said, he wished to ask the Judge Advocate General for some information relative to the forms used for proceedings of Regimental Courts Martial?

, in reply, said, that the proceedings of regimental courts martial were not under the cognizance of the department of which he had the honour of being the head. Some time ago he offered a suggestion to the Horse Guards to the effect that the proceedings of courts martial would be much simplified by the adoption of printed regulations with reference to the manner in which the examination should be conducted. That printed form had been adopted in the case of general courts martial, but with respect to regimental courts martial he had received the following answer:—

"The proceedings of regimental courts martial are kept in a particular kind of book, made with screw back; they are written on paper specially adapted for these books, and as they are carried about with the regiment it is of great consequence that they should occupy as little space as possible. If the printed forms were used the bulk of the documents would be considerably increased, and this increase would prove a great inconvenience in moving from one station to another. This is of little moment in the case of district or general courts martial, where the documents are kept permanently in an office; but in a regiment, which is constantly moving, it would prove highly inconvenient and expensive to increase the amount of baggage to be carried."

He hoped the feeling of the House would be that this was one of those matters of minute regulation which might fairly be left to the judgment of the authorities at the Horse Guards.

When shall we have the Clause appointing the Boundary Commissioners?

I wish to give the names of the Boundary Commissioners at the same time that I put the clause upon the table. It is not in my power to give the names now, but I hope to be able to do so in the course of the morning, and in that case I shall put the clause upon the table.

said, he would beg to ask when the Registration Clauses will be forthcoming?

I find that it will not be necessary to put any new Registration Clauses in the Bill.

Last night I made an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a little time for the consideration of this question, which bus come so suddenly upon the London University. The appeal, I am sorrry to say, was unsuccessful. Since then I have presented a petition not signed, as I wish it had been, by the Senate or by Convocation—for time did not permit of that—but signed by Mr. Grote, the Vice Chancellor, and by the Chairman of Committees of Convocation — a Gentleman who may be considered to represent Convocation when it is not sitting—setting forth arguments against the proposal of the Government to unite these two Universities in one electoral body, and stating that there has not been time since this matter was first proposed by the Government to take the sense either of the Senate or of Convocation on the subject. To that I may add, from my own knowledge, that the Senate will meet to-morrow to consider this question, that a requisition has been presented for a meeting of Convocation which will be held in a few days, and that there is no doubt that the feelings of both those bodies are very much against the proposal of the Government. Under these circumstances, I wish I could persuade myself that there was the least use in renewing the appeal to the Government to give the University an opportunity of being heard before the change takes place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us last night that the University of London has had dangling before its eyes for many years the prospect of Parliamentary representation. If it has not obtained this representation, it has not arisen from the unwillingness of any Government to concede it, but because the Reform Bills in which their recommendations have been embodied have never become law. But observe the natural inference from that. The natural inference is that when the present Government included a similar proposal in its Bill the University of London considered itself safe, and, believing that the Government would fulfil their understanding, was lulled into a false security, took no measures to stimulate the Government or express its opinion, and showed a trust and confidence which now appear to have been very ill bestowed. It has therefore been rather confining itself to try and find out who is the Member who should represent it in the representation which it made sure it would have, than to assure that representation. For these reasons it is only equitable and reasonable to ask the Government even now, after they have carried the first word of the Amendment, to pause and allow the University to be heard before they deprive it of the privilege and honour which it has for some time considered virtually its own. I cannot say that I make the appeal with confidence. Perhaps, after the rather scornful way in which I was met last night, when my appeal was treated with badinage and ridicule, I am not consulting the dignity of the University — I do not care about my own—in now renewing the appeal. On such an occasion I must not be particular. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have done well to remember that, though it is easy to get up a laugh, these are matters of serious moment, deeply touching the interests and feelings of men as intelligent and as able to form opinions on public affairs as the best of us. I cannot part from the subject without adding one or two words to correct what was said last. We heard much of the improvements in Durham, which, it was said, had quite changed the state of things there. When were those improvements made? In October, 1865. Magical indeed must have been their effect if in the short time which has since elapsed they have reversed a slate of things which everybody spoke of as miserable and distressing into efficiency and prosperity. Against these improvements I am the last to speak, for they were chiefly made in consequence of the Report of the University Commission, but it is impossible that they can have already had the effect attributed to them. No one has been more urgent than the right hon. Gentleman in impressing upon us that every Member should represent a homogeneous constituency. If one might venture to judge of a mind so versatile and capable of embracing so many aims and feelings, that is the object in all this question of Reform which appears to lie nearest to his heart. He is always telling us of the necessity of drawing a sharp line of division between towns and counties, and he wishes to arm with more than Imperial authority certain Boundary Commissioners in order to carry out this principle to its fullest extent. Apply the principle here. The right hon. Gentleman is about to group these two Universities. The only defence of grouping is that the communities thus joined are much the some, that they are in the same neighbourhood, have the same feelings and the same ideas, and that being divided only by a small space they may without much inconvenience be regarded as the same community. Is that the case with Universities? A University is the most complicated of immaterial things. It has an artificial origin, it has a head and members, and it is a being created, organized, and worked out by the law. Totus, teres atque rotundus. To unite two of these beings together, each having a complete organization of its own, would be a strange and wonderful union, different indeed from the union of a number of inhabitants who may happen to live in different towns and villages without any organization at all. But the case goes much further. These two Universities are as distinct from each other a3 possible. Durham is local and provincial; London is metropolitan and cosmopolitan, extending its influence more and more every day all over the world. The University of Durham has its origin in religious feeling, is intended for the purpose of religious instruction, and is under the auspices of a Dean and Chapter—an ecclesiastical body. The University of London in its domain is as free as the boundless range of intellect itself. It confines its Members to no particular study, but extends its aid to any subject which may be fitly studied by youth. The one University is ecclesiastical, the other pre-eminently and entirely secular. You are about to unite these two bodies. What must be the effect of that? It must be that the man who is a fit representative for the one is an unfit representative for the other. You cannot have any human being so plastic, so various—I had almost said so double-faced and hypocritical—as to give satisfaction to these two bodies, both perhaps excellent and admirable—I will say nothing of that—but formed with different ends, upon different principles, and for different purposes. Durham may, and I dare say will, do good as a, College. A University it ought never to have been. It is too narrow for a University. The making of a College into a University means that you trust to those who teach the function of examining the people whom they teach. The result is that they are naturally too lenient, examiners. They are testing their own work, which ought to be tested by other people. That is the difficulty and defect in Durham which, in my opinion, will militate against its success as a University. The University of London, being free from any such trammels, being nothing but an examining and directing body, and having no functions for instruction, is able to do for Colleges and for places of instruction all over the world that which it is impossible they can do for themselves. The University of Durham will, I doubt not, continue to run its limited, unambitious, and humble career of usefulness in teaching, but it can never be a great tester of the teaching of others. I put it, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman whether he will insist on welding two most opposite bodies into one constituency. What will be the effect if he does? It will be that if the University of Durham appoint the Member, he will be an unfit and unsatisfactory representative for the University of London. If the University of London appoint the Member he will be an unfit and unsatisfactory representative for the University of Durham. That will not be a satisfactory state of things. I say, then—though I have no authority to make the statement—that the boon which it is proposed to confer will hardly be considered a boon, and that this, like other things we have heard of, will be only the beginning of jealousies, heart-burnings, and attempts to get rid of the connection. If my application to the right hon. Gentleman fails, as I suppose it will, I should be disposed to make a Motion to postpone the clause; but that, I believe, I cannot do, as an Amendment has been made in it already. I hope the light hon. Gentleman will give an answer to my appeal, will consider the just, moderate, and reasonable claim we make, and forbear to join in this unholy wedlock those whom every motive of policy and wisdom should keep asunder.

said, he would not have risen to take part in the discussion, were it not for the somewhat invidious comparison which had been made as to the efficiency of the two Universities. The right hon. Gentleman had made use of the word "homogeneous," and proceeded to argue that the entire dissimilarity of the two bodies ought for ever to keep them asunder. That dissimilarity was not what the Committee might be led to infer from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, There were no tests required for admission to the privileges of the University of Durham, and no forms to be undergone which were objected to by students. The right hon. Gentleman bad spoken of the number of graduates, but it was not right to make the point of numbers an element in the consideration. It should be borne in mind that the University of London offered no education. It only conferred degrees, perhaps upon a high standard. The sufficiency of the standard he did not dispute. But it merited consideration that it had no system of domestic education and discipline, no curriculum of instruction. It must be in the nature of things that a University like that of Durham, which had these things, and which was nearly of the same age as that of London, must take a longer time in making way and increasing the number of its graduates in the district with which it was more immediately connected. The right hon. Gentleman had made an appeal in favour of the London University on the ground of its cosmopolitan character. But he would ask the Committee whether an institution in a district teeming with population and embracing within it the most important interests, was not quite as much for the advancement of the commonweal, and quite as proper for consideration at the hands of Parliament. The University of Durham had, under the present arrangements, the means of educating students at a much less cost than could be done by Oxford or Cambridge. £80 or £85 was the limit of the expense that need to be incurred. The right hon. Gentleman had remarked that the examiners at the Durham University and the teachers were the same, and that thus no test was applied to the education given in the schools. What were the facts? Examiners were brought down from Cambridge or Oxford to test the students at the taking of degrees. [Mr. LOWE: Hear, hear!] It was not to be supposed that those gentlemen would adopt an insufficient standard. Therefore the test of merit in those examined was as good in the one case as in the other. It was hardly consistent with the position of the University of London in its cosmopolitan character to maintain that a conjunction with the University of Durham would militate against its privileges. In the debate of last night the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Goldsmid) objected to the grouping of the two Universities on the ground of distance. But Glasgow was not situate close to Aberdeen nor Edinburgh to St. Andrews. Railways now annihilated space. If the proposal to employ voting papers, which were now in use in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and which was contained in the Bill, was adopted, the question of neighbourhood ought to form no element in the consideration of the question. In 1858, the Durham University originated a system of middle-class examinations, approaching the system which was now so much lauded and advocated in connection with the other Universities as of the greatest possible advantage to the public interest. The hon. Member for Honiton had spoken last night of the distinguished men who had proceeded from the medical school of the London University. He seemed not to be aware that there was an excellent medical and surgical school in Newcastle-on-Tyne, which was in connection with the University of Durham. No district in England gave more scope for the ability of men of eminent medical and surgical attainments than the part of England where collieries abounded, which was inhabited by so dense a population. The hon. Member had said that the University of Durham was not growing, and that the standard was not kept up. The hon. Gentleman was not correct in that assertion. The medical examination at Durham University was at this moment working in the most advantageous and successful manner. Why, under these circumstances, should a slur be cast upon the University of Durham, and why were its claims to be disregarded, when in its own time and way it was doing infinitely more in promoting education by really teaching students than could be done by a body which simply conferred degrees, however high its standard? Within the last thirty years the population of Northumberland and Durham had increased about 64 per cent. The district contained many employers of labour, who were deterred from sending their sons to Oxford or Cambridge by reason of the length of time and the expense it involved, whereas at Durham University as high a standard could be reached in less time and at less expense. He hoped these considerations would weigh with the Committee, and that Durham would not be excluded from the Parliamentary privileges which were enjoyed by other Universities.

