moved, in page 8, lines 30 and 31, to leave out "with the consent in writing of the visitor of the College." The clause enacted that—

"The Commissioners, in statutes made by them, may from time to time make provision for the complete or partial union of two or more Colleges, or of a College or Colleges, with a Hall or Halls, or of two or more Halls, or for the organization of a combined educational system in and for two or more Colleges or Halls, provided application in that behalf was made to the Commissioners on the part of each College and Hall, as follows:—(1.) In the case of a College in the University of Oxford, by resolution passed at a general meeting of the College, specially summoned for this purpose, by the votes of not less than two thirds of the number of persons present and voting, with the consent in writing of the Visitor of the College."

The clause, as it stood, would apparently give the Visitor a direct and concurrent power with the College itself in that matter. The consent of the Visitor was not required in the University of Cambridge, and he did not see why a difference should be made in the case of Oxford.

said, he would not feel himself justified in depriving the Visitor of a College in Oxford of exercising the power which the Amendment sought to take away from him. He maintained that, in a matter of such importance as the union of Colleges and Halls, the Visitor was a very proper person to be consulted, not against the Commissioners, but for the benefit of the Colleges. Therefore, although the consent of Visitors might not be required at Cambridge, where they had never been called in in the same way as at Oxford, he adhered to the clause as it stood.

remarked that as the Visitors did not seem to be of any practical use, the present occasion might very well be taken to get rid of them. He confessed that the existence of these Visitors had always been a mystery to him. Each College was totus, teres, atque rotundus in itself, and there was besides a Governing Body for each University to assist the College if necessary. He could not see the necessity of a Visitor, who was only an additional complication of authority, and certainly it was not desirable to increase his authority as was now proposed.

considered the proposed power unreasonable. There was at present considerable feeling against the Visitors, and it would be unwise to complicate the matter further by giving them this power. It had been truly said that the power was proposed not against the Commissioners, but as a veto upon the Colleges, and that was practically a veto on the Commissioners. If anything would damage this useful Bill, it would be the introduction of such words as formed part of this clause.

trusted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) would give way, because he could not see any reason for putting the power into the hands of one man of preventing the union of Colleges.

did not see that the Visitor, who had no proprietary rights, had any title to interfere in the manner proposed by the clause. The clause was not a judicial matter at all.

trusted that his right hon. Friend would not consent to the Amendment. An Oxford Visitor was a totally different person from a Cambridge Visitor; and it was only equitable that he should be put in the position which the clause proposed to give him, and that his consent should be obtained to any proposal for a union of Colleges and Halls, or for the organization of a combined educational system in those Colleges of Halls. In Oxford the Visitor had already the power to veto certain statutes.

challenged the statement that there was any difference in authority between the Visitors at Oxford and Cambridge. There might be a difference in principle in the two cases, but not, as far as he was aware, in any other respect. He thought that nothing was so desirable in the interests of a University as the amalgamation of small powers.

remarked that the function of the Visitor at Oxford was to interpret statutes when a doubt or question arose as to their meaning; he was applied to as an arbitrator in the case of difference, and he had, in some cases, power when alterations were proposed in the statutes. This was substantially the case at Cambridge.

said, he did not see why, even on the largest view of the rights and privileges of the Visitors, their assent should be required to the organization of a scheme of combined education in connection with contiguous Colleges, and he suggested that the clause might be altered so as to make the consent necessary in the case only of complete union of the Colleges.

was willing to agree to such an Amendment.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended that in a case where, say, two-thirds of the members of two Colleges agreed to union and the Commissioners also agreed, it should be in the power of a single Bishop to prevent it? If that was the result, the matter would probably soon have to be re-considered.

thought the concession which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) sufficiently met the case, and he insisted that much was due to the position of the Visitor as the permanent representative and guardian of the interests of the College.

