said, the Bill proposed to take into the borough of Derby the hamlet of Litchurch having a population of 15,000 and four other hamlets, and also to include this large district within the district of the Derby School Board, although it was amply provided with schools, and if included would be subjected to a considerably increased rate. The 11th section of the Education Act of 1873 gave to any such district a right to say whether it would be so annexed or not. The clauses which were objected to were inserted by the Committee at the instance of the Education Department; and the House, upon the matter being brought before it, had referred the Bill back, after a debate and division, to the Select Committee, for the purpose of omitting those clauses, or, at any rate, re-considering them. The Committee had re-considered them, and reported that they saw no reason for making any alteration in the Bill. That decision was one which he thought the House would not concur in. He therefore moved to leave out Clauses 42 to 46, inclusive.

Chairman of the Committee to whom the Bill was re-committed, said, that no additional evidence had been brought before them, either by the opponents or the promoters of the Bill. The Committee had not been actuated by any pressure from the Education Department, and he claimed for Committees on Private Bills their right to insert or reject such clauses as the circumstances and the facts justified them in adopting or rejecting. After hearing the evidence given by the gentlemen of the Education Department, the Committee could come to no other conclusion than that it was undesirable to insert in the Bill such provisions as the Cardiff and Stafford clauses; and no other clauses were proposed. He thought the question ought not to be viewed as one of school boards or of voluntary school management simply. When they had an opportunity of extending a borough care should be taken that within proper limits the local government should be kept in the same hands for all purposes. There were several anomalies connected with this subject with which the House would be asked before very long to deal. The clauses which it was proposed to insert, although a little less objectionable than the Stafford and Cardiff clauses, would not, in his view, meet the case, and therefore he opposed their insertion in the Bill.

as a Member of the Select Committee, supported the proposal to insert the new clauses, as he wished to see the borough extended without destroying the administrative freedom of Litchurch. He protested against too much of departmental interference in the self-government of different localities.

as representing the borough of Derby, remarked that that borough had been made a battle ground between the Education Department and the Chairman of Ways and Means. It was immaterial to his constituents which way the matter was determined, as long as the Bill was passed; but his -personal conviction was that the course recommended by the Committee was a very sound one.

said, he had advised the reference back to the Committee, because they did not appear to have considered themselves quite free to examine the clauses proposed by the Education Department, but that reference was not to be considered in the nature of an Instruction to the Committee. They had taken the evidence of the Department, and had sent the Bill back unaltered; and now the House had to consider the matter upon its merits. He thought the question was one of too much importance to be decided by clauses in a Private Bill; and as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had a Public Bill before the House dealing with the same subject, he thought the wisest course would be to omit clauses from 42 to 46 inclusive, and thus throw the parties back upon the existing law, That, he believed, would be a solution of rather a difficult question.

said, if these clauses were inserted they would infringe upon, and to a certain extent repeal, the Act of 1870. He hoped the House would follow the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, he understood, the Chairman of Committees was quite willing to accept.

explained that this controversy had been originated not by him but by a former Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. His object in supporting the clauses was to secure harmony in the proceedings of the various Committees. The suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to omit Clauses 42 to 46 inclusive, which the Committee had inserted on the suggestion of the Education Department, would commend itself to the House, and their omission would not damnify the Department. He thought that the Committee should have shown more respect to the opinion which the House indicated on the last occasion, and that if they could not adopt these clauses they should have accompanied their decision by a statement of the reasons on which they acted. He considered that the clauses proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Merewether) would be a great improvement.

expressed his concurrence in the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought it was a full justification of the Committee for not accepting the decision of a fortnight ago, as forcing upon them the views of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

expressed concurrence in the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

moved the adjournment of the debate, in order that further time might be afforded for the full consideration of the new proposals suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

seconded the Motion for adjournment. The best course would be to adjourn the matter, in order that it might be thoroughly understood by both sides of the House. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Pell.)

