My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to suspend the Sessional Order, which provides that no private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after 18th June, in favour of the Liverpool Corporation (Streets and Buildings) Bill. The circumstances under which I ask for this indulgence are that, although the Bill was introduced at the proper time by the promoters and no fault rests with them, it was not found possible to take it in the Police and Sanitary Committee of the other House of Parliament until a very late date. In fact, the Bill was only reported to the other House on 17th July; it was read a third time on 22nd July, and no time has been lost in submitting it to your Lordships. If your Lordships will be good enough to suspend the Standing Order, the Committee stage could stand over until the meeting of Parliament later in the year.

My Lords, I rise to move that the Order made on 25th March last, that no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after 18th June, be dispensed with. The Dover Graving Docks Bill is the result of negotiations which have been pending for some time, and I am glad to say that the opposition which was threatened to the Bill has been withdrawn. Graving docks are urgently needed at Dover. There are no dry docks between Southampton and London, and the English cross-Channel steamers are sent to Calais for repair. Those responsible for the management of the port of Dover agreed with the promoters of this Bill that it was desirable that the scheme as originally submitted to a Committee of the other House of Parliament for the construction of two large graving docks should be approved, but in deference to the view of the Admiralty the scheme has been reduced, and it is now proposed to construct only one graving dock. Those interested in the port of Dover are hopeful that at some future time the present restrictions may be withdrawn. In conclusion, I have to inform your Lordships that all the local authorities of Dover, the harbour board, the town council, the chamber of commerce, and the railway companies, have petitioned in favour of the Bill, and I therefore hope your Lordships will suspend the Standing Order and give the Bill a Second Reading.

My Lords, I wish to support the Motion which the noble Lord has just moved, and I hope the Admiralty, on reconsideration, will not place a limit on the size of the docks. I have had considerable experience in these matters, having been a member of the Swansea Harbour Trustees for nearly forty years. Graving docks have been constructed there from time to time, and the result has always been, that a dock constructed to meet present requirements has invariable been found in a few years to have been too small; and unless there is special reason for limiting the size of the dock at Dover, I hope, for the benefit of the people who are taking an active part in its construction and the shipping community generally, that the restrictions as to the size of the dock will be removed. I am glad that the opposition to the Second Reading has been withdrawn, but I would strongly press upon the Admiralty and those who are in authority at Dover to consider very carefully the question of the size of the dock to be constructed, so that no capital may be wasted, and that the port may benefit from the experience of other ports in the construction of docks of a similar nature.

, who had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move "That the Bill be read a second time this day three months," said: My Lords, I think I ought to explain that in putting on the Paper this Amendment, which I have since withdrawn, I had no desire to place any impediment in any way to the construction of these graving docksat Dover. My object was to avoid anything like obstruction in the future to a Channel ferry service being established, and we consequently approached the promoters and have been able to arrive at a satisfactory agreement on this matter. In those circumstances I do not intend to move the Amendment standing in my name.

My Lords, I had the opportunity of some conversation with the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees upon this matter last week, and I am glad to be able to respectfully advise your Lordships to agree to the Motion. In this case, again, there is no fault lying at the door of the promoters. The delay was caused on account of objections taken by the Board of Admiralty to some of the provisions of the Bill, objections far-reaching and in the nature of public policy. These matters have been adjusted to the satisfaction of the Admiralty, but the negotiations have had the effect of delaying the presentation of the Bill to your Lordships. In these cir- cumstances, and as it will now pass, I understand, as an unopposed measure, I hope the House will agree to the Motion.

My Lords, I wish to state in a few words the view of the Admiralty. In the first instance the Admiralty objected to the Bill, for the reason that if the dock was made the size originally proposed, it would take away a large amount of water from the naval harbour. Since then the promoters have modified their original proposal, and the Admiralty now see no reason to oppose the Second Reading. The Admiralty, however, intend to submit a number of Amendments of a protective character when the Bill goes before the Select Committee. With that reservation, they offer no opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill.

rose to call attention to certain modified regulations which have been adopted recently by the Board of Trade in respect to the qualifying time in charge of a watch required of those candidates for Board of Trade certificates as mate or master who have served an apprenticeship on approved sea-going training vessels; to refer to the protest against these new regulations which has been entered by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild; to ask why the opinion of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee was not firstly ascertained before the new regulations were adopted; and to move "That, in the opinion of this House, these modified regulations are a departure from assurances given in this House by the Board of Trade, and that it is desirable that the new regulations should be withdrawn before they can become in any way operative."

My Lords, in calling attention to the Notice which stands in my name, I am bringing before your Lordships what, I feel, is a very serious matter. We are all deeply concerned in the question of safety of life at sea, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that we should discountenance in the strongest way any changes or alterations which may minimise the safety of our sailors or the seagoing public. If there is one thing more than another which is absolutely essential in promoting or ensuring safety it is that, the ships which fly our Red Ensign should be commanded and officered by the most competent, capable, and experienced men. At the present time, thanks to the efficiency of the certified commanders and officers of our merchant fleet, we can feel nothing but pride at the way in which our ships are navigated in all quarters of the globe. Therefore, I contend that the Board of Trade have no right whatever to tamper with the existing conditions, thus subjecting our merchant ships to greater risk and converting efficiency into possible disaster. I know that the standard of the examinations for Board of Trade certificates of competency has been improved of late years, but I do not know that, even yet, it is by any means perfect. It may also be said, and I do not disagree with it, that the possession of a certificate does not necessarily ensure ability and efficiency in the particular sphere which the certificate enables the holder of it to enter. A good mathematician may not be a good seaman or vice versa. It is the same in all professions, whether the sea or otherwise. But I do claim that a certificate of the kind imbues the holder of it with a due sense of his responsibilities, and that he is directly answerable to the Government for any misdoings or for any culpable negligence in carrying out the duties and responsibilities vested in him. What makes the certificate of even more value is that it proves that the holder of it has had sound practical experience at sea for a number of years. And, in the case of certificates for the higher grades, they indicate that the owners of them have had considerable experience in sole charge of a watch—that is, they clearly understand what it means to be in charge of the bridge and de facto of the ship during certain watches each day. I trust that your Lordships will agree with me when I say that no man should be granted a certificate as first officer or captain of a British ship until he can produce the necessary testimony that he has had experience of this kind, for it is only then that by practical experience he is thoroughly alive to the most serious responsibilities which devolve upon him in occupying a position of enormous trust on board ship. Until the present time the Board of Trade have evidently been of a similar opinion. Finding that their previous regulations were being evaded, the Board issued a special circular to their examiners laying particular stress on the necessity of candidates proving that they had been in regular charge of a watch, or watches, during each day. The Board state that, in the foreign trade, the time served in charge of a watch must amount to not less than eight hours of each twenty-four hours of service, and in their official regulations relating to examinations they say that it must be distinctly understood that occasional service in charge of a watch should not be accepted as qualifying service for certificates as first mate or master. The Board warn their examiners that great care must be exercised by them in regard to such service, and unless the candidate produces a satisfactory certificate, setting forth these facts, from the master or owner of the vessel in which the service was performed, it must not be accepted. In years gone by the Board of Trade insisted upon candidates showing actual experience on board ship in a similar capacity to the certificate they held. For instance, before a candidate could be examined for a master's certificate he was required to produce proof of twelve months service as chief officer. But the Board of Trade have modified these regulations from time to time, with the result that service in quite junior capacities is considered sufficient to qualify candidates to take out a certificate enabling them to command a ship. The new modifications which the Board of Trade have introduced by a stroke of the pen, just as they did in regard to the deeper immersion of British ships, constitute a step which compels me to enter an emphatic protest. It is not necessary for me to go into all the different details as to qualifying time required for Board of Trade certificates. To put the matter shortly, before a candidate can present himself for examination for a first mate's certificate he must show that he has had at least twelve months experience in regular charge of a watch. Candidates for masters' certificates must show at the very least two years—usually it is two and a half years—experience of a similar kind, twelve months of which must have been in a grade not lower than second mate. To show you what has been the Board's view hitherto, the words "in charge of a watch" are emphasised in the regulations in order to lay special stress on them. To make my point clear it is, that under the latest regulations issued by the Board to meet the case of a few favoured ship-owners owning very large ships, those who have served in what are to be known as "approved sea-going training vessels" will be permitted to sit for a master's certificate without ever having had charge of a watch. Their experience need only have been in very junior capacities on board ship where, when on watch, they have been subordinate to the officer actually in charge. It is proper for me to say that such candidates, after passing their examination, will not be given their certificates as master until they can prove that they have had twelve months service in charge of a watch, though candidates for certificates as chief mates need not show any experience in charge of a watch whatever, and their certificates will be granted on completion of the examination. I say without hesitation that it is a very serious and a very wrong thing for the Board of Trade to make such drastic changes when, as usual, they have not consulted those who are chiefly affected—that is, those who are responsible for the efficiency and safety of our merchant ships. When candidates of very limited and immature experience have obtained certificates of the highest grades they are not in any way bound to remain in the company in which they have been serving. It is quite open for them to transfer their services. And it is very likely that they will do so on the ground of better prospects or higher inducements elsewhere. The Board of Trade are thus a party to creating a supply of officers possessing by no means the same practical experience in responsible capacities as those we have at present, and what the dire results of this will be in due time will be perfectly obvious to your Lordships. I do not say that the youths serving in these new "approved sea-going training ships" will not get a very good training in the technicalities of their profession, but I do say that it is just as essential with them as with others that they should be compelled to show that they have had actual experience in responsible capacities on board ship before being granted the higher certificates from the Board of Trade. Under the new scheme of the Board these favoured applicants need only have served in very junior capacities provided their service has been on vessels of not less than 8,000 tons gross making an average speed of sixteen knots and upwards and carrying a crew of not less than 130 men, including six deck officers besides the master. I do not think that the term "deck officer" is a proper one for the Board of Trade to use, for an officer is an officer of the ship from truck to keelson and his duties and responsibilities extend over all parts of her. I may say that in very large ships, such as those of over 8,000 tons, it is all the more important that the very best and most experienced officers should be carried. Presumably more officers will be created by the shipowners through the medium of these training ships when, as a matter of fact, there are already more than an ample supply of officers in the mercantile marine. Even up to the present time shipowners have usually required applicants for junior positions on board ship to hold certificates of the highest grades from the Board of Trade, and thus ensure that they have had good practical experience in charge of a watch. Now, thanks to a hollow and absurd cry about a shortage of ships' officers, the Board of Trade and shipowners are going on the other tack, and officers of the most limited experience will be considered as amply sufficient to act in responsible capacities on board ship. My Lords, there is no shortage of officers for our merchant service. I have it on the best authority that there are a large number of highly qualified captains and officers out of employment at present and that much distress exists in consequence. But there is a shortage of British seamen in the forecastle of our ships, and this does require the attention of the Government. I do not say that training schemes should be discouraged, although the efficiency of our present-day captains and officers seems to indicate that there is no immediate necessity for any such schemes. The Board of Trade's new concessions to shipowners are, of course, of advantage to, for instance, the American International Combine comprising the White Star and other lines who, on their new training-ship "Mersey" intend taking cadets and charging high premiums for so doing. I may say that as the "Mersey" is a sailing ship this is a very much better scheme than any of those that propose to train boys on steamers, where they cannot learn all the details of their profession, and therefore can never become thoroughly efficient officers. I have worked it out and estimate that, providing a youngster first puts in two years on a stationary training-ship such as the "Worcester" or "Conway," and then three years in an approved seagoing training-ship such as the "Mersey," it will take from eight to ten years before he—or perhaps I should more correctly say, his parents—will be able to show a single halfpenny on the credit side of his account. The cost of his training up to obtaining his first Board of Trade certificate will be. not less than £400, and then after it has taken him five years to get his certificate he may consider himself lucky if he starts to earn £8 a month, upon which he has to keep up the position of a gentleman on it, and pay for the expensive uniforms he must wear. This, my Lords, is what is held out as in ducements to go to sea nowadays in the merchant service. Mr. Lloyd- George made provision in the last Merchant Shipping Act for a Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, and it was expected that the Board would seek the opinion of this committee of i experts when any important questions arose which affected shipping interests. It seems to me a very curious thing that on this particular question the advisory committee was not asked to express an opinion, though matters of comparatively minor importance have been brought by the Board before this com- mittee from time to time. I cannot see what use it is to have a committee of the kind and put the country to a good deal of expense in connection with it when, in a matter of this sort, it is never consulted. Affecting, as they do, the position and the interests of the commanders and officers of our merchant ships, surely they have a perfect right to be allowed to express their views when such changes are suggested. I may say that I am chiefly moving in this matter on the urgent representations of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild. The guild, on learning of the new regulations, addressed a vigorous protest to the Board of Trade, characterising the change as one most injurious to the profession which it represents and most certainly calculated to reduce the high standard of safety and efficiency which is at present such a distinguishing and gratifying feature of the merchant service of this country. I am with them entirely in this view. There is another very serious aspect of this question. Some little time ago I had the honour to bring to the notice of your Lordships a proposition of shipowners that, under certain conditions, the qualifying time shown by candidates for the lowest Board of Trade certificate—that of second mate—should be reduced from four to three years. It was with very sincere gratification and appreciation that I found that the spirit of this House was entirely with me in strongly opposing a proposition of this kind, and I was equally gratified to receive the assurances of my noble friend who then represented the Board of Trade, that the Board had no intention whatever of departing from the present rule as to sea service before a man is able to take up his certificate. The noble Earl, as I thought, very properly supplemented this by saying that the only way to get boys to go to sea was to make the calling of the sea attractive, and until that was done he was afraid that we should find it very hard to increase the number of British subjects serving in the mercantile marine. My noble friends the Marquess of Lansdowne and Lord Ellenborough welcomed this assurance on the part of the Board of Trade, and the noble Marquess warned the Board of Trade as to being extremely careful not to in any way relax the requirements in regard to the efficiency and competency of ships' officers. I want to know why there has now ' been such a distinct departure from the Board of Trade's assurance as given in this House? A change as to qualifying time for responsible positions on board ship has been made, and it is most certainly a relaxation of the requirements hitherto existing in regard to the efficiency and competency of ships' officers. I do not at all like these tinkering methods of the Marine Department' of the Board of Trade, especially when i they are so dangerous, and done so, quietly. Your Lordships will inflict no hardship on anybody in expressing the ' opinion that the new regulations I am referring to should be withdrawn. Approved sea-going training-ships have not as yet started, and the regulations, therefore, are not operative as yet. The Marine Department of the Board of Trade have informed the Imperial Merchant Service Guild that they do not consider it necessary to modify the regulations in question in any way. Fortunately, the Marine Department are not the final court in matters of the kind. There is no need whatever for the new regulations, and there is no reason why favouritism should be shown to candidates who have served in seagoing training-ships, where the service would be much more pleasant and congenial, whilst the less favoured ones going through their apprenticeship in the ordinary way—though decidedly none the worse off in the end—must comply with the old regulations as heretofore. I trust your Lordships will support this Motion. I must repeat that it is our duty to prevent any mischievous or dangerous propositions or schemes which tend to minimise the efficiency and safety of our merchant ships. We must have men to command and officer them who have had the necessary practical experience in responsible capacities, and no man should be granted a certificate of competency as chief officer or captain of a British ship unless he can produce proof of real experience in responsible capacities. On these grounds and on the ground that assurances given in this House have been departed from by the Board of Trade, I submit my Motion for the consideration, and, I hope, for the support of your Lordships.