I think the Committee, during the speech of the hon. Baronet, has come to the conclusion that, with all the interesting facts he has laid before us, it was not a speech in favour of the union of the University of Durham with the University of London. If the speech had any value at all — and I am not about to contest that point—its value consisted in showing that the University of Durham ought to be represented in this House. I see the hon. Baronet is willing to admit what I say is true. He sees that which is nearest to him when at home, and the University of Durham looks to him a very grand institution. [Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY: I desire its representation in conjunction with the London University, as proposed.] I shall not say a word to depreciate the University of Durham. But the speech of the hon. Baronet has nothing to do with the proposal before the Committee. The University of Durham may be all that he says it is. At the same time, it maybe a very unwise thing, both with regard to the past promises of the Government and the just claims of the University of London, that the two Universities should be united in sending one Member to this House. The University of London is an institution which was needed, and created for purposes somewhat peculiar. It was founded to enable persons to take advantage of a high University education, who from a variety of reasons were not able to avail themselves of the benefits offered to other persons by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The University of London has none of that grand antiquity which attaches to the two ancient Universities, nor has it the great endowments they have. But it stands before the country having done up to this time, and doing still, a great work. The House on all occasions, when this proposal of enfranchising the London University has been before us, has met it without objection, and generally with approval. The object of the House and of successive Governments in making this proposal has been to give the University of London a certain position in the nation — to elevate its status — and to place it more nearly on a par in public estimation with the ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, I am not in favour of the representation of Universities. The representation of the ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge was created in times about the worst in our history. The Members they have sent to this House, learned as some of them have been, and amiable as many of them have been, have not been representatives such as it would be wise—I speak of their political views—for the House of Commons to follow. I am glad to see that that view is cordially accepted. ["No!"] I am quite sure hon. Gentlemen opposite will not say they are now walking in the foot-steps of any previous representative of Oxford. I therefore say I am not in favour of the representation of Universities. If I had bad the making of a Reform Bill for introduction to this House, I should have done violence to my own views with regard to the subject, and should have condescended to the weakness, or it may be the; greater wisdom of the House, if I had proposed to give a representative to the University of London. At the same time, seeing that other Universities have representatives in this House, I think that is a strong argument in its favour. Therefore I shall be willing to vote for conferring a representative on the University of London. But what can be more preposterous than the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He himself can hardly regard it with gravity. It was obvious yesterday that the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench did not wish to have a division. If some Gentlemen who always liked going into the lobby better than remaining in the House had not called for a division, I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Goldsmid), and that the London University would have had its Member assured to it without this discussion, The right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) stated, in the most forcible and convincing language, many of the objections to this scheme. I should like to see what sort of electioneering cam- paign would be carried on by these two Universities. I know the Dean of Durham is a most admirable, accomplished, and liberal man. When I was a candidate for Durham in 1843, and was returned for that city, I had the satisfaction of having the support of the Dean of Durham. Some other dignitaries of the Cathedral—three I believe—were among my supporters. I shall therefore say nothing against them — it would be untrue if did so It would be most impertinent in me to reflect upon them in any way. But if a committee were formed to conduct an election for those joint Universities what a puzzle the Committee would be in. I saw an account this week in the newspapers of a committee formed in connection with the University of London. A discussion arose as to whether the candidate should be a Liberal-Conservative or a Conservative-Liberal, I have no doubt there is, and will be, the greatest possible difficulty in determining whether he shall be a Radical of the ancient type sitting on this Bench, or whether he shall be a Radical of the modern type sitting behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There can be doubt that the candidate who would be selected in Durham would be wholly different in his political views from the candidate selected by the University of London. If the University of London had a large majority, the result would be that the University of Durham would be practically and permanently disfranchised. If there was a minority in the London University, that would conspire — I do not mean it in an unpleasant sense — but that would unite in action with the solid body of the University of Durham, then the great majority of the University of London might be disfranchised. It would have been as rational for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose that the University of Edinburgh, with its high Protestant feeling, should be associated with the College of Maynooth, as that the University of Durham should be associated in political representation with the University of London. I do not know a man among my acquaintances, political or otherwise, who would be likely to offer himself with a fair face to those two Universities, unless it be the right hon. Gentleman who has made this proposal to the House. I am not strenuously arguing for the representation of Universities. I disapprove of it. At the same time the House is in favour of it. The House has conceded, or is willing to concede it to the Scotch Universities, as I think, in great excess. It is willing to concede it to the University of London, and has been so since 1854. The House has made a promise so specific that not one in the University, or even in the City of London, has doubted for a moment that the original proposal of the Government would be accepted without contest or division. But at the last moment, the right hon. Gentleman, for reasons behind the screen, which we cannot fathom, has made a proposal the most unwise and least to be defended of all the proposals he has submitted to the House during the Session. I say, give to the University of London what you have promised, and what you say it has claim to. Give it fairly and in such a manner as that it will be clearly understood where the power rests. Do not, for purposes, apparently, of party, add to the University of London another body which you think will thwart the general objects of that body. Deal with the University of London in a frank manner as with men of, perhaps, the highest intelligence and cultivation in this country. Then, in all probability, you will have some man returned who will be worthy of his constituents, and worthy of taking part in the deliberations of this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has exhorted us in almost pathetic tones to banish party. Well, let us banish party. I have had no party feeling in this matter during this Session. I feel as sure as I am standing here? and speaking to the Committee, that there is not one man in ten in this House who believes on pure public grounds that it would be a judicious arrangement to unite these two Universities in one representation. The right hon. Gentleman will, I believe, be just as much obliged to you if you give him leave to make this change as he has been deeply obliged to you for your liberality on many previous occasions.

said, he had always thought that the great basis of the argument for increased representation was that they ought to give representation in proportion to the increase of public intelligence. It seemed, therefore, anything but consistent to deny representation to the most intelligent bodies in this country. Surely the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) did not wish the House to believe that he was afraid of bringing intelligence into that House. If so, the hon. Gentleman seemed open to the charge of political insincerity [Mr. BRIGHT: I would give the members votes.] The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) began his argument by making an ad misericordiam appeal to that House, and said that they ought to respect the feelings of the learned and intelligent persons connected with the University of London. He adopted the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Though the body whose claims he (Mr. Liddell) advocated was small, they were as much entitled to have their feelings respected and to avoid the stigma and odium of being the only unrepresented University, as the larger body which the right hon. Gentleman represented. The right hon. Gentleman forbade the banns between London and Durham because, he said, there was an incongruity of character in the persons to be united, and he admitted that the objection was better raised before, than after marriage, but was this true? A sound theological education was no doubt bestowed at Durham. But it had also the freest and most liberal constitution of any of our Universities. There was not one of the endowments that was not thrown open without distinction of class or religion, with the exception of one small scholarship. To object to unite two bodies on the ground of difference of opinion in the constituencies would be to disfranchise half the county constituencies. Could any one represent a greater diversity of opinion and interest than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire? The effect of representing such a diversity of interest made a man more liberal, enlarged his mind, and made him fit for the great work of Imperial legislation. They were told that the University of London was distinguished by its cosmopolitan views. If so, a little fixity of tone might be usefully engrafted upon it. What possible harm would it be to the University of London to allow a small body like Durham to be affiliated to it. If the London University were superior in some respects the effect would be to improve the smaller body. If the effect of the union were to introduce sound religious feeling into the larger body the advantage would be mutual. The House had sanctioned the principle of affiliation for representative purposes in the case of the Scotch Universities. The onus now rested on the other side to show what possible harm would result from the proposed union. Until that was done he hoped the Committee would record its sanction to the proposal of the Government.

I shall not be suspected, at least on this occasion, of expressing any party feeling on this subject. Hitherto I have never voted on this enormous question, which has suddenly assumed such tremendous proportions. I share the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, that we are already overstocked with University Members. I do not see that there is any good in giving Members to Universities. Should we have had this Bill if it had depended on the votes of the Members for the Universities? I have as little love for the University of London as for that of Durham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Northumberland, and especially the hon. Member for Durham, who appears to be the author of this little project, and who has poured his venomous distilment into the ears of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I congratulate them upon having achieved one I thing. They have let the world know that there is such an institution as the University of Durham. I was ignorant that there was a University of Durham; so I believe were the great body of my fellow-countrymen. They connect Durham with "short-horns," not with scholars. At all events, Durham University has had a capital advertisement in these debates. We have heard a great statistical maiden speech from the Member for Northumberland; but the question is whether the University of London is content to be joked with Durham. What is the University of Durham? Its influence is insignificant, and the University of London will ride over it in every instance. The Reform Bill, when-ever it is re-printed, and whatever good there may be in it, appears ridiculous enough in many instances. What are we about to do? The vengeance, I may say, of that terrible Neptune, the hon. Member for Durham, is about to create a hybrid constituency—

"Semibovemque virum, semivirumque bovem."

It would be neither one thing nor the other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his secret heart, though incumbered by the prejudices of hon. Members behind him, which he is slowly shaking off, will say if we negative this Motion, that the secret inclinations of the Government have thereby been gratified. There is a middle course. Why is it necessary to bestow this Member on these two Universities that are already beginning to quarrel with each other? There appears to be an incompatibility of temper that ought to prevent this union. Instead of filling up the clause with the word "University" at all, I would suggest that the word "Liverpool" be substituted, and thus give an additional Member to that great commercial community. We have heard much of the increase of the counties of Durham find Northumberland. But the increase of Liverpool in population and rental would throw Durham and Northumberland into the shade. In ten years the population of Liverpool has enormously increased, while the rental has increased by £1,250,000. Yet there it is with two miserable Members. [Laughter.] I do not mean miserable Member in that sense, because there are not two more efficient Members in the House than the Members for Liverpool. What sort of a Member are we likely to get from these Universities? Heaven knows what kind of a creation will come out of this maladroitly-formed constituency, I would therefore suggest that the words "town of Liverpool" be inserted instead of "University." The rental if that town is upwards of £2,500,000. The population is nearly 500,000. I call on all good Radical Reformers to come to the relief of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is at present bound, like Prometheus, by the insidious Member for Durham, or rather he is like Captain Macheath with the "Polly" of Durham University on one side, and the "Lucy" of London University on the other. Let us come to his assistance. No doubt he would say with that great hero—

"Since you both tease me together,

To neither a word will I say."

I beg to move that the word "Liverpool" be inserted.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne stated that we had not treated the University of London with sufficient consideration. Having from this Bench proposed, at different periods, that that University should be represented in Parliament, it is scarcely necessary to vindicate myself from that charge, It was not "the grand antiquity" of that institution—to adopt the phrase of the hon. Member for Birmingham—nor its great endowments which induced me to take that course. I am of opinion that it would be well that the University should be represented in Parliament, because it would give us a constituency of learned and enlightened men. I am favourable to an intellectual element being introduced into this House purposely and professedly as such. We should not in all cases be merely the representatives of material interests. I think therefore the right hon. Gentleman has no foundation for the charge he made against me. When I first submitted this question to the consideration of the House, I gave the House to understand that Her Majesty's Government would be very much influenced by their feeling on the subject. I have not obtruded myself therefore upon the Committee in this debate, but have listened with interest and patience to all that has been said. It is clear that our proposal is favoured by the Committee. The divisions taken upon it show that. I am not surprised at the conclusion arrived at after discussion. The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne to-day and yesterday is an argument of prejudice. He commences by associating one of these rival institutions with qualities which, in his estimation, are of an exceptional character, and on that assumption he argues that it would be most unwise to unite the two together. We have no evidence that there is any foundation for the charges he makes against Durham University. As far as we can form an opinion, the University of Durham is a University now distinguished by the learning of its professors and the high character of its students. With regard to the imputation cast upon it of narrowness of religious feeling, there is no foundation whatever for it. There are few institution in the portion of the kingdom much wanting the inspiring presence of a University—if it has during the last few years greatly advanced and already possesses not a numerous but a respectable body of graduates fit to form a constituency, we have to ask ourselves what is the reason why it should not be joined in respect to Parliamentary privileges with the University of London? The University of London itself cannot furnish a very large constituent body. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his observations this afternoon by correcting a statement I heard with some surprise yesterday as to the number of that constituency, and informed us that it was of more moderate dimensions. I confess that in considering the policy of giving the London University representation in this House, my opinion would not be much influenced by the exact amount of the constituency. I look at the principles on which the institution is founded, the progress it has made, and the future which I hope is before it. These are the considerations that would influence me. They influence me also with respect to the University of Durham. If the principle be admitted that Universities may be united for purposes of representation, though at a distance from each other—and that principle seems to be admitted in regard to the Scotch Universities—I am at a loss to understand why it should not be extended to the Universities of London and Durham. We are told that the great reason why that union should not take place is because London University is a "cosmopolitan" institution. I am unable to cope with an argument consisting of an epithet of which, it is difficult to form a precise idea. We know that there are in London certain "cosmopolitan" institutions; and being in some degree responsible for the proposal to give Parliamentary representation to the London University, it might rather alarm me to hear that institution characterized as cosmopolitan. I do not see in what respect it materially varies from the University of Durham. Each of those Universities has a distinctive character. But I do not see that any argument against their union can rest on that foundation. Distinctive character gives variety to a common aim. They are both learned institutions. They are designed to bring up young men with the common aims which a high education naturally induces. Variety of character in a learned constituency should be regarded as an advantage rather than otherwise. What is the character of the constituency of London University? It is itself composed of most dissimilar elements. Its graduates come from educational institutions in various parts of the kingdom. A Roman Catholic College in Durham already sends its pupils to graduate at the London University, where, if this Bill passes, they will become University electors, and be represented as such in Parliament. When, therefore, the religious prejudice is attempted to be raised against this proposal—when we are told that London University is a "cosmopolitan" institution, and that there is danger from its being connected with the University of Durham, because the latter is an ecclesiastical institution, it seems to be hard on the graduates of Durham University that they should be deprived of the to extend its influence and be coming to a advantages to be enjoyed by the pupils from Ushaw. The cosmopolitan argument has in reality no force. The hon. Member for Birmingham spoke in an impressive manner, and one that is always interesting; but all I could gather from his speech in the shape of material objection to the proposal before us is that there would be endless squabbles when election time came, and endless difficulties in the way of candidates who had to appeal to the franchises of the Universities of Durham and London. In order to illustrate this position, on which he founded his conclusion that their union would be most objectionable, the hon. Member, with extraordinary inconsistency, gave us a detail of the manner in which at the present moment a canvass is conducted in the University of London. Nothing, according to the hon. Member for Birmingham, can be more absurd than the mode in which a canvass for the representation of London University is going on. How much more ridiculous, he says, it would be if the candidates had to solicit the suffrages of Durham University as well! I do not see that these discussions have established one solid argument against our proposal. All the objections taken to it appear to be animated merely by prejudice. If the University of London has hoped that it would enjoy the sole privilege of being represented in this House, it may remember that its existence is so novel that it ought not to be too curious and too critical as to the conditions on which it is offered this privilege. There are many claimants for this honour. For a considerable period there have been praiseworthy attempts made to obtain representation for that and other learned bodies. I do not think it is for public men to found the whole argument against the admission of Durham on a most invidious description of the respective characters and qualities of the two Universities. I hope the Committee will take a liberal view of the question, that they will bear in mind that the University of Durham is probably destined to exercise a considerable and a beneficial influence on the population of the Northern part of the kingdom, and that the opportunity may not again present itself in our generation of conferring on that learned body the privilege of being represented in this House. By adopting the proposal of the Government, we shall be giving weight to this institution, we shall be contributing to extend its influence and be coming to a resolution which will be advantageous to the country.

