all, he could see no good reason why it
should not apply to Ireland as well as to England. It
would be ridiculous to allow the prerogative of the
crown to be invaded in Ireland, whilst they took
safeguards against aggression in England.—Mr. REYNOLDS
declared that, if he were a Roman Catholic bishop, he
would not allow twenty-four hours to elapse before he
incurred the highest penalties of the bill. He warned
ministers that they were sowing the seeds of discord
and disunion in Ireland, and alluded to the effects
likely to be produced by the Catholic Defence Association.
—Mr. J. O'CONNELL would not condescend to
accept the exemption of Ireland.—Mr. CAAMPBELL
defended the clause proposed, arguing that the bill, in its
present shape, virtually violated the compact of 1829,
and that the efforts to vindicate Protestantism would
gain nothing by the inclusion of Ireland in the bill.—
The committee divided—For the clause, 60; against it,
255: majority against, 195.—Sir R. INGLIS moved a
long clause in substance prohibiting any minister or
servant of the crown in this country, or any colonial
governor in its dependencies, from granting any rank or
precedence in respect of Roman Catholic ecclesiastical
offices, except in cases for which provision may have
been made by treaty.—Lord J. RUSSELL opposed it as
unintelligible, and tending to confusion.—The committee
divided—For the clause, 121; against it, 166: majority
against, 45.

On Monday, the 23rd, the house having again gone
into committee on the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption
Bill, Mr. WALPOLE moved, as an amendment of the
preamble, after the word "Whereas," to insert words
declaring the entire independence of this kingdom of any
jurisdiction or authority of any foreign prince, prelate,
or potentate, and that the Bishop of Rome had by a
certain brief or rescript recently pretended to constitute
within this realm, according to the common rules of the
church of Rome, a hierarchy of bishops named from sees
and with titles derived from places belonging to the
Crown of England. One of his reasons for proposing
this amendment was, that some had supposed there was
a considerable ambiguity in the declaratory clause of the
bill, and if such ambiguity existed it should be cleared
up. But his principal object was to remedy a defect
in the bill, which, though it avoided the particular brief
of the 29th of September, 1850, did not prevent a
repetition of the act, and afforded no guarantee that the law
would be observed. He wished to deal with this aggression
in the same manner as our ancestors had dealt with
similar acts; not content with repelling the particular
aggression by substantive enactment, they asserted in
plain terms the entire freedom and independence of this
realm.—The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the insertion
of these words in the preamble, which latter, in
conjunction with the second and third clauses, would, he
contended, sufficiently effect the object in view. No one
denied that the first part of the proposed amendment
was undoubted law; by this recital, therefore, the law
would in no way be strengthened, while it would compel
Roman Catholic members to sanction a declaration they
were not required to make at the table.—Upon a division,
after some discussion, the amendment was negatived by
140 against 131.—Mr. WALPOLE then moved another
amendment of the preamble by adding words declaring
that the brief purported to constitute within the realm,
contrary to the law and custom thereof, a hierarchy of
bishops named from sees and with titles derived from
places belonging to the Crown of England.—Lord J.
RUSSELL resisted this addition, which, upon a division,
was negatived by 141 against 117. The committee then
divided upon the preamble itself, which was carried by
200 against 39.

The house then went into committee upon the Oath of
Abjuration (Jews) Bill, which passed through without
a division, though with several strong protests against
the principle of the measure.

The adjourned debate on the report of the committee
of supply was resumed by Mr. HUME, who made the
vote of £300,000 towards the Expenses of the Caffre
War the subject of a complaint against the Government
for withholding from the colonists of the Cape of Good
Hope a representative system granted by letters patent.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in reply, stated the mode in which
a representative system had been granted to the Cape.
The letters patent contained no distinct details, but
only an outline of the system, to be filled up in the
colony, and the scheme was to be sent home in the
shape of ordinances for the decision of her Majesty's
government. He explained the course adopted by Sir
Harry Smith, who, instead of filling up the vacant seats
of the council by nominees, completed that assembly, by
which the new ordinances were to be framed, by
members elected in the colony; and he detailed the result of
that measure—the differences which arose in the council
and the secession of Sir A Stockenström and his
colleagues, who, he thought, had taken a most unfortunate
course, since, but for it, the ordinances would have been
transmitted to this country and received the consideration
of the home government, and a representative
constitution would have been now in force in the colony.
—The report was then agreed to.