said, that at last he perceived the reason why the Visitor was dragged into this clause. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Mowbray) had just spoken of Colleges "of which two-thirds of the Fellows might be young men." There, then, was the secret. The Government desired to have these Visitors—most of whom were Bishops in the case of Oxford—to check and control the enthusiasm of the younger Fellows for College reforms. Now, at last he understood the matter, and it increased his objection to the words of the clause. But since these words were not to apply to Cambridge because its Representative (Mr. Walpole) found that Cambridge did not want them, he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) wished to know how far the feeling at Oxford on the matter corresponded with that which had so satisfactorily been obtained from Cambridge? And what was the reason of the Government for applying a principle to one University and rejecting it in the other?

said, he thought he had gone as far as he could in accepting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). The present clause, he might add, had come down from the House of Lords in the Bill of last year, and, as not a single objection to it had been made on the part of Oxford, it might fairly be taken for granted that the University was not opposed to it.

gave Notice that he would again submit his Amendment on the Report.

undertook to introduce in the clause, on the Report, the words suggested by the hon. Member for Liskeard.

moved, in page 9, line 2, after "thereto," to insert—

"Except as regards so much of the funds or property of the trustees under the same as the Charity Commissioners under any scheme or schemes published by them have assigned for Scholarships or Exhibitions at Brasenose College, Oxford,"

the effect of the Amendment being to take away the Exhibitions from the control of the Charity Commissioners.

who had an Amendment on the Paper requiring that the Charity Commissioners should give their consent to any transfer, the effect of the Amendment being to leave those Exhibitions, &c., under the control of the Charity Commissioners, and to exempt them from the control of the University Commissioners said, as a trustee of 15 years standing he objected to the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, which had now been published after four years' consultation with all the parties interested, being taken out of their control and handed over to the University Commissioners who might found Professorships out of the educational prizes now offered to the schools of Lancashire and Cheshire by the proposed scheme.

said, as he understood the case, some of the funds of this charity were devoted to academical and others to non-academical purposes. The Amendment ought to deal only with the academical funds for the benefit of Brasenose. He would withdraw his Amendment to leave out Clause 24.

said, that the Charity Commissioners had received a large sum, and had devoted a part to the benefit of the two counties, and another part for the benefit of Brasenose, for Scholarships. He understood his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mow bray) to mean that the money assigned to Brasenose should be dealt with by the University Commissioners. As the consent of the Charity Commissioners was completed when they assigned the money to Brasenose, he could not see the use of the words "with the consent of the Charity Commissioners."

said, that the scheme limited the persons to receive those Scholarships to persons brought up in Lancashire or Cheshire, and the money should be devoted to that purpose.

thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Cheshire (Mr. W. Egerton) was the better.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that as far as these funds were academical they should be dealt with by the Academical Commissioners; and as far as they were charitable they should be dealt with by the Charity Commissioners. The object of the hon. Member's Amendment ' was to preserve the local character of certain Exhibitions, which was in direct opposition to the general tendency of University reform.

remarked that the Amendment, if accepted, would upset the work that had been in progress for many years.

observed that close Fellowships and Scholarships had been the bane of the Universities, and he hoped to see them swept away.

contended that it was absurd to designate as close, Scholarships and Exhibitions which were open to counties with such large populations as Lancashire and Cheshire. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowbray) was waking a sleeping lion by his Amendment.

said, that the scheme was that 16 Exhibitions of £100 per annum were to be established, tenable for four years, at Brasenose, and if the holders were refused at Brasenose, at some other College at Oxford. The holders were to have been at some Lancashire or Cheshire school.

said, it had been proposed for the first time that these Exhibitions, which were open to all the world, should be limited to Lancashire and Cheshire in the face of all University reform, the great object of which had been to throw open the Universities to everybody. He had had a letter from the principal of Brasenose, who had authorized him to say that the College considered that it would be a very serious evil to the College if changes of' this limited character were introduced, and they desired that the matter should be left to the Commissioners.