hoped that the House would accept the very reasonable proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which had taken away the only bone of contention. There would be no advantage in adjourning the debate.

avowed his inability to make out what would be the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's suggestion.

said, the effect of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would be to lead to a long lawsuit. If it were the wish of the House he would consent to the adjournment of the debate; but should the contrary opinion prevail he had no option but to accept what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had suggested.

observed that the clauses which the Committee had inserted in the Bill were now fought on the question of the construction of the general law, and he thought it would be bettor not to embarrass the Bill with the consideration of that question. The House was now in a position to decide whether it would complicate the question of the construction of the general law by the introduction of those clauses into the Bill, and no advantage would be gained by an adjournment.

while assenting to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, suggested an alteration of Clause 52.

remarked that the House had three or four cross issues to deal with, and the only rational thing they could do now was to adjourn the matter. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 183: Majority 31. — (Division List, No. 121.) Original Question put, and negatived.

moved to leave out Clauses 42 to 46, inclusive. Clause 52, page 19, line 2, to leave out from " years," to end of Clause. Amendments agreed to. Bill to be read the third time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state the nature and extent of the inquiry which he has intimated that he intends to institute regarding grocers' licences in Scotland; also when and where the Commission will sit?

in reply, said, that the Commission would be issued without delay—at least without any further delay than was necessary for the purpose of communicating with those gentlemen whom it was proposed to make members of the Commission. The terms of the Order of Reference to the Commission had not yet been adjusted; but he might say generally that they would embrace all those matters connected with grocers' licences which had been put forward in the recent discussion of the Bill of the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Anstruther). As to the places where the Commission would sit, he thought that was a very proper matter for the Commissioners themselves to determine in the course of their inquiry.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the time which has elapsed since the Royal Commission on the Sea Fisheries in 1863, and the persistent complaints of the Scotch Fishermen since that Commission, and considering also the unsatisfactory results of the Herring Fishery in the Firths of Scotland, and notably in the Moray Firth and the Firth of Forth, he will cause an inquiry into the whole subject to be made by a Royal Commission, or otherwise; and, whether he will undertake to do so without delay?

in reply, said, the Home Secretary was not prepared to make an inquiry into the effect of all the legislation which had taken place on this subject; but, looking to the complaints that had been made since the Sea Fisheries Commission sat in 1863, he was prepared to grant an inquiry into those complaints and those fisheries. That inquiry, however, would not be confined to the sea fisheries on the Scotch coast, but would extend to those of the whole of Great Britain. With regard to the last part of the Question, the Home Secretary was desirous of causing the inquiry to be made without any unnecessary delay.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any steps have been taken, or instructions sent to Her Majesty's Consuls, with a view to protect the large amount of British capital invested in river craft in the Danube, under a belief that the management of the navigation of that river was in the hands of the European Commission?

Sir, I can answer the hon. Gentleman's Question in the affirmative. Representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Porte on the subject, and, in consequence, the Porte has given orders to the Commander-in-Chief on the Danube that as many facilities as are possible shall be given for the protection whilst in transmission up and down the Danube of vessels belonging to British subjects. Representations have also been made to the Russian Government respecting the detention of vessels, and such further instructions will be given to Her Majesty's Diplomatic Consular Agents as may appear to Her Majesty's Government, after consultation with the Law Officers, to be necessary for the protection of British interests.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Foreign Office has received from the Indian Government, or otherwise, any confirmation of the telegraphic news (from Berlin) published on Saturday last, of the Russian Government having assembled a large military force in Tashkend for offensive operation in the district of Pamir. The said district comprising on the west the sources of the Oxus and its tributaries, and on the east and north the mountain passes of Yarkand?

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding, I need hardly remind him that Her Majesty's Government have no Agents in these quarters. The Foreign Office have, therefore, no means of communicating with the district; but I have made inquiries at the India Office, and they have heard nothing of the alleged movement of troops in those parts.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the attention of the Education Department has been called to the fact that at the recent triennial election of the Attleborough School Board a candidate having been duly nominated and returned at the head of the poll, the returning officer refused to declare him elected, on the ground that he had absented himself during six successive months from the meetings of the Board going out of office; and, whether such refusal is according to law?