My Lords, the noble Lord has been for many years a regular questioner of the Board of Trade in this House, and the Department had come to look upon him, if not as one of its oldest friends, at all events as one who understood them and whom they understood. It came, therefore, as rather an unpleasant surprise that the notice of Motion which he had placed on the Paper should contain an accusation of breach of faith against the Department. I would submit to your Lordships that the modified regulations which have been introduced cannot be so described, and I hope your Lordships will agree to that view.

I beg the noble Lord's pardon.

I said that the modified regulations are in no sense a departure from the assurances which have already been given. I gather from the letter which was written by the Merchant Service Guild to the Board of Trade that the particular assurance which the noble Lord and the Merchant Service Guild have in their mind is one which was given in this House by ray noble friend Lord Granard on 10th July last year. That assurance was given in a discussion upon a Motion which had been made by the noble Lord, in which he called attention to the alleged shortage of officers in the merchant service and asked that in any steps which might be taken to remedy that deficiency, the existence of which Tie did not admit, the Board of Trade would not include amongst those remedies any curtailment of the period of service at sea which is necessary before candidates can present themselves for examination for second mates' certificates. The Board of Trade had no, intention of doing anything of the kind, and therefore, my noble friend had no hesitation in giving the assurance which was asked for. My noble friend is here, and I have no doubt is ready to answer for himself. I merely mention this for the purpose of saying that the Department thoroughly endorse everything which was said by my noble friend on that occasion, and also maintain that these new regulations are in no sense a departure from that assurance. In fact, if does not matter what assurances were given, because the modified regulations, where they alter the period of service which candidates for these certificates must undergo, in every case lengthen that period and in no case shorten it; and, where the nature of the service is varied, I hope to show your Lordships that something is substituted for it which is at least as valuable as, if not more valuable than, that which was required under the old regulations. These modified regulations have been issued in order to adapt the regulations to a new system of training which has recently been instituted by one of the great steamship companies—the White Star Line. That system was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Brassey and my noble friend Lord Granard recently in this House. It has been adopted after consultation with the Board of Trade, and it has the full approval of the Department. I will describe, very briefly, how it differs from the old system of training, which consisted, as your Lordships are aware, of four years' service at sea, either as an apprentice or as a deck hand in any capacity. The defect of that system undoubtedly is that in these days of steamships it is very difficult for the officers of the ship to devote very much of their time to the teaching of apprentices. Under the old system of sailing ships they had more leisure to do so, and I think it is universally acknow- ledged that the apprentice system is more valuable on a sailing ship than on a steamship. In order to carry out a new system of training on a sailing ship the White Star Line have recently purchased a sailing ship of, I think, 1,800 tons. She has been fitted up to carry sixty apprentices, who will work the ship with the assistance, I believe, while it is necessary, of ten deck hands. Besides a full complement of officers and a doctor, this ship will carry two schoolmasters who will instruct the cadets or apprentices in various subjects extremely useful to them in their career in the merchant service, such as foreign languages, navigation, nautical astronomy, and other subjects of a technical character. The more, technical part of their education will be undertaken by the officers of the ship, and I believe there will be included in the course instruction by the surgeon in ambulance work. In fact, the instruction which will be given will be of the most complete character, and it has the thorough approval of the Board of Trade. This is the new system of instruction to which the modified regulations are to be adapted. I quite agree with what the noble Lord has said, that there is no finer body of men in the world than the officers of our merchant service. I quite agree with him that we are all very proud of them and that they command the greatest confidence and respect; and it is quite fair to say that a system of training which has produced such good results cannot have very much the matter with it. But even the best of systems is none the worse for being brought up to date, and that is what this new system of instruction will do. The new modified regulations deal with the qualifications necessary for candidates for the three certificates issued by the Board of Trade. The noble Lord has correctly stated what those modifications are. In the case of second mates' certificates, they allow the necessary qualifying period of four years at sea to be spent on one of these approved training-ships, on which I think there can be no doubt that the instruction which will be received will be very much superior to what is likely to be received by a man who serves as a deck hand or apprentice. For a first mate's certificate and for a master's certificate certain further modifications have been introduced in order to meet a difficulty which arises. The gentlemen who have introduced this new-scheme of training officers at very considerable expense are naturally anxious that those officers should be able to serve the whole of their service on board their ships. The old regulations did not permit of their doing so, and I will show-why. In the case of a candidate for a first mate's certificate it was necessary that he should show that he had been in complete charge of a watch on a foreign going vessel for a space of one year. As your Lordships are aware, on these great liners watches are invariably kept by two officers, and it would follow, therefore, that in order to comply with the regulations the officer would have to leave the service of the company and engage on a smaller vessel where only one officer kept watch. A similar difficulty arose with regard to the examination for the master's certificate. What has been done is this. The period during which the officer must have served in possession of a second mate's certificate has been doubled. He now has to serve two years instead of one; but it is provided that if he is on board a ship complying with certain conditions as to size, speed and number of crew, that is to say, a liner of considerable size, he may put in that service as the junior of the two watch-keeping officers instead of being in sole charge of the watch. The modification with respect to the master's certificate is of a very similar nature. It is considered—and I think considered rightly—that the fact that the period of service is twice as long, that it must have been passed on board a ship where the standard of efficiency and discipline is so high as it is on these great liners, and that the candidate must have had in the first instance the advantage of the very complete system of training I have described, makes this qualifying period fully equal, if not superior, to what was required under the old regulations. Then the noble Lord asks why it is that the Advisory Committee was not consulted. My answer to that is a very simple one. In the first place, the time of the Advisory Committee was fully occupied. It has been fully occupied ever since it was appointed. In the second place, Mr. Lloyd-George, the then President of the Board of Trade, in the exercise of the discretion which, I think, is invariably granted to the head of a great Department, considered that this was a matter which he could quite well settle himself. I have given details of the new regulations and an outline of the new system of training which they have been adapted to meet, and I have only one word to add. The purchase and fitting up of this ship has cost the White Star Company a very considerable sum of money. I am informed that, in spite of the fact that the ship will carry cargo and that apprentices will pay fees, she will be run at f n annual loss of several thousand pounds. This very considerable expenditure can only have been incurred with one object—namely, the provision of officers who will have had a better training, and will, therefore, probably be even more competent than those who fill the positions of officers on these, ships at the present moment; and I contend that for that reason, if for no other, the Department are thoroughly justified in the course they have taken, and in the encouragement which they have given to this very valuable new undertaking.