wished, as he was the only Member who had ever been a Fellow of Brasenose College, to deny absolutely that the property in question had ever in any way belonged to the University of Oxford, or to Brasenose. Nor had either the University or the College ever exercised over it any control whatever. The funds arose from a private trust which was vested entirely in three trustees, who must at least by residence be connected with Lancashire, their choice of Exhibitioners being, however, restricted to persons who had resided for a certain number of terms at Brasenose. He could not assent to the statement of hon. Members opposite that the scheme of the Charity Commissioners ran counter to the spirit of recent legislation, and the course of the former University Commission. He knew that half the Scholarships at New College could only be held by boys educated at Winchester; that many of those at Jesus were limited to Welshmen; that the Hastings Exhibitioners at Queen's must come from certain schools in Yorkshire; and he believed that at Balliol there were many valuable Exhibitions, tenable only by youths from one of the Scotch Universities. It seemed to him, therefore, that hon. Members somewhat strained the fact when they said that the object and tendency of the legislation of the last 24 years had been to get rid of the connection between particular schools and localities, and the Exhibitions or Scholarships in the University. He thought that the clause might very well stand as it was in the Bill; but of the two Amendments he very much preferred that of his hon. Friend just below him (Mr. W. Egerton).

thought the clause as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hardy) answered all purposes, and that the Committee might divide upon it, although he feared that the Government would not now support their own clause.

was desirous that the Commissioners should deal with all Scholarships and Exhibitions. Academical, and not Charity Commissioners should deal with these questions.

said, he could not see how Exhibitions which were thrown open to 3,000,000 of people could fairly be called close Exhibitions. The trustees had not been behind the spirit of the age, and when they proposed to throw open the Exhibitions to the whole of the University they were met by Brasenose College with a refusal.

said, he thought the Commissioners ought to have the power of dealing freely with those foundations to the extent of not restricting them to particular Colleges. If they were to have free trade in respect to counties, they ought to have free trade in respect to Colleges. Was there any power in the Bill to open local trusts now limited to particular Colleges?

said, that it would depend on what the Exhibitions were. Those really attached to one College could not be removed to another or thrown open to the University.

moved, in page 9, line 11, after "character," to insert—

"With power nevertheless for the Commissioners, with the concurrence of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if they think it expedient, to allow the present Professor to resign the professorship, and to hold the canonry as if it had never been annexed to the professorship."

moved the omission of the clause which provided that

"a statute made by the Commissioners shall not affect the right of nominating or appointing to the headship of Saint Mary Magdalen College in the University of Cambridge, unless the consent by deed of the person entitled to that right is first obtained."

Private nominations of that kind were, in his opinion, inconsistent with a scheme of general reform.

pointed out that this was a special case. The right of nomination had been reserved by the founder of the College to himself and his heirs, and was exactly analogous to a private right of Church patronage. If such a right were taken away, he apprehended it could only be by arrangement with the patron.

asked whether the right of nomination was absolutely unfettered? As a matter of fact, it had generally been exercised in favour of a relative. He suggested that the Commissioners should be empowered to seek the consent of the parties interested in order to put an end to the present preposterous arrangement.

inquired whether it was really meant that the Commissioners should have power to alter the arrangements as to the Headship of the Colleges in every case but this one, in which the Headship happened to be in the gift of a wealthy nobleman?

observed that the analogy drawn by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) was hardly correct; for, inasmuch as the person presented took his turn as Vice Chancellor of the University, it would be truer to compare the right to a right of nomination to a Bishopric.

supported the view taken by his right hon. Friend, and asked who had been damnified by the arrangement? The present Master of the College possessed great influence in Cambridge, and was emphatically a representative man. The list of Masters of Magdalen College might well compare with that of the Masters of other Colleges. For instance, in one of the decadent periods of the University Dr. Farmer, one of the fathers of Shakesperian criticism, held the post.

wished to know whether there was any check whatever on the nomination?

read an extract from the Latin charter of the College, showing that the power of appointment was vested in the owner of the estate of Audley End: and he added that it was necessary the person selected should be a graduate of the University and a Master of Arts. He submitted that it would be an unreasonable thing, under the special circumstances of the case, not to reserve the right proposed to be continued by the clause.

