asked the Chief Commissioner of Works, What is the reason that the 36th Middlesex Rifle Volunteers have been forbidden to march across Kensington Gardens on their way to drill from their armoury, and which for the last few years they have been allowed to do, as the route saves them both time and distance?

On the 13th of June I saw the 36th Middlesex Rifle Volunteers enter Kensington Gardens by the Engine Gate from the Bays water Road. They marched along the path for about 100 yards, were then halted, and ordered to climb over the rails. They were formed up in companies under the trees, and the band played. Five or six mounted officers rode on the paths and over the grass. The Rules under the Parks Regulation Act state—

"No. 1. No person may ride or drive in these Gardens except between the Queen's Gate and the Exhibition Gate. No. 6. No person shall ride any horse except upon the road. No. 9. No unauthorized person shall drive or practice military evolutions, or use arms, or play any game or music. No. 20. Climbing the trees, railings, or fences is forbidden."

It will be seen, therefore, that four distinct Rules wore broken. In the circumstances, I had no alternative but to write to the proper authorities at the War Office, asking them to communicate with the commanding officer of the 36th Middlesex Rifle Volunteers requesting him for the future not to infringe the Rules of the Parks.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If Government will provide the House with Statistics of Local Taxation to a later date than in the Table for 1873–4, entered at pages 6 and 7 of the recently published Statistical Abstract of the United Kingdom; also cause Statistical Tables in detail to be drawn out to a later date than for 1876, as recently given to the Miscellaneous Statistics; and, further, arrange for connecting the figures in the General Table of the Statistical Abstract with the results in the more detailed Table in the Miscellaneous?

A Committee, presided over by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), is at this moment engaged in considering generally the form and matter of official, statistics, with the object of introducing simplicity and harmony; and, pending the Report of this Committee, I am not disposed to make any changes in the Returns as now presented to the House. I understand that it is owing to the difficulty of obtaining information from Scotland that the statistics of local taxation are not brought down to a more recent date.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the newspaper reports of the proceedings in the Landed Estates Court on Friday 25th July last, from which it would appear that out, of four estates put up for sale one was adjourned because there was no bidding, two were adjourned because the bidding was insufficient, and two lots out of four of the remaining estates were adjourned as the bidding was also insufficient; and, having regard to the remarks of Judge Flanagan on that occasion, to the effect that there is at present a panic about landed property in Ireland, and that persons were endeavouring to get the same under value, whether he would, in order to save landholders a repetition of the ruinous forced sale of the famine years, and tenants from having placed over them speculators as landlords, be prepared to give effect to the recommendations of the late Land Committee as to creating a peasant proprietary, and of the Resolution of the House thereon?

Sir, I am afraid it would be impossible at this period of the Session to deal with so large a subject as that referred to in the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the recent Report of the Select Committee on Land Titles and Transfer, and particularly to the urgent recommendation therein contained—

"That the important work of surveying' and publishing the survey of England and Wales, both on the twenty-five inch to a mile and the six inch to a mile scale, should be proceeded with and completed with the least possible delay;"

and, whether he can hold out any hope that such recommendations will be acted upon and carried out?

, in reply, thanked the lion, and learned Member for having sent him a copy of the Report alluded to. At that moment, however, he could not say whether the recommendations contained therein could be acted upon or carried out. He could only repeat what he had before stated, that the Survey would be carried out in strict accordance with the original instructions.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that a fleet has been sent to Besika Bay; whether, if true, this action is taken in conjunction with the French Government; and, if it be true, with what object?

, in reply, said, he had been requested by his right hon. Friend to reply to the Question of the hon. Member. He was not aware that the Fleet was at Besika Bay. It was possible that it might be in that direction; but no orders had been given by the Admiralty on the subject. The Admiral was simply taking his usual cruise, and reporting from time to time, the places he visited. Under these circumstances, it was, of course, impossible that there could have been any communication with the French Government on the subject.

I have risen merely for the purpose of saying that, in compliance with representations that have been made to me, expressing- the opinions of many of those who are known to be sincere friends of Catholic education, I shall not at this stage trouble the House with the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name—an Amendment to the effect that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill that clay three months—but I reserve to myself the right to move the Amendment at a subsequent stage of the Bill.

said, he would ask the attention of the House but for a very few moments, as it was not necessary nor desirable that in submitting his Amendment he should enter on a discussion of the large question of University Education. Neither did he conceive that many words were required to explain and enforce the proposition that the period of the Session at which they had arrived, and the state of information as to the feelings of the Irish people with regard to the Bill, rendered it, to say the least, inexpedient that a measure of such high importance, and involving interests so momentous, should be pressed forward during the expiring hours of an over worked and exhausted Parliament. He submitted that a University Education Bill should possess, as far as possible, a character of finality, and that it should be accepted, and freely accepted, for the time being as a settlement. It was not pretended in any quarter that this Bill was so accepted, or that it could be so amended in Committee as to be a settlement. Why, then, proceed with it, with the certain knowledge that, if passed to-morrow, an Irish University Question would still exist, a source of agitation in Ireland and of embarrassment to the Government of this country? The Bill destroyed, but did not construct, a University; and when the House was asked to assist in a work so unusual as the demolition of a University it was bound to examine very closely, indeed, the plan of the edifice which it was proposed to erect upon the ruins. He had no desire to defend the Queen's University, as he thought it was not in harmony with the character of the country. At the same time, he was bound to admit that, with its three affiliated Colleges, it was, in form and substance, a real University. He did not think it was necessary, for the purpose of satisfying the claims of the Catholics, that anything should be destroyed, or that any existing institution should be even materially weakened or impaired. Destruction, in fact, was not called for, and could only be justified, if at all, in the event of the edifice destroyed being replaced by something more largely beneficial, more justly proportionate, and more real. Seeing what he now saw, and all that had happened since the introduction of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), he had to express his extreme regret at the part he took in opposition to that Bill; for the measure to which he referred was a reality. The proposal of the lamented Lord Mayo was a reality; so also was the Bill of the late distinguished Member for Limerick, and, in a lesser degree, that of his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). But the one stupendous reality of the present Bill consisted in the almost unlimited powers conferred upon another Crown-appointed Board, of the composition of which the House was uninformed. There was at present, properly speaking, no University Education Bill at all before the House; nor would there be such a Bill before it until the unnamed three dozen gentlemen should have submitted their scheme for the better advancement of University Education in Ireland. All that this Bill of itself accomplished was the destruction of the Queen's University; but everything in the shape of University construction it committed unreservedly to the tender mercies of the three dozen gentlemen whose Report, with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, would be laid on the Table of the House on or about, that day 12 months. He had no desire to criticize minutely or in an acrimonious spirit a tentative measure like that before them, framed, as his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) had said, with the honest intention of settling a vexed question. He must, however, be allowed to enter his protest against that, or any measure by whomsoever devised, that would hand over to any three dozen Castle-appointed or Crown-appointed gentlemen the absolute control of Education in Ireland. The alternative proposal to which he should like to direct the attention of the House, and especially of the Government, was the ap- pointment of a Royal Commission for the purpose, not of preparing a scheme of University Education, but of ascertaining, through full and impartial inquiry, the mode of settlement that would be most acceptable to the country. A similar proposal, he recollected, was made some years ago by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), and if it had been adopted the question of Irish University Education would have been settled before this. Its adoption now would expedite, not retard, the settlement. They had had Royal Commissions in Ireland on subjects of comparatively trivial importance; and it was a remarkable circumstance that no Commission should ever have been issued with respect to this, the highest, the most important, and the most difficult, perhaps, of all subjects. There had been pourparlers which one party understood to mean negotiations, while the other party took them to mean proposals, and hence a controversy, terminating almost in an action for breach of promise, arose in "another place." That little difficulty had been amicably arranged by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who placidly assured the House that the pourparlers, the negotiations, and proposals meant nothing more serious than a little angling excursion on the part of the Vice-Regal party. To share in such an excursion might be a facile way of obtaining information of a delicate nature; but it should be borne in mind that University Education was one of those subjects which, to be dealt with satisfactorily, must be dealt with in accordance with the interests and feelings of the country at large; and what those interests and feelings really were, and how they could best be satisfied, could only be authoritatively ascertained by the medium of a full, open, and impartial inquiry. The plan of settlement which he had always advocated was the establishment of a Catholic College, as a College of the University of Dublin; and it surely was a matter of the utmost importance to ascertain with certainty the terms and conditions on which the heads of the Catholic party, on the one hand, and the heads of Trinity College on the other, would agree together to give effect to such a plan. He believed that if these bodies were fairly consulted it would be found that such an arrangement might be made as would astonish, by its simplicity and its moderation, and command the assent of all for its fairness and its justice. The plan itself was not a new one. It was, in fact, as old as the time of Charles II. In the Acts of Settlement and Explanation, it was provided that—

"The Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors of the Kingdom, by and with the consent of the Privy Council, shall have full power to erect another College in connection with the University of Dublin, to be called a King's College."

It was evident, from the spirit of the Act of 1793 of the Irish Parliament, the 33 Geo. III. c. 21, and from the specific words of the Act, that—

"Papists might graduate and be Professors or Fellows of any College hereinafter founded in Dublin University;"

that it was even then in the contemplation of the Irish Parliament to found another College—necessarily a Catholic College—in Dublin University. He maintained that the Imperial Parliament, in the 79th year of the Union, need not blush to follow the example of the exclusively Protestant Irish Parliament of 1793; and he felt confident that, in giving effect to the intentions of the Parliament of Grattan, Curran, Plunket, and Flood, the House would respond most effectually to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Irish nation, without distinction of creed or party at the present day. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, as an Amendment—

"That it is inexpedient, at this period of the Session, to proceed with a measure of such high importance; and that the appointment of a Royal Commission with instructions to confer with the heads of existing Universities and of collegiate institutions, affords the surest means of enabling Parliament to arrive next Session at a satisfactory solution of the problem of higher education in Ireland."

seconded the Amendment.

felt sure that nobody, whatever his opinion upon this much-vexed question, could fail to admire the eloquence of the speech just delivered; and, although it was not in his power to follow the hon. Gentleman in his plea for delay, nevertheless, there must be many in the House—including himself—who must sincerely thank the hon. Member for what he had said in regard to the impolicy of the destruction of the Queen's University, and the connection between the Queen's University and the Queen's Colleges. The hon. Member maintained that it was in no way necessary, in order to satisfy the Roman Catholics of Ireland, to destroy the Queen's Colleges or the Queen's University. Such a statement as they had heard made by the hon. Member was one which, coming from him, was grave and weighty, and contained within it the seeds of much that would be useful in the discussion of the question. If it was not in his power to support the hon. Member in his plea for delay, it was partly because he felt that it would not be altogether impossible, if a fair and reasonable spirit were shown by the Government, to secure, to a certain extent, the objects which the hon. Member had at heart—he meant the retention in substance, if not actually in name, of the Queen's University, and the conferring, upon a Roman Catholic College of some advantages, greater or less, which would, to a certain extent, meet the views of the hon. Gentleman and those who agreed with him. Here he might be allowed to observe that they had some reason to complain of the attitude of the Government on the Bill. Only a few weeks ago an eminent Member of the Government, speaking at a rural gathering of the distinction between Conservative principles and the more Radical measures of their opponents, said the Government, when it saw what appeared to be a great and crying evil, always remembered that much evil often resulted from very slight causes, and that the first effort of the Conservative Go- vernment was not to destroy the whole, but to search and find the small grain of evil. But hardly had the country ceased to rejoice at being under such a Government, that did not rashly destroy existing institutions, when, happening to cast their eyes on the Professoriate of the Queen's University, they proceeded to put an end to it. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had asked why the Queen's University was to be destroyed, and why the connection between the University and the Colleges was to be severed? He had not been able to obtain any answer at all. In fact, Her Majesty's Government stood in the position of deliberately going out of its way to destroy a valuable existing institution. Then, it had given no good or sufficient reason for this extraordinary resolution, and they were naturally led to believe that there must be some other reason which had not been stated. He called on the Government to explain what it had not yet explained—how it was that justice could not be done to the Roman Catholics of Ireland without the destruction of the Queen's University? With reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. J. Smyth), that the best way out of the difficulty would be to found a distinctly Roman Catholic College, either in the University of Dublin, or in another. University, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had put on the Paper a Notice of Amendments which would meet the views of the hon. Member. It was true that if this Bill passed the Queen's University would perish; but, still, he supposed a new University to take its place would be instituted, and he would venture to ask whether the same name could not be perpetuated in the new University? The name of the Queen's University was honoured in Ireland, and its degrees were valued. ["No, no."] Hon. Members representing some Irish constituencies dissented from this statement; but the question was one upon which English Members held views, and he, for one, thought that an Irish Queen's University degree was a respectable, if not even a high one. He held that the main grievance of the Roman Catholics of Ireland could be settled by giving further privileges to one or more of the existing Institutions in that country. In the debate on the measure of the hon. Member for Ros- common, he had urged upon the Government three things—first, in his opinion, they ought to throw open the degrees of the Queen's University, just as the London degrees were; secondly, to endow the Queen's University with a sum of money to be spent in Fellowships, Scholarships, and other rewards impartially competed for by students of any denomination; and, thirdly, to charter the College of St. Patrick as a College of the Queen's University—in fact, establish a fourth Queen's College. He had placed Amendments on the Paper having for their object the retention of the connection between the Queen's Colleges and the University, and another proposing a Charter for St. Patrick's College; but he had also gone further, and proposed to give certain pecuniary privileges to the College of St. Patrick. This last Amendment required some justification and vindication of his own consistency. The Amendment was to enable the Crown, in the event of St. Patrick's College being created a chartered College of the Queen's University, to pay certain Professors appointed by the Crown in the three faculties of Arts, Law, and Physic, in the same manner as Professors were paid in the existing Queen's Colleges. He would not deny that, in effect, the result of that would be that the Catholic College would have so much more money to pay the expenses of the College, among others the teachers of Divinity; but there was an old legal maxim that recommended regard being paid to the immediate consequences of an action, and that they should not follow it into its remote consequences. A discussion of the ulterior results of such a payment would be unwise, if not absurd. He might as well object to a Vote in the Navy Estimates, because a contract with a Catholic manufacturer of armour plates was an indirect endowment of that religion. Put what he asked was payment to the Professors, not to the Governing Body of the Institution, solely on condition that they should teach in St. Patrick's College; that their lectures should be guarded by a Conscience Clause, and that the College and the University should' each have the benefit of their lectures. What he had objected to was the proposition which had been made in 1873 by the Roman Catholic Bishops that there should be a direct endowment of a Roman Catholic University or Col- lege; and, secondly, he also objected to the proposition which was contained in the Bill of the hon. Member for Eos-common (the O'Conor Don), that there should be a payment made to these Colleges. Why did he object? He objected because, although they might in the case of result fees delude themselves with the belief that they only paid for secular results, as a matter of fact, they were doing nothing of the kind. He wished to impress on his. Nonconformist Friends this fact—that the objections against result fees did not apply to the plan he proposed. He had no desire in any way to obstruct this Bill. He knew there was in Ireland a wish that this Bill should be knocked into shape and passed, and he should do what he could towards that object. What he wished to urge was that, under his Amendments, Roman Catholics in Ireland would only be placed in the same position which Roman Catholics were placed in other countries where they were in a minority, and in the same position that Protestants were placed in in countries where they were in a minority by the Legislatures of those countries. As long as they kept up religious services and Divinity Professorships in Trinity College, Dublin, the Roman Catholics could not say that there was absolute religious equality. Was he to keep the Roman Catholics waiting 30 years for the equality they asked for? He cast about to see whether there was not some mode of conciliating the conscientious scruples of the Nonconformists of England, and, at the same time, of doing justice to the claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and it was guided by that feeling, and by the fact that these things had been found possible in foreign countries, that he placed on the Paper his Amendments. He might, perhaps, spy, that he had not introduced these Amendments in consequence of a letter which had appeared in the public prints from Mr. Matthew Arnold. As a matter of fact, they were on the Paper five days before that letter appeared, and they were arrived at simply upon a consideration of the merits of the question. He had been told the Professors whom he proposed would be persons agreeable to Roman Catholics. Of course, they would be agreeable to Roman Catholics. What a sensible Lord Lieutenant would do would be to look out for as eminent men as could be found, and who would teach in a Roman Catholic College in a fair and liberal spirit, and, at the same time, without offence to Roman Catholics. If they attempted to settle the question and yet left much behind unsettled, they might depend upon it that the day would come when, under the pressure of public uproar, they might be called upon to grant something that was not reasonable. He trusted that the question would be approached in a spirit of compromise. Let them recollect the saying of the great Irishman Burke—that compromise was the foundation of government, and let them act accordingly. Then they would have the happy satisfaction, in this otherwise misspent Session, of settling a thorny question, and, at the same time, contributing to the peace and contentment of Ireland.