My Lords, in regard to most things connected with this mercantile marine I am in full agreement with my noble friend Lord Muskerry, but to-day I am sorry to say I cannot agree with him. For a long time past there has been great difficulty in getting officers in the mercantile marine who have a thorough knowledge of sailing ships, owing to the large number of steamers now afloat. Your Lordships have heard how Mr. Ismay, of the White Star Line, formed a committee to consider the question, and these gentlemen decided that the best course was to purchase a full rigged ship of 2,000 tons, in which sixty cadets could be carried,, with a large number of instructors. Then a difficulty arose as to what could be done when the cadets had completed their term of apprenticeship. It is the rule in the White Star and similar lines, that all officers should have master's certificates; and when an exception is made it only applies to the junior officers of the watch. Thus the regulations of the Board of Trade could not be complied with, as, according those Regulations, the candidate must have had full watch on the bridge. The Committee met the officials of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, with the result that the concessions referred to which only apply to these training ships were made. These concessions enable cadets to pass from the training ship into such steamers as junior officers, and to go forward with a continuity of employment to the examination for mate's certificate and master's certificate after a proper interval. This variation is not intended in any way to make it easier to obtain these certificates, but to provide for those who are specially trained passing to steamers where two or more officers are engaged and going forward to a higher certificate under all the advantages appertaining to a modern liner. My friend Captain Reedman, of the S.Y. "Argonaut" told me the following story. An uncle who wished to see his nephew once asked the quartermaster on the bridge: "Is my nephew, Mr. Smith, on board?" "Mr. who?" inquired the quartermaster. "Mr. Smith, a fair-haired boy," was the reply. "Oh, you mean young Carrots. He is in the galley with the cook, peeling potatoes. Where else do you expect an apprentice to be?" That was the sort of training apprentices received in the old days. Seeing the splendid training these boys will receive on these ships I think the slight concessions in the regulations are justifiable, and I hope no alteration will be made. I feel sure it would only hamper these young men who are doing the best they can to get a thoroughly good education to qualify them for the position of officers in the mercantile marine.

My Lords, I am sure those of your Lordships who have listened to this debate will agree with the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade, that it is for the advantage of the country and of the merchant service that the methods of training should be brought up to date, and in much that he said on that head I think your Lordships will be disposed to concur. W e can all agree that a superior kind of education and a more scientific training are all for the best. I confess that when I came down to your Lordship's House this afternoon I had hoped it would not be necessary for me to say anything in criticism of the statement to be made in reply to Lord Muskerry; but I must say I do not think that in. every respect my noble friend behind mo will be satisfied with the answer which the noble Lord has given. I quite understand, and I think he probably will agree, that the effort which the White Star Line has made is a patriotic effort which they intend to be of great advantage, not only to themselves, but to the great service of which they form a part; but I do not think personally I should be disposed to deny that the period of service which is exacted falls short of what ought to be expected. There is, I understand, rather longer sea service provided under the new rules than under the old rules.

Twice as long.

Well, that is, of course, so far very satisfactory; but it seems to lack one particular quality—namely, that a second mate who comes up for a first mate's certificate will never have been in a position of absolute responsibility. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, but that is what I took to be the case, that owing to the new arrangement he is never in sole charge of a. vessel. He undoubtedly is one of the two officers in charge of the watch, but he is to be the junior of his rank. I do not profess to be an expert in this matter, but I certainly should have thought that the matter above all others in which training and experience are required by officers of the merchant service is in the exercise of that complete responsibility which sole charge alone can confer. I do not mean to say that the new regulations will not produce a very fine article, but I confess I question whether anything in the way of scientific training or of longer sea service will make up for the experience which is conferred by the knowledge that you, and you alone, are responsible for the fate of the ship. I gather from my noble friend, that, although the-examination may take place before a chief mate has ever been in sole charge, yet before he is actually certificated he must have been a year in sole charge of a vessel. So that there is a concession made with regard to the master, though the sole charge even in his case is not so long as has hitherto prevailed.

It is quite as long.

Then I am reassured to that extent, but as between second mate and first mate the criticism I have ventured to make seems to hold good. I think your Lordships would have been happier if the noble Lord had been able to inform the House that the Board of Trade had acted in this matter with the complete assent of the Advisory Committee. The noble Lord himself will admit that on that his answer was not complete, because all he had to say was that the President of the Board of Trade, in the exercise of his discretion, thought there were some subjects which he ought to decide himself, and that this was one of those subjects. For my part, I should have been happier if Mr. Lloyd-George had thought it right to consult the Advisory Committee. Then if he had come to Parliament and said that what he proposed had the unanimous support of his Advisory Committee, a better case would have been made out for it. However, these matters are very technical. I only rose to make that one observation. I cannot say that I think this is quite a matter upon which it would be wise for your Lordships to override the decision of the Board of Trade. There are very few men in this House who are really capable, if I may say so with great respect, of appreciating the point, and, therefore, I hope my noble friend will not press his Motion to a division, though I think he was fully entitled to make the criticisms he has made to your Lordships.

My Lords, after what my noble friend who has just sat down has said, I will not press my Motion to a division; but I should like to say one or two words. The noble Lord who answered me did not quite grasp what I was driving at. I fully admit that the lads in the new White Star training ship will get a very admirable training. I think I said so in my speech; but no amount of training will give them the practical experience that a man must have if he is going to be a really trustworthy officer. The Board of Trade seem to imagine that a junior officer on board a big steamship, by just being there, will absorb this experience. They do not know the usual place the junior officer occupies. He may be on the bridge going down, channel, but after that he may be anywhere but on the bridge, and when he is on the bridge he is a perfect cipher. Though I am not going to press my Motion to a division, I cannot help saying that the innovation which has been made is a dangerous one, and I think it will be found that the whole of the sea-faring community are with me in that.

rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if there was any immediate prospect of the restoration of cavalry to Scotland. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I promise not to add anything to the nightly catechism of my noble friend opposite, or to detain your Lordships for more than a minute. The question of cavalry in Scotland has become a topic of very widespread interest. We have had frequent assurances that the withdrawal was only temporary, and in one answer the limit of two years was given, I think, more than two years ago. I am sure my noble friend will thank me for enabling him to make a statement which I trust will reassure Scotland on this point.

My Lords, the noble Earl will be glad to know that money was taken in this year's Estimates for the purchase of a site, and that we have been by no means inactive in regard to looking out for one, although, for obvious reasons in matters of this kind, it is impossible for me to disclose either the site or the actual date on which it is proposed to purchase it. I can assure the noble Earl that steps are being taken, and I hope to be able to give a more definite answer in a very short time.

rose to call attention to the War Office Circular of 20th November, 1907; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, my second Question demands two minutes of explanation. It refers to a circular from the War Office with reference to the appointment of deputy-lieutenants. It is to this effect—

"A commission as deputy-lieutenant should only be given to a person who possesses the qualification, in addition to such as are laid down in the Militia Act, of having either held a commission in one of His Majesty's forces for not less than ten years, or of having rendered eminent service in connection with the Association formed in his own county under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act. 1907."

The subject of deputy-lieutenancies has received a great deal of attention of late years from the War Office. I think the age was first raised, and then their number was limited. Those improvements—for I regard them as such—I heartily welcomed; but I must say that I think this new restriction imposes a very great limitation upon the selection of deputy lieutenants, and may, in fact, if I do not misread it, put an end to the appointment of deputy-lieutenants for a very considerable time. The Militia Act of 1882, which I had occasion to look up in connection with this matter, imposes a very considerable number of limitations upon the appointment of deputy-lieutenants already, chiefly those relating to property; but if this new one is added, that persons to be appointed should have held His Majesty's Commission or should have rendered services in connect ion with the Territorial Force, it will be found difficult for some years to come to get any deputy-lieutenants at all. I wish to point out to my noble friend that the uses of deputy-lieutenants, which may be as vague to some candid minds as those of an archdeacon, are not entirely limited to military duties. It is quite true that they were utilised in connection with the Militia; but in the Militia Act itself it is stated that three deputy-lieutenants might act for the Lord-Lieutenant in his absence, which means, I suppose, that they may recommend to the magistracy and so forth—duties which do not obviously require military training. There is another point to which I desire to call attention. Deputy-lieutenancies have been purely honorary offices. They have been the only means by which a Lord-Lieutenant could reward public services rendered in a locality. I do not care to cite my own course in that matter; but I have always observed the strict rule not to give a deputy-lieutenancy to anyone who had not rendered such public service. As a result the number of my deputy-lieutenants has become extremely small, but under this War Office Circular they threaten to become extinct. I do not make these remarks in any hostile spirit, because I regard the circular as having; been hastily issued as one of many means of promoting the interests of the Territorial Force. I only ask that the Secretary of State for War should give his attention further to this matter, and that the appointments should not be limited to purely military persons or persons who have rendered services to the County Associations, but that some scope should be given to a Lord-Lieutenant to give to persons who have rendered local service the only reward which a Lord-Lieutenant can give.

My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words with regard to the original cause of this circular being issued, and the view of the Army Council on the matter. Originally, the chief function of deputy-lieutenants was to assist the Lord-Lieutenant of the county in raising the necessary number of men under the Militia ballot. They had, in fact, to raise what was then the Territorial Force of the country, and, allowing for the changes in the nature of the two forces, the functions of the present County Associations bear very close comparison to those originally intended to be performed by the deputy-lieutenants. It was, therefore, considered a suitable opportunity to revive the original conception of what was a deputy-lieutenant, and that was the reason for issuing the circular, in which it is clearly laid down that one of the qualifications of deputy-lieutenants is that they should have rendered useful service to the County Associations. It is not confined to that. That is the only new qualification; the other is having held a commission in one of His Majesty's forces for not less than ten years, thus reviving once more the conception that a deputy-lieutenant was intended to be a person who exercised certain definite functions very closely connected with the military forces of the Crown. I will, however, lay before the Secretary of State what the noble Earl has said.