had heard no sufficient reason why Magdalen College should be the only one exempted from the operation of the Commissioners. As his question had not been answered, he took it for granted that it was the fact that this was the only College with whose Headship the Commission was to be specially forbidden to deal. Now, how stood the matter? The Government had just voted against confining certain exhibitions to two counties. Parliament had dealt with founders' wills in this way over and over again, and deprived particular localities of Scholarships and endowments bequeathed specially for those localities, and they had so interfered with only one justification—namely, that of public policy. Now, was it in accordance with public policy that an individual should receive consideration denied to localities, and that an exception should be made in order to give to a nobleman and landed proprietor that which you denied to others—the right to keep a privilege against the public interest?

contended that the course suggested ought not to be adopted unless the proprietor of the right sought to be affected had an opportunity of being heard. It was a chartered right granted to Lord Audley and his heirs. Parliament was not accustomed to interfere in the manner suggested with rights granted by charter, much less to delegate such a power to Commissioners. To do so in the present case would establish an evil precedent. No case had been made out for any interference with the charter. The right was one which had hitherto been exercised by the possessor of the estate of Audley End, to the satisfaction of' the University and the public. Everyone who had the pleasure of the acquaintance of the present Master of Magdalen College would acknowledge that he was a most distinguished man, and worthy, in every respect, to rank with any head of a College in the University. As to a possible sale of Audley End, there was no reason to apprehend such a contingency, or to conclude that any future appointment under the charter to the office of Master of the College would be otherwise than such as would conduce to the welfare and honour of the College and University.

said, the grant was to the " heirs and assigns," and the assignee might not only not be a member of the Christian religion, but might be a rich but ignorant tradesman, who would not certainly be the best judge of the qualifications necessary for the Headship of a College.

moved in page 11, line 8, after "persons," to leave out "to be Commissioners." He regretted that this point, one of the most important in the Bill, should have come on at such an unfortunate hour (9 o'clock), and in such a thin House. It had at first been suggested to him to move that these three Representatives should be assessors instead of Commissioners; but his difficulty was that he had never been able to ascertain exactly what an assessor was. He had therefore preferred, in a subsequent Amendment, contingent upon the success of that which he now moved, to define what the duties of these gentlemen should be, without assigning to them any particular name. The object of his Amendment was that the Representatives to be sent by the Colleges should be sent as persons to assist the Commissioners and give them every information as regarded the Colleges, but not to act as Commissioners. He desired that a College should elect three persons to represent it in relation to the making of statutes for the College by the Commissioners, and that the Representatives so elected should be entitled to be present at the meetings held by the Commissioners for the making of such statutes, and also to be heard on all matters appertaining thereto, but not to vote as Commissioners. If they did so, there would be a different Commission dealing with each College, and different principles might be applied to different Colleges. This would be unfair to the Universities which had a right to expect uniformity of action in the Body which was about to deal with their revenues and management, and unfair to the Colleges as between College and College. Wherever a College had one of its members appointed by name a Commissioner in this Bill, that College would have, with the three Commissioners proposed to be added by the clause, four of its own members out of the total number of 10, and in the case of All Souls, which had two of its members so named, that College would actually be dealt with by a Commission of which half would be composed of its own members. The Colleges did not desire this, and if a decision adverse to the opinion of a College was arrived at by a narrow majority of the Commission thus constituted, the weight of such decision would be much diminished, and complaints would be made. He could not do better than read an extract from a Petition presented to the House by Oriel College. It ran thus—

"That your Petitioners desire moreover to point out that the Commission, in dealing with the several Colleges, will not consist of the same persons, and that the introduction of the Representatives proposed to be given to each College is sufficient to make a sensible difference in the balance of opinion in the Commission, so that principles adopted by the Commissioners for one College might be varied in the case of other Colleges by means of the vote of their Representatives. Your Petitioners would therefore desire that the Representatives of the Colleges should be of the nature of assessors to the Commissioners, empowered to state the views and circumstances of the Colleges, but not to vote."