said, that whatever were his own ideas, he certainly should not bestow them upon the House at that late day of the Session, and that very late day of the question. He rose to make an appeal, not in any Party spirit, but with a desire for peace and conciliation, that they might be allowed to go practically to work with as few words as possible, and with a belief in the good intention of all around. His noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had talked about settling the question; but if there was one word which had crept into modern politics to unsettle everything, it was that word "settle." He was sure the Government had no intention to settle the Education Question for Ireland, in the sense of passing something or other which should servo for all time. If they had any such purpose, he certainly should not rise to support so absurd and illogical a proposal. The matter was simply this-—there was a demand on the part of the youth of Ireland for the provision of a liberal education, with academical degrees. The present academical degrees, in consequence of their conscientious feeling, were really not accessible to a large portion of the educated youth of Ireland. It was believed that this Bill would remove the difficulty. As this Bill, therefore, would be a real boon to the cause of education in Ireland, he trusted that in the form it would assume in Committee it would be adopted, and would stand on the Statute Book. Really, it was confusing the discussion to enter into discussions on the merits of Universities with Colleges. They all of them had their opinions on this matter. Personally, he had a strong feeling in favour of that form of University education which was found ed upon the Collegiate system; he should deem himself unworthy to represent the constituency he did (Cambridge University), if he had not that belief; and he rejoiced to find the same feeling among his Roman Catholic Friends in Ireland. He desired them to get as full a concession of the means of University education as they could, and, for that reason, he advised them strongly to accept the present Bill and be satisfied with it. Within its four corners there was everything they could hope to get from any present Parliament; for the rest they must trust to self-help to start these Colleges—that valuable quality which had operated so largely in the founding of all the great Universities of the Middle Ages—Paris, Oxford, or Cambridge. His attendance at the House that day had prevented him from being present at the laying of the first stone of the fifth or sixth of a magnificent series of denominational Colleges for the education of English boys, founded and endowed solely and exclusively by private gifts, under the inspiration of Canon Woodward. That which had been done in England was surely feasible for Ireland. The Roman Catholics might, it was true, have made better use of the opportunities afforded them by the provisions contained in the Act which governed the Queen's Colleges, permitting denominational halls, with their deans of residence. A trusting acceptance of that provision, and a real effort to give it life would have resulted in a very different condition of matters from that which we now found. But the fact was, that they had not taken advantage of that concession, and that was enough for Parliament. There was no use in lecturing a nation of several millions of people, and pointing out to them what they might have done had they been less wayward and wilful. The Queen's Colleges, it was clear, did not give the Roman Catholic people in Ireland what they personally wanted, and this Bill was intended to remedy the defect. It might not be so complete as they desired; but it afforded them splendid opportunities of exercising that self-help of which he had spoken. To reject it, because it did not endow this or that College, was to throw those valuable opportunities away. He asked the Roman Catholics to show themselves the descendants of the great scholars of the Middle Ages, who founded those Universities and Colleges which kept burning the lamp of learning in the darkest ages. The Bill went as far as any Government Bill could be expected to do, and, recognizing in it a message of peace and goodwill to Ireland, he offered it his most cordial support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the principles of the Bill brought forward by the Government. I look upon this measure as one fraught with serious dangers, not only to 'the closing Session of this Parliament, but also to all future relations between Ireland and England. Upon this Bill we may see the issue which has long been working in Ireland, through the want of attention on the part of English statesmen to the wishes and sympathies of the Irish nation, This Bill may be described, not as an Irish measure, but as one introduced by Englishmen anxious to do a considerable conciliatory part towards Ireland, but thoroughly innocent of the aspirations and of the sympathies of the Irish people with regard to University Education. I have followed, with very great pleasure, the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), and I find that he is frank enough to state that he does not look upon this Bill as what he is pleased to term a final settlement of this very large and vexed question. But he does hope that this Bill will be cast in Committee into such proportions as to render it, so cast, acceptable as a qualified settlement of the University Question. In that I quite agree with him; and, knowing the terrible majority that the Government can always carry with them upon this or upon any other question, I feel that all the Irish Members can do is to accept whatever concessions' they can squeeze from Her Majesty's Government, and to bring up this Bill again in some amended form in the forthcoming Session, or, it may be, in the new Parliament. The hon. Member for Cambridge University has commended to us—the Irish Members—the consideration of that great virtue, self-help. Mr. Speaker, I may remind the hon. Member that the University which he has the honour to represent, and the other University of England, owe their first endowment and their State support to times long gone by, when the principles which Catholic Ireland holds to-day were paramount throughout this country. And, Sir, as to self-help in Ireland, it is rather a difficult process for a man who has had his pocket robbed to aid himself in such a gigantic scheme as this of University education. The very Trinity College, which has been such a consideration to the Irish people, owes its origin and its first endowment to Roman Catholics; and, therefore, I think that if English Members of this House—if both Liberals and Tories—are anxious, as they say they are, to offer conciliation to Ireland, they ought to remember that it is only by considering the feelings of the Irish people, and looking upon this question, if it were possible for them, from an Irish platform, that they can really understand the aspirations of the Irish people. Sir, the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) has given us a long disquisition upon University education, and upon the Colleges attached to a University; but I will remind him, through you, that the appearances of truth are often more deceptive than error; and that in offering to us conciliatory measures, and in wishing to extend to us that sympathy for which we are thankful, we would remind him of his own words, when he said that the Queen's University degrees were of very considerable value; but, as it was a discussible question, he would leave that domestic matter to the Irish Members. Now, if the noble Lord carried his philosophical principles further, he would have said also that this Irish University Question ought also to be left solely to the Irish Members. Sir, a distinguished literateur, a writer, and one of an unbiassed temperament—Mr. Matthew Arnold—wrote in The Times of last Thursday a very remarkable letter upon this question of University education; and though the noble Lord repudiated any connection with the principles, or rather with having borrowed from the principles, of Matthew Arnold, I myself prefer to take the opinion of Matthew Arnold upon so important a question as University education, believing, as I do, that there is no higher authority upon this question than Matthew Arnold. Now, Mr. Matthew Arnold, in quoting the various systems upon the Continent of University education, has told us that the Theological Faculty of Montauban embraces eight professions. Now, we all know that the Protestant minority of France is comparatively insignificant; and 3Tet the French people have Liberalism enough to recognise that the Protestant minority must have their religious and political convictions valued at their proper qualifications. Then, Sir, the University of Bonn is also quoted; and so are several other foreign Universities, showing that minorities are respected, religiously and intellectually, upon the Continent; but there, we do not ask that you should extend to a minority the same religious liberties which the Continent extends to Universities. We, in Ireland, are the majority, and we simply ask that the majority of Irish people should be respected in their wishes. Moreover, this is not a question of paying out of English funds for Irish education. The money for which we ask belongs to the Irish nation; and, Sir, never mind what express trusts or private endowments may have been given to the Queen's Colleges of Ireland, it is an axiom, I think, of equity, that whenever any private or express trusts interfere with the general good, or with the public welfare, they must stand aside in the interests of a nation. Therefore, these private trusts and endowments should be so arranged that, whilst doing violence to the conscience of no man, they shall be placed in accord with the wishes and sympathies of the great majority of the Irish people. Sir, this House is asked to remove the last vestige of the Penal Laws, to do away with that denominational gulf which divides the Irish and the English people on the question of education. This House is asked to do an act of justice towards Ireland, which both Conservative and Liberal Governments have professed themselves willing to do. The Government have taken the initiative in this matter; and it only remains for this House, when it goes into Committee, to so amend this Bill as to render it acceptable to Irish Representatives here, who have, at least, the greatest right to say what will be acceptable to Ireland, and what will not. If this Bill is not clothed with some rights on the part of the Catholics of Ireland, it will simply become a subject of future discussions in this House; because no Catholic can rest satisfied until this House has done an ample measure of justice to Catholic Ireland, and an act of reparation to the general principles of liberty, justice, and equality.

said, he understood the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) to say that he intended to support the Bill, and he supposed, therefore, that the hon. Member would not follow the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. J. Smyth) into the Lobby when he divided on the Amendment which he had moved. It appeared to him (Mr. Courtney), however, that the speech to which they had just listened led up to the conclusion that they ought to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westmeath. No Bill dealing with a question of this importance had ever been laid before the House which was of so sketchy a character as the present. It appeared to him that there was no section of that House that could feel that the situation in which they were placed in regard to the Bill was satisfactory. Those who represented the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland said they could not accept the measure as a settlement; while those who approached it from an educational point of view were equally dissatisfied with it. It was just as acceptable or unacceptable as was the proposal of Sir George Grey, in 1865, that the obtaining of degrees should be no longer restricted to students of University and Queen's Colleges. It was proposed to destroy a Collegiate system, which he (Mr. Courtney) had shown to be sufficient to meet the wants of the laity of Ireland, without satisfying either religious or educational claims; and as the position of the Bill could not be satisfactory either to the Government, who had exhibited so much squeezability, or to the Leaders of the Opposition, whose followers had not shown much obedience to them in the Division Lobby, it was hopeless to think of dealing with the question in the remainder of the Session; and it had better be referred to a Royal Commission, to consider how the existing Collegiate system could be extended so as to satisfy all, without doing violence to the principles on which Parliament had recently and for a long time previously acted. For his part, he adhered to the objections that he stated upon the second reading of the Bill, against any alteration in the existing system of University Education in Ireland. He believed that if that system were properly understood, it should, and, as a matter of fact, it did, satisfy all the wants of the Catholic laity of Ireland. It was true that since the Bill had been read a second time they had had the benefit of an epistle-general from a very distinguished person, who had been referred to by more than one hon Member in the course of the debate. Mr. Matthew Arnold was a gentleman given very much to instructing them in an elegant and languid way, and he was, of course, a great authority. He had invented, of late, a new religion. It was a religion which dispensed with all forms, all articles, and all doctrines; but, with a delightful suffusion of tender sentiment and generous feeling, they were able to go on professing and repeating all the existing formularies, although they had no kind of significance or meaning. That was Mr. Matthew Arnold. The only fault with his religion, apparently, was that nobody was disposed to accept it but himself. A religion of that kind failed in the necessary element of being popular. It did not appeal to the rich, still less did it appeal to the poor; and thus it was rejected altogether. Mr. Arnold said that there was a great want of Catholic University Education in Ireland, and he referred to the state of things existing in Germany and France. But, there, it happened there were payments of stipends to the priests; and it was in connection with the payment of stipends to Protestant pastors in France that there were payments for a Protestant School of Theology. Did Mr. Arnold propose to introduce anything of that kind in this country? Why, they were moving in a totally different direction. They had not yet disendowed the ministers in Scotland, or the clergy in England; but they had disendowed the Church in Ireland, and if the argument prevailed at all it should go to this extent—that because they had not disendowed the clergy in England, or the ministers in Scotland, they were bound injustice to set up and endow the Catholic priesthood there, and, with them, a Catholic University. For his part, he rejected altogether the lesson which was founded on Mr. Matthew Arnold's Continental I experiences. Mr. Matthew Arnold appeared to be very little acquainted with the facts of University organization in Ireland. In one part of his letter he said—

"The Irish Catholics may say, Give us an undenominational University just like yours; that is all we want—a University where the bulk of the students and the teachers are Catholic."

Well, the Queen's Colleges in Cork and Galway were undenominational in the sense which Mr. Matthew Arnold used. It was asserted that the people of Ireland rejected those Colleges. He denied that those whose means enabled them to avail themselves of those Colleges rejected them. It was a matter of figures; and the figures, as he had shown on a former occasion, proved what he stated. Then, with reference to the organization of the Colleges, he would refer to a speech delivered when the Colleges were proposed to be founded, and when it was objected that they did not afford religious education. Referring to the speech of the then Member for Kerry (Mr. Morgan John O'Connell), Mr. Shiel said—

"I coincide with the hon. Member in thinking that secular education in Ireland should be mixed."

And he pointed out that, in after life, the Catholic merchant associated with the Protestant, the Catholic advocate with the Protestant, and the Catholic soldier was the comrade of the Protestant soldier. He said—

"Mixed secular education ought to be combined with separate religious instruction, which, ought to be provided by the State."

Well, the State did provide it. It was open to all; and he (Mr. Courtney) believed it to be the best system of education that could be devised, and adhered to the statement that it was, in fact, satisfactory to the people of Ireland. If it were not for political reasons, they would not, in his opinion, find any Government endeavouring to undo it; but now, from time to time, they saw Government after Government trying to go as far as they could—fearful of their own Followers behind them—in the effort to obtain the support of a particular body of Members. Even if they succeeded, did they for a moment think that that was the way to secure the support of the people of the United Kingdom? He supported the proposal of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. J. Smyth), for he thought that the question should not be hurriedly settled at the fag-end of the Session, in accordance with a scheme which, more than any other, was open to objection. With regard to the present Bill, he had not yet heard a single word from a single man in that House in favour of the plan which was recommended. They proposed to destroy the Queen's University; but why did they propose to do so? The Chief Secretary for Ireland had not told the House yet—and he was afraid he would not tell them—why it was proposed. If no argument was brought forward to show the advisability of it being destroyed, why should they consent to its destruction, and with it the destruction of a system which had done so much, and brought out and trained so many students? The facts showed that the Queen's Colleges had turned out a set of students who had proved themselves equal to those brought up at any other College in the country; and, that being the case, it was idle to tell him that they were not of great value. The Government proposed to destroy the Queen's University without assigning any adequate reason, and to make the University of the future dependent upon annual Votes in that House. Now, was there any Member who really thought that University education could be suitably maintained when in a state of dependence upon the fluctuating will of the House of Commons? What would be said if it was proposed to make the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge depend on Party Votes? He sincerely hoped that hon. Members would protest strongly against this scheme, and insist, at least, upon a definite settlement of the financial question. The organization of the future University was not in the Bill at all. It was intrusted to an unknown body of gentlemen, who were to say what it should be, what kind of prizes should be instituted and in what manner they were to be bestowed. That was like accepting a bill in blank, which they gave to an unknown person to fill up the amount and put it in circulation. They were going to permit the extraordinary trust to an unknown person of drawing upon them to an unknown amount. The Government were going to accept such a Bill, and the House was asked to consult its dignity and honour by giving a Roving Commission to those unknown persons, that they might draw 12 months hence on an unknown Ministry of that day. Surely such considerations were sufficient to enforce the wisdom of the proposal of the hon. Member for "Westmeath—to relegate the consideration of that question to a Royal Commission, who should fully deliberate upon it. He quite recognized the necessity of doing something, and doing that something as soon as possible; but he could not approve the suggestions of the Government, which, if carried out, would not be creditable to the House, and would be most injurious to the cause of higher education in Ireland.

said, that as reference had frequently been made in the discussions on this Bill to the University of London, he should like, holding, as he did, the office of Vice Chancellor of that University, to say a few words on the subject. In the first place, he wished to remark that he was sure the University would feel no jealousy on account of the possible effect this Bill might have in diminishing the numbers of those who would hereafter go to it for degrees. In the matriculation examination which had just been held, nearly 1,000 students presented themselves, and as the number increased year by year, the House would see at once that the University was not likely to be influenced by any such feeling. It was, however, very undesirable to do anything which would tend to lower the standard of degrees. At present, the London degrees were known to be severe; but then it was sometimes said that the University of London was a mere Examining Body, and its degrees were contrasted with those of Oxford and Cambridge, as if Oxford and Cambridge implied Collegiate as against private instruction. So far was this from being the case, that nine-tenths of the London graduates had had a Collegiate training. To suppose that, because the University was, in one sense, an Examining Board, the students had had no Collegiate advantages, was entirely a misconception which it seemed desirable to remove. The next point on which he was anxious to say a word was the question of finance. It had been stated that the University of London had several thousands a-year to distribute in Fellowships and Exhibitions. Now, the fact was that the annual sum so applied was only about £1,500. Indeed, the whole Vote for the University of London was under £11,000 a-year, while about £6,000 was received in fees and repaid to the Exchequer, so that the net expense was only about £5,000 a-year—a striking proof of how much might be accomplished at a comparatively small outlay. But of this £5,000 a-year only about £1,500 was devoted to Scholarships, &c, the rest being for salaries of Examiners, and similar charges. He thought it was clear, therefore, that a most important question was raised as to the relations which were to exist in future between the different Universities, if large sums were to be granted for Fellowships to this new University. If Parliament granted to the new University much more than £1,500 a-year—and he did not know whether this sum would satisfy the aspirations of hon. Members from Ireland—it was clear that Parliament was offering students a bribe to enter there. But, apart from the pecuniary consideration, he confessed that the relation which was to exist between the new anonymous University and other Universities did not seem clear. The new University was not to be exclusively Irish. Under the Bill an Englishman could enter for any of the examinations, and, as no residence was required, there would always be a tendency to go to whichever University granted its degrees on the easiest terms. On the other hand, with regard to prizes and Exhibitions, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the best men from Oxford and Cambridge, or the Scotch Universities, from carrying them off. Perhaps there was no objection to their making the attempt; but the point seemed to him to be one worthy of careful consideration.

said, he desired to make a few remarks with reference to the course which he took on a former occasion in voting for the second reading of this Bill. It appeared to him a very unseemly spectacle that a portion of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland should for years have been induced by their ecclesiastical leaders to repudiate the Queen's University. He regretted, exceedingly, that the Roman Catholics of the sister country had not, more emphatically and generally than they had yet done, availed themselves of the opportunities for obtaining degrees which were afforded by the Queen's Colleges and University—that they had not repudiated the stigma, which the ecclesiastical leaders to whom he had referred, had long laboured to fix upon those Institutions. As for pacifying the Ultramontanes, who had constituted themselves the ecclesiastical leaders of the Roman Catholics in Ireland, experience ought to have taught the House that this was simply impossible. He rejoiced, however, that one phrase of this contest was coming to an end. It had long been painful to him that Her Majesty's name and title, as connected with the Queen's University and Colleges in Ireland, should be exposed to slight and insult by so large a portion of her subjects. That, he was convinced, was not the result of failure in the munificent scheme which the late Sir Robert Peel devised and carried for higher education in Ireland; but was simply and solely the effect of the Ultramontane virus which poisoned the minds of the Irish people. It had become, in his opinion, neither decent nor safe that Her Majesty's name should be connected with any phase of higher education in Ireland. He thought it essential that Her Majesty's name should always be treated with reverence, and that, therefore, it ought in no manner to be connected with the University to be erected under this Bill. The House of Lords had been induced to send the general scheme of this Bill to that House, and the House was now about to try its hand upon it. What the result of that manipulation might be found to be remained to be proved; but, whatever the result, the scheme had become a Parliamentary scheme, and Parliament ought to be held solely responsible for it. If the Home Rulers preferred the control of the Parliament to that of Her Majesty, it was reasonable that this desire should be fully met. He did not entertain any sanguine anticipations with respect to the measure which was about to be considered in Committee. It would, however, to use a military phrase, develop the position. Her Majesty's Ministers had practically declared that, in their opinion, the Queen's University in Ireland, as it existed, was indefensible, and appeared to think that they could not reject the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) without substituting something for it. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not understand exactly the motives of their conduct; but these two facts were patent— that it was late in the Session, and that Her Majesty's Ministers had an obsequious majority at their back. He had not any sanguine anticipations with regard to the measure now before the Committee. Why Her Majesty's Ministers, had chosen to abandon a position which had been found tenable for 30 years he did not understand; they would find, that by shifting their ground, they would not escape the necessity for resisting somewhere the aggressive spirit which prevailed amongst the Ultramontane hierarchy in Ireland; that had been discovered both in Germany and in France. It was, however, his earnest wish to show the Irish people that it was not, what was foolishly thought a trifle, which would prevent the House of Commons from endeavouring to meet their desires. Many hoped that some final settlement would be arrived at; he was not at all sanguine that this would be attained by concession. The opinion,, however, seemed to prevail that some settlement might be reached; that the Legislature might find some ground, some position more tenable than that which the Queen's University occupied. He. (Mr. Newdegate) could not forget promises of peace and good-will on their part tendered, and even upon oath, by the Papal hierarchs, on the faith of which the Relief Act of 1829 had been obtained. The House had even up to the present hour, in the conduct of the Home Rule section, an ample illustration of the value of those promises. But the conduct of the Opposition, in supporting the University Bill of the hon. Member for Roscommon, and the production of the present Bill by a quasi-Conservative Government, showed that there was a determination or, it might be, a helplessness in that House, which rendered the trial of some experiment inevitable. Without, therefore, any sanguine expectation that the present measure would prove a panacea for the troubles of Ireland, he should make no futile attempt to interrupt the experiment upon which the majority of the House seemed determined. As he had indicated, he could not indulge in any glowing hopes, such as the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) had expressed, with respect to the Bill. That hon. Gentleman said he wanted to give contentment to the Irish Roman Catholics. He (Mr. Newdegate) also wished, if possible, to give satisfaction to the Irish nation; and, entertaining that desire, he was most decidedly opposed to any idea of any permanent endowment for higher education in Ireland. That would be granting a principle the consequences of which might be found irretrievable. Remembering the example of Ultramontane education in France, having read the evidence which had been produced by the Minister of Public Instruction, and the character of the teaching which was given to some of the Orders of the Church of Rome, he sincerely trusted that the Legislature would not sanction any permanent endowment for the object the House had now before them. He held that this should be treated as essentially a tentative measure; and, although he did not look for much in the way of results from it, he would acquiesce in the Bill going into Committee, in the hope that those who called themselves educationalists would, with a view to the creation and maintenance of an adequate standard of education in Ireland, be found to possess and exhibit the courage and sincerity which, on this subject, had been evinced by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney).