I do not wish to detain the House, but I would point out to my noble friend that the original conception of what was a deputy-lieutenant has been overridden by the consistent practice of, at least, a century, and the effect of the Circular will certainly be to impose I a hardship upon those who might otherwise expect a deputy-lieutenancy for civil services.

Up to the date of the issue of this circular a Lord Lieutenant had a perfect discretion as to whom he might appoint. I should like to ask whether, in the event of a Lord - Lieutenant not being able to find deputy-lieutenants coming within the qualifications named in the Circular, it is intended that he should fall back upon the old practice?

No case of that kind has arisen. If it did occur the point would certainly be considered.

My Lords, this Bill and two others stand in my name on the Paper for Second Reading, and as they are all of a non-contentious character, I hope your Lordships will permit me to be very brief in view of the important debate that is to come on later. The Isle of Man (Customs Duties) Bill is an annual one, which is necessary to give validity to what is passed by the governing body in the Isle of Man. I believe it has always been treated as a formal matter in this House, and I, therefore, move the Second Reading.

My Lords, this is a similar Bill to one which it was my duty to introduce in this House some two years ago. Owing to the failure last summer and autumn of the potato crop in Ireland, the Treasury authorised certain grants to be made in order to supply seed potatoes and seed oats so as to avert what might have become a potato famine. It has always been the custom for the Treasury to sanction these loans, and then come to Parliament in order to obtain the necessary funds. They did it two years ago, and the Bill received the assent of this House. I hope that on the present occasion the same reasons will obtain. I beg to move.

My Lords, a similar Bill was brought in last year for Scotland, and it was found also to be desirable that a Bill of this character should be brought in for Ireland. Two applications have lately been made for the erection of whaling stations off the Irish coast, and these applications have caused some alarm among the fishing populations in these districts. It is certainly necessary that the industry should be carried on under certain regulations. In this instance the regulations will be undertaken on behalf of Ireland by the Board of Agriculture. I beg to move.

on behalf of Lord Avebury, moved an Amendment providing "that the local authority, within the meaning of the same section, in the City of London shall be the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city in Common Council assembled." He very much regretted the noble Lord's absence, as this was a matter which concerned the City of London, and Lord Avebury was infinitely more able to speak with authority upon this question than himself. Hitherto the justices had made arrangements in connection with the matters under consideration in this Bill, but in future the Bill ordained that the London County Council should make those arrangements. One of the objects of the Bill seemed to be to set up the London County Council to deal with these matters in order to avoid difficulties arising from over-lapping, and he did not desire in any way to quarrel with that object. But the Hill as now drafted would set up the London County Council as the authority to carry out in the city all the arrangements that were dealt with in the Bill, and he thought the result could only be one of very great inconvenience to all parties. Overlapping had taken place and confusion had arisen in connection with various of the Parliamentary boroughs, but the position of the City was absolutely different, and none of the inconveniences feared could possibly arise in the case of the City, in the metropolitan boroughs the justices who had dealt with these matters had had no connection whatever with the municipal body in the district, but in the City the justices who had hitherto had these matters in hand had been the aldermen of the Common Council. There had, therefore, been complete harmony in the making of these arrangements between the justices and the Common Council. Though not quite accurate, it was almost accurate to say that these arrangements had been carried out in the City by the Common Council itself; at any rate, that work had been done by gentlemen who were members of the Common Council. Therefore, if the Bill passed in its present form, the aldermen of the City would lose a jurisdiction which they had exorcised from time immemorial, and against which no complaint had ever been urged. The City was divided accurately and completely into two petty sessional districts, arid overlapping was impossible, owing to the fact that the whole of the City formed the Parliamentary borough. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reason whatever for disturbing the status quo. On the other hand, great inconvenience might result from bringing the county council into the City to exercise the powers with which this Bill was concerned. There were between 130 and 140 parishes in the City of London, therefore, the closest consideration and the closest local knowledge were required in order I to carry out such arrangements as these to the general convenience. He understood that the London County Council saw no objection whatever to the adoption of his Amendment, and for this reason he hoped the Committee would assent to it.

said that, so far as the London County Council were concerned, they had no objection what-ever to the Amendment. On the contrary, the authority of the corporation in the City of London with regard to many county matters was already recognised. The City exercised the powers of a county authority in respect of such matters as pauper lunatics, explosives, coroners, weights and measures, and other matters of that kind; and the County Council were not in the least apprehensive that any conflict of jurisdiction would arise in regard to the City, having regard to the very special position which the corporation occupied. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment would commend itself to the Government.

regretted that, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, he was unable to agree to the Amendment. It was quite true that at a later stage the London County Council in another place withdrew their opposition to the Amendment. But when it was brought before the Standing Committee it was there opposed by the representatives of the London County Council and withdrawn. It was after that—he thought on the Report stage—that the London County Council withdrew their opposition. He thought it only fair to remind their Lordships that this Bill would in no way take away a privilege from the Common Council, for, as the Earl had explained, this power rested with the aldermen, and not with the Common Council. After all, supposing the Bill were passed and the polling arrangements altered by the new authority, it was not unreasonable to say that it would be done in the interests of good administration, and he thought it was obviously desirable that the division of I districts for Parliamentary and county council elections should be the same, and should be in the hands of the same authority for both purposes. The Bill in its present form had been before their Lordships four times, and had passed through the House as often; as it had been introduced. Moreover, it passed in its present shape, and he thought that if the Bill proposed to give any very startling powers to the London County Council, an Amendment would have been suggested on one of the former occasions. In view of the fact that the present condition of affairs in another place made it unlikely that the Bill would receive favourable consideration if the Amendment were inserted, and also in view of the approval which their Lordships had given to the Bill as it stood four times, he hoped the Amendment would not be inserted.

said the present condition of business in another place was a matter with which none of their Lordships had anything to do, and he did not see why their Lordships House should suffer any disability in consequence of it. He was not acquainted with the reason why this Amendment had not been moved during the progress of the four previous Bills, but it might be that if those Bills were considered before the-last County Council election, the City felt there was not much likelihood of securing that agreement which they had since secured. This was a much more important point than the noble Earl opposite seemed to think, and he did not at present feel that he would be justified in not taking the sense of their Lordships-upon it.

My Lords, if it is to be the ordinary course to move that the Standing Committee be negatived, I think the Standing Committee stage had better be repealed altogether. The Standing Committee has, since it has been established, done really useful business. Now, however, the ordinary course of things is to move to negative this stage, and it is negatived accordingly. It seems to me that, if this is to become the usual practice, the proper course is to abolish this stage altogether.

My Lords, I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, was about to propose the abandonment of the Standing Committee stage. If and when he does so, I think we ought to take carefully into consideration the pros and cons for maintaining or abolishing it. I do not propose to-day to enter into the various arguments on either side. Personally I quite concur with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken that, in certain circumstances, the Standing Committee has been a very valuable stage in the past. I have seen excellent work done there, and I confess I am not in a position to state why it has now become the custom to move to negative this stage. I do not take any responsibility for it.

My Lords, I am, of course, entirely in the hands of the House. I am afraid I am hardly aware of the forms of your Lordships' House in this matter, and if I have erred it is because I was told that this was the proper Motion to move.

said the question raised by the Amendment was one upon which the Post Office and the London County Council had long been at variance. The position was this. Up to the present the Postmaster-General had not had the power of carrying telegraph wires over recreation grounds or public property without the consent of the individuals in whom that property was vested. When the Bill was considered in another place this very conclusive clause was proposed and supported by the Government, and was inserted in the Bill. Under it it would be impossible for the Postmaster-General to exercise the right of carrying telegraph wires over public parks and recreation grounds without the consent of the authority in whom they were vested. The noble Lord now proposed a modification of the clause which would take the whole question out of the hands of those authorities in whom the lands were vested, and leave it to be arbitrated upon the Railway Commissioners in case of a difference. The contention of the London County Council had always been the same. They were seized by Parliament with the responsibility for a considerable number of open spaces and parks, and considering the immense number of overhead wires already in London, they maintained that these operations should be carried on underground until the suburbs were reached. They felt that it was a very strong measure to take this matter out of their hands and allow the Railway Commissioners to be the judges of the public convenience. If the noble Earl desired to persist in this Amendment, which almost negatived the whole advantage of the clause accepted by the Government in another place, he (Lord Midleton) would move to amend the Amendment by excluding from its operation parks and recreation grounds vested in a public authority. He was, however, willing to substitute in his Amendment "London County Council" for "public authority," thereby restricting to London the power of a local authority to withstand the Postmaster-General.

failed to see why the London County Council should have any special rights in this case. He could assure the noble Viscount that there was no intention of carrying wires across parks. The Bill only gave power in respect of land "being within twenty feet of any such street or road." The Amendment which he had moved was the outcome of a compromise in the other House.

I understand that the noble Earl relies upon the fact that these powers only apply to telegraph lines erected within twenty feet of a road. Would he say whether, in the case of a public park, a gravel walk traversing the park would be a road within the meaning of the Bill? The noble Earl will see that a good deal depends upon that.

suggested that the point should be held over for the Report Stage so that he might consider it.

agreed to this course, and withdrew his Amendment to the Amendment.

My Lords, this Bill was before a Joint Committee of the two Houses, and we unanimously agreed to certain Amendments for the purpose of making the Bill purely consolidation. Those are the Amendments that I ask your Lordships to allow to be taken en bloc at this stage. There are certain other Amendments which I will refer to later at another stage of the Bill, but which do not concern us at present.

My Lords, the object of this Bill is to make married women with separate estate equally liable with single women and widows for contribution, in repayment to boards of guardians for the support or relief of their parents. The Bill has boon introduced in consequence of a Resolution passed at the last annual meeting of the Association of Poor Law Unions of England and Wales, and that Resolution arose out of a case taken to the Court of Appeal by the Pontypool Union, where a married woman in fairly good circumstances refused to contribute to the support of her father, although her brothers, who were not in such a good financial position, were contributing Is. and Is. 6d. a week respectively. The Bill has passed through the House of Commons without Amendment, and, I believe, with the approval of His Majesty's Government. I, therefore, trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.

I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether, in his view, the Bill is necessary at all.

I should like an opportunity of ascertaining what the exact position is before we proceed with the Bill. Perhaps the noble Earl will allow it to stand over for a day.