After all, it seemed to him (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) that this was a question of confidence in the Commissioners, and upon that point he wished to say a word. On that side of the House, they had been taunted with their expression of confidence in the Commission which they had tried to alter. But although they had tried to strengthen the Commission by the addition of certain names, no one, that he was aware of, had expressed any want of confidence in the seven names proposed. He himself had objected to one name—that of Dr. Bellamy, but solely because he was the Head of a House, upon a Commission on which he thought Heads of Houses ought not to sit, and he had on the same ground abstained from voting for the Head of a Cambridge House, proposed by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington). Personally, no one could be more fit than Dr. Bellamy; but how would he be situated under this clause? With three of his own Fellows by his side, he would only have to gain over one other Commissioner in order to have half the Commission on his side to resist any change distasteful to St. John's College. But suppose some question arose of making St. John's contribute to the Professoriate in the same proportion as Magdalen, these being two of the richest Colleges in Oxford. How would Magdalen feel if the proposal were defeated by the votes of these four Representatives of St. John? He moved his Amendment in no unfriendly spirit to the Bill, but because he foresaw bickerings and jealousies from the clause as it stood which he wished to avoid. The Bill ought to be made to commend itself to the public opinion of the University; upon this would depend its successful working, and he trusted that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War would conciliate that public opinion, avoid differences and dissensions, and secure uniformity of action in the Commission, by adopting his Amendment. That would secure uniformity of principle and of action in the proceedings of the Commissioners, while it would also tend to remove that jealousy and suspicion of unfairness in reference to their dealing with different Colleges, which might otherwise arise.

objected to the appointment of a large number of Commissioners, believing that the business would be better performed by a smaller body. He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) would see his way to accepting the substance of the Amendment.

suggested that the clause should be omitted altogether, and that some words should be added to the 36th, giving each College the power of being heard by two delegates, or by counsel before the Commissioners.

thought that the Amendment should be considered on general grounds with reference to the justice of the case. The question was, how, and to what extent, the Representatives of the Colleges should be heard? and they could not do less than let the Colleges have a right of voting when their property was dealt with. Justice and expediency coincided with the Bill as it stood.

believed that if the representatives of the Colleges were allowed to vote, there would be a lack of uniformity in the decisions of the Commissioners. In every way he thought the Amendment would be an improvement.

thought the clause was the greatest possible blot in the Bill, and out of character with it; it was injurious to the free action of the Commissioners, in whom the right hon. Gentleman opposite professed to have thorough confidence. It was also one of the most important. There should be a settled plan for the Commissioners to act upon, and care should be taken that in taxing the Colleges for the benefit of the Universities general principles might be followed, so that no Colleges should be unfairly burdened, whilst others were unduly relieved. No clause should be introduced that would deprive the Commissioners of power to resist proposals made by Colleges would have the effect of weakening the relations between them and the Universities. By the Bill, as it was submitted, the Government would put into the hands of the Colleges a power which many of the Colleges did not otherwise desire; and on that point he could speak for Oxford, with many of whose most eminent men he had been in communication; and he was enabled to say the feeling was that this clause, if retained, would prove most injurious.

said, the clause really involved the representation by minorities; two of the Commissioners would often vote one way, and the other in opposition to them, so the sum total would be a majority of one amongst them. The cumulative vote had been overlooked.

said, that the voting would not be necessarily of a Party character. He hoped that the Amendment would be adopted. The special evil of the clause as it stood was that the Commission proposed to be constituted under it would prove a drag where reform was most needed, and would act as an impetus where, perhaps, a drag was required.

remarked that the clause, if adopted, would utterly destroy the unity of the scheme of reform, which he, at least, desired to see carried out. Every question which touched the Colleges would be submitted to a contantly fluctuating and varying body; and the result would be that there would be one system of University reform for Balliol, another for Trinity, and so on. Such large powers ought not to be given to a body of whom they knew nothing.