said, that if the University of Durham were an institution of an exclusive character, he should object to allowing it to participate in the enjoyment of the electoral franchise. He understood, however, that it admitted Dissenters and Roman Catholics, as well as members of the Church of England, to share its distinctions. If the proposal to allow it to have a voice in returning a Member to that House were rejected, it would, in the event of a Member being given to the University of London, be the only University in the kingdom which would be unrepresented, inasmuch as the Universities of Scotland were about to be grouped. He did not think it right that it should be left in that anomalous position, and he should under those circumstances vote in favour of the proposal of the Government.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that those who advocated the cause of the London University rested their case on an invidious comparison between it and the University of Durham, and had thereby prejudiced their own argument His right hon. Friend the Member for Calne, who was, as well as himself, a member of the Senate of the London University, having stated his experience in his capacity as a Commissioner, appointed to inquire into the University of Durham, had been answered by hon. Members who represented that part of the country, who informed the Committee that the advice given by his right hon. Friend had been taken by the University, and that the abuses he had pointed out no longer existed. He had no wish in the smallest degree to disparage the University of Durham, or to maintain that it did not perform in the most admirable manner the duties it was designed to discharge. But those duties were entirely different from the duties which the London University so successfully fulfilled. The Durham University was founded on the principles of the ancient Universities, with the view that it might furnish a more economical and convenient means of giving a similar education, and the examiners were chosen from the ancient Universities. [Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY: Not all.] The London University was* established for the express purpose of giving a broad academic education to those who were excluded from the ancient Universities. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) was under a complete delusion if he supposed that the University of Durham, like that of London, was open to the members of all religious persuasions. If the Committee were to grant to that University the privilege of voting for a candidate to represent it in Parliament, that privilege would be confined exclusively to the members of the Church. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared himself to be in favour of conferring representation on an intellectual community; but was it not desirable that when a Member was returned by such a community, the principles which he was likely to advocate, and the general sentiments of his constituents, should be capable of being clearly indicated? What sort of a representative must he be who could not speak on behalf of that which was universal, as in the case of the University of London, nor of that which was confined to the Church of England, as in the case of the Durham University, but who would be, as it were, the result of the accident which of those two sets of opinions happened to command the most numerous adherence at the time? The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed somewhat alarmed at the use of the word "cosmopolitan" in the argument of his right hon. Friend; but whether he meant what he said on that point as a joke or as a serious observation was open to doubt. What his right hon. Friend meant by the use of the word "cosmopolitan" was that the London University, while maintaining a high standard of examination, admitted to that examination men from all ports of Her Majesty's dominions. Learned men from Calcutta or Australia might come there, obtain their degree, and thus become members of that which his right hon. Friend had justly characterized as a cosmopolitan University. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that the members of the London University were by themselves not sufficiently numerous to form a constituency. They already, however, numbered 2,000, and if that number, produced in a period of twenty years, were compared with the constituency of the University of Oxford, it would be seen that it furnished a remarkable instance of success which was every year growing greater. Entertaining the views which he now did as to the insufficiency of its numbers, how was it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed to give a Member to the University of London in 1859, and that during the eight years since elapsed he had never shown himself to be so conscious of the merits of the University of Durham as to propose that it should be admitted into partnership with the former. It appeared that it was owing to some sudden inspiration during the Whitsuntide holydays that the new light had dawned upon him, and that he was induced to make a proposal supported by no solid argument. The right hon. Gentleman went on to advert to the case of the Scotch Universities; but it was quite a different thing to unite institutions which, though distant in space, were for the most part identical in sentiment, and to make a similar proposal with regard to institutions which were founded on entirely different principles. He trusted, therefore, that the proposal made by the Government would be rejected by the Committee.

said, he wished to remark, in reply to what had fallen from the last speaker, that in the Durham University no religious test was exacted on entrance or taking the degree of Bachelor or Master of Arts or the degree in medicine, only from those about to take Orders.

said, that he had the highest authority for stating that the members of the Convocation of the University of Durham must be members of the Church of England.

said, he could not anticipate a favourable result from joining two incongruous bodies of different characters. He thought that any Member returned who might please the University of London would be disagreeable to that of Durham.

said, he had now to propose to insert after "London" the words "and Durham."

said, he had an Amendment to move which took precedence of the right hon. Gentleman's. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had mainly been supported by North-country Members, who had done much to swell the majority, though he, as a North-country Member, had, in spite of local pressure, voted for keeping London and Durham distinct. It was evident that the members of London University had a great objection to being joined with Durham University. This arose probably merely from an instinctive feeling that they had very little in common. If these two Universities were forced into conjunction, a fitting representative would not be forthcoming. He would be some neutral-tinted, colourless nobody, who would represent nothing but a, compromise between two rival and hostile bodies. Oxford and Cambridge were not BO narrow-minded, and were willing, he thought, to have St. Bee's and all the other Church of England Colleges united with them. There was evidently much more sympathy between Oxford and Durham than between London and Durham. He, as a Cambridge man, would therefore move in line 1 to omit "London" in order to insert the words "Oxford and Durham," so as to make Oxford and Durham one constituent body.

said, he believed he was now in order in suggesting that all graduates of Durham University should have the franchise. This, he thought, would remove all difficulty.

said, he apprehended there would be no objection to electoral privileges being extended to graduates of Durham of a certain standing. The University was open to all comers without any test, and degrees could be taken in all subjects—except in theology—by students of all persuasions. At present an M.A. was obliged before he could become a member of Convocation, to declare himself a bonâ fide member of the Church of England. But although he could not pledge Convocation, and was only prepared to make a general statement, he might say that for years past every change had been in a liberal direction, and he believed it was in contemplation by the authorities to get rid of that restriction. He believed he could state with confidence that if Parliament extended electoral privileges to all graduates the test respecting Convocation to members of the Church of England would be removed, and with it the only objection to this proposal. As regarded the question of introducing a clause, there would be no difficulty in acceding to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and enabling all graduates of a certain standing to vote for the University.

The important announcement just made on the part of Her Majesty's Government appears to me to call for a remark. The right hon. Gentleman assures us that if the House will enfranchise the University of Durham, the Convocation and authorities of that University will alter its constitution, and will admit persons not belonging to the Church of England to be members of Convocation. I want to know how the right hon. Gentleman can possibly have been authorized or empowered by the Convocation of the University to give that assurance?

I said it was in contemplation by the authorities. I said, also, that it was impossible for me to pledge Convocation; but that from the nature of the changes already sanctioned, and from those changes having been in one direction, I expressed my belief that it would be done.

It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman does not relieve himself from the dilemma. He says it is in contemplation on the part of the authorities. Who are "the authorities?" It is either a pledge on behalf of the University, which the right hon. Gentleman is evidently not authorized to give, or it is a mere expression of opinion, based on his communications with some one or more of its members. Of course, if it be the mere expression of such an opinion he is perfectly justified in conveying it to the Committee; but nobody can be so weak as to take it for more than it is worth. What, however, I think more important is the singular and highly-inconvenient innovation, if I understand it aright, to which at a moment's notice, and under the pressure of the recent division, Her Majesty's Government appear to be ready to accede with regard to the basis of the University franchise. Is there to be one basis for Durham and another for all the other Universities of the country? That seems to follow from the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman. He says that all persons who take a M.A. degree, which would enable them ordinarily to enter the governing body, shall be qualified to vote for a Parliamentary representative. Are they also to be qualified to enter into the governing body of the University? If so, that reform or change in the constitution of the University ought evidently to precede and not to follow this discussion. If the judgment of the House is to be materially affected by the state of things in Durham on that point, it is impossible to ask the House to accede to the proposal of the Government on the stipulation that a change of this kind may be hereafter effected. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned nothing about the governing body, and gave no pledge to alter it. But if he means, as he said on the part of the Government, that all persons who have taken degrees in the University shall have votes, that is an entire innovation in the nature of the University representation. How many thousands of persons in Oxford and Cambridge have taken degrees, but have possessed no votes? If the House determine that University Members shall be elected by men who have taken degrees, but have lost all connection with the University, and have taken their names off the books, that will be a change of great importance in the University representation. At Oxford it would involve changes of a serious nature. Gentlemen not admitted into Convocation on account of having changed their religious professions since they took their degrees would, under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, become voters. I do not say whether that is desirable or undesirable; but it is not a change which should be made without any previous intimation on the part of the Government, involving, as it does, a total change in the character of the University representation. I may say that I look with sincere interest on the University of Durham. I believe firmly that it is beginning to enjoy an efficient and even a vigorous life. I trust that at a future period its condition may be such that it may fairly come to Parliament and ask for representation. But the University of London differs from it in this vital respect—that it is already in that condition. It has a considerably larger constituency than either of the pairs of Scotch Universities to which you profess to give a separate representation. If that be so, let the House deal with the case of London now, because it is ripe for representation, reserving the case of Durham until it may be considered on its own merits. After the University of London has for fifteen years been expecting representation, let us not do the most odious of all things—give that which professes to be a boon subject to conditions which convert it, if not into an injury, yet into a slight and a disparagement.