said, that the question immediately left to the House was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. J. Smyth), which asked them to drop the Bill, and to refer it to a Royal Commission. The hon. Member had correctly said that so long ago as 18 7 3 he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had brought forward precisely the same proposal. The House did not entertain the proposition at that time. He thought then that there was need of such information as to the wishes and views of those interested in University Education in Ireland; but he was not able to support the Amendment now, because, to use an historical phrase, "many things had happened since then." They knew now perfectly well what were the views of the people of Ireland on the subject of University Education. Nevertheless, they were asked, especially by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), to accept the Amendment, drop the Bill, and review the whole subject. Before taking that advice, he thought that they were entitled to look a little into the motives of the hon. Member who tendered it. The hon. Member for Liskeard was not in the House in 1873, but representatives of his opinions were. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) and his Friends did not support the proposal m ado in 1873 to refer the matter to a Royal Commission, because they believed that they themselves knew the proper way to settle the question of University education. The hon. Member for Hackney was just as clear in his statement to the House that he knew what was wanted in Ireland on the subject of University Education as the hon. Member for Liskeard had been that afternoon. The hon. Member for Liskeard had told them that the Catholics of Ireland were quite content with the Queen's Colleges, and became quite irritable if hon. Members who represented Irish constituencies ventured to differ from the opinion which he expressed. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) never ventured to address the House on Irish education without great reluctance, because he felt his opinions, as a Protestant, were different to those of many of his co-religionists. The first class was represented by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who had just addressed the House, and the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire (Mr. Holt). They who represented that Party were mortally afraid of the Pope, of everything that the Pope could do, and believed the intentions of the Catholics were to undermine the Constitution of the country, to withdraw all their liberties, and to place them under ecclesiastical domination. That feeling predominated all through whatever those hon. Gentlemen said or did. He respected their opinions, as he respected the opinions of any other person. He considered that they were far-fetched and rather eccentric. They did not wish this question settled. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire did not wish it settled.

I did not say I did not wish it settled; I said I did not think this Bill would settle it.

had understood the hon. Member to imply that he was opposed to any complete settlement by endowment, and wished to have an annual discussion in the House to enable him and his Friends to ventilate their fears of the Pope. Then there were other hon. Members who came forward ostensibly in the interests of education and in the guise of friends, but who were, in reality, the bitter enemies of Ireland. He referred to those who were called—and rightly called—"Doctrinaires" on the subject of education. Those Gentlemen appeared to demand that the Catholic youth of Ireland should be educated upon the lines which they laid down, and upon no others; but hon. Gentlemen experienced the greatest difficulty in putting themselves in the position occupied by the Catholics of Ireland, so far as the question of University Education was concerned. He had often heard the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), who spoke very freely on the subject, say—"Why cannot you Catholics go to the University of Oxford or that of Cambridge? There is nothing to prevent you. If you will come to my College, you will find your religious convictions not only respected, but taken no account of. We have elected to our Scholarships three Nonconformists, and if you distinguish yourselves in your studies you will also be elected." It was perfectly plain why the Catholics did not accept the invitation. The hon. Member for Hackney and others of this Doctrinaire school had not that positive belief as to religion which was entertained by Catholics in all parts of the world. Protestants differed amongst themselves. Some were Episcopalians, some were Dissenters of various kinds, some were Unitarians, as to whom some denied that they were Christians at all. Whatever they were, Protestants agreed that they could accept these different forms of faith without danger to their eternal happiness. That was not the way with Catholics. They believed that there was only one salvation under Heaven. That being so, did the House desire to deny the Catholic the right to educate his own children in that faith which, if violated, he believed would imperil eternal salvation? He (Mr. Mitchell Henry), himself, advocated the claims of the Irish Catholics for years before he became an Irish Member. When he was a candidate for an English constituency, no doubt the unpopularity of the opinions which he held was the cause of his defeat; but he had never asked anyone to advocate the claims of Ireland in this matter except on the grounds of justice. There was a population in Ireland of 5,500,000, four-fifths being Catholics; they paid their share of the taxes, and they had the same rights and no more than they would have if they were Mahomedans, who constituted a portion of our country, and paid four-fifths of the taxes. They possessed, in his opinion, a right to have their own system of University Education. Of course, the Bill would not settle the question; it relegated it to a body of gentlemen that might, practically, be called a Royal Commission; it, in point of fact, carried out in a practical way the proposition of the hon. Member for Westmeath, which was also advocated by the hon. Member for Liskeard. The opinion of the Irish people upon the subject was now well known, and the Government would, of course, take care to nominate upon the Senate of the new University representatives of all classes and opinions. It would be the duty of the Senate to ascertain, if they did not know it before, what were the wishes and feelings of the different University Bodies. It would be their duty also to attend to the wishes of the Irish people. When that had been done it would be for them to lay before the Government a scheme of University Education which would satisfy the religious wants of the Irish people. The Government would lay the scheme upon the Table of the House; and if it did not meet with the satisfaction of the House, and the Catholics who sat in the House as Irish Representatives, it would be open for them to oppose it. The proposal of the Government was one for really and practically referring the whole question to a Royal Commission. He would much rather that the Government had come forward, as a bold and strong Government ought to have done, with a well-considered and liberal measure. But there had been influences at work that had prevented them from doing that which would have been a statesmanlike and honourable act. He, however, for one, would not take the responsibility of voting against the Government proposal. He would support the Government Bill, and such Amendments as commended themselves to him in the passage of the measure through the House. In concluding his observations he wished to say that he had had much intercourse with Roman Catholics in Ireland, and especially with the Roman Catholic hierarchy upon this subject, and what had struck him most was the moderation and reasonableness of their claims; and if the House would grant to the Roman Catholics of Ireland some of the facilities for University Education which existed in England, he felt certain that they would set at rest the question, without which settlement Parliament could never proceed smoothly, and without which there could be no lasting union between the two peoples.

congratulated the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) upon his somewhat tardy conversion to the cause of justice to Ireland. What was the position in which the House was placed with regard to this Bill? They were within a week of that anniversary, after which it was said no Government could keep a House of Commons together. They had been sitting for six months—the dreariest he ever passed in his life. They were now, on the 5th of August, asked to grapple with what he would venture to call the most difficult Irish problem since the passing of the Irish Church Act. He held in his hand four innocent-looking pages of Amendments to the Bill. These Amendments raised every possible question—financial, educational, academical, theological, and oven sexual, for he noticed that his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) intended to raise the point of women's rights. How was it possible that a Bill involving questions of such importance could be properly discussed at this late period of the Session? This was a purely Irish subject, and, as such, ought to be considered. Still, there was a limit to "squeezability." Let them look at the history of the Bill. To whom did they owe it? Why, to the hon. Member for Roscommon, (the O'Conor Don) who, in the first place, introduced an honest Bill. But the Government would not accept it. The way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had turned round on this question reminded him of Richard II.'s turning to the mob that followed Wat Tyler, and exclaiming—"I'll be your leader." There was only one "way of passing the measure this Session, and that was by Members agreeing not to discuss it at all; but, for that purpose, the Irish Members must be "squared;" and it seemed, from the speech of the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that they had been squared most successfully. The Bill of the Government had been materially altered since it was introduced, for it now included all those clauses which the hon. Members for North-East Lancashire (Mr. Holt) and North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) considered the most objectionable clauses in the Bill of the hon. Member for Roscommon. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) supported those clauses, and he should support them in the present Bill; but, in doing so, he drew down upon himself the censure, not only of many of his own Friends, but also of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Yet the Government now came forward and inserted those very clauses in their own Bill. He did not think that was a straightforward way of acting. The Government had endeavoured to do what no Government or no man could do gracefully—namely, to sit upon two stools. They desired to offer solace to the Irish Representatives, and administer soothing syrup to the hon. Members for North-East Lancashire and North Warwickshire. Although there was much of the Bill as amended of which he approved, yet he could not approve of the way in which it had been introduced; and he thought that it would be wise for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put it on the top of the funeral pyre which he would soon have to light, or else relegate the question to a Royal Commission, or to another Session, or even to another Parliament.

said, the existence of the Bill admitted a grievance, acknowledged a claim, and offered satisfaction. There was, no doubt, a strong desire in the House to accept a Bill which might settle the question of University Education in Ireland for a considerable period. It was a palpable fact that the Roman Catholics had not University Education in proportion to their numbers; and when they told the House that they could not avail themselves of existing Colleges, owing to their conscientious scruples they were bound to devise means for enabling them to obtain higher education on conditions consonant with their religion and conscience. This Bill admitted their claim, and offered satisfaction. He understood the claim to be that the Catholics desired to have equality with their Protestant fellow-subjects in higher education. They pointed to Trinity College, and said that students who had Protestant convictions could there be educated with perfect security to their faith. But Catholics were not all of the same mind. There were some who were content to acquire secular education in mixed Colleges. These could go, and did go, to the Queen's Colleges. But there was a much, larger section who required that their spiritual guides should superintend their education and guard their faith and morals while they were being educated in secular matters. Undoubtedly, this large section was cut off from the excellent education of Trinity College and the Queen's Colleges, and it was to meet the wants of this section that the Bill was devised. Now, if equality of education were the first demand of the Roman Catholics, this Bill certainly did not meet it. For whore were the Catholic Colleges in Ireland at all comparable to the well-ordered Colleges—Trinity College or the Queen's Colleges? If this Bill did not secure equality of higher education between the Protestants and Roman Catholics, there could be no settlement of the question of University Education in Ireland. Without equality this Bill could not result in settling the question; but, as the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had frankly pointed out, it must be an eminently unsettling Bill—one that would stir up the foundations of all existing education, and build nothing upon the quaking ground. Now, both sides would go a long way to remove the legitimate grievances of Roman Catholics in regard to higher education; but they would think it intolerable if, by their present labours, they agitated everything and settled nothing. The Queen's Colleges professedly were to remain as they were. He denied that this would be the result of the Bill; but he would put that aside for the present, and look to how this Bill supplemented Catholic education outside these Colleges. It did so in two ways—(1) it created a University open to students resident or non-resident; (2) it induced students to join this University by Exhibitions, Scholarships, and Fellowships. These were to be given for "relative and absolute" proficiency, not only at matriculation, but at each stage of examination for a degree, until it was crowned by a Fellowship. Looking at the Bill of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), whose Bill was agreeable to the Catholics of Ireland, they might easily see how such a system of payments by standard would work. Let them follow a student in his course. He came up for matriculation, and won, say, by "absolute" proficiency, £20. With that he went to his College, and demanded preparation for the first examination in Arts, and he handed over his Scholarship. If successful in that, they might assume that he won £30. That sum he paid to the College to prepare him for his second, and then for his third, examination, at each of which he might win a prize. Ultimately, he might win a well-paid Fellowship. In what form was that different from result foes, payable directly to a College? Only in this—that the student received the money into his pocket, and that the College took it out. Instead of Government money being handed frankly over the table to a College, it was handed under the table. Could his Liberal Friends be deceived as to the character of the Bill, when they found the sudden conversion of Irish Catholic Members, who, refusing indignantly the Bill as introduced, now supported it by significant silence when the money clause was added? Now, which were the Colleges that would benefit by the Bill? There was only one secular Catholic College in Ireland—namely, that in Dublin. But there were numerous Bishops' seminaries, called Colleges, in almost every diocese. Practically, these were mere schools under priestly instruction, and they benefited largely by the Intermediate Education Act of last year, and they would be still better supported under this Bill. The Bill of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) excluded the diocesan seminaries when they benefited by the Intermediate Education Act, This Bill did not. The effect of the two Acts together would be richly to support with public money the Bishops' schools in the various dioceses of Ireland. The Intermediate Act secured payments for boys; and this Bill, when it became law, would also secure payments for young men in the same diocesan seminary. That, so far as he saw, would be the whole operation of the Act. It might improve the upper classes of theological seminaries when they took lay pupils; but it gave no inducement for a Collegiate system of education, or even for any well-ordered curriculum of study. The Bill did not reward laureation in study; but it paid for subjects from the first matriculation, and took no security that the scholar should ever proceed to his degree. In such a system there was no equality between Protestant and Roman Catholic education. The Protestant would continue to receive his education at an organized College, under a well ordered curriculum. He would have the advantage of study in practical sciences in well-appointed laboratories. The mode of studying science by observation and experiment bad received great development in modern times; but it could only be carried out in well-appointed Collegiate institutions with museums and laboratories. The Catholics, having no secular Colleges, would be forced to resort to a mere priestly school, chiefly under the Jesuits, at which religious education was the primary object, and secular instruction a mere subordinate purpose. Of course, if the competition for prizes and Scholarships were for relative merit, the Catholic would have no chance in such an unequal contest. But the prizes were for absolute proficiency; and if they lowered the standards to a sufficient abasement, the Catholics might come in under this comprehensive term. But the only effect of the Bill, so far as he could judge, was to throw higher education entirely into the hands of the priests. Now, he did not care whether the priests were Catholic or Protestant, because he thought an Act which had the effect of putting the youth of the country, in relation to higher education, under mere ecclesiastical training, was thoroughly mischievous. That must be the result of the Bill, for, with one exception, there were no Colleges in Ireland other than the diocesan seminaries, and these were those which would be largely supported by this Act, in conjunction with the Intermediate Education Act of last year. It might be contended that the prizes and Scholarships could be won by students working at their own homes without going to diocesan seminaries. No doubt some might be won in this way; but the object of the Bill was not to give educational out-door relief of that kind, but to promote higher University Education in Ireland. The true object of a Bill for promoting higher education ought to be to gather young men together into residence at a secular College, so as to secure the benefits of well-ordered teaching, and to expand their minds by association and the inter-communication of ideas. That certainly could not be accomplished by any provisions at present in the Bill, or in the Government clause for enlarging its scope. Government had introduced the Bill in the hope that it would satisfy the Protestant Party upon which it relied. But in no sense was the Bill anti-Catholic. It was the most pro-priestly proposal of education that was ever made in any European country in modern times. It might, in perfect fairness, be described as a Bill for the better support of Bishops' schools in Ireland. Now, although he thoroughly disliked a pro-priestly Bill of education, he did not object to a pro-Catholic system. He would willingly support a scheme which would give the Roman Catholics well-organized Colleges of secular education, comparable in efficiency to Trinity College and the Queen's Colleges. Without that there would be no equality; and yet both Parties in the House were inclined to support the Bill, because they thought it might settle the question. Of course, the Roman Catholics would fake as much as was given them for a time; but they would not be content. When, by this Bill, they had given liberal support to the diocesan schools, this support would not be renounced, but a new demand would arise for distinct Catholic Collegiate institutions, comparable to Trinity College and the Queen's Colleges; and having established under this Bill intense denominational education in the diocesan seminaries, he did not see how they were to resist a demand for true equality, for very soon it would be made. But, beyond that, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was right; for it was, in every respect, an unsettling Bill. It unsettled the Queen's Colleges, and reduced them to the position of well-endowed schools. At present, the Colleges were Colleges of a University under a well-ordered curriculum. Their Professors were Professors of the University, and co-ordinated their instruction to the requirements of the degrees. But they would cease to be University Professors as soon as this Bill passed, and have no locus standi, for they had not even seats in the Convocation. Their well-ordered curriculum vanished, and their natural inducement would be to prepare for examinations in subjects of "relative and absolute proficiency." Hitherto, in the Queen's Colleges exami- nation had been a test of organized I teaching. In future, not teaching, but examination would be the end, and cramming would be the substitute for teaching; for the 7th clause provided that no attendance at lectures or course of instruction should be obligatory, so that the following out of a well-ordered curriculum ceased to be necessary in the Colleges, which, to keep their position, would have to work for examination, and not for systematic Collegiate teaching. Very few of his Liberal Friends accompanied him into the Lobby when he voted against the second reading of the Bill, so he felt bound now to state his objections to it. He did not believe it could work well for the higher education of Roman Catholics, for it gave to them no equality of Collegiate instruction. It might serve the purposes of Irish ecclesiastics for a time, because it would improve and support their diocesan seminaries. They would feel that the Bill practically gave them what their Church so much longed to obtain—ad eum qui regit Christianam rempublicam scholarum regimen pertinere. But it was no satisfaction to the legitimate aspirations of enlightened Roman Catholics, who knew that what they wanted was systematic Collegiate education, under lay Professors, with securities for faith and morals in its superintendence. This Bill did not settle Irish University Education; but it did throw the future higher education of Catholics in Ireland entirely into the Bishops' schools, and that was a result deeply to be deplored for the freedom of education, and for that intellectual development which was so needful for a poor country like Ireland.