felt bound to enter an indignant protest against the imputations on the Colleges of Oxford contained in the speech of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. He had charged him with acting from selfish motives. [Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN: No, no!] Well, he might have misunderstood the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire; but certainly the gist of what had been said by many others, in opposing the appointment of Commissioners by the Colleges, was that these Commissioners would be sure to act together in the interest of their College as contrasted with the interest of the University. The Colleges were actuated by no such spirit of selfishness, and this they had proved. Corpus, a comparatively poor College, had recently endowed four University Professorships; and Jesus, which was, perhaps, still poorer, had only last year contributed largely to the endowment of a Professorship of Celtic. There had been other cases of the same sort; but these were enough to show that the Colleges were not as niggardly as had been asserted. As to the supposed unanimity of the College Commissioners, he was convinced, from his personal knowledge of Oxford, that there was scarcely a College there in which the majority would be able to elect all three persons of their own way of thinking; and if the different composition of the Commission in each case should lead to different treatment of the several Colleges, he thought such a result far better than that they should all be reduced to a dead level of uniformity.

said, it could not be doubted that strong arguments had been adduced on both sides of the question before the Committee, but hon. Members seemed to forget that for some time the Colleges would have the power to form schemes by means of which the work of the Commissioners would be assisted; and that the Commissioners would be in a position to arrange their proposals in a form which would affect both the Colleges and the Universities. He could not agree with the proposal that everything should be done upon precisely the same pattern. It was much more to be desired that the Commissioners should commence their work with unfettered hands, and should be in a position to deal with each College in accordance with its means and its needs. His impression, derived from full consideration of the question, was that almost everything would be settled in a very different way from what some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think, and that there would not be that disputation and collision between the Commissioners and the Colleges which certain hon. Members apprehended. Twelve months would elapse before the Commissioners would have to sit upon the statutes, and during that time they would have ample opportunity of becoming acquainted with the mind of the Colleges, and of then acting upon the information which they had received.

said, that so far as the cumulative vote was concerned, he had not forgotten it, as the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) supposed, but thought it hardly worth notice, since he felt assured that there would be no contests and divisions in Colleges; but that, as a matter of fact, each College would, by an amicable arrangement, elect its Representatives, who would probably vote together. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hardy) spoke of them throughout as "assessors," showing what was the impression on his mind—namely, that their correct position was that of persons who should assist and give information to the Commissioners, but not vote as Commissioners themselves. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the chief part of the business would be done by the Colleges themselves in the "year of grace." He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) quite agreed, but he said that if arrangements were made by the Colleges during that year, it would be far better that those arrangements should be reviewed by a body of seven independent Commissioners, rather than by a body of whom three, four, or five, had been the very parties who had made those arrangements. Parliament was about to confer great powers upon the Commissioners, and it was something in the nature of a censure upon them to say that they could not be trusted to deal with the revenues of any one College without having three members of that College added to their number, in order to protect the College. If they had been ruthless and revolutionary Commissioners, who were likely to attack College property and deal rashly and hastily with these matters, he could have understood the necessity of adding to them in the manner proposed; but having been carefully selected by the Government and approved by the House, he could see no danger. The Secretary of State for War said that he was opposed to a dull, dead uniformity; but his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) advocated uniformity in principle, not in detail, and this was most desirable.

moved, in page 11, line 15, after "fit," to insert—

"In the University of Oxford the Principal of a Hall shall be a Commissioner to represent the Hall in relation to the making by the Commissioners of statutes affecting the Hall."

expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to introducing some qualification which should limit the clause.

said, he should enter a formal protest against it.

wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would not consider the question of a general scheme being laid down by the Commissioners before the Colleges sent in their own schemes, and also whether he would not consent to reduce the number of delegates from each College from three to two?

said, he should feel it his duty to vote against the clause, unless some, alteration in this direction was promised by the Report.

said, he would further consider the point to which reference had been made.

said, that as the duties of the Committee would be of a judicial character, he proposed, with every respect to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to substitute the name of the Master of the Rolls for that of the Archbishop.

moved, in page 14, at end of clause, to add, as new paragraphs—

"It shall be lawful to the Queen in Council to make, from time to time, rules of procedure and practice for regulating proceedings on such petitions.