We have received a letter from a gentleman at Attleborough informing us that he was duly nominated for the school board of that place, and was returned at the head of the poll, but that the returning officer refused to declare him elected on the ground that he had absented himself for six successive months from the meetings of the board then going out of office. We are advised that we have no power to decide in such a case, and that the question whether such refusal is according to law must be decided by the ordinary tribunals.

in moving, in page 6, line 27, after " conditions," to insert " including, where it seems fit, those relating to age," said: This Amendment is designed to meet a great and growing abuse. I lately paid a visit to Cambridge, and found that, whatever might be the opinion of the gentlemen engaged in teaching whom I talked to there with regard to other matters, on one point they appeared to be agreed. The more they had to do with practical education, the more strongly they held that our Undergraduates, and especially the Undergraduates who contend for honours, come up to the University far too old, and they almost all allowed that the age was still tending to rise. Fifty years ago—in the days when there were such scholars as Thirlwall and Blomfield, and such mathematicians as Whewell, and Airey, and Herschel —men used to enter into residence at 18 years of age. In my own day the age had risen to 19; and the thing has now got so far that the upper forms of our public school are full of hulking young men of nearly 20. Now, the opinion of those who know best is that all the time which is spent at school over Latin and Greek after the age of 18 is lost time. Certainly the two most successful scholars of my own day came up to Cambridge nearer 17 than 18. Some go so far as to say that after that age a young man rather deteriorates than improves if he stays on at school; that he becomes a sort of Triton among the minnows, and grows conceited and idle, and that his first year at College is spent in bringing him back to the point that he was at 18 months before he left school. What else can be expected from this inversion of the order of things, when a young man, at an age when his grandfather was fighting in the Peninsula, or preparing to stand for a borough, is still hanging on at school, with his mind half taken up with Latin verses, and the other half divided between his score in the cricket field and his score at the pastry-cook's. Now, the main cause of this is that the Colleges, out of the superfluity of their wealth, offer such rich prizes to boys in the shape of minor Scholarships and Scholarships. One College gives £80 a-year, another £100; and these may generally be gained by all who have not yet completed their 20th year. The consequence is that ambitious young men who are anxious not to lose a chance, hang on at school up to the very latest moment that they can stay there. The main object of these full-grown bearded individuals, who are misnamed schoolboys, is to go up to College laden with incomes from Exhibitions and Scholarships, and education is degraded more and more into an ignoble system of pot-hunting. But the evil does not end here. It is not only that young men stop too long at school; but that, as a natural consequence, they stay too late at College. Men of three, four, or five-and-twenty are still employed on a course of studies suited to men of 20 or 21. The evidence on this point is very remarkable. Hon. Members are aware that an institution has recently been founded at Cambridge called the Cavendish College, for the purpose of enabling lads from middle class schools to enjoy the advantage of University life at a cheaper rate than in the older Colleges. The students of Cavendish College cannot afford to waste their time. They come into residence at 16 and 17 years of age; and we have now the singular and almost humiliating spectacle of Undergraduates, educated at an enormous cost at Eton, Harrow, and other great public schools, who at the age of 22 are still dawdling over examinations which other Undergraduates, who have been educated at a third of the expense, have already passed easily at the age of 19. I think that hon. Members will admit this to be a reductio ad absurdum of this system of keeping grown men pottering over Euclid and Paley's Evidences till they are almost too old for success at the Bar, and quite too old to adapt themselves to the habits of commercial life. Now, Sir, the only means by which this evil can be checked is that the age at which entrance Scholarships can be obtained should be lowered from 20, to 19, or even 18 years. It would be easy to make special exceptions in the case of those self-taught geniuses whom none of us would wish to discourage. But the Colleges cannot, or rather dare not, take this step for themselves. The competition—the honourable competition—between College and College to get hold of young men who are likely to distinguish themselves is so keen that they do not venture to lessen their chance of getting such men by lowering the age, unless they are sure that all other Colleges will agree to follow suit. It is for the Commissioners to take the matter into their own hands, and put a stop to a state of things which is bad for our public schools and for our Universities, and still worse for the individual interests of our students. With these views I have placed on the Paper the Amendment which stands in my name, to which I beg the Committee to give a favourable consideration.