I subscribe to every word that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire. I think the policy proposed by him would be far the wisest for the University of Durham to pursue; but I would entreat hon. Members from the North of England to understand that I and others who are taking an active part in resisting the union of Durham with the London University, have not the slightest ill-will towards the institution in which they are interested. Individually, my feelings are altogether of an opposite kind, as the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) is quite aware. It so happens that, although a graduate of Oxford and London, I was at one time of my life very well acquainted with the University of Durham, and have nothing but the pleasantest associations with it. I quite understand and appreciate the feeling of North of England Members towards Durham. Those who only know the South are not aware of the amount of sentiment that gathers round that ancient cathedral city, and, besides, since the recent reforms, I really believe the University is doing very useful work. Let it go on maturing itself, and its good deeds, and then come to Parliament for representation. But if it really requires immediate representation, I say, in all seriousness, and as a Member of the Oxford Convocation, I accept, as the less bad alternative of the two before us, the proposition of the hon. Member for Tynemouth to join the University of Durham to the Oxford constituency. Do not spoil the constituency of the London University. People talk of the omnipotence of Parliament, but I defy, not only Parliament, but any power in heaven or earth to spoil any thing so bad as the constituency of Oxford.

said, he was acquainted with many highly respectable members of the University of London, and he knew that this proposal was most unpalatable to them. He did not know whether it would be equally so to Members of the University of Oxford. There was much more diversity between the Universities of London and Durham than between those of Oxford and Durham. He had been blamed for using, on the previous evening, respecting the University of Durham, disparaging expressions. He had called it a small and miserable University. He was sorry he had used the word "miserable," and begged to express his regret openly; but he would not retract the word "small." It was not a University at all in the proper sense of the term. It was simply a College, about as large as one of the small Colleges of Oxford or Cambridge. It was something like St. Bee's, and not to be compared with the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge, or with the University of London. He had great respect for the University of Durham as a small struggling place of education, and when it had grown into larger dimensions he should be prepared to consider its claim to representation. He should support the Motion of his hon. Friend.

said, he found, on reference to Dod, that there were 1,700 electors in the University of Dublin. In the University of London there would be 2,600. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite, who came from Ireland, and who voted in favour of attaching the small University of Durham to London, be prepared in Ireland to attach the Queen's University to Trinity College? The one proposal would be at least as just as the other, the Dublin University having two Members, while the University of London would have only one.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowbray) whether he meant to convey to the House that persons being on the register of graduates, whatever their religious persuasion, were to be members of Convocation for all purposes, or whether it was only meant that they were to have electoral privileges. Having fought a long time along with Her Majesty's Government to prevent the admission of Dissenters and Roman Catholics to the governing body of the University, he should feel that if the Government had now, without deliberation or debate, given up the principle, they had betrayed the confidence of their supporters.

said, it was not in the contemplation of the Government, nor had it been suggested by him, to alter the constitution of Convocation. Such a change must be a matter to be considered and determined by the authorities of the University. He had merely stated his impression from communications with some of the University authorities and from his own knowledge of what had taken place in recent years, that if this House gave electoral privileges to the Durham University changes would be made by the University authorities, It was never in his contemplation to interfere by legislation with the free action of the University authorities. All he meant was to express his belief that if left to themselves they would do what he said.

said, he could hardly have imagined that the question of Universities would have produced so much consternation among hon. Gentlemen, One could not help commiserating the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell), who in his excitement had almost run himself out of breath, and was actually about to denounce the Government of which he was a supporter. Now, the right hon. Member for Durham, whom he looked upon as the author of this project—for he knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not like it—the right hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mowbray), supported by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), the godfathers of this University scheme, had given a sort of pledge that Convocation, or some members of Convocation, were going to do something. But in what position were the Committee? They were called upon to legislate on a subject about which they did not know whether Convocation would coincide in opinion with the right hon. Member for Durham. There might be in Convocation spirits like the hon. Member for Cambridge. The most sensible thing under the circumstances would be to postpone the question. He would therefore move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again. He would not press the Motion unless it appeared to be generally acceptable.

I think the best thing we can do is to proceed with the clause. I do not understand that these communications which have been made respecting the Convocation of the University of Durham have anything to do with the question before the Committee. They did not at all affect the course the Government have taken. I wish to proceed and to bring this question to a conclusion as soon as possible.

said, he made last night a very respectful appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to delay proceeding with the question until the University of London had time to express an opinion upon it. He thought after what had occurred to-day that that suggestion was of some value. He quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they ought not to report Progress, but to come to some decision. He would like, however, to know what they were about. They were going to put into this 15th clause "the graduates of the Universities of London and Durham," and immediately followed the 16th clause, defining the voters, the words being "every person whose name is for the time being on the register of graduates constituting the Convocation of the University of London." The proposal now was that "every person whose name was on the register of graduates constituting the Convocation of the Universities of London and Durham" should be a voter. But every person not a member of the Church of England was excluded from the Convocation of the University of Durham. Therefore, whatever might be the value of that ambiguous information which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had disregarded, and which the Committee also were entitled to disregard, if they were to vote, they must do so upon the question submitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the graduates of the two Universities as now constituted were to form one constituency.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trevelyan) would also withdraw his Amendment and not make their proceedings a laughingstock to the public. It seemed to him that the Committee would best arrive at a decision if they left the Government to amend the clause as they liked, and then divide upon the question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill.

said, that if they inserted the words "and Durham," and then rejected the clause as amended, they would get rid not only of Durham, but of London too.

said, that in deference to the opinion of the Committee, he would withdraw his Amendment. He had effected his object by the expression of opinion he had elicited.

said, the intention of the hon. Gentleman, so far as he could gather it, was that in order to get the Committee out of a difficulty he proposed to add Durham to Oxford. But, as he did not intend evidently to leave London unrepresented, he would, no doubt, afterwards move to add London to Cambridge.

said, he wished to know, before they went to a division, whether he understood the right hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mowbray) aright. That right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to state that if this clause were carried with the words "and Durham" inserted, it was intended by the Government to open the franchise to those who had taken degrees there ["No, no!"], irrespective of the question whether the University of Durham did or did not alter its constitution.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) that this is an occasion on which we may really decide upon Clause 16. In answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I may say that we have no intention of proposing any change in the manner of constituting the Convocation of Durham University. It is entirely open to the University of Durham to alter its constitution or not. I had never any intention of proposing to alter it. The observations made by my right hon. Friend near me were, as he himself stated, founded upon local authority.

Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask, what it was the Judge Advocate, sitting next to him, stated on behalf of the Government?

My right hon. Friend had no communication with me on the subject. He spoke, as he said at the time, from conversations with persons of authority out of the House. He was appealed to individually, and he expressed his conviction.

Then we are to gather from what has passed this moral—that when a Member of the Government, sitting next the right hon. Gentleman, makes a most important statement in the name of the Government, which the right hon. Gentleman, sitting by, does not contradict, that does not bind the Government to what he says.

said, that in the language he used be certainly did not intend to commit his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What he said respecting the University had reference to the members of Convocation.

said, he thought it would be better to complete the clause, and alter it on the Report.

said, he moved to insert after the word "shall" the words "unless and except as herein otherwise provided." The object of the Amendment was to correct what would otherwise be an ambiguity, consequent on the adoption of the lodger franchise.

said, that he should propose to add the words "or lodger," which alteration was necessary to put lodgers upon the same footing as owners and tenants in reference to retaining the franchise, notwithstanding a succession of occupations.

said, the Amendment should run thus:—"as owner or tenant shall, or as lodger shall."

said, he thought that this was a matter of which notice ought to have been given. The Amendment would virtually repeal some words in the lodger clause.

said, he did not think that when the lodger franchise was discussed the question of a parity of dealing with the different classes of persons having votes was brought into view. He agreed that it would be better that the question should be raised after notice.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, and that he would at a future period move a new clause.

said, he would suggest that there should be the same power of limiting the joint occupation as in the case of boroughs.

said, that in the boroughs where household suffrage would prevail there was no value set forth, but in the present clause the words were, "so" far as the value is concerned."

moved that the words "Provided also that in no case shall more than two such joint occupiers be registered as voters in respect of the same occupation" be added to the clause.

said, this was a subject which well deserved the attention of the Committee. On former occasions there had been several close divisions on the question whether faggot voting should be checked by requiring a house to be upon the land. The Committee, by several narrow divisions, determined that they would not adopt that mode of checking faggot votes. It was all the more necessary, therefore, that the practice should be checked in the direction now proposed by his hon. Friend. The evidence that was taken before the Committee on the Totnes election was full of useful instruction on this subject. It appeared there that when the £10 borough franchise was in question—and he need not say that £12 was not far re moved from the old £10 qualification—two methods were resorted to for the purpose of creating faggot votes. One was to let a single field with a hut upon it for £10 to a single tenant, the other was to let a large parcel of land to a limited company5 of occupiers, none of whom had any real interest in the land. Since they had refused to require a house with occupation franchise for counties it was the more important that they should take precautions against the multiplication of votes of persons who had no rent interest in the land.

said, he wished to refer to what took place last year on this subject. Many hon. Members sheltered their refusal to require a house for the occupation franchise on his giving up that point in the Bill of last year. What he did last year was this. In deference to the opinions of the other side, Her Majesty's then Government agreed to give up their clause requiring a house, upon the understanding that there should be a limitation to the power of multiplying votes in joint occupancy in the mode proposed by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman in 1859. The 6th clause of that Bill did not refer to the occupation franchise, but it provided that in nil freehold, leasehold, and copyhold interests—he apprehended there would be no difficulty in making it apply to an occupation interest also—not more than two persons should be allowed to vote on joint occupancy, unless it had been acquired by marriage or devise, or unless the persons were associated together in the occupation for the purposes of trade.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) had opposed a proposal which he had made on a former occasion with the view of preventing the creation of fictitious votes. He congratulated him on his conversion.

said, he thought the number "two" would be somewhat restrictive. Three or four brothers might have an interest in the property. He would suggest the substitution for it of "three."

said, he was willing to agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the clause in the Bill of 1859, with its exceptions, should be introduced. He suggested that the clause be allowed to stand over with a view to incorporate the clause referred to.

said, he was glad this course would be adopted, as it would prevent any but bonâ fide voters from getting upon the register, and so carry out the wishes of both sides of the House.

said, he had introduced the Amendment in no hostile spirit, and would withdraw it on the undertaking given by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be necessary to include in the clause those occupations that were not under a lease. He cordially supported the clause, which he regarded as even more important than the one he unsuccessfully proposed the other evening.

said, he had no doubt it was the general wish of the House to prevent faggot voting, but he begged to point out that hon. Gentlemen were taking a great deal of trouble to teach people to make faggots. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), and his allusions to the doings at Totnes, was just an ingenious way of showing people how the thing was to be done—it was really calling people's attention to the subject who otherwise would never have thought of it. There was nothing he disliked more than these votes, but what was to prevent a man who had 100 acres of land dividing it among ten or twelve persons?

said, that considerable omissions would have to be made in the clause on account of the rejection of the special franchises. It would be necessary to make provisions applicable to the lodger registration, but the hon. Member for Finsbury had an Amendment on the Paper with respect to it, and he would not touch on that part of the question. He would now simply move in line 28, after the word "vote" to insert "for a county." By this it was intended to provide the county constituencies with the same privileges as occupiers of ground as were enjoyed by occupiers of houses in boroughs as to registration.

said, there was no provision for the registration of freeholds, where there was no occupation. He did not see how any freeholder, living out of the parish, could get on the register.

said, that the clause was only supplementary to the existing law on the same subject, which provided for the registration of freeholds.

said, that when the principle of the lodger franchise was adopted, it was understood that the lodger should be put on the same footing as a householder with respect to making his claim to be registered as a voter. The Amendment he now moved was intended to carry out that object. He begged to move in Clause 19, page 7, line 3, after "admit," to insert the following subsection:—

"2 a, The claim of every person desirous of being registered as a voter for a Member or Members to serve for any borough in respect of the occupation of lodgings, shall be in the Form numbered 5 in Schedule E, or to the like effect, and shall have annexed thereto a declaration in the form, and be certified in the manner in the said Schedule mentioned, or as near thereto as circumstances admit; and every such claim shall, after the last day of July, and on or before the twenty-fifth day of August in any year be delivered to the overseers of the parish in which such lodgings shall be situate, and the particulars of such claim shall be duly published by such overseers on or before the first day of September next ensuing, in a separate list according to the Form No. 6 in the said Schedule E.

"And the following provisions shall, with the necessary variations, apply to every such claim and list, viz.:—

"So much of section eighteen of the Act of the Session of the sixth year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter eighteen, as relates to the manner of publishing lists of claimants, and to the delivery of copies thereof to persons requiring the same.