I do not intend, on this stage of the Bill, to occupy the attention of the House at any great length, because I did so upon the occasion of the second reading. At the same time, it must be remembered that when I spoke last the Bill was a very different one to the one which is now before the House. On the second reading I spoke with considerable difficulty, because we really did not know what the Government intended to propose. We now know the full extent of their proposals on the subject. I must say that, looking at those proposals, it seems to me that the question must come up for consideration again next year. The Government propose to leave to the Senate the arrange- ment of all details; and, therefore, at the present moment, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon Playfair) has stated, we are not settling the question. There is no use in concealing the fact that the present Bill cannot be accepted as a settlement, and that it must come up for revision next year, and probably in subsequent years. That is the position in which we are placed. That being so, the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. J. Smyth) proposes that we should refer the question to the consideration of a Royal Commission. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Motion to a division; because,-if he does so, I should be most reluctantly obliged to vote against him. I consider that in this question of University Education in Ireland the need of a settlement is very urgent. We have at the present moment in operation the Act of last year, under which a number of students have passed examinations. By the end of the year many of these young men will be ready for the University, and I think anything which may tend to delay their carrying on their University course is to be deprecated. Nothing is more likely to delay a settlement, and to delay it for several years, than the appointment of a Royal Commission. That is a proposal which is usually made when a Government finds a question very inconvenient, and wants to hang it up for an indefinite period. We had a Royal Commission proposed in 1868 by Lord Mayo, which we expected would report in the following year. But what was the result? The Commission took three years to make their Inquiry, and very little action has been taken on it up to the present day; so that I should look with very great dread upon the appointment of a Royal Commission on University Education in Ireland on the present occasion, simply for the reason that I fear it would lead to almost interminable delay. If it were not for that, I should be very glad to have an inquiry by a Commission; and on one point in particular I should be glad that the condition of education as carried on in the Queen's Colleges should be inquired into, and that there should be an investigation which would show the English people what we in Ireland know perfectly well—that the education in these Colleges, at least in two of them, is a mere sham and a humbug, and that they have tended very much to lower and degrade education in Ireland. One of the good effects that is likely to arise even from this imperfect Bill is that that sham will be exposed, and that education in the Queen's Colleges, instead of being lowered, will be raised to the standard which it ought to reach. I cannot concur with my hon. Friend in the Motion for a Royal Commission; and I would appeal to him not to press us to the position of being obliged to vote against him. I do not intend, at this stage of the Bill—because in Committee we shall have an opportunity of dealing with it—to go very much into the details of the measure; but I would wish to reply to some of the remarks which have been made in the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) is always taunting us with the statement that the Roman Catholics are in favour of the Queen's Colleges, and are satisfied with their results. He has challenged us, over and over again, to prove that the statement is not accurate. I thought we had proved it on many occasions. In what way can the opinion of the Irish Catholic laity be ascertained, except by their own declarations? and we have had declarations from them over and over again on the subject. This year, declarations signed by almost all of the higher and middle classes of the Irish Catholic laity have been laid upon the Table. They have been signed by the great bulk of the professional men, the higher class of traders and merchants, all declaring, in the most clear and distinct way, that they are not satisfied with the present state of things, that they do not consider they have equality, and demanding that a change should be made. But my hon. Friend says all this is to be sot aside, because he finds that a certain proportion of Roman Catholic students go to the, Queen's Colleges, and he says that is sufficient to prove that the Roman Catholic population are not opposed to that system. The number of Catholics that do go to them is very small. Besides, I would point out that, there is a very great difference between entering those Queen's Colleges and receiving a real University Education. Hon. Members never tell us how many of those who enter go on and get a degree. Let us take the figures from their own Calendar. I find that between 1860 and 1870 the total number of Roman Catholics who entered was 672, and the total number who took degrees of any sort was only 215, or one in three. Then, if you take the degrees in Arts, which, after all, is the real test, out of all these 672 students who, we are told, have received a University Education during these 10 years, how many does the House think took the lowest degree in Arts? Only 89, or one in eight; or on an average three students a year from each of these so-called University Colleges; and yet, in spite of this, my hon. Friend makes out that these Institutions are a great success, because a certain number of young men are tempted by the lavish supply of prizes and Exhibitions to enter on a course which they do not subsequently pursue. On the last occasion I spoke I mentioned, as a proof of this, that in a particular Catholic College, or rather an intermediate school, a boy who was not considered fit for the class in his own school which prepared for the London University matriculation—a boy who was, in fact, in the third class—went up to Queen's College, Galway, and not only matriculated with ease, but got one of the Exhibitions. A letter from this boy states that between 20 and 30 students went up for this matriculation examination, and they had five Scholarships and seven Exhibitions amongst them, or one prize between every two students, and he took the third place in the Exhibitions. My Bill was objected to as giving too many prizes and rewards; yet under it, I proposed that there should be only one prize amongst every 10 students; but in the Queen's Colleges there are often as many prizes as students. Now, I say it is monstrous that that sort of education should be foisted upon the country as such a fine standard, and that people should be afraid this new University Bill will lower it. As I said before, I do hope one of the effects of this Bill will be really to raise the standard. At present, the examinations are in the hands of the persons who teach; and, consequently, although they have a very fine programme on paper, no one knows how much correctness in answering is required by these Professors; and we know that students, whom their own schools would not think of sending up to a University, are able to go to Cork or Galway and gain these money prizes. On the last occasion that I spoke I pointed out the gross inequality that would exist if the new Scholarship prizes and Exhibitions were to be thrown open to competition by students from Colleges that are endowed. I suggested that if those Colleges were to retain their own Scholarships and prizes, paid for out of the public money, it was only fair that the prizes given under this Bill should be restricted to other than students of those Colleges. Since I made that statement, I have been informed by the heads of the Catholic Colleges that they would entirely disapprove of this, and that they were in favour of competing with the Queen's College students; that they were perfectly satisfied they would be able to beat them; and that they do not want to have it said that these prizes are given to them on a lower standard. They have no fear whatever of that very high teaching which goes on in the Queen's Colleges, and feel perfectly confident of being able to hold their own ground. They say the way to give them fair play would not be to restrict these prizes to students coming from non-endowed Institutions, but to open the prizes at present given by public money to endowed Institutions to competition amongst all classes of students. That is the proposition we should like to see carried out, and which I hope the Government will see their way to adopt in Committee. I do not believe this Bill will settle the question; but it will give an opportunity to students, who are now ready to commence their University course, of carrying it on with some better advantages than they now possess. I will not take upon myself the responsibility of delaying it for a year; and, therefore, although I do not care very much about it, although I do not think it is of much consequence, and although I do not think it will be a settlement, I appeal to my hon. Friend not to press his Motion.

I gather that the general feeling of the House is in favour of proceeding with as little delay as may be to the consideration of this Bill in Committee. The Amendment which is before the House has been moved in a speech of considerable ability; and the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) delivered a long speech, concluding with a non sequitur intended to support the Motion. Notwithstanding the arguments of those hon. Gentlemen, I think the House is inclined to avail itself of the opportunity it now has of dealing with the question during the present Session. The speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard was chiefly devoted to the advocacy of a scheme of his own, in respect of which the hon. Member does not require any information from a Royal Commission. The hon. Member has made up his mind, and he did not hesitate to state the result of his deliberations on the subject. It was evident that, unless a Royal Commission was prepared to adopt his suggestion, the hon. Member would not consider it worthy of his support. [Mr. Courtney: I expressly said the Contrary.] The hon. Gentleman said a great deal to the contrary I know; but I could not trace throughout his speech on what ground he based his support of the proposition he intended to vote for. Then the hon. Gentleman stated, among other things, that there was no grievance at all, and no demand for legislation. He stated that there was no reason for any alteration in the status quo. He said that the Queen's Colleges, first of all, should satisfy the people of Ireland. Well, the hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to entertain that opinion, and a great many, I have no doubt, agree with him; but he further went on to say that it does happen that the Queen's Colleges do satisfy the people of Ireland, and in that statement he failed, I think, to carry with him any of those Representatives of Ireland who sit upon his side of the House. It is not for me to say whether they are right or wrong in the opinion they evidently hold with regard to the Queen's Colleges. I stated, on a former occasion, that, from an educational point of view, I considered those Colleges had done good work; but it was evident they did not satisfy the requirements of the people of Ireland; and, therefore, it was on that account alone that Her Majesty's Government undertook to deal with the subject. The right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) served to reassure those who are responsible for the Bill by the manner in which he dealt with the subject. I felt sure, when the right hon." Gentleman rose, that any defects this Bill might have would not escape observation at his hands, and that if we escaped the ordeal of his criticism we had not much else to fear. What was his criticism? He says the Bill has been changed since it was first introduced. That, of course, we were aware of, and we think the alterations we propose to make, and which are perfectly consistent with the statements which were originally made upon the introduction of the Bill in the Upper House of Parliament, are an improvement upon its original draft. But the right hon. Gentleman says that by the introduction of certain words we are enabling Collegiate Institutions to derive a benefit under the Bill. Well, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the blot upon the Bill is that it does not afford sufficient inducement to those Institutions, and he would like to have given them encouragement directly. I cannot see that if the result of the proposal is to give encouragement to those Institutions that that is any harm; but what we have laid down is that the prizes and rewards earned under this Bill must be received by the students themselves who earn them, and not handed over to anybody else. I apprehend that the money which has been earned the student is due to him, and the manner in which he spends it is a matter with which we have no concern. The right hon. Gentleman also said that intermediate schools will obtain aid under this Bill. Well, if there are any precocious boys in these schools who can earn for themselves University rewards I think nobody would grudge them; but, at the same time, I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that no scholar can obtain advantages derived under the Intermediate Education Act who is over the age of 18 years. [An hon. MEMBER,: No.] That, at least, is the way I read it, as regards the payments of result fees. On the whole, the criticisms which have been passed upon this Bill have not been of a very alarming character, and I think they show that the House is prepared to go into the consideration of the measure in Committee, and to deal with it in a fair and candid spirit; and I may remind the House that it now has an opportunity of dealing with the question upon a Bill which has been supported by a large majority of the House in its earlier stages, and which affords some promise, at any rate, of meeting with a generous support throughout its remaining stages. If this opportunity be lost, I think he would be a very sanguine man who would expect to find himself very soon again in a similar advantageous position.

expressed a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath would not put the House to the trouble of a Division on his Amendment, and that the discussion, which had been a very interesting one, would be brought to a close, so that they might get into Committee on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had, he thought, misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair), for what the right hon. Gentleman said was that the Bill would encourage diocesan schools, but would not encourage Colleges. That was, no doubt, a grievance; but, he would not on that account vote against the Bill, or treat it in any other than a fair and generous way, because they had every hope that the Government, who had acted so well throughout the business, would, when they heard the arguments to be advanced in Committee, agree that that was the blot on the Bill, and would help them to promote Collegiate Education in the four or five Colleges which they hoped would grow up in time. He trusted that the good sense of the House would enable them to carry the Amendments they had placed upon the Paper.

said, that the speech of the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Pluyfair) was the speech of the debate. No Irish Member could have hit the blot of the Bill better than he had done. Under the Bill the House was asked to endow diocesan education, which it was not the special wish of the Irish people to have endowed. The Bill was one for endowing, not only denominational education, but clerical denominational education.

said, it was obvious that a Bill of the importance of that before the House could not pass at this period of the Session, unless both sides acted on the principle of giving and taking. There was so much in the Bill that he disliked that he would gladly have opposed it; but it was evidently the wish of the House that it should be considered in Committee. If the Bill were allowed to go into Committee, he hoped the Government would not force on them those portions of it to which the strongest possible objections were entertained. He wanted an answer to this question, and on that much would depend—Why were they going to destroy an existing Institution which had done its work so well, when all they desired might be accomplished by retaining the Senate of the Queen's University, and enlarging their powers in an analogous way to what was done 10 years ago with Oxford and Cambridge, by enabling them to grant degrees to those who had not resided at either University, but had attained the requisite standard of education? If the Government were anxious to have a new University, they might, at least, meet the friends of the Queen's University halfway, and give them some security as to what its character would be by saying that all the existing members of the Senate of Queen's University should be members of the new University they proposed to constitute. They might add new members; but if the Government gave that guarantee they would remove the most serious objection that was entertained to this Bill—namely, that it would suddenly deprive those who had fulfilled their public duties so well of the position which had been conferred upon them and the trust which had been confided to them. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give them some assurance to that effect; if he did a great part of the objection to the Bill would be removed, and its progress would be expedited.

only rose to answer the question of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). He regretted that he was not, at the present moment, in a position to give exactly the answer he should wish to give. He felt, with the hon. Member—and the Government felt with him—that it was of the greatest importance that in making such a change every consideration should be shown to the distinguished men who had, with so much public spirit and success, conducted the Queen's University; and he might safely say that in the organization of the new Senate the greatest care would be taken to admit and place on it the largest number of the members of the Senate of the Queen's University. He could not go the length of saying, at the present moment, that the Govern- ment would be prepared to put into the Bill a clause that would import into the Senate the whole of those gentlemen who were at present on the Senate of the Queen's University; but when the matter came to be considered the greater part, if not the whole, of that body might be included.

said, he did not believe that the present Governing Body of the Queen's University was so good a body as some seemed to suppose.

thought it would be best at that stage to report Progress, and that the Committee should resume at 9 o'clock. The Amendment standing in his name raised a most important question, which it was absolutely impossible to discuss properly at that time; and as he believed the Government would think they had done a good stroke of work that afternoon in getting into Committee with the Bill he moved that Progress be reported.

was obliged to say that, as the hon. Gentleman had already delivered two long speeches upon this question, it was hardly reasonable to move to report Progress. He trusted the Committee would be allowed to proceed with the Bill.

rose to Order. He wished to know whether, if Progress were reported then, the Committee could resume at 9 o'clock?

There will be nothing to prevent the debate being resumed at 9 o'clock if the House so desires.

hoped the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) would not press his Motion. The hon. Gentleman could make his speech then; the Committee need not divide after it; and they would then have the interval between that time and 9 o'clock in which to digest the speech of the hon. Member.

regretted that it was necessary for him to make another speech. He should move, in page 1, line 12, alter "by," to insert "supplementary." The object of that Amendment, as understood by hon. Members interested in this question, was to proceed in this matter in the same manner as the Government of Lord Russell proceeded in 1866—that was to say, by enlarging the powers of the Queen's University, so as to admit all those students who desired it to a degree in the University. It would be remembered that in 1866, after some correspondence and discussion between Sir George Grey and the Roman Catholic Prelates, which had not resulted in showing any disposition on the part of those eminent persons to accept the proposal, Lord Russell's Government proposed to issue a supplementary Charter for the University. Queen's University had been founded by way of bringing the Irish Colleges together into University life, and by its Charter it was provided that only those students should be admitted who had passed through a course of instruction at one or other of the Queen's Colleges. Up to that point the Queen's University had had no local habitation. It was contended that many students desired the privilege of obtaining admission to degrees who, for conscientious scruples, were unable to resort to the facilities offered by the Queen's Colleges; and it was proposed to enlarge the Queen's University by admitting the outside students to degrees, however or wherever educated. Lord Russell's Government propped to solve the University Education Question in Ireland by issuing a supplementary Charter, and the fact of that course having been adopted by the Government, of which Lord Russell was the head, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) a Member, ought, he thought, to recommend his Motion to hon. Members on both sides of the House. That proposal had failed because the then Government had overlooked the fact that the supplementary Charter altered the original Charter of the University against the will of the Body Corporate; but the same objection did not apply in this case. The Lord Chancellor had been understood to say that the reason for not following the former precedent in this ease was the legal difficulty attendant upon it. No one knew better than the Lord Chancellor what the legal difficulty was; but if they acted under the powers of an Act of Parliament they could proceed by way of supplementary Charter as well as by original Charter. There would be no difficulty in that course. The principal objects of the Bill were to enable degrees to be given to students who had not passed through the Queen's Colleges or Trinity College, and to give them prizes; that would still remain the first principle of the Bill. They wanted, next, to provide certain Scholarships. But both those ends could be clearly secured by enlarging the Queen's University. Nothing whatever was gained by the creation of a now University that could not be secured by the enlargement of the existing University. Then the question arose—why should they destroy the Queen's University? It had done perfectly good work; it had got together a considerable number of students, and a certain number of them obtained their degrees; it had a certain status in Ireland; it had a history, and it had traditions—in short, in the language of the Law Courts, it was a going concern, and he (Mr. Courtney) did not know why it should be broken up. The Petition of the medical graduates of the Queen's University, which he held in his hand, declared that the abolition of the name of the Queen's University contemplated in the Bill at present before Parliament was for every medical student belonging to it a personal wrong; and that if Parliament deemed a change necessary the name of the Queen's University might be retained. He thought it was impossible not to feel that the medical graduates of the University had made out a very strong case, personally, as well as collectively, against the change contemplated by the Bill, by showing that medical education in Ireland would be injuriously affected by breaking the continuity of the Colleges in the step about to be taken. There was another Petition, to which he asked the attention of the Committee, presented by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), from the University Graduates' Association of London, and other graduates of I the Queen's University, declaring that the dissolution of the Queen's University was an unprecedented proceeding, and that the status of the Petitioners would be thereby impaired.

rose to Order, and asked whether, under similar circumstances, he would be right in occupying the time of the Committee by reading such long Petitions?

replied, that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was in Order in referring to the Petitions relating to the Bill before the Committee.