said, that the words the hon. Member proposed to insert were, in substance, included in the word " conditions " already in the clause; but he agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member, and as it was well that attention should be called to the matter, he would accept the Amendment.

supported the object the Amendment had in view, and he was glad to find that the Secretary of State for War approved of its principle.

considered the matter important, and thought that the attention of the Commissioners should be directed to the point. The intention of the founders of Cavendish College was that young students should take their degrees at the age of 19, and he thought that if the proposed alteration were made those students would be less unfairly weighted in the matter of age.

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his concession. It was a matter that deserved the serious attention of the University. It was desirable that some check should be put upon the threatened raid of robust men who might come to the University from the North of the Tweed.

thought that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Trevelyan) was a little hard on the public school boys; his recollection of them was different. He suggested that the Universities should have the power to settle the limit of age for Scholarships, the Colleges being unable to do so on account of the rivalry between them.

was very glad to find that the Secretary of State for War intended to adopt the Amendment.

said, that his impression was that the worst offenders in point of age were the Scotch students and the private students, and not the public school boys.

said, that the reason Scotch undergraduates at English Universities were comparatively old was that Scotch degrees were not required ad eundem at Oxford and Cambridge, so that Scotch M.A's. had to enrol themselves as if they had no possession of a degree.

said, that the ad eundem degree conferred no privileges except wearing the gown.

said, that the limit of age ought only to apply to Scholarships. Amendment agreed to.

moved in page 6, line 31, after " thereof," to insert—" Provided, That every such emolument shall be conferred according to personal merit and fitness." The object of this Amendment was to save the spirit and intention of the Act of 1854, that Fellowships should be the reward of merit and competition. Amendment proposed,

In page 6, line 31, after the word " thereof," to insert the words " Provided, That every such emolument shall be conferred according to personal merit and fitness."—(Mr. Dodson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

thought it would be unwise to put in these words. They already existed in the original Act, which would be read together with this Act. Any guiding principle that was necessary for the Commissioners was contained in the existing Act, and to require that the competitive principle should apply in all cases would be inapposite, because there were offices where such an examination would not apply.

opposed the Amendment, and instanced the office of bursar as one to which the principle of competition would be inapplicable.

expressed a hope that the case of All Souls' College would not be lost sight of. Since the passing of the Act of 1854 the candidate who passed best in the general examination was not elected Fellow, but the candidate who, having passed the general examination, passed best in law and modern history.

regarded the words proposed to be inserted as superfluous.

contended for the insertion of the words as necessary, and advised the right hon. Gentleman to go to a division.

pointed out that there were no words in the Bill requiring it to be read with the Act of 1854, and that there was nothing to prevent the Commissioners if they chose reversing the policy of that Act. Question put. The Committee divided: — Ayes 34 Noes 70: Majority 36. — (Div. List, No. 123.)

moved, in page 6, line 31, after "thereof," to insert—

"Provided, That no emolument unattached to any office either in the University or its Colleges shall be tenable for a longer period than seven years."