"And the whole of the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth sections of the same Act."

said, he proposed to omit the latter sections of the clause relating to the special votes. He moved the omission of the 5th, 6th, and 7th.

said, he had no objection to offer to the Amendment, as it followed the provisions of the 15th Vict., and contained precautions against unqualified persons being placed on the register.

said, that no provision had been made in respect to the registration in boroughs. In municipal boroughs he thought that the registration should be made out in wards, and not, as at present, by the overseers. This would be a great convenience in large towns.

said, that the clause referred only to registration in counties. It had nothing to do with the general registration. He was aware that the great increase of the constituencies, and other circumstances, would require some attention to the registration, and he proposed to deal with them. He should introduce provisions respecting the time of registration and the remuneration of the local authorities, in Clause 42.

said, he was glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to bring forward a fresh registration clause, so as to give the required facilities to the increased number of voters. He hoped that the proposed clause would be brought forward as early as possible.

said, he did not intend to deal extensively with the question of registration. That was a great question, which it might be necessary hereafter to consider in extenso, All he now wished to do in regard to this Bill was to frame a provision which would deal with the subject of registration in such a manner as to make the measure in itself complete and to work completely.

said, that if there were to be a registration in October next, and another in spring, they would practically be doing the work twice over.

said, if there were to be a general registration it should of course be provided for.

said, that he proposed to strike out this clause, and to bring in a new clause at the end of the Bill in its place.

said, he wished to ask if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take into consideration the desirability of drawing up the new clause in such a manner as to include pollin-gplaces in boroughs as well as in counties.

said, some provision should be made for providing additional polling-places in large boroughs.

said, that the hon. Member had been misled by the expression "polling-place." What was really meant was "polling-booth." In boroughs there was power by the law, as it at present stood, to provide any increased number of polling-places that might be required.

said, that under the 68th section of the Reform Act this matter was left entirely to the discretion of the returning officer, and persons living at a distance of several miles from each other might be obliged by the returning officer to resort to the same spot.

said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the question of the law of polling-places. The returning officer was not bound to do anything until a poll had been demanded, and if he waited until that time inconvenience would ensue. He charged anything he liked, and gross abuses were practised, unless strong-minded Members resisted the demands that were made. It would be a convenience if there were an alphabetical list of voters for each polling district. The returning officer ought to prepare this from the parochial lists furnished by the overseers. It was unnecessary to incur the expense of building booths when suitable rooms could be hired, and a few pounds for the use of a school-room would often be acceptable to the managers.

said, he sympathized with what had been said as to the demands of returning officers. At the same time, the returning officer was subject to uncertainty as to the number of candidates who would require hustings accommodation. He might be held criminally or civilly responsible for accident resulting from the insecurity of the structure provided. Sometimes he would stand no chance of re-payment unless he secured the money beforehand.

said, a returning officer might provide booths and have to pay for them himself if there were no contest.

said, the returning officer was entitled to ask for a guarantee from all candidates, whether there was a contest or not, and that in his borough rooms were used as polling-places.

said, it was the same in Stoke, and that in Stafford and Derby rooms were used at the county elections.

said, he thought there ought to be a clause providing for polling-places in boroughs as well as in counties. He would therefore withdraw the clause.

said, that as the county rate was payable by inhabitants of boroughs that were not counties of themselves, the boroughs ought to have their polling-places provided out of the same rate.

said, they had arrived at the clause which the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had proposed to amend by providing that the costs of the county and borough elections should be borne by the county and borough rates. The hon. Member was absent, probably thinking it unlikely that the clause could come on so early, and as it was within half an hour of the time for suspending the sitting, it was not unreasonable to expect the Committee to report Progress, which he moved it should do.

said, that in the City of London there were nineteen polling-places, the expenses of which candidates had to bear. The largest counties had not a greater number.

said, that his Motion proposed to open the Fellowships and Foundation Scholarships of Trinity College, Dublin, to persons other than members of the Established Church. The University consisted of a single College but was complete in itself. It was efficient in all the requirements of an University. It possessed a museum and library, with privileges similar to those of the Bodleian and University libraries at Oxford and Cambridge. It was the richest collegiate foundation in the world. Its estates extended over seventeen Irish counties, and comprised 200,000 acres. Its revenue in 1851 was £92,000. There was no such College at Oxford or Cambridge. In spite of the bad principles on which the revenues of the College were managed, they conferred splendid rewards upon learning and scholarship. The seven senior Fellowships in Trinity College, Dublin, were more splendid prizes than any which were given in Oxford or Cambridge. Besides these there were twenty-eight junior Fellowships, the value of which varied according to the offices held by the junior Fellows, and seventy foundation scholarships. The whole of these splendid endowments were appropriated to those professing the religion of the minority of the nation. The religious disabilities associated with Trinity College, Dublin, represented a higher order of injustice than the religious disabilities — which he had always opposed—connected with Oxford and Cambridge. In those Universities persons could at any rate put forward the excuse that rewards were appropriated to the dominant religious party, but in Ireland the vast collegiate endowments were exclusively appropriated to a small religious faction. Upon this question he thought he should secure the votes both of the Conservatives of the North of Ireland and the Liberals of the South, because the injustice which he was bringing under the notice of the House equally affected Protestants and Roman Catholics. This systematic exclusion affected the Presbyterian as much as the Roman Catholic, for no Nonconformist was allowed to become a scholar or Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. The Committee appointed in 1851 to inquire into the state of this College made some useful suggestions, but they seemed paralyzed by the opposition which they met with from influential Protestants who had profited by the exclusive privileges they had enjoyed. Bishops, clergymen, and laymen came forward and said, "Throw open the foundation scholarships of Trinity College, and what do you do? You destroy the Protestant character of that institution, and you strike a blow at the Protestant principles upon which it is founded."

rose to a point of order. He desired to know whether it was competent for an hon. Member who had moved that the House be counted to immediately leave the House.

It is competent for any hon. Member to take notice that there are not forty Members present, and he need not himself remain in the House afterwards if he does not think fit to do so.

said, it had been argued that if the scholarships were not exclusively appropriated to members of the Established Church, the distinctive character of the College would be lost, and the purposes for which it was founded would be unfulfilled. The College was founded in the reign of Elizabeth, at the time when, with a view of exterminating Roman Catholicism, the people of Ireland were subjected to cruelties the remembrance of which for ages tended to destroy all kindliness of feeling between the two countries. It might, perhaps, be said that a Protestant University in a Roman Catholic country was an insult upon the inhabitants. The association of any religious title with a University was a most incongruous procedure. A University had higher and nobler ends to perform. Under its influence men of the highest culture, without regard to their religions opinions, ought to be able to live together in intellectual communion undisturbed by sectarian differences. His Motion would incur the opposition not only of those who thought the course he proposed would tend to weaken the ascendancy of the Established Church in Ireland, but also of many Roman Catholics—the persons he desired to benefit. Many of the latter would be more content to witness the injustice resulting from the system than to acknowledge, that any advantages would accrue from unsectarian education. But, while no one desired that the Roman Catholics should be compelled to send their sons to Trinity College, many Roman Catholics already received their education there, and it was indefensible that those so educated at the College should be unable to obtain substantial rewards. The fourteen scholarships which had been thrown open during the last few years did but little to remedy the injustice. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), who had placed an Amendment on the Paper, the object of which was somewhat similar to his own, would not press it, but allow the sense of the House to be taken on his Motion, which raised a distinct issue. As long as Ireland remained in its present state she would lend no strength to the Empire at large. Large districts of Ireland were essentially disloyal, and there was a feeling of bitter antagonism against this country. It was impossible that Ireland could be of any advantage to England until something was done to create a bond of attachment between the two countries, instead of keeping them together by force of arms. If they did what they could to remove every grievance, they would have the satisfaction of knowing that they were not to blame for Ireland's discontent. They might also hope that her disposition towards England would be better for the future. Although this might appear a small question, it struck at the root of a great religious disability. Of all the ills and curses that had been inflicted on Ireland probably the most disastrous had been due to attempts in past ages to enforce on a Roman Catholic country a religion to which they would not consent. In order to make some amends for the past, and as an act of simple justice, they should no longer allow those splendid Collegiate endowments to be exclusively appropriated to a small religious sect. They should allow them to be enjoyed by the whole nation. Trinity College might then become the nucleus of a great University, where men of different religious opinions might live together, and from it extend over the entire country a religious harmony which could not fail to produce effects of the most tranquillizing and beneficent character.

said, he thanked the hon. Member for the tone and temper of his speech, and the generous sympathy towards Ireland, which animated the Motion he had submitted. No time could be more opportune than the present for discussing this question. During the last week the Attorney General for Ireland having consented to the action brought against the Senate of the Queen's University with reference to the supplemental Charter, they had withdrawn from the contest thinking it unseemly that the representative of the Crown should be concerned in a suit for abrogating a Charter which Her Majesty had graciously issued during last Session. Therefore, at the present moment, there was with regard to University education a tabula rasa in Ireland. The great mass of the population were excluded by their conscientious convictions from obtaining the advantages of academical degrees. It was the duty of that House and of the Government therefore, with as little delay as possible, to consider the circumstances of the case, and the best means of remedying so crying an injustice. In a petition which had been presented to-day, signed by 4,000 laymen in Ireland belonging to the Established Church, the claim had been put forward for exclusive and sectarian education for Protestants. Those who asserted that claim for themselves had opposed the establishment of a new system under which degrees might be obtained by Roman Catholics educated in Roman Catholic establishments. They refused to apply to Catholics the principle upon which they asked to be treated themselves, and the consequences of that injustice would recoil on those who practised it. Unless they came to some reasonable compromise on the subject they would find that the strong opinion of the House would carry this Motion, and break down the religious character of Trinity College. On the other hand, he must remind the hon. Member for Brighton that this question required the greatest and most deliberate consideration. It would be unwise to attempt to patch up the Irish system of education without considering the principles on which they desired it should be developed. In the consideration of these principles they must mainly look to the feelings and wishes of the Irish people. His hon. Friend not having a sufficient knowledge of Ireland had not taken these feelings into account. With respect to the right of the House to deal with the revenues of Trinity College and to open the Fellowships, there could be no doubt. It did not appear to have been founded in the first instance with any special object to religious instruction. In the letter which Lord Deputy Fitzwilliam was commanded to write in 1591, directing the sheriffs throughout Ireland to collect money for the College, the reason stated was—

"That the University will prove to the benefit of the whole country, whereby knowledge, learning, and civility may be increased."