said, that the documents which he had read were Petitions from graduates of the Queen's University, and had reference to the Amendment which it was his intention to propose. Nothing, therefore, could be more pertinent than the statements in question. The petitioners submitted to the House very grave reasons why this change should not be effected. The Petition went on to say that the dissolution of the University would be a proceeding unprecedented in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members should note that the Queen's University had been in existence for something like 30 years; that it had gone on with the increasing appreciation of the people of Ireland from the time it was started to that day; that the standard of examination had been gradually raised, and that the number of its students had increased to 2,000. They had that continuity of existence, and it was, nevertheless, proposed, instead of making use of the accumulated force gained by the University, to dissolve it, establish a new University, and to make a fresh start. There was no argument sufficiently strong to support that proposition; certainly, no argument had been adduced. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had been challenged that afternoon to produce a single argument in favour of the proposed abolition. He had made, as he generally, did, a very short speech, shortened by the omission of a great deal the Committee might have been very glad to hear from him. The right hon. Gentleman had, in his speech of that afternoon, quite omitted to refer to the question of the necessity for dissolving this University and creating another University to take its place. His Amendment, he thought, was well recommended by its doing that which was proposed by Lord Russell's Government in 1866, and which would have been done then but for the reason to which he had referred. He had another Petition upon this subject, which had been presented to the House; but this he did not propose to trouble the Committee by reading.

expressed a hope that the House would go into Committee' on the Bill, which was merely for the purpose of continuing the existing Act for three years, there being a substitution of two Judges instead of one Judge for the trial of Election Petitions.

thought the proposed change too important to be discussed now at the fag-end of a Morning Sitting, and opposed the taking of the Bill.

said, he had reserved some observations upon this clause, at the time when; by the Stand- ing Orders, the debate was suspended, which he would now make to the Committee. He believed no one had asked for the dissolution of the Queen's University. The Bill of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), which had brought about the present Bill, by some strange process of pressure, had respected the Queen's University, and left it absolutely untouched. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), which preceded the downfall of his Government, proposed to dissolve the University, and to make one University for Ireland, and that was the particular part of his Bill most strongly objected to, against which the greatest arguments were raised, and upon which it was shipwrecked. He (Mr. Courtney) asked what was the argument by which the Government defended this dissolution? It had not been asked for by anybody. Why, then, did they refuse to accept the simple and direct method of enlarging the Queen's University'? The Lord Chancellor, in speaking of the present Bill, would not allow that any grievance existed; but he admitted that there was a deficiency. Well, supply that deficiency; and it was for that purpose alone that he proposed to insert the word "supplementary" before the word "Charter," in this clause of the Bill. The next Amendment upon the Paper standing in his name ran parallel to this, and if it were adopted the whole clause would run thus—

"It shall be lawful for Her Majesty, in case Her Majesty shall tie pleased to do so, by supplementary Charter, to extend the powers of the Queen's University in Ireland, hereinafter called the University, as hereinafter provided."

He moved the insertion of the words of his Amendment.

said, although the hon. Member for Liskeard had supported his Amendment in a portentously long speech, he hoped the Committee would not agree to it. The University proposed to be created by the Bill was entirely different from Queen's University. The Queen's University was nothing more than an aggregation of Colleges, exactly in the same way as the University of Oxford was an aggregation of 19 different Colleges. But the University which it was proposed to establish by the present Bill was something entirely different. It was much more like the London University than the other. In the 7th clause it was provided that—

"The University shall confer a degree upon every person who had matriculated in the University."

That, of course, simply meant that the students should be what were called unattached. It went on to say—

"No residence in any College nor attendance at lectures or any other course of instruction in the University shall be obligatory upon any candidate for a degree, other than a degree in medicine and surgery."

That plainly showed that the University contemplated was something entirely different from Queen's University. It was, therefore, impossible to supplement the Charter in the way proposed. The Queen's University, as the hon. Member for Liskeard had pointed out, had a history of its own; but, unfortunately, that history did not exactly commend it to his hon. Friends below the Gangway, and for that reason it would be unwise to continue its present name.

said, there was, in the question before the Committee, something of greater importance than a name. He was obliged to say that if the fatal fluency of his hon. Friend went on to the same extent in proposing his other Amendments to the Bill as it had done upon this Amendment the Session would have to be prolonged till next September. If the Senate of the Queen's University was a representative body this Bill ought never, in his opinion, to have been brought in. If the Senate of the Queen's University was to be the Senate in the new University, why were hon. Members there to discuss the matter at all? The argument was contradictory in terms. The new University was intended to grant degrees outside the University. His hon. Friend had a fixed opinion; he would not go outside it; he persevered in it, and he would torment the Committee with it until they became disgusted with the Bill and the whole question. The only argument advanced by the hon. Member in support of his Amendment was the supplementary Charter proposed in 1866. But who rejected that Charter? It was the very Queen's Colleges on behalf of which the present Amendment was proposed to the Committee. There was never a greater contradiction; and he appre- hended that the lapse of 10 years would not make that contradiction less apparent. He hoped his hon. Friend would be ashamed of his Amendment, and not put the Committee to the trouble of a division.

said, as the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had moved his Amendment, he thought the Government were perfectly justified in saying that if the Government and the House had been of opinion that the Queen's University was adequate for the educational wants of Ireland, there would have been no occasion for the Bill. Of course, this was really the same question as the hon. Gentleman had argued, with great ability, a few hours ago, on the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair. This measure was not intended as a penal dissolution of that University, which he had repeatedly declared to have rendered great services to Irish education. But it had been admitted, on all hands, that some change should be made with regard to Irish education, in order to meet what, perhaps, some might regard as sentimental objections to the existing system, and the system introduced by this Bill was a fresh departure in that respect. He could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.

cordially supported the Amendment. He thought that there should be some reason given for the proposed alteration on the part of the Government. In the absence of that information, he thought the onus of proof did not lay upon those who desired to preserve a system which had admittedly done much good. The onus lay with those who made this extraordinary proposal. From his own intercourse with persons connected with the Queen's University in past years, and at present, he knew that this alteration was looked upon with the greatest dislike.

said, the Bill would be a disadvantage to the Roman Catholics; but he thought it best to leave the question to be fought out by his successors on the Estimates which would have to be presented in connection with the proposed University.

said, the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard was reasonable and logical if applied to the Bill as introduced. As the Bill was presented, it was simply a Bill to supplement the system of the Queen's University; but it was now, practically, altered by the new clause, which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had proposed as part of it. That constituted a totally different Institution from the Queen's University, with its supplementary Charter of 1866; and he did not think that the hon. Member for Liskeard himself would be satisfied with the Queen's University carrying out such a totally new principle as that of examination without curriculum in the diocesan schools of Ireland. The hon. Member could scarcely expect the Committee to accept his Amendment, which, it was to be hoped, he would withdraw.

understood the observations of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to mean that no fault had been found with the University, and that it was to be dissolved without any reason. That course appeared to him to be extremely wrong. To say that the pie-sent Senate of the Queen's University had not the confidence of the people of Ireland was to advance no reason for rejecting his Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had rushed into this question without making himself acquainted with the antecedent history of the University. He said how ridiculous it was that a supplementary Charter should be made when they were going to alter the Queen's University, so as to include students from all Colleges. The plan, however, which the hon. and learned Gentleman pronounced to be ridiculous and absurd was suggested, and attempted to be carried out, by Lord Russell, in 1866, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), and by the present Lord Carlingford. Perhaps, if the hon. Member had remembered this fact, he would not have characterized, as a matter of absurdity, that the Queen's University should be enlarged in the manner suggested by his Amendment. He would leave the proposal in the hands of the Committee. No reason had been advanced against it, except that which, upon the showing of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, was a reason in its favour—namely, that the dissolution of the University did not in any way imply that it had been a failure.

said, that, the subject was one upon which they might come to some compromise. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) in the opinions expressed by him as to the unnecessary destruction of this University. He had never heard any valid reason advanced for that abolition. However, it was scarcely to be expected that the Government could surrender the cardinal point of their Bill. Still, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might meet the hon. Member for Liskeard to a great extent. He had already stated that a considerable number, if not the whole, of the existing Senate of the present University should become members of the Senate of the new University. He (Mr. Fawcett) would be satisfied if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before the Bill left the House, would give them the names of the Senate of the new University, so that they might see to what extent the promise of the right hon. Gentleman had been fulfilled. This appeared to him to be a very reasonable thing to ask for; and if it was conceded it would, in his opinion, wonderfully facilitate the progress of the Bill. There were to be attached to this new University vague and indefinite powers, dealing not only with money belonging to the people of Ireland, but with money coming from the taxpayers of England and Scotland. If the Government wore going, to a great extent, to define the conditions upon which this money might be spent, it was, he thought, not too much to ask them to tell the Committee what was the body, and who were the persons, to whom it was to be intrusted, and to whom these powers were to be handed over? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, on the previous day, that before the new body was constituted it was necessary to settle what were the powers to be intrusted to them, and that that would be known when the Bill had passed through Committee. Therefore, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to state, on condition that the present and other Amendments of the hon. Member for Liskeard were abandoned, that when the Bill had gone through Committee he would communicate to Parliament the names of the members of the new University Senate.

said, he should be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accede to the request of the hon. Member for Hackney, provided it were possible to do so. But the Committee must remember where they were, and they must also remember that to carry out the intention with regard to the Senate of the new University would require a considerable amount of correspondence with gentlemen who might be asked to give their services. If the information could be given, he could see no reason why it should not be; but he thought it was very unreasonable to pledge the right hon. Gentleman to any action at that moment. If they looked over the names of the Senate of the Queen's University, as they were at present, it would be seen that some of them were remarkably good; but there wore others which it would be ridiculous to think of. Indeed, some of the owners of them were in the other world; some of them, also, were noble Lords who had arrived at a time of life when it was usual for them to seek the ease afforded by the other House; and it was idle to expect that they would do the work which would be looked for from the new Senate. He had had some intercourse with gentlemen connected with the Queen's Colleges since the present Bill had been before the House, and he had found them very anxious to preserve the standing and endowments of their Colleges; but he had not met with any difficulty as to the proposed change. They were men of common sense that he spoke of, who thought that nothing was more necessary than that the change should take place. He hoped the Government would put upon the new Senate men who w7ere thoroughly in earnest, and who would be able to give time and attention to this great work.

said, that the Committee had before it the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard, which had been supported by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). He did not think they should enter upon interlocutory matters, but decide upon the question of the Amendment.

said, it would facilitate more than anything the progress of the Bill, and would give universal satisfaction, if his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the names of those members who had been already ap- pointed to the Senate of the new University. He was aware of the great difficulty of the subject, but he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman had well considered it; and he ventured to urge strongly that it would be in the interest of the Bill itself, and of the country, that the names of the Senators of the new University, so far as possible, should be given on Report.

said, that out of the present Senate of the Queen's University, which numbered 24, five only were Catholics and all the rest Protestants. Taking them as they came in the Directory, there were Sir Dominic Corrigan, the Vice Chancellor, no doubt a very distinguished man; then there was Major General Larcom, an Englishman, and connected with the police; but he was dead. Then came the late Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and he was dead also. Next he found the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel): but did anybody expect that he would take the trouble to go to visit Ireland, of which he did not entertain very pleasant reminiscences? The Government should select the best names on the Senate of the Queen's University, and supplement them by others of the highest character.

said, he had already more than once stated to the House what were the difficulties in naming, or attempting to name, the gentlemen who should constitute the Senate of the new College. Of course, at that moment they had not decided even the constitution of the University, and if that was a matter still in the future much less had they decided upon the Senate to be appointed. The hon. and gallant Baronet behind him (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) thought it was a very simple thing to state the names of those persons who were to constitute the Senate on Report. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Baronet that the constitution of the Senate would be a matter of the greatest importance, and that it would be a matter which would require the most anxious consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Now, it was known by experience how difficult it was to constitute even a much smaller body than the Senate now proposed, and a body for much less important purposes—as, for instance, the Royal Commission which had been de- cided upon some little time ago, and had necessitated a great deal of correspondence and personal communication with gentlemen for the purpose of forming it. He was perfectly certain that if they were to constitute a Senate for so important a purpose as the conduct of a University, established as the now University was to be, that should command the confidence and respect of all classes in Ireland who were interested in this matter, and of all classes out of Ireland, it would be necessary to communicate with and to invite the assistance of many persons whose knowledge and position made it desirable that they should be appointed. The hon. and gallant Baronet had suggested that a portion of the Senate should be named; but that, he thought, would be undesirable, because to make a fragmentary statement upon that subject would be altogether unsatisfactory and misleading. Before the names were finally announced it would be necessary to agree with those gentlemen whom it would be desirable to invite to take part in this constitution. No doubt there was a very distinguished nucleus in the existing Senate of the Queen's University, and there could be no doubt that a considerable proportion of those who now stood upon the list of the Senate were gentlemen who, upon every consideration, one would desire to introduce in the body of the new University; but the question had to be regarded as a whole, and under several aspects. They would, for instance, have to consider how far the claims of persons to represent certain sections were sufficient, and how far one name would balance another. If one gentleman refused, it might entirely alter the composition of the body. In those circumstances, he thought the Government ought not to be pressed for their decision, and that it would be unwise for them to undertake to name the new body within a definite period. Most assuredly no time would be lost in endeavouring to constitute a Senate; and the names of those gentlemen at present on the Senate of the Queen's University would, undoubtedly, for their own sake, and for the sake of education and the proper constitution of the Senate of the new University, be amongst the very first that would come under the consideration of the Government. He did not think they could be fairly asked to do more than that; and he hoped the Committee would be satisfied with the assurance that they gave full prominence to the names of those who composed the Senate of the Queen's University.

said, it was exceedingly unfortunate that the great Irish educational questions were always brought forward at so late a period of the Session that the House felt that Tier Majesty's Government had, to use a familiar expression, got them "into a corner." He thought that the request of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Fawcett) was perfectly reasonable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained to the Committee the great difficulties there would be in connection with the appointment of the new Senate, and the Committee felt that difficulty. It would be only reasonable that Her Majesty's Government should undertake, at the opening of Parliament next year, to lay before the House the names they might select to carry out the powers which that House was about to grant. He was obliged to say that even that was a very lame mode of proceeding. If the House placed this body of persons in command of large funds, it ought to be informed as to the persons who were to compose that body.

said, the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly seemed to him to give the Committee much more definite information than they had hitherto received. He (Mr. Fawcett) understood the right hon. Gentleman to have given the Committee two distinct pledges—one being that the existing Senate of the Queen's University should be the nucleus of the new Senate; and the other that a considerable proportion of the members of the existing Queen's University should be members of the new body. That most distinct assurance on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he thought hon. Members on both sides of the House should be satisfied to accept.

said, the right hon. Gentleman having acknowledged the correctness of the statement repeated by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he had an Amendment to propose, which he trusted would be accepted by the Committee. He would not waste the time of the Committee by making many observations but merely point out that the object of the Amendment was to preserve, to a certain extent, not the existing connection, but a certain connection between the Queen's Colleges and the new University, and he thought it would be well to give an ex-officio position in the new Senate to the heads of each of the Colleges, so that they might continue to have some recognized position with regard to Irish education. He might be told that they would have that position in any case; but he thought it better to provide for it in the Bill, and he would, therefore, move in page 1, line 18, after "University," to insert "the president or other head of each of the Colleges of the said University."

trusted that the Committee would not accept the Amendment, which would give quite a special position to these Colleges in the University. No matter how desirable it might be to smooth over these Colleges that would not be advisable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that the Senate would be a very good nucleus to work upon, would most likely take into consideration the position of the heads of the Colleges referred to in the Amendment without giving them an ex-officio position in the Senate. A gentleman of great authority in the present Queen's University had informed him that the Senate was completely Professor-ridden, and in that sense he did not think it desirable to give an ex-officio position to these Colleges which was not possessed by others.

was unable, on the part of the Government, to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice).

explained that, owing to the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should not move the next Amendment standing in his name.

said, it was desirable to make it imperative that, at least, one Archbishop and six Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland should be members of the Senate of the new University. The Government should, as far as possible, try to make the Senate popular throughout the country, otherwise a harrier to the success of the Bill would be raised at once, and a new agitation might commence. They ought to place some of these ecclesiastics upon the Senate. However, to save unpleasantness, he would not proceed with the second Amendment of which he had given Notice; but move, in page 1, line 20, to omit the word "alternate," in order to provide that all vacancies in the Senate should be filled up by the Convocation of the University.

said, that as the clause stood the graduates of the University would, in 20 years, be entirely overshadowed by the electors of the present University. In order to prevent that, he would move, in page 1, line 25, to leave out "six," and insert "eighteen."

thought his Amendment deserved the serious attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It raised no sectarian question whatever. According to the Bill, the Senate was to consist of 36 persons, nominated by the Government, and, after the first nomination, the vacancies were to be alternately filled by Convocation until the number of elected members reached six. That certainly was a very small proportion. It appeared to him most desirable that this University should be, as far as possible, free from the jurisdiction of Dublin Castle, and when they had once set it going it should have an independent existence as an Institution. If they could find a mode by which it could have an independent existence, and could be uninfluenced by Dublin Castle, he thought everybody must approve of it. His proposition was that out of the 36 members of the Senate one-half should be elected by Convocation; and as it was said that the result of that would be to throw an immense preponderance of power into the Queen's University, he proposed to meet that by providing that at each election the cumulative vote should be adopted. The additions to the Senate would then fully represent the different sec- tions of University life. They would have the medical faculty represented by a certain number; they would have the legal faculty represented; and if there were a divinity faculty in that University the divines would be represented also. They would get in that way a composite electoral body, fairly representing the academical life of the University, and they might then trust it to live an independent existence. He need not appeal to hon. Members who had received University education, for they knew how very desirable it was that Universities should be free from the continual intrusion of Ministers of the day. It was a great fault in the Queen's University that it was entirely under the control of Ministers of the day; and, therefore, he hoped they would remove this new University, as far as possible, from that control, while they secured the representation of independent elements by the means he had suggested. He knew the difficulty he laboured under in making a suggestion of that serious kind at that period of the Session; and he felt that had it been earlier the proposition would, in all likelihood, have commended itself to the House of Commons. Now, of course, however, the Government were unwilling to listen to any suggestion which made any alteration whatever in the Bill. This proposal, however, he begged them to turn their attention to, because it could be debated without any inconvenience, as it involved no immediate action or interference with the circumstances of the new University whatever. It would not come into play till the University had been well started, and vacancies had occurred. Those vacancies could not occur for a considerable period of time, as they would only arise after the deaths of nominated members. The Government would also be laying down a very sound principle, which would greatly assist in the working of the University, would help it to manage itself, and make its Governing Body representative of its academic life.