He was anxious to see that a limit should be given to the tenure of these emoluments, so that there should not be a life tenure of an emolument gained by a single examination. At present there were six Colleges in Cambridge at which the tenure of Fellowships was was limited to seven years; whilst in the case of all Scholarships, even including the Craven and the Tretand, the blue ribbons of Oxford University, a strict limit was imposed. His object was not to curtail the number of these Prize Fellowships, but to increase them by more frequent circulation, and to render them a support to a larger number of the poorer men during the ordinary struggles of their early professional life.

supported the Amendment.

could not accept the insertion of the words. He thought it would be best to leave the Commissioners appointed under the Act to inquire on the spot, and make regulations in reference to the tenure of Fellowships which should be suitable to each individual case or set of cases.

thoroughly agreed in the object of the Proviso. The Commissioners, however, were the proper persons to deal with the principle involved.

on the other hand, thought that the hands of the Commissioners should be tied by inserting the principle of the Proviso in the Bill.

would not press his Amendment, but hoped that the unanimous expression of opinion by the House would find its way to the Commissioners. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved, in page 7, line 3, after subsection (7) to insert—

"(8.) For modifying the trusts, conditions, or directions affecting any College endowment, foundation, or gift, or any property belonging to or held in trust for the College, so far as the Commissioners think necessary or expedient for giving effect to statutes made for the College."

quite agreed with the object of the Amendment, but said that the words proposed were unnecessary. Rather, however, than waste time he would accept the Amendment. Amendment agreed to.

moved, in page 7, line 7, after "same," to insert—

"(9.) For regulating the times during which residence in the College shall be required for the purposes of study and instruction.

"(10.) For modifying the trusts, conditions, or directions affecting any College endowment, foundation, or gift, as far as the Commissioners think the modification thereof necessary or expedient for giving effect to statutes made by them for the College."

He thought the magnates of the University should be called upon in some degree to retrench the enormous holiday which they enjoyed, and which extended over 30 weeks in the year. It was in this direction that his Amendment would operate.

objected to the Amendment, as the question involved in it had already been settled in the Committee.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment if he were to have an opportunity of moving it at some future time when hon. Members were not at dinner, because if the division bell rang at present the supporters of the Government would come flocking in and defeat it. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved, in page 7, line 7, after "same," to insert—

"(9.) For enabling the College to sell advowsons of benefices, the patronage whereof is now vested in it, and for regulating the application of the purchase-money for any such advowson."

said, a College already had power to sell advowsons, but there was no provision for the application of the money for the purposes of the College. He suggested that the Amendment should be directed only to the regulating of the application of the purchase money.

accepted the suggestion. Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

moved, in page 7, after line 7, to insert—

"For transferring the visitorial powers now exercised by any ecclesiastical person or body over or in any College to the Crown."

The noble Lord said, the visitorial powers which were now possessed by the Bench of Bishops were chiefly of a judicial character, and invested the persons who held them with a jurisdiction more irresponsible in some ways than that of a Judge sitting in an ordinary Court of Law or Equity. He did not desire to say anything disrespectful of the Bench of Bishops; but it seemed to him that the time had come when the judicial powers and duties with which they were now entrusted should be transferred to a lay body. He altogether demurred to a Bishop sitting as visitor and adjudicating upon matters which involved points of law as much as any which could be brought before any Court in the country. It would, no doubt, be said that he could not bring forward any evidence to prove that the jurisdiction of the Bishops had been unsatisfactory. Well, he would not mention names; but he could easily, if he liked, point to certain cases in which the decisions of the Bishops, acting as visitors, had been a cause of much discontent. Amendment proposed,

At the end of the Clause, to add the words "For transferring the visitorial powers now exercised by any ecclesiastical person or body over or in any college to the Crown."—(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

supported the Amendment. There could be no doubt, he said, that a great change had taken place in the character of the Episcopal Bench since the time when the Bishops were first made Visitors of Colleges. There had also been a great change in the character of these Colleges themselves; and that being the case, he thought there was sufficient ground for taking away from the Bishops the important jurisdiction with which they had been originally vested, and transferring it to that power which was the natural repository of law and justice in this Kingdom.

was sorry he could not accept the noble Lord's Amendment. He considered that the Bishops were perfectly well qualified and perfectly well able to discharge the duties which had so long devolved upon them. He should certainly not be in favour of any alteration of the present system unless it were found that the Visitors were not adequately performing their functions. For his part, he thought the Visitors did their duty most thoroughly, both in investigating cases and in giving decisions upon them.