"The costs of all parties of and incident to such proceedings shall be in the discretion of the Universities Committee; and the orders of the Committee respecting costs shall be enforceable as if they were orders of a division of the High Court of Justice."

moved, in page 15, at end of clause, to add, as a now paragraph—

"But where and as far as a statute made by the Commissioners for the University affects a College, the same shall not be subject to alteration under this section, except with the consent of the College."

moved, in page 16, line 8, after "Council," to insert—

"and (3), every statute, ordinance, and regulation made by or in relation to a College under any former Act or ordinance since the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, and before the passing of this Act."

moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following clause:—

said, he could not consent to the clause proposed by the hon. Member, which would prove an embarrassment for the Commissioners of each University.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had promised to secure a general scheme as to contributions.

said, he had only promised to take the matter into full consideration.

said, he could not accept the proposal of his hon. Friend, because the clause which he had moved could not be worked in connection with the other clauses in the Bill, and would prevent the Colleges from originating measures which they would otherwise have an opportunity of suggesting to the Commissioners.

objected to the clause, on the ground that the subject was one which it was best to leave to the Commissioners.

thought it was a mistake to suppose that this was a matter which could be left to the Commissioners. It was just one of those things they would hardly consider themselves entitled to interfere with unless they had some guidance from Parliament.

said, that if Colleges and Universities were to make separate proposals, reforms would never be carried out. The only plan on which they could be effected with consistency was by the Commissioners laying down general principles.

supported the clause.

promised to give the matter his best consideration during the Recess, and if, as he hoped, he found himself able to do what was desired in a shorter form and with less particularity than the hon. Member had put in his clause he would do so.

withdrew his clause, and intimated that he would propose it at a future time.

moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following clause:—

objected to hamper the Universities with the bewildering and embarrassing obligation of granting degrees to women; a degree meant honours, and honours ultimately involved a share in the administration of the University. Besides, what would the degree be? He concluded "Spinster of Arts." The Committee had already disposed of the question as brought forward by the hon. Member for Liskeard by a majority of 200.

moved to report Progress, as it was almost impossible at that time of night to discuss this important question properly.

said, it would be better first to settle this clause. At the next Sitting of the House there would be important questions to dispose of, though not of a feminine character.

sincerely hoped that unless the Government assented to the clause, the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate would be pressed.

hoped that if those who had borne the burden and heat of the day were willing to go on with the discussion of the clause, they would be allowed to do so. With regard to the question which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) had raised, it was one that ought to be discussed on its own merits in a separate and distinct Bill, and not at the fag-end of a Bill dealing with Universities for men. It was too important a question to be delegated to Royal Commissions to decide.

supported the Motion to report Progress, on the ground that three-fourths of the Members of the House had gone home for their holidays and the clause under consideration was one which was of very grave importance.

moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

thought some respect should be paid to the majority. This question had already been pronounced upon by the House, but he had too much respect for the Members of the House to keep them walking through the Lobbies of the House; and if the Motion were persisted in he should feel it advisable to yield.

hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion. With regard to the discussion about women, he thought there had been a great deal too much of it both in this House and out-of-doors, and he hoped the House would not hear anything more on the subject. It was disgusting to hear so much of it.

regretted to hear the noble Lord speak so disparagingly of the views and aims of women, and assume to tell them, who advocated those views in that House, when was the fitting occasion on which to promote them, and when it was out of place. The subject was one upon which agitation would be continued until success was arrived at. He should support the Motion of the hon. Member.

expressed his great desire that the Committee on the Bill might, if possible, be concluded that Sitting.

said, that though he, too, was anxious to finish the Bill that night, he should not resist the wish of the Committee to report Progress, if that were its desire.

moved that the Chairman should report Progress.

moved that the Chairman leave the Chair.

recommended the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) to withdraw the clause which was under discussion.

said, he should be most happy to withdraw it, if he could do so.

said, it could not be withdrawn until the Motion before the Committee—that the Chairman leave the Chair—had been disposed of.

moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause:—

moved to report Progress, as he did not think that an important Money Bill should be discussed at ten minutes past 1 o'clock in the morning.

moved that the Chairman leave the Chair.

trusted that after the decisive opinion of the House just expressed the Motion would be withdrawn.

trusted the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would not press his Amendment, and that the Committee might be allowed to proceed with the Business.