thought that, as regarded the cumulative vote, it would be a desirable addition to the clauses. As to the other point, he thought six elected members would be sufficient.

would be in favour of this Amendment if they had had a system of Colleges; but this -University was to be an examining University, and, therefore, he considered the Amendment inconsistent with the Bill and with the whole scheme. They wanted the College system, but they had not got it; and he did protest against the representative body of this new University being elected by students from Colleges which were not connected with it, which were not University Institutions, and which had not the confidence of the people. This Bill was brought in because these Colleges did not command confidence. The Amendment was founded on a total misapprehension of the Bill, and he should strongly object to it.

hoped the Government would consider this question before they decided against it. He considered that the hon. Member for Liskeard had proposed, perhaps, too large a number of elected members; but if 12 wore adopted he thought he could show that it would be advantageous for all parties. It should be considered, in the first place, that Governments varied from time to time, and that whatever Government happened to be in was too apt to be pressed by its own political Party to make appointments in particular directions. It would be recollected how this acted in regard to Maynooth. The Charter of that College enjoined that it should consist of half laymen and half ecclesiastics. But, under pressure, they were now all ecclesiastics. In that way the Governing Body of the University might be made to consist of political parties, instead of being nominated for the sole purpose of academic life. If they increased the number of the elective members they gave security for the first principle of academic life—namely, that the graduates of the University, who were most interested in its success, should always have an adequate representation of it, and, with the cumulative vote, the Roman Catholic, the professional, and the Protestant graduates would all be represented. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) was scarcely right in saying there were no teaching Colleges in connection with this University. The Queen's Colleges were to continue; and he hoped before long that his Catholic friends would find it would be a necessity that other teaching Colleges should be added to this University. Therefore, let them try and keep up the feeling of interest amongst the graduates of this University, and give them a proportion which would be a far greater security for education than any mere nomination by political Parties.

rose to support the Amendment. What they wanted was a body which should represent the life of the University, and not a mere State-appointed engine. If they had only six selected by the graduates of the University it was really little better than nothing; and if the Government could not see their way to give half, let them, at least, accede to the reasonable proposition of his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. Lyon Play-fair), who was a better authority than any other man in the House on the subject, and give one-third.

said, if the University were, starting now for the first time, with a new body of students, he could see a great deal of reason in the proposition; but they must remember that for a great number of years the graduates of the Queen's University, if such a proposition as this were adopted, would have the election of all these members. The result would be to render the University unacceptable to those for whose benefit it was intended. He was rather surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, who was connected with the University of London—["No, no!"]—who, at all events, he presumed, was acquainted with the provisions of the Charter of the University of London, should have spoken of the proportion of graduate representation proposed in this University as one of an extraordinary character. The proportion given at the University of London was not more than that at the Queen's University; and, further than that, in the Queen's University the graduates elected their own members absolutely, while at the University of London all the graduates could do was to select three names to submit to the Crown, from which the Queen selected one. Comparing the two, the Queen's Uni- versify was, therefore, more popular than the University of London. If they were starting a new scheme, he certainly should wish the proportion to be more than what was now proposed; but considering the body which would have the control over these elections for a number of years he thought the proportion in the Bill was quite sufficient.

said, as far as he understood this argument it was based on the suggestion that the whole of these elected members were to be elected at once. [" No, no!"] Well, at any rate, the argument came to that conclusion. He admitted that if these elections were to be at once it was obvious that if the Government accepted the suggestion made the proposal would be open to the objection made; but if the Government accepted the modified proposal of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair) it could scarcely come into operation under 8 or 10 years. In the first instance, Government appointed 36 members of the Senate, and alternate vacancies were to be filled up by election. Reckoning, then, that there was one vacancy a-year, 12 vacancies would elapse before the number mentioned in the Bill would have been elected; and it was not until after that time that this modified proposal would come into effect, and up to then everything would be exactly the same as it now was under the Bill; and, consequently, the monopoly spoken of amongst the graduates of the Queen's University would by then, to a great extent, have ceased. If the Bill was not an empty farce and a sham before then there would be lots of graduates in the University, independently of those who had been educated in the Queen's Colleges. They must consider, also, that they were not merely considering whether a Protestant or Catholic should be elected; but they were deciding a great principle for the University of the future. No one in that House had spoken more frequently and with greater effect against the evils of political nomination than the Irish Members; and when they considered that at Oxford and Cambridge, for instance, nothing like political nomination would be tolerated for a moment, he thought they ought to consider this Amendment. What would have been the reception given to the University Bill lately in- troduced if either the Home Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad come down and said, not that five-sixths, as was now proposed, or a half, or a third, but a sixth of the Governing Bodies should be nominated by Parliament? He ventured to say that the Members of that House who belonged to Oxford or Cambridge—whether Liberals, Conservatives, or Radicals—would have rallied to a man against such a proposal, and attacked it as fatal to the independence of the University. The very essence of both these Universities was their freedom from political influence. What was good in this respect for Oxford and Cambridge was good for Ireland; and as it produced such blessings here it would not indict evil there. Scarcely a week passed without some Irish Member forcibly and powerfully denouncing the evil influences resulting from wire-pulling and class influence in Ireland. If that was the case, did not they think it well to keep away from one of the highest influences of life the blighting and malign influence of political nomination? If Oxford and Cambridge were allowed to govern themselves, he could not see why a certain freedom should not be allowed to the new University they were about to institute. The strongest argument in favour of this proposal was that it would not come into operation at once, and he hoped Government would make this concession.

The fallacy running through the argument of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), and of other hon. Members, is that they compare this University with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. ["No, no!"] The hon. Member put it strictly on that ground. He must bear in mind that the theory of this Bill is that Ireland stands in need of a University of a different character, stamp, and type from Oxford and Cambridge. She wants a University of the type of the University of London; but it is a teaching, not an examining, University that is required. We follow this type of the University of London; and it must be borne in mind that it is of the greatest importance fair play should be given to all classes in turn. It might accidently happen, if you trusted to the system of election too much, that a vacancy might occur amongst one class of electors, and that it might be filled up by the election of another; whereas the responsibility which lies upon the Government of the day would prevent any destruction of the proper proportions to be observed in the Senate. I think it would be a very great mistake if we were, in starting this University, to depart from that proportion.

thought, before they discussed the Amendment, they ought to know what the number proposed was. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) proposed 18. Well, a right hon. Gentleman, who knew quite as much about the subject, said that 12 were sufficient. Before the Government Bill was disturbed they ought to have some agreement between those who were determined to force their views on the Committee as to these points. There was also a great inconsistency in the argument of the hon. Member for Liskeard. He objected to what he called "Castle nominations," yet that was the very thing he urged upon them in his previous Amendment. In the whole of the Queen's Colleges every one of the Senate was nominated by the Castle. Those gentlemen really made their proposals without considering or knowing the state of affairs in Ireland. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) talked from his experience of English Universities; but they should know how, from the conflict of religious or political opinion, a minority might have the power and the majority be made the sufferers. He felt how necessary it was that somebody should be there to hold the balance. He did not think there was any reason shown for altering the number; and if it was altered, they ought to know whether they were to have 18 or 12. For his part, he thought it should be nine.

pointed out that they were placed in a practical difficulty by discussing two Amendments at once. He understood the Chief Secretary to accept one and to refuse the other; but if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the clause he would see he could not accept a cumulative vote without re-casting the clause, for, as it stood, there would be one vacancy at a time to fill up; and if there was but one vacancy at a time he would defy anyone to use the principle of a cumulative vote. As to the difficulty raised by the hon. Member who had just sat down, he thought it might not be insuperable. He had no doubt the hon. Member for Liskeard would accept the number of 12, and it would also be a convenient number, because it would give four vacancies every year. He had himself been intimately connected with University life; and he admitted the point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there was a great deal of difference between an examining University and the case of Oxford and Cambridge. But, on the other hand, nothing would sooner make a position for a new University than that it should have a considerable portion of its Senate elected by the graduates.

hoped the Government would stick to the Bill. They knew it now, and could fairly estimate how it would work. For the present it would be much better to stop as they were. It was not a Bill to last all time; and changes would be made, if necessary, in the future.

also advised the Government to stick to the original number, as the only result of the change would be to throw an undue balance of power into the hands of the Queen's Colleges. It was not a question of Protestant or Catholic, for the Irish were the most liberal people in the world, and their most influential Members of Parliament differed from them in general; but if this Bill was to be a success they must have men in the Senate who commanded the confidence of the public.

pointed out that the present number of the graduate Convocation of the Queen's University was 3,000; and at an ordinary valuation basis—say £100 a-year—it would take 30 years before the Queen's Colleges election was eliminated from the Convocation of the new University.

, in reply to the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), pointed out that he was far from being, inconsistent. The argument of the hon. Member was fallacious. They accepted 36 members, to be nominated by the Castle, and out of that number he suggested a certain number should after-wards be elected. There was no inconsistency of principle in that. He was perfectly willing to accept the modification of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair), and to accept 12 as the number. Many years must pass before the election of the additional members began; and it would not be until then that the additional power he suggested would come into play. By that time, they would certainly have a large number of graduates belonging to the new University, in addition to the graduates of the Queen's University. He might also be allowed to point out that in proposing the cumulative vote he had certainly given a great safeguard against the predominance of the Queen's Colleges. He might also state what might, perhaps, be a novel fact to the Members of the Committee, and, perhaps, to the Government. In 186G the government of the Queen's University was reformed under a Charter then granted, which provided that six out of 24 should be elected. What was the history of that transaction? The Government proposal at the time was that 12 out of 24 should be elected—six by the graduates, and six by the Professors—while his proposal was that only 18 out of 36 should be elected by Convocation. Convocation, in the case of the Queen's University, declined to concede so large a proportion of power as a quarter to the Professors. He believed that after the lapse of 12 years, with the cumulative vote, they would get a really fair representation of the academic life of the University; and he should, therefore, do his utmost to obtain the acceptance of the Amendment.

said, the next Amendment commended itself to the judgment of the Chief Secretary; but it was now perfectly valueless alter the recent Division, and he did not think it worth while moving it.

asked the hon. Member if he intended moving his Amendment?

replied that he did not.

begged to move, in page 2, line 4, after "six," to insert—

"That at any election of such elected members of the Senate, each member of Convocation shall have as many votes as there are persons to be elected, and shall be entitled to accumulate them or distribute them at his pleasure."

The principle was accepted everywhere else; and as it would work very well in the Bill he thought it might be inserted.

admitted that the Amendment would do no harm, but it impaired the symmetry of the measure to incumber it with a Proviso of this nature; and, therefore, he hoped it would not be pressed.

admitted that the Amendment would not have any effect; but if the hon. Member wished to introduce it he thought it contained a sound principle.

observed, that they must draw the Bill on intelligible grounds, and there never could be an opportunity as the Bill at present stood, when more than one person could be up for election at the same time. If the Committee would take the trouble to look at the Bill they would see it was so drawn that as each vacancy occurred a person should be elected to fill it. There might be six elections in each year; but there would be a separate election for each vacancy; and, therefore, what could be the good of the cumulative vote? Even if two members died on the same day their successors could not be elected at the same time; and, therefore, he thought they had better not put in the proposition.

said, if the hon. and learned Member wished the Amendment inserted he should offer no objection; but it certainly would impair the symmetry of the clause.

observed, that he could not think the Amendment useless. A time might come when there would be four, live, or six vacancies at the same time. Besides, some new system might be introduced. The number of members to be elected on the Senate might be increased. He thought it was altogether wrong to say that there should be separate elections for each vacancy. The principle was a sound one, as the Chief Secretary had said; and an occasion might arise when it could be used. It could do no harm; and, there fore, he should press the Amendment.

observed, that he must demur to the observation that this principle was a sound one. He had the greatest possible objection to this principle of the cumulation of votes; and he should object to any principle of that kind being introduced in that sort of way at that late period of the Session, when it could not be discussed.

suggested to the Chief Secretary that he should undertake to consider the matter on the Report, because it was absolutely certain the words could never be of any use.

said he would do so if the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment.

was very much surprised to hear the Chief Secretary say that this principle of cumulative voting-was a sound one. He should like to know whether it was a principle which had been approved by Her Majesty's Government, and whether they were definitely committed to it? It was applicable not merely to University elections in Ireland, but to a great number of other things. He believed it to be a thoroughly unsound principle, especially unsound when applied to educational matters, on which there were often great differences of opinion; and he must think it was a very singular thing that while Government had shown the greatest unwillingness to consider anything the hon. Member for Liskeard had proposed they should now almost jump at an Amendment which contained a principle that many of them thought a crotchet peculiar to the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney). If it was the intention of the Government to introduce this new principle into the Bill they would raise a new form of opposition to it, and so do a good deal to delay its progress. He should certainly think it his duty to take a Division on the subject whenever it was proposed, and in whatever form.

observed, that this was by no means a new principle, even in educational matters, because it was carried out in voting for members of the School Board.

hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn. It contained a very large principle, and if it were pressed they would have the distressing spectacle of a division in the Radical Party.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the matter was considered by the Chief Secretary before the Report.

hoped that the hon. Member for Cavan would not press his Amendment. He was in favour of it in the abstract; but he did not think it should be pressed at that time.

entirely differed from the opinion of the hon. Member for Cork. He thought that the Bill ought not to be pressed on under the circumstances. He really could not see upon what grounds the graduates of Queen's University were to be given votes in the Convocation of the new University. No argument in favour of that had been adduced. For these reasons, and until something could be said against the proposition he had asserted, he should challenge a Division. If a reasonable case could be shown upon its merits why he should not press his Amendment he would not do so. The hon. Member for Cork had offered no reason whatever against his Amendment. His experience of the way in which Bills passed through the House did not encourage him to withdraw from his opposition. What they were endeavouring to do was to make the Bill as nearly as possible what it ought to be.

said, that the hon. Member for Cavan wished to have his Amendment discussed upon its merits. He (Mr. J. Lowther) was not aware that it had any. '1 he hon. Member could hardly realize the proposition which he propounded—namely, that the entire existing members of Convocation of the Queen's University should be disestablished. He hoped he would withdraw his Amendment.

also trusted that the hon. Member for Cavan would not press his Amendment.

did not consider the questions raised by the hon. Member for Cavan should be thus summarily disposed of without discussion. The Amendment had this merit—it brought under the notice of the Committee the striking contrast between the professions made of placing Catholic interests on an equality with Protestant and secular interests, and the manner in which that Bill gave practical effect to those professions. Under the provisions of the Bill Secularists and Protestants were to be left in possession of the endowments of the Queen's Colleges. And in thus giving votes to the present graduates of the Queen's University they would have given to them a preponderating influence in the now University. Under these circumstances, he thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan was a sensible and fair one. If the Convocation of the Queen's University was admitted under the Bill to the privilege of voting, it was only right that graduates of the Catholic University should also be entitled to a like privilege.

would suggest to the hon. Member for Cavan, who had said that he would withdraw his Amendment if any reason was shown to him for doing so, that the Committee had already voted on the point that the members of the Senate were to be elected by Convocation, and the point now raised was beside the question altogether.

begged to withdraw his Amendment, and wished, at the same time, to state his reasons for doing so. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had imputed to him that he did not understand the result of his Amendment. He thoroughly understood it, and intended to carry out the plan that the graduates of the new University should be representative of that, and of no other body. He had given Notice of an Amendment to raise the number of elected members of the Senate from six to 18. He thought 18 was a proper number; and, seeing that the number of elected members would be so very small, he did not think that the Queen's College graduates should be allowed to be in a majority. Under the circumstances, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division. Before withdrawing his Amendment, he wished to say that he did not think that the Bill would do the slightest good to the Catholics of Ireland, and that hon. Mem- bers who were assisting in its passage into law would find that the end of the Act would be worse than the beginning. It would only intensify the present system of unfairness existing in Ireland.

wished to point out to hon. Members from Ireland that in passing the clause as it now stood, without any provision for re-considering the proportion of elected members of the Senate, and those appointed by the Crown, they were preparing a great difficulty for the future graduates of the University. In the University of London, there had been, for many years, very considerable discontent amongst the graduates that they had not sufficient power in their own University. He desired, therefore, to point out to hon. Members that if they wished to do the best for the new University they should introduce some clause by which, under certain circumstances, the proportion between the nominated and the elected members of the Senate could be altered. Speaking from his own experience in the University of London, he was sure that unless there were some mode of revising the proportion between the members elected and those nominated by the Crown considerable dissatisfaction would arise in the future.

said, that the Convocation of the new University was to consist of a Senate and graduates, and "other persons" to be appointed by the Crown. He did not understand' what was meant by "other persons." Were they to be qualified persons? That was perfectly new as regarded the constitution of a Convocation, and, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would explain what it meant. He thought there were very few hon. Members who wished to do any damage to the Queen's Colleges in Ireland; and yet, though the Queen's Colleges were made by the Bill to cease to be Colleges of the University, and the Professors of those Colleges would cease to be Professors of the University, if they did damage in that way to the Queen's Colleges they ought to do justice to them in the mode he would suggest, for the Queen's Colleges formed admirable Institutions. The Presbyterians of Ireland considered those Institutions admirably adapted to their wants, and the House ought to do nothing to endanger the efficiency of the teaching of those Colleges. That would be done if the Professors of the Queen's Colleges were made to cease to be Professors of the University. In the case of the Universities of Scotland the Convocation or General Council consisted of the Senate, of the graduates, and the Professors of the University; the Professors were not necessarily graduates of the particular University at which they were Professors, for they might be graduates of any other University; but they were members of the Convocation so long as they were Professors of the University. The Amendment which he now had to propose was connected with a subsequent Amendment, which had for its object to prevent damage to the Queen's Colleges, by keeping them in their position, and insuring that the Professors of the Colleges should continue to be Professors of the University. Irish Members most interested in Catholic education would see the importance and value of the Amendment. He was convinced that in the progress of legislation they would have to make well-defined Catholic Colleges as well as other Colleges, and then the Professors of the Catholic Colleges would he, by his Amendment, members of Convocation. In order to keep up the status of the Professors, he would move to insert after the word "graduate," "and of Professors of the University."