trusted that, as the Bill effected an entire change in the administration of the Universities, there would be no objection on the part of the Government to the adoption of the Amendment.

thought that there was no incongruity in a Bishop being a visitor, and opposed the Amendment. No practical case had been made out for the change, and he therefore trusted that the proposal would not be adopted.

said, that if every College in Oxford had the same power as Baliol of electing its visitor, there would be little to complain of; but it was very different with Colleges of which Bishops were Visitors virtute officii and by the will of the founder.

sympathized with what he believed to be the object of the Amendment, but could not support it in its present form, by which it was directed against ecclesiastical Visitors exclusively. Question put. The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 84: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 124.)

moved, in page 7, line 7, at end, to add—

"Provided always, That nothing in this Act contained shall authorize or enable the Commissioners to deal with the funds of any Fellowship when such funds do not exceed the clear annual value of two hundred and fifty pounds, and when such Fellowship is held for no longer a term than eight years, or until marriage; and if such Fellowship is of a greater clear annual value than two hundred and fifty pounds, or is tenable for a longer term than aforesaid, then the Commissioners may make provisions with regard to the amount so in excess, and may reduce the future tenure of such Fellowships to such term of eight years, or until marriage."

The hon. and learned Member said, the Amendment related to the most important part of the Bill. Nothing had so much helped to place the University of Oxford in its present position as these Fellowships, which enabled young men to distinguish themselves at the University and afterwards to pursue their profession with credit. They had been well described as the prima mobilis of the University. His Proviso would prevent these Fellowships from being utterly annihilated; while, on the other hand, the Commissioners would have the power to deal with any superfluity of Fellowships. With regard to the amount, lie thought that these Fellowships should not exceed £250 a-year. When a young man obtained one of that amount it would be enough to carry him through the rest of his University career and the first stages of his professional life. If he went to the Bar, for example, he would have no occasion to marry a "rich attorney's daughter." He had put the time during which the Fellowships might be held at eight years. The term of seven years might be adopted for Cambridge, as being more suited to that University. Where they were held for a greater length of time, the Commissioners were to fix the tenure to eight years, or until marriage. He held that marriage was on many accounts a suitable limit to the tenure of a Fellowship. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving his Amendment.

objected to the Proviso on the ground that it would do more harm than good to the Fellows. The Bill enabled the Commissioners to make regulations in reference to the tenure and conditions upon which Fellowships should be held, and in the manner most conducive to the interests of each College; but by this Proviso it was proposed to cut down the value of the Fellowships to a minimum; and thus the Commissioners would consider that it would be their duty to raise some and to reduce others by placing them all on a common level. He submitted that it would be better to leave the clause as it stood.

also contended that the Amendment was very objectionable and ought not to be accepted by the Committee.

in reply, said, that he did not propose that all Fellowships should be no more than £250, but that when they were as low as that they should not be touched by the Commissioners. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 18 (Provision for religious instruction, &c.) postponed. Clause 19 (Objects of statutes for Colleges in relation to University).

moved the omission of the first sub-section, which enables the Commissioners to make provision for annexing any emolument held in the College to any office in the University or in a Hall on such tenure as they may deem fit, and for attaching to the emolument in connection with the office conditions of residence, study, and duty. Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 18, to leave out from the word "them," to the word "them," in line 23, inclusive.—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

disliked the principle of this sub-section exceedingly. He believed that at Oxford it had been in practice; but at Cambridge it would be entirely new, and he was sure it would be very objectionable. At present the Governing Bodies of the Colleges elected their own Fellows. If this sub-section were passed, the Colleges might have Fellows imposed upon them by the authorities of the University. Such Fellows would be in the enjoyment of the funds of the College, but being appointed by an independent authority and not by the College would not be likely to consider themselves subject to the control of the Governing Bodies of such College. He hoped the subsection would be struck out.