There was not one word of reference in that letter to the question of religion. However, be that as it may, they were not now to be bound by what was done in days when no teaching, save that of the Established Church, was permitted, and when any one who attempted to teach publicly any other religion was silenced and punished. He could not understand how hon. Gentlemen could say that it was just or right that Colleges founded by Roman Catholics should be monopolized by the religion of the State, and maintained at the same time that it was not just or right for the House to deal with the revenues of Trinity College under the altered circumstances of the times. He took it for granted they had a right to deal with the revenues of Trinity College. The first question was in what way they could deal with it to the advantage of the Irish people. What were the feelings of the Irish people on the subject? He believed that the Irish people, both Protestants and Roman Catholics, were unanimous in desiring that their children should be brought up in the religion of their parents. It was utterly impossible for any system of education not founded on that principle to prosper in that country. As an instance, he might refer to the Queen's Colleges. There was one of the Queen's Colleges successful—namely, the College of Belfast, which was denominational and animated by as strictly a Protestant spirit as even Trinity College itself. In that College they had excluded Roman Catholics from every place and position of influence. This being the case in Belfast was a proof of what he had asserted even as regarded the Protestant population. As to the Colleges of Galway and Cork, Irish Gentlemen who had paid any attention to the subject would agree with him when he said that parents sent their children to those Colleges only because they thought they could gain for them some very great temporal advantage. The proposal before the House was, that the governing body of Trinity College, Dublin, should be open to persons of all religious opinions. If that plan were carried out, and in the course of ten years one half of the Fellows should be Roman Catholics and the other half Protestants, the result would be that neither Protestants nor Roman Catholics would send their sons there. The change would not benefit the position of the Roman Catholics, and would lower the position of the Protestants. His hon. Friend might depend upon it that if his Motion were acted on, Trinity College, which, at all events, was popular with Protestants, would become unpopular with both Protestants and Roman Catholics. If that were so, the principle on which the Motion of his hon. Friend was founded could not be a right one. One mode which had been suggested for remedying the grievance was, that there should be Universities founded for different sects in Ireland, so that each of the great religious bodies should have a University for itself. The establishment of such a system would be one of the severest blows that could be inflicted on the intellectual development of Ireland. Putting Rome aside, whose circumstances as the head of the Catholic world were peculiar, he did not believe that there would be found in Europe a town with two Universities. The obvious reason was the advantage which must result from the young men who came from different Colleges competing together in generous rivalry in one University. It would be the greatest blessing to Ireland to have one University, to which the students from different Colleges might go for the purpose of competing together. He would now ask the attention of the House to the Amendment of which he had given notice. Trinity College was the only College belonging to the University of Dublin. It was not intended that that should be the case. In 1660 a sum of £2,000 was set aside for the purpose of founding another College connected with the University. Why that object was not carried out he did not know. In 1795 an attempt of the same sort was made with a similar result. Lord Palmerston, in the discussion which took place with respect to the Queen's Colleges in 1845, stated, that it would be found necessary to establish some central point—probably in connection with Trinity College — which should combine different Colleges into one University. Therefore, for the scheme he proposed, he had the precedents of former times, and the high authority of Lord Palmerston. The proposal was, that the constitution of Trinity College should remain as it was, but that the University of Dublin should be separated from it and should be entirely non-sectarian, having a president and senate composed of persons belonging to the different religious bodies throughout the country, in which all could feel confidence. He proposed that there should be connected with the University Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, and Protestant Colleges, representing all the various shades of religious opinion in the country, and that from those Colleges the youth of Ireland should proceed to the University, there to compete in honourable rivalry. In what way could such a scheme affect the students of Trinity College? They would continue to have the same religious education as at present. They would be examined by an external body, instead of by their own teachers, while the competition with other students would tend to intellectual development. He would put it to his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lefroy), was it just that one man who had to compete with another of his countrymen in the walks of life should be denied the opportunities his competitor had of improving his intellect? There were two courses by which it was proposed to remove the religious disabilities under which the people of Ireland had so long suffered, and to establish complete equality. The one was a just and righteous course, such as that he had suggested, which would be in perfect harmony with the feelings and wishes of the Irish people. The other was that which would establish what was called unsectarian education, in other words, education which excluded religious teaching. He would tell his hon. Friend (Mr. Lefroy) that unless he could prevail upon his constituents to come to some such arrangement as he had suggested, the two currents, the one in favour of complete religious equality, the other latitudinarian, uniting together would be too strong for them to resist. The sectarian and religious character of Trinity College would be swept away, and they would lose what they valued most because they would not do justice to their fellow-countrymen. They would find out at last that in resisting justice to their neighbour they had destroyed themselves. He could not exaggerate the importance he attached to this question, or to the necessity there was for making the people of Ireland feel that Parliament intended to deal fairly and justly by them. He had received to-day a petition from fifty young men who were prevented from going up for examination with a view to taking a degree under the supplementary Charter. That petition was given to him by a gentleman of the highest character, who assured him that nothing could be more dangerous than the feeling which had been created in the minds of these young men by being debarred from that to which they believed themselves justly entitled. Those young men naturally felt that if they were treated in such a way it was probable that Ireland generally was dealt with on the same principle. The proposal he made was made in a spirit of conciliation, and with a conscientious conviction that it could not injure Trinity College. In this way an honourable settlement might be effected, which would remove many difficulties, while it would at the same time respect the religious convictions so deeply implanted in the Irish breast. He begged to move his Amendment.

said, that as one of the Members for the University of Dublin, and after the way in which he had been appealed to by his right hon. Friend, he should not be discharging his duty if he did not state his opinions upon this Motion. He was much surprised when he saw upon the Paper the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. That Amendment would not be likely to meet with the sanction of the House. He would not at that time enter upon the scheme of his right hon. Friend, for he had not yet had time to consider it. But he thought that a great portion of the argument by which he endeavoured to support it was not sound or well founded. His right hon. Friend said that those who were educated in Trinity College had not the full advantages of competition. But truly there was competition enough there upon almost every subject, and it was difficult to see that the scheme proposed would better the state of things that now existed. He would not enter at present further into the consideration of that plan, but would say a few words upon the proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton. The hon. Member appeared to forget that the University of Dublin had been founded by a Protestant Queen, at the request of the Archbishop and clergy of the day, avowedly upon Protestant principles, and that by Charter its Professors, Fellows, and scholars were to be Protestants. Under these circumstances, he did not understand how the hon. Member could propose that the constitution of the University should be at once abolished, and Roman Catholics and Dissenters admitted to the governing body. At first all who were to receive instruction at Trinity College were obliged to be Protestants, but by degrees that rule was relaxed, and in 1793 the benefits of education were extended to all classes. They were all aware how many distinguished Roman Catholics had availed themselves of that concession. From that period various other concessions were made until 1853, when it was alleged that Roman Catholics were unfairly treated in not being allowed to become scholars. A Royal Commission was appointed, and it was suggested that the scholarships should be thrown open to Roman Catholics. On consideration this was not approved, it being thought better to establish an unlimited number of non-foundation scholarships, with the same benefits as the foundation scholarships. Under this plan Roman Catholics who passed the examination gained scholarships at once, and had not to wait for vacancies. As to the legal aspect of the question, there had been a distinct legal decision that only Protestants were eligible for scholarships or Fellowships. In 1858 there were fourteen studentships founded, open to all religions, each £100, and two are now held by Roman Catholics. They are analogous to the Fellowships in the English Universities. It was admitted by the late Mr. O'Connell that the foundation scholarships having been originally intended for the benefit of young men destined for the Church, it would not be just for Roman Catholics to deprive them of those advantages. The grievances complained of were only imaginary. The doors of the College were open to Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. He trusted that a state of things which worked so admirably, and was conducive of so much advantage to the country, would not be disturbed or destroyed by the adoption of either the Motion or the Amendment. He regarded the proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton as most unjust to Trinity College, and he hoped the House would refuse to sanction such an attack on its rights and privileges.

said, he did not say a word against Trinity College as a Protestant Institution, because he believed that, considering it in that light, it was as liberal as they could desire. But that was not the question before the House. The question introduced by the hon. Member for Brighton was whether the Fellowships and scholarships of Trinity College should be open to persons of all religious persuasions in Ireland without any distinction. When that Notice was placed on the Paper he felt himself in some difficulty; because, while he could not deny that there was a good deal of justice in the statement that it was not desirable that all the emoluments of the University of Dublin should be confined to persons of one religion, the religion of the minority of the population, he at all times had maintained that religion should be combined with education. He had always felt that the principle embodied in the Queen's University of Ireland was not satisfactory to the people of that country. Therefore he felt that there might be some inconsistency in his acceding to an alteration of Trinity College, which would be practically bringing Trinity College into the same position as the Queen's Colleges. A Bill had been introduced for opening the government of the Colleges of Oxford to persons of different religious persuasions, and that Bill had been strongly supported by the hon. Member for Brighton. Though he had never voted upon that question, there was a great difference between the proposal with respect to Oxford and that with respect to the University of Dublin. In the case of Oxford the Bill was permissive, enabling any College to permit persons not belonging to the Established Church to take part in the government. But the proposal with regard to the University of Dublin, where there was only one College, was compulsory. He could not deny the justice of the statement of the Resolution that it was undesirable that all the emoluments attached to the University of Dublin should be enjoyed by the minority, and a rich minority, of the population. It was in accordance with that view that the right hon. Member for Limerick gave notice of his Amendment. In the spirit of that Resolution he entirely concurred. He believed that in it would be found the real solution of the difficulties of University education in Ireland. The Resolution of the hon. Member for Brighton did not deal with the whole question, but referred only to the emoluments connected with one particular foundation. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman went further. It remedied the anomaly of having the benefits of a University education confined to a particular persuasion, while it did not conflict with the maintenance of the religious element in education. At present, while the Established Church had a College of its own, Dissenters and Roman Catholics could obtain degrees only by going to institutions conducted on no religious principle. The Roman Catholics and the Dissenters were now at a disadvantage. The hon. Member for Brighton proposed that members of the Established Church should be placed under the same disabilities as the Roman Catholics, and have no means of getting University education for their children unless they sent them to a College where no religious education was given. Having always contended that the position of the Roman Catholics was unsatisfactory in this respect, he was not so inconsistent as to ask that the Members of the Established Church should be brought down to the same level. His desire was to place on an equality the members of all religious persuasions in Ireland, not by lowering the position of the members of the Established Church, but by elevating their fellow-countrymen. The proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick would effect this object. He was not an advocate for unnecessarily increasing the number of Universities. The best system would be to have but one University for Ireland, and to have it open to all religious persuasions. He would also have, in connection with this University, Colleges in which the youths of different persuasions could be educated according to their respective creeds. It might be asked how could they who differed as to common instruction, agree upon a common examination, and would not difficulties arise in regard to the text books to be used? These difficulties might easily be got over, as the example of the London University proved. Students coming from Roman Catholic Colleges graduated at that University, and no difficulties as to text books had been found insurmountable. The explanation of this was very easy. Take, for example, the question of Moral Philosophy, on which the greatest difficulties might naturally be expected to arise. Roman Catholics would probably most strongly object to having their children instructed in the tenets of Paley or Bentham by Professors who accepted those tenets as true, but they had no objection to having those works used as text books in Catholic Colleges, where the teachers would, in reading them, point out what they considered their errors. Believing that the proposal of his right hon. Friend was quite consistent with maintaining the denominational character of Collegiate education, he considered it far more satisfactory than the proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton, and therefore gave it his most cordial support.