My only reason for pressing the matter was to get the Bill through your Lordships' House before the adjournment. As I have said, the Bill has passed through the House of Commons without any Amendment.

My Lords, I have to say, on behalf of the Local Government Board, that they have no wish to offer any opposition to the Bill; in fact, they are prepared to give it their support.

I have no doubt the Bill is quite right, but, as a matter of fact, I have not seen it, and I should like to have an opportunity of ascertaining what the law is before we alter it.

Perhaps the Lord Chancellor, while he is applying his mind to the matter, will see whether Ireland cannot be dealt with in the same way.

In view of what has been said, I shall be very pleased to move the adjournment of the debate.

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend, the Earl of Liverpool, who is detained, I believe, in camp, I have been asked to move the Second Reading of this Bill, the object of which is to confer upon county councils in Ireland the power to alter the polling districts and the method of compiling lists of voters. It is important that it should, if possible, pass through your Lordships' House before Parliament rises for the summer recess, because the Registration Courts in Ireland begin sitting in September I think I may claim that it is a measure of an entirely non-contentious character, and that it has been supported by all parties in the other House. It has been supported by Mr, Walter Long and others, and by the whole of the Nationalist Party, and I understand it is approved by the Irish Local Government Board. For the purposes of local government in Ireland, counties are divided into electoral divisions, and the lists of voters are made up according to these electoral divisions; but for Parliamentary purposes the counties in Ireland are divided differently, and consequently a great deal of trouble and expense is involved in the printing and publishing of the Parliamentary lists of voters. In England the county councils have power to alter the polling districts, but in Ireland I understand that is not the case. Clause 3 provides that any county council in Ireland may, with the sanction of the Local Government Board for Ireland, arrange to have the register of voters, or any part of the register, prepared alphabetically in town-lands or, as regards urban districts, in streets. The Bill is desired by all political parties in Ireland and by all county officials; and it is urgent because as I have explained, it is hoped it will be applied to proceedings in the Registration Courts in September.

was putting the Question, when——

said: I assume the Government intend to tell us something about this Bill, which purports to make important and serious changes in polling arrangements in Ireland. I do not wish to offer any objection to the Bill, but I cannot conceive how it will be possible, even if the Bill becomes law this week, for the county councils to prepare the schemes in accordance with the provisions of the Bill and have them ready by September. If there was all this urgency the Bill ought to have been sent up to your Lordships' House earlier. I have, as I have said, no objection to the Second Reading, but I think we are entitled to an expression of opinion from the representative of the Government Department concerned.

My Lords, I was hoping that, after the clear explanation given by the noble Lord behind me, it would have been unnecessary for me to have said anything with regard to this Bill. The Government are satisfied that this is a useful Bill. As my noble friend behind me said, it was backed in the House of Commons by Mr. Walter Long and other Unionists, and I should have thought that, in those circumstances, it would not have been opposed in your Lordships' House.

I am not opposing it. I merely asked for some explanation.

The Bill, as my noble friend has explained, seeks to bring the electoral divisions for county councils and for Parliamentary——

I do not want to appear to be unduly critical of the Bill. If the noble Lord is in a position to tell me that the Local Government Board of Ireland have examined the Bill and think it workable and prudent, I shall be quite satisfied.

I can assure the noble and learned Lord that the Local Government Board do approve of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord will see that it contains a provision that no scheme shall be of any force or validity unless and until it is confirmed by an Order of the Local Government Board.

My Lords, this is a Bill on which it is not necessary for me to say more than a few words, as it is entirely of a private character. It is chiefly concerned with certain internal changes in the constitution of the University of Durham, necessitated by its growth as an institution and by the development of its work in Newcastle. It has been a matter of arrangement between all the parties, and as a result it has passed the House of Commons without any difference of opinion. It seeks no new powers, and the various authorities concerned are entirely agreed upon it; but it is necessary to come to Parliament for powers because the constitution of the University was settled by Act of Parliament originally. The promoters proceed on the same method as was followed in the case of the London University Bill in 1898, by the appointment of Commissioners who are empowered to carry out changes according to the schedule of the Bill, but have no power to divert any property from the uses to which it is at present given. The Bill as it stands is approved by the Dean and Chapter of Durham and by all the educational authorities concerned. I hope that, in these circumstances, your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.

My Lords, I rise to call the attention of the House to the history of this Bill, which I need not point out to your Lordships is a very important Bill. It was introduced into this House on Saturday last, two or three of your Lordships having to sacrifice your holiday, I suppose, in order to give it a First Reading. The Bill has not been circulated at all, and it was not even laid upon the Table of this House until a quarter past five this evening. Your Lordships are now asked to give the Bill a Second Reading, and, moreover, if report speaks truly, it is the intention of the Government to get through the remaining stages during the three Parliamentary days which remain of the present week. I want to know what is the special reason for hurry in connection with this Bill, because, unless very special reason can be given, I submit to your Lordships that it is treating the House with absolute disrespect. Unfortunately, we are getting used to this kind of thing. His Majesty's Government mentioned in the King's Speech a much greater number of subjects than there is any possibility of hoping to treat with anything like deliberation in the course of the session. They then used weapons of their own in another place, and, having done that, they come to your Lordships and thrust Bills down our throat one after another without our having any means of deliberating upon them. Noble Lords and their friends elsewhere are very much given to making attacks on this House and to pointing out how unfavourable this House is to the present Government. So far from that being true, this House has done more for this Government in the way of hasty, helter-skelter legislation than for any Government during the time I have sat in your Lordships' House. I moved for a Return two years ago which proved that in the years 1906 and 1907 your Lordships' House passed for the present Government a larger number of important Bills in less time and with less consideration than they had done in a long preceding series of years. I should like to ask whether the Government really propose to take the remaining stages of this Bill during the next three days. The noble Earl the Leader of the House spoke with grateful memory of the stage of Standing Committee. Not only will it not be possible to take the Standing Committee stage with regard to this Bill, but I do not know how your Lordships are going to pass it through all its stages this week without offending the Standing Orders of the House. I merely utter this as a protest. I am not forgetting that we have to come back on 12th October. In the first place, what shall we have to do when we come back, at any rate for some time? Why should we not be considering this Bill? But, quite apart from that, I have not forgotten, and I do not suppose any of your Lordships have, the proceedings prior to Christmas on the last occasion that we had an autumn session. I hope we are not going to have any renewal of the discreditable scenes—it was not legislation—to which this House was then forced to become a party. I hope o your Lordships will insist that this sort of thing shall not be repeated in the closing weeks of next December. I veuture to place this protest on record, and to ask the Government whether they propose to proceed with all the stages of this Bill during this week, and, if so, for o what reason.

My Lords, I think your Lordships will all agree that, under the circumstances, the noble Earl is fully entitled to make the protest which he has just made. It is perfectly true that this Bill was brought up early on Saturday afternoon, and that it has only just been placed in your Lordships' hands. It is by no means the first time that something of this kind has happened. It has happened with other Governments in power. I have never quite understood why it is, when a Bill is brought up here on a Saturday afternoon, it should be found impossible to get anybody to print it. Overtime is not unknown, and I should have thought it would have been conceivable that important measures laid before your Lordships' House would have found someone to print them; but, apparently, that difficulty has arisen, and I confess that when I found the Bill had not been circulated I would have been glad to have postponed the Second Reading, but that would necessarily have involved a prolongation of the session into next week.

Why?

Because all the other days in the week are likely to be filled with other business.

Why not October?

I will come to that in a moment. The noble Earl asks why we should not be content to put this measure off till October. I think the answer lies in the nature of the measure itself. It is a measure which has come up from another place with a very general amount of agreement arrived at among people of very divergent opinions I do not think it is advisable to allow a measure of that kind to simmer too long. I think it is quite possible that, I do not say noble Lords opposite, but other politicians elsewhere, might, if the measure were postponed, develop some differences of opinion which so far have not occurred to them. In those circumstances I feel that it would be advantageous—I do not speak as a party man, for this is really not a party measure, but in the general interests of getting this very important question decided — if your Lordships would agree to pass it through all its stages before we adjourn for the holiday. The points at issue, as I think will appear when the Bill is debated, are not numerous. There are a number of great principles involved, but upon those agreement has been reached. The points upon which amendment is likely are, I hope and believe, exceedingly few. With regard to the general question, I should merely like to say this, that although I fully agree that it is desirable, both for the proper conduct of business and out of respect for your Lordships' House, that measures should be in the hands of Members for some time before a Bill is asked to be read a second time, yet I think one is bound, as far as possible, to avoid pedantry in the matter and to differentiate between different measures. What I am going to say to my noble friend holds equally good for both Houses, and it is this. When a measure has been very fully discussed in one House and has received but little amendment, I think it is reasonable to assume that those who are interested in the subject have followed those discussions and do not come to the matter in complete ignorance and with an entirely fresh mind; and though, of course, I am very far from saying that that absolves anybody from the necessity of placing the measure in your Lordships' hands, yet I think it is only fair to consider the particular character of the measure and the kind of opposition it has received. If this Bill had been amended in important respects at a late stage in another place, the noble Earl's case would have been a great deal stronger than it is at the moment, though I greatly regret that this should have occurred.

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl commenced his observations by frankly admitting that my noble friend was within his right in protesting against the manner in which this House has boon treated in regard to this Bill. Even to us who are accustomed to treatment of the kind, it is rather a strong order that a Bill of this importance should be read a first time on Saturday and a second time on the following Monday, and that the Bill itself should not be on the Table of the House until within an hour of the time when the discussion will probably begin. The noble Earl gave us certain reasons against the rather obvious course which my noble friend suggested—I mean the course of allowing the Bill to stand over until after the summer adjournment. His reason was, if I may say so, a rather suggestive one. He said the measure was not one of a sort that ought to be allowed to simmer for too long. We are able, perhaps, to infer from that observation what must have been the temperature of this Irish stew which has been simmering during the last few months. We may even divine that members of His Majesty's Government may have already burnt their fingers, and do not particularly wish to burn them again. I rise merely because I do not wish my noble friend behind me to stand alone in his protest. It is one which I have more than once made myself from this Table. With regard to the course which your Lordships should take, I am bound to say that the noble Earl is perhaps right in saying that this Bill comes to us under rather special circumstances. We are, of course, familiar with the general outline of the case, and I hope most of us have followed the discussions which have taken place elsewhere. But I should like to remind the noble Earl that amendments, and, I believe, amendments of some importance, were inserted in the Bill as lately as Friday last. I can only say with my noble friend behind me, that if we are to submit to treatment of this kind at the present period of the session, we hope that no attempt will be made to repeat the performance at the close of the winter session. I really do not think we are using idle words when we say that a moment will come when this House will not only resent, but will resist, the kind of treatment to which we are becoming too much accustomed.