said, that they were not hostile to the Queen's Colleges; but he did think they might fairly object to any insertion in the Bill of a provision by which the whole body of the Queen's College Professors would be made members of Convocation. They ought to read the proposed Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University in connection with his other Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman really proposed to capsize the whole purport and intention of the Government Bill. He intended to raise the Queen's Colleges to the position of favoured University Colleges, which, in addition to their endowments, should, in a special manner, be attached to the new University. That would be absolutely fatal to the new University in Ireland. They had a strong objection to the present favoured position of the Queen's Colleges and the Queen's University in Ireland. In the clause in question, besides the Senate and graduates, it was provided that other persons should be members of the Convocation of the University. Therefore, under the provisions of the Bill, it might well happen that the most eminent Professors of the Queen's University would be appointed members of Convocation. But if they were made members of Convocation, as was proposed, the Government Bill would be destroyed altogether.

said, that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University was to constitute all the Professors of the Queen's College ex-officio members of Convocation. The Professors of the existing Queen's Colleges were ex-officio members of the Convocation of the existing Queen's University; but he saw no reason why that should continue to be the case under the very different circumstances of the proposed University.

was very anxious that it should be thoroughly understood that the Bill reduced the Queen's Colleges to the position of nothing better than ordinary endowed schools. By the Bill the Queen's Colleges, as Colleges of the University, were abolished, and the Professors of the Queen's Colleges were reduced from their position of Professors of the University to that of tutors of a College. A small section of Catholics took advantage of the Queen's Colleges, and a large proportion of Presbyterians; and yet it was proposed to reduce those Colleges merely to the level of common schools. Was it the wish of the House to give advantages to the Catholics upon University Education by the Bill; and was it the deliberate intention of the House that they should, at the same time, endanger the efficiency of the Queen's Colleges? If that was the purpose or effect, he should have given an uncompromising hostility to the Bill from the beginning. But he understood the proposition of the Bill to be that the Queen's Colleges were to be kept in a state of efficiency, in order that the Presbyterians, and such Catholics as chose, might continue to use them as at present. If the Queen's Colleges ceased to be Colleges of the University they would be mere schools; and if they made Professors cease to be Professors of the University they would reduce their position considerably. He did not ask that the Professors of the existing Universities should be made part of the Governing Body, by which he understood the Senate, of the new University; but simply that they should have places in Convocation among the 3,000 graduates who had been spoken of. Would this small number of Professors make much difference in so large a body, except by giving to it increased weight by the academic experience of its professorial members? But it would make the greatest difference to the Professors themselves to recognize them as Professors of the new University, and it would also make the greatest difference to the Queen's Colleges to be recognized as Colleges of the new University. If Scotch Members thought that the Government was going to injure the Queen's Colleges they would not give that support to the Bill which they had hitherto done; and they could not help thinking that unless the Amendment were adopted the effect of the Bill would be to reduce the Queen's Colleges from their position of University Colleges to mere schools.

remarked that, while holding the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he had made it his duty, not only to examine into the condition of the Colleges which he had actually visited, but, so far as he could, he had examined the work they did. No one would be less ready to support the Bill than he would, if he thought it would affect the efficiency of the Queen's Colleges. He did not believe that would be, in the slightest degree, the effect of the Bill. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there was a nominal connection between the Professors of the Queen's Colleges and the University at present; but that was all. Practically, the state of things was that the Professors were appointed, as Professors, nominally of the University, but really of the Colleges. Their teaching was confined to the Colleges to which they had been appointed, and they were in much the same position as the tutors of Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. In the Charter the Professors appeared as Professors of the University; but, in practice, their teaching had been exclusively confined to their respective Colleges. If, under the provisions of the Bill, it was possible, as he believed it was, to respect vested interests, even in name, of the existing Professors, he did not see any reason for endeavouring to perpetuate a nominal connection between the Professors and the University which it had been found impossible to carry out in practice. He believed that the real status of the Professors at the Queen's Colleges would be entirely protected by the Bill as it now stood, and that the Queen's Colleges would retain the position they had hitherto enjoyed, and would work well in connection with the new University.

said, that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh was founded on the assumption that the Committee would adopt another Amendment, by which he made the Queen's Colleges University Colleges of the new University. He wished to give the Queen's Colleges a position which he refused to give to Catholic Colleges. If equality were extended to the Roman Catholic Colleges, then he could understand the reasonableness of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman; but until that were done he must offer his most decided opposition to the proposed Amendment.

said, that his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh simply proposed that the Professors should form part of the Convocation. He must say that he thought it much more reasonable to provide that the Professors should be members of Convocation than to give power to the Crown to flood Convocation with persons of whose efficiency they had no guarantee. What better guarantee could be given of the suitability of those gentlemen to act as members of Convocation than that they had been appointed Professors of the Queen's Colleges?

remarked that, in his opinion, they could not adopt the present Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh to make the Professors of the Queen's Colleges the Professors of the University, unless they adopted his other Amendment to make the Queen's Colleges part of the University. They could not recognize the Professors of the Queen's Colleges as part of the University Colleges, unless they were prepared also to make the Professors of the Roman Catholic Colleges members of the University. A great deal could be said in favour of that course; but it was not the principle upon which the Bill proceeded.

desired to move an Amendment that stood in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), in order to obtain some information as to what was meant by the clause. It was provided that the Convocation of the University should consist of such graduates and "other persons" as might be appointed by the Crown. What Her Majesty's Government meant by "other persons" he did not know. He should, therefore, move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out "and other persons."

said, that the object of the power given to the Crown by that clause to appoint persons members of Convocation was to enable the Government to give effect to vested rights and interests. The Queen's University, at the present moment, comprised Professors and a Secretary, who were ex-officio members of Convocation. The provision in question would enable those persons holding the offices he had mentioned to be placed upon Convocation. The reason for putting the power in such general terms was to avoid specifying individuals, and to give power to the Government to protect any vested rights and interests which they thought desirable.

said, that the mode adopted by the Government of protecting vested rights and interests was a very awkward one. To put down the general term "other persons" was a curious way of providing for vested rights. He thought such vague general words as "other persons" most objectionable. He would suggest that it would be better to omit the words, and to specify by the clause minutely that those persons who, at the present time, had a right to admission to the Convocation of the Queen's University should be admitted members of Convocation of the new University. It would be much better to do that than to leave the clause in its present state.

said, that as the Committee had already decided that the Professors of the University should not be admitted members of Convocation of the new University it was a curious proposition that they should admit those words into the clause for the purpose of protecting the rights of persons whom they had already decided had no such rights. He should certainly support the Amendment.

said, that there was no other intention in the words than to protect those vested rights and interests. If any words could be inserted on Report, making that clearer and more explicit, he would do so.

would like to know what was meant by vested rights and interests?

said, that he meant to refer to the Professors of the University.

congratulated himself very much upon having moved the Amendment, because they had had a very clear exposition from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as to the fact that the Government considered that the Professors and Secretary of the Queen's University had vested rights. The Government intended that they should be members of the new Convocation, and the right hon. Gentleman had promised that he would take care that a power should be taken to make them so.

thought that Her Majesty's Government was treating the Committee in a rather curious way. First, they refused admission to those persons; then they said that general words were intended to admit them. If they had intended to admit those persons at first, it would have been well that they should have informed the House before asking them to vote against their admission. They were left very much in the dark as to the intentions of the Government. Why the House should withdraw its confidence from the Professors of the existing Queen's Colleges because they were so he did not know.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had proposed an Amendment to the effect that Professors of the Queen's University should be members of Convocation. In answer to that Amendment, he had said that they would be eligible to be appointed members of Convocation. The Government had been perfectly consistent in refusing to make the Professors ex-officio members of Convocation, and in taking a power to make them members of Convocation, if it was thought desirable.

did not think that the words could be left as they stood in the Bill without further explanation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had told them that a power was not required to appoint any other persons than the present Professors; and yet, under the power taken, the Crown could appoint any person it chose. Parliament was asked to give power to appoint any person whatever. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not mean to use that power, but only to admit certain qualified persons to Convocation. But if the power were not meant to be used, why was it taken in the Bill? It might be very easily restricted to the persons in whose favour the Government intended to use it. It seemed to him that the proper course would be to strike the words in question from the Bill, and to put in a proper definition upon Report.

thought it would be quite sufficient if the words were left in the clause, and amended, as promised, by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, upon Report.

said, that the words at present in the clause were misleading, and there was no use in continuing them. It would be much better to strike them out, and to insert a fresh provision upon Report.

did not coincide with the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to striking out the words from the clause. He was in favour of leaving the clause as it was, and introducing a limitation, although protecting vested rights and interests upon Report. He would undertake to do that.

observed, that if the clause were passed as it stood they would be really abrogating their functions as a legislative body. The clause simply gave power to the Crown to flood Convocation with any number of persons it pleased. It ought to be struck from the clause.

said, the discussion upon this part of the clause was a contest between "tweedledum and tweedledee." What difference did it make whether the right hon. Gentleman limited the words, or struck them out, and brought up fresh ones on the Report? He could see no use in fighting about words.

said, the Government were constantly in the habit of promising that they would do things on Report; but when Report was reached there was no opportunity for any discussion at all. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the words meant a certain class of persons whom he specified. Why, then, could not the clause be altered at once, so as to indicate them distinctly?

thought it better that the clause should be allowed to stand without alteration.

thought the words should be struck out at once. They were not to be in the Bill, according to the assurance of the Government, and there could be no reason for retaining them.

had stated exactly what he intended to propose on Report. If the hon. Gentleman could not trust him, he could trust the hon. Gentleman. He had promised that the words should be struck out.

said he did not intend to move the Amendments stand- ing in his name, because he thought it better, as, practically, the whole Bill would have to be taken over again next year, to allow the clause to pass as it stood.

said, they were bound to consider whether University Education was best promoted by having the examinations open to men and women. Of course, hon. Members were aware that Parliament had passed a Statute enabling all Universities to open their examinations in medicine to women. They might also be aware that the University of London, to which reference had been more than once made, had by a new Charter last year opened all its degree examinations to women. As far back as 1876 the University of London was authorized, by Supplementary Charter, to hold examinations and give certificates of proficiency to women, just as was contemplated by this Bill with respect to Ireland. Application was made to the Crown for a new Charter, to extend degree examinations to women the same as to men, and this was granted on the 4th of March, 1878. So that in the University of London, upon which the new Irish University was in some degree to be modelled, men and women were admitted upon equal terms. The first year's result of this change had been extremely satisfactory—65 women having entered for the Examination, and 29 having passed with honours—the percentage of those who passed with honours being greater than in the case of the men candidates. There existed an absolute demand for the examination of women for the same degrees as men; and if the same opening was presented to women in the Irish University as existed at the University of London, it would, of course, be attended with the same results. He would add one or two facts to show to how great an extent the opening of University degrees to women had been adopted in the Universities of the world. England, he was obliged to say, was the most behind in civilization in its reluctance to open degree examinations to women. There was only one other civilized nation—namely, Russia, where degree examinations were not open to women. In Denmark all degrees were open. In Lyons and Paris women had taken degrees in Art and Science since 1871. In Leipsic, women had taken degrees for the last five years. In Holland, they had been admitted to examination. In Italy, all degrees were open to women. In Russia, the University of Moscow was open to women for lectures only. In New Zealand examinations for degrees were open to women. With those examples before them, with the example of what had been done in the University of London, and with the fact that the University now in contemplation was, as nearly as possible, like the University of London, he would like to hear what arguments could be adduced against the proposal to throw open degree examinations to women in Ireland, and would, therefore, move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out from "including," to "necessary," in line 2, inclusive, and insert "both of men and women."

hoped, very sincerely, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) would be accepted. This was no question of what was ordinarily called "women's rights." If women chose to cultivate their brains—as he trusted they would do to a greater extent than they had done hitherto—and if they desired to have the same certificates of proficiency as were open to men, they had clearly no right to refuse them University degrees, even if they refused them to Catholics. He trusted that the Amendment would be accepted, without the Committee being put to the trouble of a Division.

was one of those who believed that God had made women different to men, and therefore objected to the Amendment.

thought that the provision for granting certificates of proficiency contained in the clause would meet the case. He could not agree to the Amendment.

urged that if there was equality of examination with regard to men and women there should be equality of degree also. Surely in the new University they could not place women in an inferior position with regard to their certificates to that in which men were placed. He hoped the Amendment would meet with the approval of the Committee.

said, the Government wished to avoid that women should become members of Convocation. He would consider the question of degrees before Report.

thought his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was resorting too freely to consideration on Report. By making a hasty alteration, at that hour of the night, they might do a good deal of damage one way or another; and he, therefore, trusted his right hon. Friend would stick to his original intention, and leave the words as they were.

had understood that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would arrange so as to give women the advantage of the Bill without making them members of Convocation. If hon. Members stood up for the equality of rights of Irishmen, they were equally bound to stand up for the equality of rights of Irish women. English women could get these degrees; and, therefore, there was no reason in the world why Irish women should not get them also.

said, very few ladies in Ireland would ever avail themselves of the privilege of becoming members of Convocation.

had understood the Chief Secretary for Ireland to say that the Government were perfectly willing that, as in the University of London, both men and women should be admitted to the same examination; and if they passed the same examination with the same proficiency that they should have both the same degrees, but that he did not want them to become members of Convocation. That was the real point of contention. Were the Committee to understand from the Chief Secretary for Ireland that, on Report, he would introduce words which would give women in Ireland the right of attending the same examinations, undergoing the same test, and enjoying the same degree, but not of becoming members of Convocation?

thought it would be a great pity if these intermediate examinations were given up. They had done a great deal in England to encourage intellectual cultivation amongst girls of the middle class, and he believed that hon. Members would be glad to see the same thing in Ireland. With regard to the demand for degrees for women, he would say that formerly he had steadily opposed the conferring of degrees upon women; but he confessed that he saw a great deal in the argument of his hon. Friend, who asked why, if degrees were conferred upon women in England, they should not also be conferred upon women in Ireland? and he did not see how that could be fairly answered.

suggested that the point might be settled by striking out the words "degrees, and such" in line 42.

said, the difficulty of accepting that would be that it did not touch the question of giving these female graduates the right of voting in Convocation. The matter required very careful consideration; and it would, he thought, be better to leave the clause, for the present, exactly as it stood.

said, there was no wish to force women to take degrees. All that was desired was that they should be able to take them if they liked. It appeared to him that the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had suggested the true solution of the difficulty. If the words "degrees, and such" were omitted, the Government could have no difficulty whatever with regard to the clause. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment, in order that the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire should move the omission of the words "degrees, and such."

hoped that the hon. and learned Member would not press his Amendment to a Division. They had an understanding on the part of the Government that the same facilities would be given to Irish women as to English women, and he did not think that anything could be more satisfactory.

said, that, as an undertaking had been given to the Committee he would not move his Amendment.

said, that the Amendment which he wished to propose was to limit the graduates of Queen's University, who were to be graduates of the future University, to those possessing educational qualifications. It was provided that all the existing graduates of Queen's University would continue to be graduates of the future University. They hoped and expected that the new University would be a University of really high standing; but, at present, the examinations passed by the graduate of Queen's University were of an illusory character. The graduates of Queen's University were admitted by a matriculation of a nominal character, and any hon. Member would find that the matriculation examination was a perfect farce. In the existing Queen's Colleges there were, practically, no rejections for matriculation, and all the examinations were of a most elementary and easy character. The examination for the pass degree was very simple. A couple of books of Virgil, and a couple of books of Xenophon, and a little knowledge of Latin and Greek grammar, passed a candidate. In fact, the examinations at Queen's University could be easily passed by a man of a little classical knowledge by six weeks' reading. Strong as were his objections to the pass degree of the Queen's University, yet his objection to admit as graduates of the future University, and of all the powers of attending Convocation, and voting the professional graduates of the Queen's University, was infinitely stronger. His objection arose from the simple fact that there was no general culture required in the case of an M.D., or of a graduate in civil engineering in the Queen's University. For instance, a man could go through the whole M.D. course without receiving anything like the education required even for a B.A. degree. Some years ago a statement was publicly made that the M.D. degree could be obtained at Queen's University without the requirements for a B.A. degree, and the writers in Dublin, accustomed to the practice of Trinity College, refused to believe that assertion. That fact had since been admitted; and it was now known that not even the first University examination in arts was required to be passed by students for an M.D. degree, or the civil engineering degree. Those degrees were mere professional degrees, and could not in any sense be described as University degrees. As a professional degree, that of M.D. at the Queen's University might be of some value; but as a graduate was not required to go through any course of general literature and culture, it was clear that his qualifications to be considered an educated man were very slight indeed. He mentioned these matters for the purpose of showing that some limitation ought to be placed upon the admission of the graduates of Queen's University to be members of the future University. He did not think that an M.D. and a civil engineering graduate of Queen's University should be admitted members of the proposed University, unless they had passed, at least, the first University examination in arts. He proposed that all members of Queen's University who had passed in honours should become graduates of the new University, and professional graduates who had passed the first examination in arts. It would really injure the future University if an overwhelming number of merely nominal graduates from the present Queen's University was forced upon it. When it was proposed to lower the standard of the Queen's University the existing graduates protested against it, and the graduates of Belfast presented a Memorial; the graduates of Galway did not present a Memorial, but individually spoke as strongly against the proposed lowering of the degree as any. Notwithstanding that the standard for the degree was lowered, there were at present 17 varieties of honour degrees. With regard to the pass degree, it was arranged on a plan giving the student an almost unlimited power of selection. There were pass subjects which could undergo almost any amount of grouping. The result was a most extraordinary want of uniformity, and a want of general culture. He was willing to leave over the discussion on the matter to next year, because he wanted to see how the Bill would work. But he protested against flooding the new University with a number of men who had no title to any general culture, and who occupied the position they did simply because the existing Queen's University had yielded to the temptation of lowering the standard for their degrees. He begged to move, in page 3, line 21, after "graduates," to insert—