said, he must congratulate the House upon the tone and temper of the present debate, as contrasted with the discussions which used in former days to excite so much religious animosity without attaining the object desired. The two proposals before the House were essentially and entirely antagonistic. The hon. Member who opened this debate was an undisguised, firm, and no doubt conscientious adherent of united education. He seemed to be ignorant, however, of the system of education pursued in the University of Dublin, and also as to the position it held in the opinion of the great mass of the Irish people. The hon. Member spoke of its existence as an insult to the Roman Catholic population, and said he did not believe that anything could be more conducive to the maintenance of ill - feeling between Irishmen than such an institution. In all the debates on this subject, that was the first time the existence of the Dublin University was put forward as an Irish grievance. So far from this being the case, there was not an Irishman who was not proud of that institution as it stood, and who would not be sorry to see it altered or overthrown. He believed that it had taken hold of the affections of the great body of the people, and that no feeling against it really existed. Trinity College represented the religious opinions of the vast majority of those classes who were likely to take advantage of University education. The position of the people of Ireland in regard to Trinity College was different from their position in regard to primary education. A. large majority of that portion of the population who are in a position of life to take advantage of primary education were Roman Catholics. An equal if not a greater majority of those whose means enabled them to give their sons a University education did not profess the Roman Catholic religion. He fully agreed with the hon. Member for Brighton—there was no country in the world where it was more desirable to mitigate and assuage those sectarian feelings that had existed for so many years. Of all the institutions of Ireland, however, Trinity College had done the most to mitigate and assuage those hostile feelings. Long before any system of University education had been thrown open to all religious persuasions, Dublin College set an example of liberality and unsectarianism which had been gradually followed by all the great educational institutions of the country. For eighty years the degrees of the University had been thrown open to all religious denominations. For the fair consideration of the question it would be necessary to remind the House very shortly of a few of the features which that institution possessed. Trinity College was founded a great many years ago—in the reign of Elizabeth. Anybody who would take the trouble to look back to history must admit that the institution was founded originally for Protestant purposes, and had maintained an essentially Protestant character ever since. It had maintained that character in the best sense. For nearly 100 years it had evinced greater liberality and toleration towards all other sects than any other quasi-sectarian institution. But Trinity College occupied a peculiar position. The College and University were intimately interwoven throughout its constitution and teaching. It stood almost alone in this respect among our Collegiate institutions. To that circumstance he attributed a great portion of its success. The endowments nominally belonged to the College. But the Collegiate and the University systems being so closely interwoven together, these endowments contributed almost as much to the University part of its objects as to the Collegiate. It would be most difficult to separate the two. The governing body of the University was selected from the senior Fellows, of whom the number was seven. Though the junior Fellows were called Fellows, that term, as known in the English Universities, did not represent the position they held in the Dublin University. There the Fellows, as a class, were almost all occupied in professorial and tutorial duties. A great portion of the most important educational duties of the College were performed by Tutor-Fellows. The result was satisfactory, and the standing of the College in learning was extremely high. At the close of their report describing the general aspect of the College, in 1853, the Commissioners said they found that improvements of an important character had been introduced from time to time by the authorities of the institution, and that the general state of the University was highly satisfactory. They spoke very favourably of the efficiency of its different departments, and also of the spirit of improvement which had always been evinced by its authorities in effecting from time to time changes for the purpose of adapting it to the requirements of the age. That was the conclusion come to after an inquiry of the most searching kind, conducted by able men well acquainted with the general subject of University education, not only as to every phase and mode of the education given in the College, but also as to its financial arrangements, its discipline, and, in short, everything connected with the establishment. Contrasting that opinion with the opinion expressed about the same time with regard to similar bodies in the country, no higher testimony was ever borne to the efficiency of a great educational institution. The principal benefits which it now offered to its students in their undergraduate course were those seventy foundation scholarships which formed part of the subject of the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton. It was true that those foundation scholarships were by the fundamental rules of the College close scholarships, inasmuch as they could be held only by members of the Established Church. But as little importance had been attached to that circumstance, he would not allude to it further than to say, that if the opinion of Parliament was that an alteration ought to be made in respect to those particular scholarships, he greatly doubted whether within the walls of the College itself any great objection would be raised to the opening of those scholarships. He had no direct authority to speak on this subject, but his conviction was that a great change of opinion had taken place as regarded those scholarships. He should not be surprised if the authorities of the College themselves, at no distant day, were to propose to Parliament that they should be thrown open generally to all religious denominations. It having, however, been felt that there was an objection to so large a number of those scholarships being confined to members of the Established Church, a few years ago sixteen new scholarships were founded. Those scholarships were practically open to Dissenters and Roman Catholics only, because they were given only to those of a different religion from that of the Established Church who qualified for the other foundation scholarships, but were unable to take them. Out of the whole sixteen only ten had been occupied, that number being found to be enough for those who offered themselves for examination. In addition to those scholarships there were lately founded fourteen new sizarships, open to all religious denominations. Within the walls of the College there was no desire, and no rule existed, to prevent any person of any denomination whatever from taking the fullest advantage of all the education offered. The only things, from which those who did not belong to the Established Church were debarred were the Fellowships. Not only were the great educational prizes to which he had referred offered by the University to men of all denominations, but a great number of the professorships could also be held by persons not connected with the Established Church. He did not wish to conceal from the House that the most important and valuable professorships must still be held by Fellows and members of the Church of England. But out of thirty - three professorships twenty-two were open to persons of all denominations. The professorship of one particular branch of study, in respect to which it might be thought that some jealousy might be excited—namely, political economy, was now held by a Roman Catholic. Hon. Gentlemen may smile; but in some educational institutions he could mention, a Protestant professor of political economy would be looked upon with considerable suspicion. Last year the medical professorships were also thrown open to all religious persuasions, and an Act wan passed for that purpose. It was the desire of the University to choose the best men for those positions. The absence of Dissenting and Roman Catholic professors arose from the fact that they did not present themselves for election, and, in fact, Roman Catholics do attend in some number, for with regard to the students, the average number of Roman Catholics who during the last few years had generally been found going through the undergraduate course was about fifty. Some of the most eminent Roman Catholics of our day had received their education within the walls of Trinity College, Dublin. That had been the case with six out of the nine Roman Catholic Judges now on the Irish Bench. It was, therefore, a mistake to say that no mixed education existed in that institution. Not only did a mixed education exist there, nearly to the same extent as in some of the Queen's Colleges, but it was probably increasing. It was far more real and effective than anything of the kind to be found outside its walls. The students of different creeds met and dined together. They united in all their sports and their studies. The education was real, practical, and different from that of any other institution. Speaking generally, there were in Ireland three systems of education in operation—the denominational, the united, and the mixed, which latter in many respects combined the principles and advantages of the other two. The denominational would be found in the diocesan schools, the schools of the religious orders, and, in its purest form, in the College of Maynooth; the united, in the vested schools of the National Board, in their model schools, and also in the Queen's Colleges; the mixed system, in the non-vested schools and in Trinity College. Everybody must admit that the combination of the united and the denominational systems had, of the three systems, worked most successfully. At the present time about 170 Bachelors of Arts took their degree in Trinity College; more than half of the whole number of those who took their degree at the London University. The Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) would, if carried, entirely revolutionize a system which operated so well, and for that reason it was one which the House ought not to adopt. The difficulties in the way of carrying out such a plan as that proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monaell) appeared to be almost insurmountable. The first difficulty was that those Colleges which would be affiliated to the University would of course be held to be entitled to have a share in its Government, and to take a considerable part in the arrangements connected with it. He did not deny the great advantages that a single University would possess if its institution was possible; but, looking at the past history of Ireland, he had great doubt whether the governing body of a University composed of men entertaining totally different opinions on the subject of education would work satisfactorily. He would take, for example, two men, who were, perhaps, the best typos of their respective classes in Ireland, the Provost of Trinity College—one of the most distinguished men who ever held that office—and the President of Maynooth. He would put it to the House whether those two men, possessing, as they did, great attainments, but being also men of very strong political and religious opinions, were likely to act harmoniously in the arrangement of any particular course or system of education. He did not believe that if a University were to be established in Dublin, based on the system which prevailed in the London University, it would find favour with the Irish people. A feeling of considerable mistrust would be excited, and it might be found that an efficient system of University instruction had been destroyed, while no other likely to be generally acceptable was supplied. But there was another and very important consideration connected with this question, which his right hon. Friend did not touch. He could hardly admit the accuracy of his right hon. Friend's historical researches when he said that in its origin Trinity College was not intended for Protestant teaching. Within that establishment was to be found one of the most efficient theological schools in the United Kingdom. The mission of Trinity College had always been to give a sound literary and theological education to candidates for holy orders in the Established Church. He did not see how a College, one of the main objects of which was to carry on combined literary and theological education, could be turned into a secular University. Suppose it were suggested to affiliate Maynooth to a non sectarian University, did the right hon. Gentleman think the heads of the College would consent? Would such a proposal be tolerated for a moment? With regard to Maynooth, according to the views entertained by all the Roman Catholic authorities on education, the education of men intended for the ministry of the Roman Catholic Church was necessarily of a more secluded and isolated character than the education of ministers of other creeds. Roman Catholic Divines objected to clerical education being mixed up with secular education, particularly towards the close of the academic course. With us it is quite different. He thought that great good results from students of Trinity College taking their secular education with other students. He felt convinced that if the proposal of his right hon. Friend were carried out, feelings would be aroused which would lead, he felt confident, before long, to the establishment alongside Trinity College of a clerical College, in resorting to which the students of theology would be deprived of those advantages they enjoyed under the present system. There were other objections to the proposal, but he would not weary the House by entering into them. He by no means wished to contend that there was not much in the question which was not worthy of the gravest consideration. University education in Ireland was not in a satisfactory position. The House would give the present Government credit, as they had given their predecessors credit, for an earnest desire to grapple with the difficulties by which the subject was beset. He felt at the same time convinced that Parliament would take an erroneous course if it were to sanction the overthrow of an institution which for centuries had worked nothing but good, unless it were prepared to set up in its stead some other which would commend itself to the unanimous approval of the Irish people. This matter had received and would continue to receive the most anxious consideration of the Government, and he was certain that any proposal they might bring forward would be received with the greatest frankness by the House. He believed that it would be possible to frame some measure which would effect the desired object without disturbing the existing institutions. Experience showed that there need be no fear that new educational establishments in Ireland would interfere with the existing Universities. He had not the same objection as his right hon. Friend to the existence of two Universities in the country. No fewer than four Universities existed in this country, and University teaching is daily on the increase. Fears were expressed when the Queen's Colleges were established that they would interfere with Trinity College; but Trinity College had in no degree suffered in consequence of the establishment of the Queen's Colleges, the number of degrees taken in the former having rather increased than diminished since the establishment of the latter College. The question for the decision of the House and of the Government was whether, if it should be found impossible to unite in one existing institutions, we might not be able to establish some new University which would supply the want now felt by those who were unable to avail themselves of Trinity College. It would be a bad way to solve this question to upset the hitter, which had taken a firm hold on the affections of the great mass of the Irish people, and might be much more for their advantage to supplement or to add than to overthrow and destroy.

said, that the noble Lord had asked him whether he would approve of the students at Maynooth being examined by a non-sectarian examiner. He had to inform the noble Lord that a great number of students at Maynooth had intended to go up for examination to the Queen's University under the supplemental Charter.

said, that as he was a graduate of Dublin University he could not be thought to have any hostility to that University. He thought that the attention of the House had been somewhat called away from the original Motion by the Amendment which had been proposed. The proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton was that the Scholarships and Fellowships of Trinity College should be thrown open to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. The right hon. Member for Limerick had defined Trinity College as a denominational institution, whereas the noble Lord had described it as being open to all Her Majesty's subjects. What was the real state of the case? Only fifteen or twenty Roman Catholics in each year had felt themselves at liberty to avail themselves of the benefits it afforded. The objection entertained to this College by Roman Catholics was that they were excluded from emoluments open to members of the Established Church. He could not see what objection there was to permitting Roman Catholics to hold Scholarships which involved no religious duties. While Roman Catholic scholars remained non-foundation scholars they had no right to vote in the election of Members for the University. The objection to throwing the Fellowships open to Roman Catholics was that the Fellows were engaged in training students intended for holy orders. Why should an arrangement of that character be perpetuated? He recollected one case of a distinguished mathematical scholar, who was tutor to many who had become Fellows, but who had been debarred from becoming a Fellow himself in consequence of his being a Roman Catholic. The Fellows ought to be relieved from the obligation of taking orders, and should give their undivided attention to their own departments of science. Fellowships were granted to those who had distinguished themselves in certain branches of learning. Therefore, they should be conferred irrespective of the religious persuasion of those whose industry and talents rendered them worthy of receiving such rewards. On what public grounds could the exclusion of Roman Catholics and Dissenters be any longer upheld? In the time of Queen Elizabeth the theory was that Ireland was, or would shortly become, a Protestant country. But it was necessary now to deal with the facts of the present day, when 77 per cent of the population were Roman Catholics and 23 per cent Protestants. Great benefit would accrue by placing the University of Dublin on a broader basis. It was too closely connected with the Established Church of Ireland, and the great majority of its Members belong to that Church. If the University were liberated from that influence it would more worthily fulfil its destinies as an educational institution. As to the question of Irish education, he was glad to hear the noble Lord avow that it should not be allowed to remain in its present condition, which was eminently unsatisfactory. The only College at present connected with the University of Dublin was Trinity College; but why might not the sphere of the University be enlarged so as to include the Queen's Colleges and other institutions? He saw no reason why a University should not be established which should be open to all comers. He strongly deprecated the idea of multiplying Universities in Ireland. He thought it would tend to degrade the standard of education. The Roman Catholics of Ireland were entitled to say that they would not send their children to be educated in Colleges of which they conscientiously disapproved, and that if they were unable to obtain academical education in any other way they ought to be allowed to establish a University of their own. He believed, however, it would be better not to establish such a system. The plan shadowed out this evening would, he thought, commend itself to the consideration of all candid and sensible men, because it offered a solution of a difficulty which had created more ill-feeling in Ireland than any other question of modern times.