My Lords, I do not desire to say anything in reply to the noble Marquess, but I will proceed, if I may be allowed to do so, to make a few observations on the measure, the Second Reading of which I shall shortly move. This question of University education in Ireland is one of the oldest and one of the most difficult that has been before Parliament. My right hon. friend has embarked upon a road which, like some of the caravan roads across the African desert, is strewn with the whitened bones which show the disasters of travellers who have passed that way before. This question, among other experiences, broke up the strongest Government which has probably ever existed in this country—I mean the Government which was formed by Mr. Gladstone in 1868. Before I proceed to say anything about the measure, perhaps I may be allowed to make a brief historical retrospect with regard to University education in Ireland. For a long time University education in Ireland meant the University and College of Trinity, in Dublin. That college and University was founded in the year 1582 as a sort of younger sister to the famous foundation at Cambridge of the same name; and over since those days it has been in its character a Protestant University. For at least 250 years it has been closely bound up with the Episcopal Church of Ireland. It was not until 1793, when Catholic relief generally was in the air, that Catholics were allowed to obtain degrees at Trinity, and in 1834 a fruitless attempt was made to allow Catholics to enjoy the scholarships and professorships of the University. The next thing that happened to University education in Ireland was in 1845, when the Queen's University, as it was called, was formed, consisting of the three Queen's Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway. Within five years from their inception these colleges were condemned by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, and also formally condemned from Rome, and ever since then they have not been looked on with great favour by that Church. At this moment there are, I fancy, about 250 Roman Catholic students in the three colleges. In 1854, by private enterprise, what was known as the Catholic University was founded, chiefly remembered now by the famous man who was its first head and who afterwards became Cardinal Newman. That University, for reasons into which it is not necessary to enter, never succeeded as a University, and it now only exists, so far as it can be said to exist at all, as an association of Roman Catholic colleges, of which, of course, the most famous is Maynooth. In 1866 Lord Russell made an unsuccessful attempt to recognise that University, and two years later, in 1868, Mr. Disraeli attempted to take in hand the question of Irish University education. At that time Lord Mayo was Chief Secretary for Ireland, and it was announced that a Catholic University was about to be instituted in Ireland; but between the Government of the day and the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops and the supporters in this country and in Ireland of the right hon. Gentleman who was then Prime Minister the scheme fell to the ground, and the Government of that day, as it appears, were not sorry to find an excuse for withdrawing it. Then in 1873 came the event to which. I have already alluded, when Mr. Gladstone attempted to found a great national University in Ireland, which was to include all the colleges of the first rank, including Trinity and Maynooth. The fate of that measure, involving as it did that of the Government, is very well-known history, but it should also be remembered that in that same year, 1873, Mr. Fawcett at last succeeded in doing what he had unavailingly tried to do before—that was, to abolish tests at Trinity College. Since then Trinity has been, at any rate in most respects, a testless University. In 1879 a further attempt was made, also by a Conservative Government. The Queen's University was abolished, although the colleges remained, and what is known as the Royal University was instituted. That was a purely examining body, and has remained so down to this time, and its existence, I think, has been almost an unmitigated misfortune for the highest type of education in Ireland. One thing is worth noting with regard to this Royal University—that its system of professorships acted as an indirect endowment of the Catholic University in Dublin. That was owing to the arrangement under which the different professors of the new University were paid. That is to say, those of the Queen's Colleges only received a small sum in addition to their stipend, while those of St. Stephen's Green received the full payment of professors, and that obviously acted as an endowment towards those particular colleges. Last year, taking entrance examination and degrees together, about 3,600 students entered for the various examinations at the Royal University, of whom nearly 2,400 passed, of whom 486 were women. That has been the condition of University education in Ireland, and the improvement of that system has been a subject of anxious care and study to many statesmen of both parties. I need not mention the prominent part which Mr. Balfour has takes, greatly to his honour, because it was sometimes, I think, in opposition to his party interests, in declaring in and out of season his determination to assist if he could in the settlemens of this question. But, as a matter of fact, among the public men of both parties who have held office either as Lord-Lieutenant or as Chief Secretary in Ireland, there has been, I think, scarcely one who has returned from Ireland without a conviction of the necessity of establishing in Ireland a University acceptable to Roman Catholics. I remember one singular instance of this. The late Mr. James Lowther was the least vacillating of politicians. Not long before his death he told me that he did not believe that he had modified in the slightest degree any opinion on any subject which he held when he entered the House of Commons in the year 1865, except on one, and that was this question. He was prepared to go almost to any length in assisting the foundation of a Roman Catholic University in Ireland. The next thing that happened arising out of this general interest in the matter was the establishment in the year 1901 of a Commission over which the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Robertson, presided. He was assisted by various distinguished men. The late Lord Ridley the present Archbishop of Tuam, and the Sir Richard Jebb were amongst them. That Commission reported in the year 1903, and the effect of its Report was to condemn, I think, without any qualification, the system of a purely examining University. It also condemned the indirect system of endowing particular professorships, and it as a whole recommended the institution of a new college in Dublin, although I think the noble and learned Lord opposite carefully guarded himself, if I remember right, from being supposed to recommend the establishment of a Roman Catholic University as such in the capital of Ireland.

I stated in my separate Report that the ground of my objection was that I thought it was a political question for Parliament to decide, and not for the Commission.