said, the same system which it was now proposed to introduce into Cambridge had worked well in some of the Colleges at Oxford, without giving rise to any incongruity or want of harmony.

asked what was the practical purpose of the sub-section?

said, that in case of Fellowships not being wanted for the working of the College, it was proposed that power should be given to attach them to University offices.

thought such a change as the sub-section would seem to allow might quite revolutionize the character of the Colleges. These Professor Fellows would really have no direct connection with the undergraduates, nor personal familiarity with the customs or conditions of the College, and would rather be an incubus upon its discipline than otherwise. It was all very well to appeal to Oxford precedents—those of Cambridge were in direct opposition.

could not look with any jealousy upon this provision, which he thought would be of great benefit to the Colleges.

said, the important point was whether these University Fellows would have a share in the government of the College, the emoluments of which they received, and yet of which they might not be residents. He wanted to knew whether it was intended to use College emoluments to prop up the Halls which were the sink of the University, and no longer serving any useful purpose?

contended that under the sub-section the Colleges were rendered powerless in the matter. The Commissioners would have absolute power to take away from the ordinary purposes of a College a certain number of Fellowships and annex them to the enjoyment of a University Fellowship, and although it might be said that the Commissioners were only to deal with superfluous funds, still it was to be borne in mind that the Commissioners themselves were to judge whether a College had superfluous funds with which they would deal.

expressed surprise at the language of the noble Lord the Member for Bury St. Edmund's (Lord Francis Hervey) with regard to Halls. He thought it was a wise provision to give power to the Commissioners, if they thought fit to annex Fellowships to a Hall. Question put. The Committee divided: —Ayes 114; Noes 53: Majority 61. — (Div. List, No. 125.) Clause 20 (Increase of additional income to be regarded), agreed to. Clause 21 (Power to allow continuance of voluntary payments).

moved in page 8, at end, to add—

"Provided, That in estimating the income of the College for any purpose of this Act, no such payment shall be taken into account as part of the necessary or ordinary expenditure of the College."

Amendment proposed,

At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided, That in estimating the income of the college for any purpose of this Act, no such payment shall be taken into account as part of the necessary or ordinary expenditure of the college."—(Mr. Dodson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

said, he could not agree to the Amendment. He admitted that in many cases the proposal of the hon. Member might be a very just one; but in other cases, it would operate unjustly. The clause only authorized the Colleges to continue such voluntary payments as might be recognized by the Commissioners as part of the necessary or ordinary expenditure of the College.

said, he was under the impression that this clause was intended to cover large voluntary payments for the increase of College livings to which he and many on that side of the House objected. They thought that the Colleges ought to sell their livings. Question put. The Committee divided: — Ayes 52; Noes 127: Majority 75.—(Div. List, No. 126.)

proposed to add at the end of the clause — "Provided that no such payment shall be made obligatory on the College."

desiring time to consider the Amendment, suggested that it should be moved on the Report. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to. Clause 22 (Provision for accounts, audit, &c.).

proposed that in the part giving the Commissioners power to make provision—

"For the form of accounts of the University and of a College relating to funds administered either for general purposes, or in trust, or otherwise, and for the audit thereof,"

there should be inserted after "audit" the words "and publication." In Oxford, he mentioned, there was no account published with regard to the trust fund of the University, nor were any of the accounts of the Colleges published, although he believed they were all audited. Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 15, after the word "audit," to insert the words " and publication."— (Mr. Dodson.)

was not prepared to assent to the Amendment unless it was explained what was meant by "publication." With respect to the Colleges, he thought that the careful audit suggested by the Commissioners and others who had looked into the matter was all that was desirable. As to public money, it was obviously proper that the accounts relating to it should in some manner be published.

thought the form of publication might be left to the Commissioners; but he suggested that pub- lication might be by sending round to the different members of the Colleges an abstract of the accounts.

could not see any valid reason against the publication of these accounts. The Colleges ought not to shrink from it.

said, the Inns of Court were not required to publish accounts. Why should the Colleges be required to do so?