said, he had presented a petition signed by 2,090 influential Protestants against any alteration in the rules of Trinity College. He thought the present Motion would be regarded in Ireland as an attack upon Trinity College, which had done as much as, if not more than, any other educational institution in Ireland. Whatever might be argued, the popular belief was that the foundation of Trinity College was Protestant. No one could attribute to it the illiberality which had been charged against the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. In the year 1793 the degrees of the University of Dublin had been thrown open to all religious denominations, and eight or nine years ago seventeen Scholarships were thrown open irrespective of religious creed. It ought therefore to be in fairness allowed that the University of Dublin had displayed greater liberality than either Oxford or Cambridge. The average number of admissions to Trinity College had been over 300 annually during the last four years. In making an attack on an institution of this kind it was necessary to prove that its foundation had been a failure. No such proof had been given. Trinity College must be looked upon very much as a place for the education of the clergy of the Established Church. Even if, as had been suggested, the Established Church might cease its connection with the State in Ireland, there would always be a number of its clergy there who would require an education. The question was, where were they to be educated? Roman Catholics were allowed the exclusive use of Maynooth, with its endowment of £30,000, in addition to the £20,000 voted for the Queen's College. The Clergy of the Established Church in Ireland must have some place for their education, and if Trinity College were to cease to be denominational the result would be that the clergy of the Established Church, and those who thought with them, would no longer send their sons to be educated there. If there was to be a separation between the clergy and the laity in their general University education, the result would be disastrous to both parties. In correction of the statement that the endowment of Trinity College amounted to £90,000, he wished to observe that the net endowments amounted to only £34,000. He could not but think that great difficulties would arise from altering the governing body of the University of Dublin. Though he was not exactly in favour of a Roman Catholic University, he was quite prepared to consider the question whether it would not be better to establish such an institution rather than admit Roman Catholics to the governing body of the University of Dublin. They might fairly assume that if Roman Catholics were admitted to Fellowships and to the governing body, the fundamental principles of the University of Dublin would be changed. Their experience of what had taken place with reference to the national education system in Ireland ought to be sufficient to convince the House of that. With regard to the English Universities, it had always been urged, on the part of Dissenters, that though they were able to take degrees at Cambridge they were unfairly prevented from obtaining Fellowships, on the ground that a Fellowship would give them power over the government of the University. But even assuming that they obtained a large number of Fellowships, there would be so great a diversity of opinion among the different Dissenting Fellows that he did not believe there would be any danger of concerted action among them to alter the character of the religious education of the place. In Ireland, however, it was different. The Dissenters were almost wholly Roman Catholics, and they all knew what uncompromising and conscientious views Roman Catholics took of all religious matters. If they obtained a footing in the governing body of the University they would not be satisfied, if they were sufficiently strong, until they had effected a fundamental alteration in the teaching and government of the body. He would ask hon. Members to pause before they introduced such an element of discord into the University. He hoped that if the hon. Member for Brighton thought that questions like these ought to be connected with the everlasting subject of the ills of Ireland, he would make a tour of that country and inform himself by the light of his intelligence, rather than by what he might read in certain newspapers, or hear from some hon. Gentlemen in that House.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, it would be a great pity to adjourn the debate after the discussion that had taken place. The sense of the House ought to be taken upon the Motion.

said, he would not join in deprecating an adjournment of the debate if the feeling of the House was that the question required further consideration, and he understood there was a general feeling that it ought to be further considered. As, however, this was the 18th of June, and as the House was occupied with other subjects of interest and importance, he was not very sanguine as to the period of the Session at which it might be practicable to procure a day for resuming the discussion. From a statement made that evening—important as giving a practical turn to the discussion—it appeared to be the view of Her Majesty's Government—though one not before expressed—as well as of the great majority of the Members on the Opposition side of the House, that the state of the higher education in Ireland was such as to call for a speedy interference on the part of Parliament. That being so, and there being a difficulty in getting an opportunity for the further dis- cussion of the matter within the walls of that House, he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would keep in view the urgency of the question. It was time that in some at least of these Irish questions progress should be made. The greatest opposition had been offered to the plan proposed by the late Government. Another plan had been brought forward by his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), and a third had been glanced at by the noble Lord (Lord Naas) and the hon. Baronet (Sir Frederick Heygate). While one of those schemes might have his preference rather than either of the others, yet, keeping in view the fact that real civil disabilities were at present inflicted on the majority of the inhabitants of Ireland in connection with the University question, he would rather see the adoption of any one of the plans rather than an indefinite postponement of all interference in the direction of a removal of those disabilities. At the same time, glancing at the proposal favoured by the last speaker, and apparently by the Government, he entreated them to consider well the serious inconveniences which would follow a multiplication of Universities, which, if united together, might be able to give a valuable degree, but which severed might fall into secondary rank. It was not the mere name nor its power of granting degrees which secured, respect for a University and the honours it conferred. Until recently the Scotch Universities were an example of this. There was nothing more ruinous to Universities than competitions, because it was a competition downwards. As Universities were multiplied, each became tempted to lower its standard in order to attract pupils. It I would be impossible to keep the standard high, except under such circumstances as those surrounding the University of London, which had the best examiners, who were above the imputation of low and unworthy motives, and in the cases of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, where the comparative competition between the Colleges and the great variety of bodies comprised within the precincts of the University supplied those elements of diversity and impartiality absolutely necessary to maintain the standard of examination. If the Dublin University Charter were altered, it should be altered in such a way as to be a real boon to the people, by becoming possessed of the power to grant degrees which should command the confidence of the public. That desirable object could not be attained if Ireland's University were not entitled to public confidence and national Consideration.

said, it appeard to him that the party opposite (the Opposition) were dealing in the most inconsistent manner with the question. It was only that morning that they had voted against the union of the University of Durham with the University of London. They had in that case supported the principle of exclusion. At present they sought to establish the principle of inclusion and fusion, irrespective of all religious considerations. That was an awkward mode of proceeding, and hon. Gentlemen opposite were beginning to feel the difficulties of their position. A late able and witty Member of that House once stated that Liberalism was antagonistic to religion. The Gentleman to whom he was referring was the late Mr. Henry Drummond. He justified his statement by observing that Liberalism was quod liberat—that which loosens; while religion was quod religat—that which binds. He added that those who objected to his allegation must quarrel, not with him, but with the dictionary. He (Mr. Newdegate) believed that that difficulty pinched the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) and all his party. They yielded to the demand of the Roman Catholics for strict exclusiveness at Maynooth and in the Roman Catholic poor schools of this country; yet they would not allow the same principle to be extended to the Protestants, who constituted the great majority of the population of the United Kingdom. They wanted to deprive the Dublin University of whatever remained of its exclusiveness, because it was a Protestant, not a Roman Catholic reservation. The Liberal party were in the difficulty of Laving no principle to guide them. Who ought to lead that party? A consistent Jew, a consistent Mahometan, who was a consistent Unitarian, or a consistent Atheist, who had no religion whatever? At present they were dragged hither and thither by the Roman Catholics, who thereby involved them in a maze of inconsistency. Having no principle of their own they were obliged to follow that body, and in doing so utterly to violate that principle of equality for which upon other occasions they so strenuously contended. Their position was thus infinitely absurd. He could easily understand that the right hon. Member for South Lancashire wished for an adjournment which might afford him an opportunity of considering the embarrassing condition to which he and his party were reduced. He (Mr. Gladstone) wished for time in order to consider how to escape from or to evade the fathomless difficulty into which compliance with the arbitrary demands of the ultramontane Roman Catholics had plunged him.

said, the Liberal party's object was clear. The University was sectarian, and they desired to make it national.

said, that he had to present a petition from the University of Cambridge, signed by thirteen heads of houses, forty-two tutors and lecturers, thirty-four professors, and seventy-four other residents, being Masters of Arts, against the passing of this Bill. In the petition, which would have been more numerously signed at another period of the year, the petitioners called the attention of the House to the fact that only a few years had elapsed since very important changes had been introduced in connection with the University, and that the Commissioners appointed to consider the subject, while recommending strongly that those who were not members of the Universities should be admitted to all the educational privileges, also recommended that the connection between the Universities and the Church of England should be maintained. They further stated that those recommendations were embodied in an Act of Parliament, and that in consequence of that Act persons not members of the Church of England had been admitted to the privileges of the University, with the exception of admission into the governing body and offices hitherto held by members of the Church of England. They further stated that nothing had of late years occurred to warrant any fundamental changes in the constitution of the University, and they prayed the House to sanction no more alterations, such as those which had in some instances already prejudicially affected the interests of the University. He moved that the petition lie on the table.

said, that the House had assembled the previous afternoon at two o'clock, and would meet that morning at twelve o'clock. He hoped therefore that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of this measure would not press it to a division at that hour (a quarter to one o'clock), especially as it had not been discussed since its extension to the University of Cambridge.

said, he should be extremely unwilling to do anything against the wishes of the House, but the Bill had been read a second time, and had now arrived at its third stage. Hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as on his side of the House had expressed themselves on the subject, and the House knew everything that was to be said on the subject. Therefore, as this was the third reading, he hoped the House would go to a division on the question.

moved that the House do now adjourn.

said, he seconded the Motion. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to have forgotten what had passed at the second reading. The Bill then went into Committee, and then there was a Motion to extend it to the University of Cambridge. He then endeavoured to raise a discussion on the Bill, but his hon. and learned Friend stifled all discussion. This was the first fair opportunity there had been for discussing the present measure. The Bill had been debated with reference to Oxford, but not with reference to Cambridge. They had been told an hour ago that it was too late in the evening to discuss the subject of the Dublin University, and now they were told it was not too late to discuss the Oxford and Cambridge Tests Bill.

I would make an appeal to the generosity of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Bill before us has been four times discussed by this and by the late Parliament. On one occasion it was only defeated by a majority of two on the question that this Bill do pass. Everything that can be said on either side has been said. The arguments for and against are worn threadbare. My hon. Friend who has charge of the Bill put it off from the 4th of June to to-night to meet the convenience of the hon. Baronet, who now insists on delay. It is surely an occasion on which we may ask, with good reason, the Government to give us a day.

denied that, as the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs asserted, the question was discussed threadbare. On the contrary, this was the first time the Bill had ever come on for discussion at all. The question which had hitherto been discussed, whether threadbare or not, was the abolition of tests at Oxford. The one now before them for the first time was the abolition of tests at Cambridge as well as Oxford. As a Cam- bridge man, he protested against Cambridge being called on in that manner to follow suit to Oxford. It was as great and as large an University, and had its own independent interests. Not only was this matter before the House for the first time, but they were called upon to revolutionize Cambridge before the Bill which was to do this had even been printed. He had asked for a copy of it in the Note Office, and what he received was a copy of the original Oxford Tests Abolition Bill.

I think there is reasonableness on both sides, and perhaps there may be a way out of the difficulty. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has charge of this Bill is afraid, and I think with reason, that there may be no other occasion this Session on which the third reading can be taken. Those who are determined to oppose it at all hazards, if there be such, may be pleased with that view of the case. But, considering that this difficulty arises from the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken—a course of which I do not complain, and to which the House has acceded—of devoting so much time to the great measure which is in the hands of the Government, it seems a pity that a measure of this nature, brought in by a non-official Member, should suffer from that cause. Therefore, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consent in some way or other to make some arrangement by which at some not distant day a discussion and a division might be taken. I admit that at this hour—nearly one o'clock—the Bill cannot be satisfactorily discussed. The House has given up the day and the evening sittings, and almost all the time of the week, to the Bill of the Government. Surely it is only fair that the Government should in compensation, in a case of this nature, make some arrangement with my hon. and learned Friend in order that a discussion may take place, and that the matter may be settled by the final decision of the House. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will adopt that very reasonable course, there will be no discussion now, and all of us may go home to bed.

said, he did not see why the hon. Member for Birmingham should be afraid of leaving this measure to be discussed in a reformed Parliament.

said, he should be most happy, were it in his power, to assist the hon. and learned Gentleman by finding a day when the third reading of this Bill might be taken; but it was quite out of his power in the present state of the public business. The Government were extremely thankful to independent Members for giving up part of Tuesdays and Fridays, but a great portion of those days still remained, with the Wednesdays, at the disposal of independent Members. It would be only misleading the hon. and learned Gentleman if he gave any vague promise, It would be quite illusory—he saw no prospect of making any such arrangement. He did not wish to deceive the hon. and learned Gentleman by holding out a promise that the measure could be brought on otherwise than in the natural course of business. At the same time, if it were in his power to oblige the hon. and learned Gentleman, or any other Member, he should be glad to do so.

moved that the debate be adjourned.

said, that he would not trouble the House to divide.