I am very glad to have that from the noble and learned Lord. Then in 1906 a further Commission was held. The Commission presided over by the noble and learned Lord had been appointed to inquire into the question of University education outside Trinity College. Trinity did not fall within its purview, but it did fall within the purview of the Commission of 1906. That Commission was also composed of unusually distinguished men. It was presided over by Sir Edward Fry. Chief Baron Palles, Sir Thomas Raleigh, Professor Henry Jackson of Cambridge, Mr. Butcher, whom we all know so well in another place, and who is also equally distinguished on the academic side, Sir Arthur Rücker, so well known as the Principal of London University, and Dr. Douglas Hyde were members of it. All but one of those Commissioners, and the one was not one of those distinguished men that I have mentioned, recommended the establishment of a college in Dublin, but on one point of the first importance their opinions were diametrically split, and that was the question whether Trinity should form part of the new University or not. Four of those gentlemen recommended that Trinity should be included. One, Professor Jackson, thought that the inclusion of Trinity was the best course that could be taken, but believed it to be practically impossible, and three were strongly opposed to the inclusion of Trinity. In bringing in this measure the Government had to decide whether or not Trinity should be included. When we came to examine the matter at close quarters, it was quite evident that Trinity strongly objected to inclusion. About the position of Trinity College, Dublin, there can be no two opinions. It enjoys the possession of famous traditions of ripe scholarship, and of highly successful schools, both in classics and mathematics and in theology. It has enjoyed, also, a social reputation, for years and centuries, for literature and wit which no University surpasses. It may be said that among all the Universities, the kindly mothers of polite learning and of science, not one in any country has secured deeper devotion or more romantic allegiance from its sons than has Trinity. Under those circumstances it was no doubt a fascinating idea to ask Trinity to bring all its traditions to the service of the new University, and to act, as Trinity must have acted, as leader in the new combination. But Trinity did not see the matter in that light. Trinity was altogether unwilling to join. Whether, in doing so, she made one of those great refusals which are sometimes made by institutions no less than by individuals it is impossible to say; but it was obviously impossible, in view of her opposition, to press the point, and therefore we fell back on the scheme of the Bill. The problem we had to meet was how to institute a University in Ireland which would be acceptable to the Catholics without endowing a Catholic University, which would be to do something which has never yet been done in the United Kingdom. It might be said, as it often has been said: There are no tests now at Trinity; why do not Catholics who desire the highest form of education attend Trinity College? The one main answer to that is that they will not. The reason, I think, is not altogether far to seek. It is not, of course, that Roman Catholic parents and Roman Catholic clergy believe that if their young men attend Trinity College they would be turned into Protestants, but they do think that they might return from there somewhat less good Catholics. The fact that they hold that opinion, although a certain number of Catholics do go to Trinity, makes a general attendance practically impossible. In some ways the task of the Government was easier than that of any previous Government. The question of Belfast will settle itself more easily than it ever could have settled itself before. Great towns like Belfast have now not merely become reconciled to the idea of having a University, but a, University has become almost an appanage of first-class towns. If Sheffield, with 400,000 inhabitants, can have an excellent University, there clearly is no reason why Belfast, with some 360,000, should not enjoy a similar advantage. It was found that when Lord Kelvin strongly recommended the institution of a University in Belfast, the idea was received there with infinitely greater favour than it had ever been in former years. Therefore, we leave Trinity alone. We propose to form two Universities, one with its seat in Belfast, and the other with its seat in Dublin, consisting of a new college in Dublin and the old Queen's College at Cork and the old Queen's College at Galway. As to Clause 1, I need only say that for the moment the question of the titles of these two Universities is postponed. It was felt that it would be better that they should, so to speak, christen themselves, rather than be christened by those who might not be in complete sympathy with them. But that is a small matter. Clause 2 deals with the colleges. I need only draw the attention of the House to subsection 4 of that clause It is one on which a considerable difference of opinion has existed, which was not altogether reconciled when the Bill was discussed in another place. Sub section 4 provides for the recognition — that is the word in the Act—or affiliation, of other colleges by the new University, and although that recognition is carefully guarded, yet it has met with a considerable degree of objection. We should all agree that if this matter could be considered in the abstract the objection would be fatal to the scheme. It is not, as a purely abstract question, a desirable thing that a University degree should be obtainable by anybody who has not shared in the corporate life of the University and has not, as a matter of fact, lived at the University itself. On the other hand we were confronted by the practical necessities of the case. The two colleges principally concerned in this matter are Maynooth, which will naturally be recognised by Dublin, and Magee, which will naturally be recognised by Belfast. It is only fair to state that, although those colleges are spoken of as theological colleges, they are not purely theological, as anybody will know who has visited them, because there is a faculty of arts at both; and at Maynooth, of which I have the most personal knowledge, that is a side of education which it would be improper to speak of as being neglected. It was suggested in another place that although it might be proper to affiliate Maynooth, yet out of three years arts course—the whole course, I think, is seven years— two ought properly to be spent in the immediate neighbourhood of the University. If that is the ultimate outcome of this Act, nobody would be more glad than myself. One has no right to speak in any critical or advisory tone of the educational arrangement of a Church to which he does not belong; but it is common knowledge, I believe, that among Catholics there are a very considerable number, even in Maynooth itself, who would welcome the possibility of such a course as this. But it is not practicable at this moment. In the first place we must remember the important point that we are not in a position to found a residential college, and it is not possible to provide in Dublin at this moment hostels for students who, in view of the fact that they are intended for the priesthood, would have to be kept under careful supervision whether they were at Maynooth or Dublin. Under those circumstances it is quite clear that to have insisted on this provision would be fatal to the reception of the Bill in Ireland by those who are responsible for that side of education. To begin by a controversy of that kind, whatever you may think of the merits of the case, would have been a poor start for the measure and would have undone a large part of the good we hope the Bill may do. It is important to bear this in mind, that the terms on which these colleges are to be recognised are susceptible of change from time to time, and therefore it would be open to the senate of either University, whenever it thinks that the time has come when such a provision of this kind ought to be enforced, to make it a condition for the continued recognition of either of the colleges. Clause 3 deals with the important question of tests, and on that I may say, because it is a kindred though not an identical subject, that it was decided in another place, after some discussion, not to allow the erection of chapels in connection with these Universities. As regards the question of tests, subsection 2 provides for a custom that does not obtain greatly in England, though it is well known in Ireland, and that is the declaration by professors on taking office. No faculty of theology or divinity can be endowed by public money under the Act, though those who desire to found professorships in theology are, of course, at liberty to do so, but those who hold them will not be in all respects in the same position as the other officers of the University, and the religious belief of the students is carefully safeguarded by a conscience clause. The next point is one over which a degree of controversy has arisen. It is with regard to the statutes of the Universities and the constituent colleges. That has been a matter of some discussion, because the Bill as it stands only provides for the regulation of these statutes by Parliament. The question has arisen whether the practice of the new Universities might not be assimilated to that of the Universities in this country. That is a question that is to some extent still under consideration, but I hope that my right hon. friend may find means of meeting the wishes of those who have raised this point in another place. Then temporary Commissioners are appointed. My right hon. friend has stated they are a distinguished body of men, both English and Irish. They are appointed for the transition stage, to draw up statutes and deal with the property and the obligations of the existing colleges and the Royal University. As to the finance of the Bill, at present Queen's Colleges each receive £7,000 a year from the Consolidated Fund. This is brought up by votes and allowances to £13,000 in the case of Belfast, £11,250 in that of Cork, and £10,600 in that of Galway. The Royal University gets £20,000 a year from the Irish Church surplus, making a total endowment of £55,456. The new proposal is that the £20,000 of the Irish Church surplus is to be divided between the two Universities, Belfast getting £10,000 and Dublin £10,000. In addition to that, Belfast gets £18,000 a year, Dublin £32,000, Cork £20,000, and Galway £12,000, making altogether a total of £102,000, which is £46,544 more than they have hitherto been receiving. As regards buildings, Dublin University and College receive a building grant of £150,000, Belfast one of £60,000, Cork £14,000, and Galway £6,000. Then to Dublin the site and buildings of the Royal University, which cost £77,000, are handed over, and the Queen's Colleges which form part of the new University and cost originally and with additions altogether £186,000, making a grand total of £493,000. That, I think, cannot be said to be illiberal finance. No building grant, as far as I know, has ever been given to an English University. To Wales very little has been given, for Wales is the good child in these matters, and the amount raised there by private subscriptions has been considerable, and the Principality has not got much from the Treasury. Scotland, on the other hand, is an astute country, and has had at one time or another £380,000 in the shape of building grants. This is not to be a residential University. It is to be regretted, I think, in any case, and all the more in view of the fact that Trinity is a residential University, and, therefore, comparison between the two is certain to be instituted, although in many respects the new University cannot hope to rival the ancient traditions of Trinity. We hope that some benefactors will come forward from time to time and part with some of their superfluous money by way of gift or legacy for the purpose of instituting a residential University in Dublin. I will give only one other sot of figures—that of the numbers of students at the Queen's Colleges. They show to my mind more than anything else the necessity of instituting this new foundation. They have come down progressively since 1802. Belfast has fallen from 502 in that year to 390 in 1906, Cork from 348 to 261, Galway from 144 to 111. I think it is clear that that is due to the setting up of the Royal University. It cannot, I think, be otherwise explained. If people could get the same degree purely by examination and by living where they pleased, they were less likely than otherwise they would be to attend colleges. Therefore I think we may fairly expect, if the Bill is passed, a very considerable and steady increase in the numbers in these colleges I pass rapidly over a great many other provisions in the Bill. Clause 10 provides for the institution of scholarships by the Intermediate Education Board of Ireland and by county and borough councils. Clauses 11 and 12 deal with various points connected with professional education. Clause 13 deals with the interests of existing graduates and students, and saves the interests of those who are at present students of the Royal University, because it would be obviously unfair for them if, having entered a University course to pass a certain examination, they were confronted in the middle of it with something quite different. Then follow long and rather complicated clauses upon which I do not think controversy has arisen. The first schedule gives the constitution of the governing bodies of the Universities, and, in addition, draft charters of both the Universities and colleges have been circulated. The draft charters in the case of the colleges provide a scheme for the governing bodies which is not placed in the Bill, and, therefore, the charter can be altered without the necessity of coming to Parliament. The composition of the proposed governing bodies of those colleges is one of the points which has formed the subject of some discussion. We have been told they are not sufficiently academic in character, that the outside element is somewhat too large. That, of course is a matter for discussion, and one upon which any man is entitled to hold his own opinion. If I may take Dublin as an instance, of the governing body of thirty-four members, sixteen may be taken as being directly academic, ten appointed by the City and county councils, four appointed by the Crown, and four co-opted. That gives a large majority to the academic side. Whether it is large enough may be argued, if an Amendment is moved on the subject. I think it must be borne in mind that it is very important to excite the interest of the locality and all those who represent it. It is our belief that that is best attained by allowing important local authorities to send representatives to the governing bodies. Such is the character of the measure which I ask your Lordships to read a second time; and, I think, it is pretty clear from the history that I gave earlier that it is a kind of measure which any Government might well be tempted to leave alone. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, however, has shown great energy in promoting it, and has earned many handsome and generous compliments, not only from his own side, but from those generally opposed to him in politics. I hope, therefore, that the caravan, if I may use the simile again, is drawing in sight of home. Ireland has waited a long time for some measure of this kind; certainly she has waited for a full hundred years. Every year a new generation of young Roman Catholic students has arrived at manhood without in most cases obtaining the highest class of University education. That has a political side to it. The young student at the time does not always recognise his misfortune, for the average young man does not usually complain that he is being under-educated. But when he gets older and finds various avenues closed to him and various careers thwarted, he must blame somebody; he knows he need not blame himself, and, therefore, he blames the British Parliament, which has failed for so long to deal with this question, and I cannot help thinking that the existence of this real grievance has been one important contributory cause to the ill feeling which, as we know, has existed from time to time between the two countries. Our view is that we are very glad to believe that this measure offers a settlement. We have been taunted—we may be taunted again—with being untrue to our principles by instituting something in the nature of endowments of denominational education. Those taunts, I confess, do not greatly affect me. I think they can only be made by those who are exceedingly prejudiced, or who take a very shallow view of the facts. The popular education of a country must be what the people of that country demand in view of their beliefs and opinions, whether social or religious. That is exactly the spirit in which we approached our attempted settlement of the question of elementary education in England. We approach this question in precisely the same spirit. What we desire to do is to give to every man, to every boy, freedom of opportunity so far as that is compatible with the establishment of a great national system. In the highest education in Ireland there has existed this great gap in the national system. That gap this measure is intended, if possible, to bridge.

My Lords, after the full and clear statement of the provisions of the Bill which has just been given by the noble Earl, I will venture to assume that there is no one in your Lordships' House who has not a very good idea of the proposals of this Bill. It would be impossible for any of us, after the discussions that have taken place in Parliament, after the proceedings of the two Royal Commissions, and after the frequent discussions of this matter in. the Press, not to have a very ample knowledge of all that is meant by the words Irish University question. It is one of the most, difficult and thorny of Irish problems. I think the noble Earl, if I may presume to say so, might have left out his closing sentence. Nothing that I know of has been said of a taunting character in reference to the Government in connection with this Bill. But really it is something of a challenge to ask us to recognise that this Bill is conceived on the same lines as the solution of the English primary education question that was presented to your Lordships. The noble Earl waved a gentle flag at the close of his speech, but this is not a time of the evening that lends itself to going out of the way to take up any extraneous topic. I am obliged to the noble Earl for the way in which he has referred to the University of Dublin, of which I had the honour to be a representative in the House of Commons for many years. That great University, founded in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, was the sole University in Ireland until the foundation of the Queen's Colleges. It has had a great history and a splendid career, and it is worthy of note that in the Report of the last of the Royal Commissions referred to by the noble Earl these gratifying words are to be found—

"Trinity College as it stands to-day is a noble institution for the advancement of sound learning, not unworthy of its great traditions and of the affection and veneration with which it is regarded by its children."