"In arts with honours, or graduates in medicine, law, or engineering, who have passed with honours the first University examination in arts."

said, that it was quite impossible to insert those words in the clause.

hoped that the hon. Member would not divide upon this Amendment. It was, no doubt, to be regretted that a high standard had not been kept up in the Queen's University. They all hoped, nevertheless, that one sufficiently high would be maintained in the new University. He should give the Bill the best support he could, avoiding all Amendments which were not indispensable, and he trusted that all hon. Members would show the like forbearance.

said, he would be satisfied with, having his Amendment simply negatived.

said, that this clause proposed to transfer the endowments of Queen's University to the new University. He wished, also, to transfer the public endowments of the Queen's Colleges, as well as those of the Queen's University, to the new University. He did not interfere with the provision that followed, by which it was provided that where any trusts had been created in respect of public endowments those trusts should continue to be carried out; but he thought that the endowments of the Queen's Colleges ought to be thrown into the common fund. It had been suggested before that the students of the Queen's Colleges should be excluded from competing for the general prizes of the University, while prizes which were open to them could not be competed for by the other students of the University. He now proposed that the public endowments of the Queen's Colleges should follow the fate of the public endowments of the Queen's University, and should go to the common fund of the new University. He begged to move in page 3, line 32, after "University," to insert "and the Queen's Colleges."

said, that the principle laid down by the Government was that the Queen's Colleges were to be left intact, and they should not interfere with them in the manner proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

said, that he only wished to deal with the endowments of the Queen's Colleges. He would, therefore, alter his Amendment that stood in his name by saying the endowments of the Queen's Colleges.

would venture to say a few words in favour of the Amendment. Unless they had something of that sort they could not possibly have equality in the subsequent clauses to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He believed that equality would be better brought about by opening the endowments to all students than by confining those of the Queen's Colleges to their own students. That was the way in which proper equality should be aimed at. They did not wish that any or all the students from the Queen's Colleges should be precluded from competing for the University prizes; but it would be unfair to give to the students of the Queen's Colleges the exclusive right to compete for the prizes and Exhibitions provided out of the public funds, and at present attached to those Colleges, and to allow them, in addition, to compete for the new prizes. He thought it was so obvious an inequality that some alteration would have to be made. Whether the hon. Member for Dungarvan would think it right to go to a Division upon the Amendment, or to raise the question upon the Estimates, he did not know; but one thing was quite certain—that so long as the inequality existed the Queen's College Estimates could never come before Parliament without the question being raised that their endow- ments should be thrown open to all students of the University. If his hon. Friend went to a Division, he should certainly support him.

said, that hon. Members could hardly expect that the Queen's Colleges should all go at one blow. With respect to the Arts Department, he should certainly vote with the hon. Member. But besides the Arts Department there were the Professional and Physical Departments, which were in no sense sectarian. Hon. Members could scarcely wish that the great advantage that Ireland enjoyed in respect of professional and physical education, being supported and maintained by the State, should be abolished. He hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed, as the effect of it would be to deprive the country of the professional and physical education which was now given in the Queen's Colleges.

was opposed to the Amendment, because he thought its purport would be to endow other Colleges instead of the Queen's Colleges.

said, that the principle raised by the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan was a very important one, and one in which he heartily concurred, and if his hon. Friend went to a Division he should certainly vote with him. He questioned whether it would be wise, however, to press the Amendment to a Division, as they could hardly expect to carry it at present, and it would be well to postpone its consideration to some future occasion. He was strongly in favour of throwing open all endowments; but he did not think it would be wise to take all the endowments from one College and throw them all into one boat, and let all the students compete for them. In Ireland they had three Queen's Colleges; and that at Belfast, which was at present Presbyterian, they should not interfere with. They hoped that that College would become useful for Catholics as well. On a future occasion the question that must arise out of that Bill would be that they should make those remaining Colleges useful to the localities in which they were situate, or else to take away their endowments. He would rather wait a year to see the effect of the Bill, for they would then be able to consider the question better than on the present occasion.

said, that all the Amendment did was to propose that the Exhibitions of the Queen's Colleges should not be left entirely to the students at those Colleges, but should be open to all students of the University. It was proposed, in fact, to throw all the endowments into one common fund. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) seemed to think that the purport of the Amendment would be to endow other Colleges. That was not so. They only wanted to transfer the Exhibitions, hitherto confined to the students of the Queen's Colleges, to the new University, and to allow all students to compete for those prizes on equal terms, whether they came from the Queen's Colleges or from any other College. There was an exception in the new clause, that if students from Queen's Colleges obtained University prizes then the prizes they had obtained at the Queen's Colleges should be taken into account. That would be, in effect, to take from the students the prizes which they had obtained in their own Colleges. His hon. Friend below him was in favour of keeping Collegiate Education and endowing it; but he would point out to him that the purport of the Bill was to do away with and separate Collegiate Education from University Education. What they required was Collegiate Education connected with University Education, and that they had been refused. Having been refused that, they wanted all the students of the University placed on the same footing. If they wanted Colleges for the purpose of education, and not merely for the purpose of securing Exhibitions, let the students of the Colleges have no special prizes, but compete for all Exhibitions upon equal terms with other members of the University. At that hour of the morning it might be useless to go to a Division; but if his hon. Friend pressed his Amendment he considered that the matter was so plain that he should vote with him.

said, he knew that he would be beaten, and he had already shown, he thought, that he had no disposition to trouble the Committee with Divisions, which he did not think of great importance. There was, however, a distinct meaning in this Amendment, and, therefore, he meant to take a Division. If there was not to be levelling up there must be levelling down, and by going into the Lobby he, at any rate, nailed his flag to the mast. He begged very respectfully to assure hon. Members from England and Scotland that this Bill, which received so very large an amount of toleration from Irish Members, had one point in it upon which they did not want that toleration to be open to any misinterpretation. The Amendment he proposed was a little crude, no doubt; but there was no necessity to go into the minutiæ of language where there was no chance of its being accepted. The principle of it was the point which he wished to urge, and that was that there should be no endowments set aside for students of the Queen's Colleges, unless there were to be endowments set aside for students of the Catholic Colleges. That was a broad issue, upon which he would take a Division without further words.

hoped his hon. Friend would not take a Division, because he would not have all those who agreed with him voting with him if he did. They could not get in this Session the full measure of University Education which they would like to see passed; but they had come to that stage without any dissents, and they meant to pass this Bill into an Act. There had been no bargain on their part. It was not necessary for him to emphasize, over and over again, what he had previously said—that no Catholic could look upon this Bill as a settlement of the University Question in Ireland. It did not even purport to be that. It simply gave the power to a new Body to formulate a scheme; and how that scheme and how that Body would work they did not know. It was not necessary for him to go into a Lobby and join in a Division with his hon. Friend in order to express or emphasize his opinion. There was certain work before them; and, wishing to see this Bill passed in some shape, he thought it would be a waste of time to divide.

observed, that there was no doubt the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was perfectly right in saying that he could not carry this Amendment; but he could not agree that that was a reason for not dividing upon it. It would place the position of the Irish Members in this matter on record, and would show that they did not recognize this Bill as a settlement, so long as it preserved the anomaly of having endowed Colleges and unendowed Institutions. They would, therefore, take a formal Division as to the necessity of disendowing these Queen's Colleges, or of endowing the others. The minutes spent in that could not be a waste of time.

also thought it would be a good thing to spend a few minutes in dividing. The Government would do well to admit the principle, either now, or next year; and certainly it would be better for them to admit it in time. The position in regard to University Education was that the Government was offering the Catholics of Ireland a University without any means of educating themselves so as to come up to the conditions of that University. The Government was putting them in competition with the Queen's Colleges, endowed by the State with professorial endowments, and so forth, and they were establishing a University Body; but they were not going to give teaching advantages which they had given to the godless Colleges. Therefore, they must either lower the standard of education in order to obtain degrees to such a standard as might enable the Catholics of Ireland, unprovided as they were with any teaching facilities, to take those degrees, or they must be kept to such a standard as would render it impossible for Catholics to compete with them. All this would render a wrangle and struggle upon this question next Session a matter of inevitable necessity, and would render a struggle on the Queen's College Estimates also a matter of necessity; because if these Colleges were maintained without some counterbalancing advantages to the Catholic Colleges also there would be a gross and clear inequality.

thought Her Majesty's Ministers must, by this time, have become convinced that the Bill they had laid upon the Table was not so valuable as a soothing mixture as they thought it would be. They had already been warned that the Queen's College Votes were to be considered just as if this Bill had not been brought in; and not only had they had a long consideration of this Bill this year, but the attack, clearly, would be revived next year. To his mind, also, it was perfectly clear that this Bill made the attack very much more forcible than it was before. The Government had brought out, as if they desired to make it as distinct as possible, the inequality between the Queen's Colleges and other forms of education. As long as they maintained the Collegiate Education, established by a Conservative far-seeing Government, they were able to maintain the system as it stood. The Government now had broken it down, and had put a University upon a basis it would be impossible to maintain. They could not maintain the endowments to the Queen's Colleges, where students were training for the University, and keep other students deprived of them. He was perfectly persuaded that the Bill now laid on the Table would have to be completed, sooner or later, by the disendowment of the Queen's Colleges. He was not going to vote with the hon. Member for Dungarvan, because this was a very considerable question which could not be settled by certain words inserted in the Amendment; and there was still the chance left open to them that they might be able to establish a Collegiate system at an University satisfactory to both Parties. It was for that reason he supported, as strongly as he possibly could, the remission of the whole question to the examination of a Royal Commission, who might have devised something that would be the best guarantee for that. Now they had, however, brought in this miserable Bill, which destroyed and did not preserve; and the reward of the Government was to be found in the threats already held out to them of what they would have to do next year.

was rather surprised to hear this argument from his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). It was a familiar argument, used over and over again, whenever any measure of justice was offered—that by opening the door and allowing any portion of equality they invited those who demanded that portion to demand more. That was the very kind of argument so often used against a measure of Catholic education. It was said—"If you once emancipate the Catholics and give them a vote they will ask something else, and will be content with nothing but absolute authority in the end." Nothing which was done now would, he supposed, prevent the Catholics from going further and asking for still more, and having, in the end, an absolute equality. They did not regard the offers made to them by this very small Bill as anything like a bribe to buy their silence. He could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, and that House, and the Irish Government, that those who represented the claims of the Irish Catholics would go on asking and insisting for more and more, until their religion stood in the same position as that of any other class in the country.

asked the Chairman's instructions on two or three words introduced by this Amendment. He believed that it was not possible in that way to repeal an Act of Parliament; and these endowments of the Queen's Colleges were, by Act of Parliament, a charge upon the Consolidated Fund every year. As he understood, they could not indirectly, by thus inserting two or three words, set aside the conditions of an Act of Parliament without directly repealing it. What would be the effect of this Amendment when carried? That by those two or three words they would repeal the Act of Parliament, and all the provisions and directions of that Act, without placing it in a Schedule, or in any other way referring to it.

The right hon. Gentleman asks me as to the power of the Committee to deal with this Amendment. It does not appear to me to be outside the province of the Committee to adopt an Amendment which may have the effect of repealing the provisions of an Act of Parliament. It may be necessary or desirable, if it is carried, to introduce subsequent provisions into the Bill to declare the intentions of the Committee upon the point; but it appears to me it is certainly in the power of the Committee to repeal an Act of Parliament by an Amendment introduced into this clause.

expressed a hope that the Amendment would not be pressed.

said, he was only proposing to do what was done when the University of London was increased. The old University of London was the present University College in Gower Street; and, in order that the Professors of that Institution should suffer no diminution in the status of their position, the title of University College was conferred on that College, and they were all made Professors of that College. He thought, without in the least going back on the decisions to which they had come, it would be possible to carry out this Amendment. At the same time, he knew perfectly well that with the majority of the Government it would be no use in pressing it to a Division if it were opposed; and, therefore, he would withdraw it.

asked, what position the Queen's Colleges would occupy when this Bill became law? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had told them they would occupy the position of endowed schools; while the Chief Secretary had said they would retain their old position.

pointed out that the future position of Queen's Colleges, so long as they existed, would really depend upon their merits. If they gave a sound and excellent education they would have a very fine position throughout Ireland. His impression was, how- ever, that hon. Gentlemen should not put to the Irish Secretary conundrums of that description at that hour of the night.

thought the question was a very reasonable one. The Queen's Colleges in Ireland would be in the same position as when they were constituted under the Act of 1845; and it would be remembered that the present Bill did not in the least affect the status of those Colleges. They would, therefore, remain in the same position that they now occupied.

understood the question rather to be what position they would be in as regarded the University.

wished to call attention to the fact that the Professors of the Queen's Colleges now obtained fees by acting as Examiners to the Queen's University, and he wished to know whether their salaries in that respect would be preserved by this clause?

replied, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had given him no Notice of the question, and, therefore, he was not quite certain upon the subject; but he apprehended that all the rights of the Professors would be preserved by that clause.

asked if it was competent for him to move any Amendment?

The hon. Member would have been perfectly able to move any Amendment in the clause before the Question was put that it be added to the Bill. That having been put, it is not competent to him to move an Amendment.

said, he hoped the Government had no intention of pressing that clause then. It was of the very essence of the Bill; and if it were discussed fairly and honestly it ought to occupy some hours. It was a new clause, which altered the whole character of the Bill; and if it were passed at that hour of the morning it was impossible that it could receive that honest consideration which it deserved. They had advanced the Bill already very far indeed in the time spent upon it. No waste of time had been shown in discussing it; and it would advance the interests of the Government and of this measure alike, if this clause were considered at a time when they would be able fully to discuss it. He begged to move to report Progress. ["No, no!" "Go on!"]

said, the Government had no wish to press the Committee; but he gathered from the expressions of opinion that it was the general wish of the Committee that they should conclude the Bill that night. There were not many Amendments to this clause; and, of course, at that period of the Session, it was very difficult indeed to get time to discuss proposals at length. The Committee had been very patient and good-humoured, and he was sure would listen readily to the right hon. Gentleman.

declared it was most unreasonable that they should approach this new clause at that time. They had done very well already in their work that night, and the Government ought to be extremely satisfied. They had been at work ever since 2 o'clock, and they had gone right through the Bill, not delaying in any way by discussion on any points raised; every Amendment, in fact, had been discussed in a summary fashion, and question after question rapidly decided. Up to the present no alteration whatever had been made in the Bill; but they would now have to discuss a totally new point, involving the consideration of the new University and the way in which it was to be worked, and it was most outrageous to suggest that they should, even at that period of the Session, be asked to proceed. He would not detain the Committee; but he would certainly divide if any attempt were made to go on in this way.

did not agree on this question with some of his Colleagues; and, considering the importance of this clause, he thought the Government should agree to report Progress, especially as this clause was of the very utmost importance.

pointed out that the House had sat recently until 3 o'clock in the morning to transact Business; and he really thought at that late period of the Session they might take another hour and a-half to finish this Bill. By making their speeches short and to the point they might easily get through by that time, and he did not see any reason why they should not.

said, he had come up to town especially to hear the discussion on this measure, although he had taken no part in the debate. It was absolutely essential that this great change should be discussed when the debates would be reported, and the action of the Government would be understood in the country; and not at a time when it was perfectly certain that their speeches, whether long or short, would not be published.

remarked, that the hon. Members who were now calling out most lustily to go on were the very Gentlemen who had, night after night, during the Session, thrown all sorts of impediments in the way of Business of the smallest importance being discussed at that hour of the morning. ["No, no!"] Why, those hon. Members would not even let people speak. They not only wished to take up three-quarters of the Session themselves, but they compelled other speakers to talk three times as long as they would do by shouting out "Oh, oh!" and "Divide!" Night after night, when the Government had attempted to take some very unimportant Business at 1 or half-past 1, they had been stopped from doing so by the very Members who now begged them to go on. He appealed to the Division Lists and to the Government themselves in proof of what he said. He had been sitting in that House almost continuously since 2 o'clock, and he must confess he did not feel himself ready to go on and discuss this most important clause. He had not attempted to throw any unnecessary impediment in the way of the Government; and the few occasions on which he ventured to intrude had been generally to ask some hon. Friend to withdraw a Motion of which he had given Notice. What was it they were asked to do? To consider a clause only divulged to them on the second reading. When the Bill left the House of Lords there was nothing in it about endowment, and there was not a shadow of allusion to it in the speech of the Lord Chancellor, when he was questioned on the subject. The Bill considered in the House of Lords was the one they had been considering that evening; but now a new clause was introduced, endowing the new University which they were about to create; and, therefore, he did think that the appeal to the Government to report Progress was necessary, considering the important question involved in this proposition.

said, personally, he was quite ready to sit there for any number of hours; but after an expression of opinion from so many Members he did not think the Government would gain anything by attempting to go on. He had always thought that it was not well to go on with Business at that hour of the morning, when the House had been sitting for a considerable time, and had made substantial progress with a measure. He himself was, of course, quite ready to go on; but he really thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would gain instead of losing time by reporting Progress.

said, instead of wasting time the best thing would be to take a Division.

said, the words with which this clause commenced indicated very clearly that they were asked to discuss a new Bill. It began exactly like aPreamble—"Whereas it is desirable, &c., &c." They were asked to discuss an entirely new principle, at a time when not a word would be reported, and he, therefore, thought that the debate had better be adjourned. He begged to move that the Chairman leave the Chair.

said, there was no doubt whatever of the great importance of this Bill, and there seemed to be a disposition on the part of a very large proportion—an immense majority of the House—to go on. On the other hand, Gentlemen who asked for the adjournment were Gentlemen who had given very great attention to this subject, and had taken part in a very long discussion which had already taken place; and he could not but admit that that discussion had been conducted with very great attention, and care, and moderation. He thought that the best way would be for him to agree to the Motion to report Progress, with a view to taking the Bill that morning at 12 o'clock, when he hoped they would be able to terminate their labours.