said, the University of London did publish accounts, and though there was a broad distinction between that University and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, he thought so valuable a feature in connection with the one institution might, with advantage, be extended to the other two.

saw no good reason why the accounts of the Colleges should not be published.

urged that the same reasoning by which they required the accounts of the Colleges to be audited equally applied to having the accounts published. By requiring the accounts to be audited they acknowledged that the Colleges had a certain responsibility to the public. Then why should their accounts not also be published? The two things must stand or fall together.

asked the hon. Member for Liskeard what was meant by publication?

pointed out that the word "publication" was used in the next sentence of the Bill itself.

thought it was desirable that all the members of the Universities and the Colleges should know how those large funds were disposed of.

said, he had no desire whatever that the Colleges should conceal their accounts or that there should be any attempt made on their part to do so; but, as their expenditure was of a domestic character, he did not think their accounts should be published in the same manner as those of the University.

denied that the Colleges at Oxford could be treated as domestic institutions. They had public duties of importance to perform, and he knew that there were Colleges which would be perfectly willing to publish accounts showing how they administered their funds.

said, that anybody who thought there had been any improper expenditure had ample opportunity of finding it out on inquiry; and he saw no reason why the domestic expenditure of the Colleges should be published to the world at large.

said, it should be remembered that these Colleges were exempted from the operations of the Charity Commissioners, and as he could see no reason why they should not publish these accounts, he should go to a division. Question proposed, "That the words ' and publication' be there inserted." The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 117: Majority 53. — (Div. List, No. 127.)

moved to report Progress, as the hour was getting late, and everybody was tired.

said, they were in the middle of a clause, and he hoped to be allowed to finish it tonight.

also appealed to the right hon. and learned Baronet not to press his Motion, as he had two Amendments on the Paper which he desired to move.

said, he had no desire to obstruct the Business of the House, and would withdraw his Motion to enable this clause to be disposed of.

said, he should have no objection to the Motion being withdrawn, on the understanding that the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman would not take a long time. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

moved, in page 8, at end, to add—

"2. For regulating the exercise of the borrowing powers of the University or of a College;

"3. For regulating the conditions under which beneficial leases may be renewed by the University or a College."

pointed out that the object sought to be obtained was already provided for in other parts of the Bill.

thought it desirable that the Commissioners themselves should have the power to deal with the cases as they arose. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. On Motion, "That Progress be reported," In reply to Mr. GOSCIIEN,

said, he proposed to go on with the Bill on Thursday, till he came to the postponed clauses, whatever time that might be. If these clauses were not reached by 10 o'clock, which he did not think they would be, he would not take them that night. If, however, they were reached before that time, he should propose to commence the discussion upon them on Thursday. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

explained that the object of the Bill was to enable an " assistant barrister" to be appointed to assist the Recorder for four days at a time, instead of two, as now, and also to enable the Corporation of the town where he was appointed to vote his remuneration for a whole year, instead of, as now, session by session.

moved the following clause:—

supported the clause, as the Recorder of a moral city (Durham), where more than once there had been no prisoners for trial.

opposed the clause, because Grand Juries liked to see their Recorder, whether there was anything to do or not.

objected to the clause, because anyone had a right to go before the Grand Jury with a bill, but urged that it should be postponed, in the absence of the Attorney General, until the Report.

replied that the right was so seldom exercised and was so contrary to the tendency of recent legislation that it might very well be required that two or three days' notice should be given.

supported the clause. In Ireland, when it was known that no prisoners were to be tried, Grand Jurymen paid the fine of £2 rather than take the trouble of going to the sessions for no purpose whatever.

consented to defer the new clause until the Report. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday 1st June.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, stated that it authorized the advance of £700,000 for public loans in Ireland, and also remitted certain sums amounting to about £500,000, which had previously been advanced by the Treasury on inadequate security. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)

objected to the Bill on account of the proposed remissions.

moved the adjournment of the debate. Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Courtney.) The House divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 60: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 128.) Original Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 7th June.