Those are worthy and generous words, and they are founded upon absolute truth. The connection of the University of Dublin with this great question of Catholic education is a worthy one, too. Long before the great Universities of England thought of granting their degrees to Roman Catholics, in the year 1793 Trinity College threw open her degrees to the Roman Catholics of Ireland without stint or hesitation. In the history of this question it should never be forgotten that the first of the great Universities of the Empire that recognised the claims of Roman Catholics to University degrees was the great University of Dublin. Mr. Fawcett's Act, passed within our own memory, threw open every prize, honour, distinction, and office within its control to everybody, and the portals of Dublin University since the passing of Fawcett's Act have been open to all. As an Irishman, and as a former Member for Dublin University, I would have preferred if my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen had been satisfied with the opportunities presented by that University, and I much regret that the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church set themselves against that solution of the question. Then came the founding of the Queen's Colleges. The Roman Catholic Bishops declined to accept that solution, and the colleges were put under the ban of being regarded as godless. As we all know, the demand for a Roman Catholic University has grown immensely within the last ten years. It is not for us in this House, or for the other House of Parliament, to say whether we approve or do not approve of the demand of the Roman Catholics. It is not for us to sit in judgment on the opinions and desires of other men. Every one has a right to his own view as to what he desires, and it is not for us to say whether the Roman Catholics are right or wrong in the demand that they have made. They are within their constitutional rights, and we are bound to pay attention to the way in which they have presented their case. Mr. Gladstone, a man of genius and a great University man, thought that he could solve the question. Well, he tried his hand and failed; and he was wise enough never to try it again. Two Royal Commissions have sat, presided over by men of high eminence and composed of men of great distinction, and they have given their views. I will not discuss the proceedings of those Royal Commissions. Then came Mr. Bryce's scheme, and that was the only omission in the speech of the noble Earl. The noble Earl never mentioned the name of Mr. Bryce. That scheme pleased nobody. It touched every point of the greatest resistence, and it is not unnaturally passed by in the solution found in the present Bill. The noble Earl has told us the way in which the Government approached this question. They appear to have applied their minds to it with an anxious desire to reach a solution that would as far as possible, be acceptable to Roman Catholics and would not hurt the feelings of other people — a very difficult combination to work out. The Chief Secretary is entitled to, and has got, full credit for the ability and the skill with which he framed this measure. He is entitled also to the fullest measure of credit for the diplomacy and the adroitness with which he carried the Bill through the House of Commons. It was passed there by great majorities; some important criticisms were made, but the Chief Secretary always met them most genially and eloquently, and his view was supported by large numbers in the division lobby. All must admit, I think, that the Bill was fairly dealt with on both sides in the House of Commons, and that it was met frankly and not unkindly. It is obvious to anyone who has studied those debates that there was a desire, as far as possible, to reach a settlement of this long fought out question, and, if possible, to find that settlement in the Bill of the Government. The speech of Mr. Balfour on Saturday last was a fine speech, full of generous and cordial sentiment towards the Bill, and of ungrudging praise of the statesman who had carried it. I myself have no desire to suggest any doubt as to my action in reference to the Bill. I am prepared to support the Second Reading, and to do what I can to assist the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House, of course, reserving to myself the right, at the next stage, of offering such reasonable and fair criticisms as may be right and just. The noble Earl, naturally enough, hardly mentioned the portion of the Bill that has reference to Belfast. I can quite understand that, because there is little or no question about it. Belfast Queen's College has had a great and successful career, and no one can doubt that, under new conditions as a University, it will grow in fame, utility, and distinction. The real crux of the Bill is to be found in the legislation with reference to the new University in Dublin. The matters that require examination and explanation, the obvious and serious difficulties, are all in connection with the Dublin University. Mr. Birrell was in an enormous difficulty—the noble Earl has skated over it very delicately—in having constantly to meet the charge that this is a denominational measure, and, bearing in mind the composition of the House of Commons, one can well understand that he did not like that charge being made so often. There is, however, no reason for having any hesitation in putting the matter perfectly plainly. The Bill, so far as the drafting of it goes, is framed on undenominational lines. Anyone who reads the clauses, and particularly those to which the noble Earl has referred, will see that the structure of the Bill is technically undenominational. But when one turns to the charters which are to work out the Bill, when one sees the mechanism to be applied by the charters, and the constitution of the governing bodies to be called into existence by the charters, it is obvious that it is a denominational measure, and intended to be a denominational measure. No one with any desire to be as frank as the circumstances would permit would dream of nesitating to admit, in the most candid way, that the charters must work out a system of education that will be denominational. If they do not do that, the Bill will not satisfy the wishes, the desires, and the ambitions of those at whose demand it has been produced; and it cannot but be a failure if it does not satisfy those demands. That is really the position of the case at the present moment. Take the Senate of Dublin University. There are no end of loopholes by which the atmosphere can come in in a fine, vigorous, and robust way at every second of its existence. It is better to recognise that as an intelligible and obvious result. Anyone who regards this Bill as an undenominational settlement of the University question in Ireland must indeed be willing to be deceived; but then, there are none so blind as those who will not see. When the senate is in working order there can be no manner of doubt as to the atmosphere which will control its operations. The senate is given great authority as to those whom it will recognise. The Bill says that there should be a power given to recognise students in the colleges; the charter says there is to be power given to recognise the colleges. That shows what advance was made when the promoters applied themselves to the preparation of the charters, and what is the matter that is intended. Power is given to confer privileges and to swell the roll of graduates in a manner which may have considerable result ultimately on the management of the Universities. It may be that as time develops and the matter is further considered the power will be used in a more moderate way, and that efforts will be made to avail themselves of the power to confer some of the advantages of residence on all pupils of the colleges. But at present the whole decision in this matter is given to the senate. Why? The noble Earl said that the Commissioners appointed were distinguished men. I agree. Then why are they not given the power to recognise and affiliate? Why should not the Commissioners have this power while their tenure lasts, and when it ends it could devolve upon the Senate. The Robertson Commission unanimously recommended that the Royal College of Science in Dublin should be affiliated. Why not give the Commissioners power to affiliate that college which has the advantage of now being fully equipped? I do not know why the power of affiliation or recognition is not given by statute. That is a suggestion I venture to throw out. Then there is the very large civic element in the Senates. That is a matter which has been acutely discussed elsewhere. I will not refer to it now; but the noble Earl must not be surprised if it is mentioned in future discussions in your Lordships' House. To call into existence a civic clement out of all proportion is a very serious thing, and may have considerable effect. It is impossible to make any real contract here with the new English Universities. Then there is the question of chapels. It is impossible not to sympathise with Mr. Birrell in his difficulties in trying to meet the Nonconformist conscience. In Grand Committee on the Bill, Mr. Butcher, a man of great ability whom everyone likes to praise, moved an Amendment that a chapel might be erected by private benefaction within or without the precincts of the University or college in Dublin. Mr. Birrell saw the sense of the Amendment and accepted it. But the working of the human conscience is sometimes strange; and it was intimated to him that the Nonconformist conscience was restive under this proposition, and, accordingly on Friday last the erection of a chapel, even by private benefaction, had to be given up. I quite understand it, but it is one of those things that it is difficult to explain. I should not be in the least surprised, however, if at the Committee stage some of my noble friends presented that question for reexamination. From my knowledge of Dublin I am quite aware that next to the Catholic University College there is a very handsome and fashionable Catholic Church, which will, no doubt, be available while they are waiting for the building of a chapel, but its locality may not be convenient. We have to consider this question apart from our own wishes, apart from our own University ideas, and apart from our own opinions of scholastic requirements. We have to look at it as practical men. What are we to do with this solution of the Government? The Bill has passed the House of Commons by large majorities and with a great deal of approval; it has commended itself, as far as we can see, to the general approval of the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church. As practical men we must recognise that a settlement is desirable, and that we are nearer a settlement now than at any previous time in the history of this extremely thorny question. I am in favour, as I have said, of granting the Bill a Second Reading, and, subject to fair discussion, placing no obstacle in its progress. Yet it is impossible to look to the future with regard to some important points of the Bill without serious misgivings. But I know that Irishmen are clever, that they love learning and thirst for education. I place reliance upon the general desire of the Roman Catholic body in Ireland to make the new scheme a success; and, therefore, I trust that it will realise the hopes of its authors and in time become a potent agency to assist the spread of learning throughout the land.

My Lords, it has been the fate of those of your Lordships who have been connected with Ireland during the last forty years to find yourselves on nearly every occasion in active opposition to the wishes of the majority of the people of that country as expressed by their representatives in another place. I think the reason of that is very easy to explain. It is because the subjects which have been dealt with have been nearly always concerning either property or the Government of the country. I think it is universally acknowledged that land legislation, whether good or bad, has seriously reduced the value of the land, not of the whole of the land of Ireland, but of that part of it which belonged to the landlord in contradistinction to that part which belonged to the tenant So far as the measures which have been introduced have related to the Government of Ireland, your Lordships will agree that the opposition which was offered to those measures was actuated by the sincere belief and conviction that those measures would have resulted in a loosening, if not a snapping, of the links which bind the two countries together. But the Bill which is before us to-night is of a very different nature. No one can say that it affects the stability of the Empire, and the only way in which it affects property is so far as the tenth clause is concerned. That clause certainly gives very large powers to county councils to raise funds in aid of this University if they obtain the consent of the Local Government Board, although that consent confines them to a sum not exceeding 1d. in the £. I think, therefore, the people of Ireland will look with much interest to see what attitude your Lordships will take with regard to this measure, and it seems to me that it ought to be regarded by us only from two points of view. In the first place, we have to consider whether another University is needed, and in the second place, if such a University is necessary, whether such a one as it is proposed to establish will satisfy the wishes and the requirements of the Roman Catholics of that country. I do not propose to discuss at all the question of the University of Belfast. So far as I can make out that University is not desired and it is not required, and it is only inserted in this Bill for the purpose of satisfying that extremely valuable, but at the same time, exceedingly liquid asset of the Radical Party, the Nonconformist conscience. I propose, with your permission, to consider very carefully in detail what are the chief objections which are urged against this Bill. The first is a very old one; it is that Maynooth was originally intended for the education of ecclesiastics and also of the Roman Catholic laity, and that until the Roman Catholic clergy agree to restore it to its original use, no steps should be taken with regard to the higher education of Ireland. As an argument that sounds very well, but as practical men we know that the Roman Catholic clergy will never allow it to be restored to its original use, and consequently those who advocate that higher education should be put off until that is done, really wish to postpone the establishment of a Roman Catholic University until the time of the Greek Kalends. The second objection which is urged is that Trinity College, Dublin, amply satisfies the requirements of the people of Ireland; she has opened her doors wide, as we have heard, to students of all denominations, and she is proud to reckon amongst her most distinguished alumni members of the Roman Catholic Church. I will not give a list of them to your Lordships, but there is one who will be well remembered by you—the late Lord Morris. I think this objection is a serious one, and deserves to be considered. I, for one, wish that on this occasion the Chief Secretary had not chosen the path of least resistance; that, instead of arranging for three watertight compartments, in order that Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Nonconformists might be bottled up for three or four years and then launched on the world filled to the brim with the odium theologicum, he had tried to found a really national University, where Irishmen of all religions, at the age when friendships are made, might have met and foregathered; where the religious convictions of all would have been respected; where they would have learned that good fellows wore to be found in every denomination, and where, above all, they would have been taught that lesson which, more than any other, I think my fellow countrymen need to learn, the lesson of mutual toleration. But in fairness to the Chief Secretary, I think it must be acknowledged that there were lions in the path which he would have to fight, had he chosen what I believe would have been the better and the braver course. I honestly admit that if I were a devout Roman Catholic I should hesitate about sending my son, at a most susceptible age, to a University whose atmosphere is distinctly Anglican, and if I were, what I fear many of my Roman Catholic fellow countrymen are, disloyal, I should certainly not have sent him to a University whose proudest boast is that it is loyal to the Union. And I do not think the whole blame lies on the side of the Roman Catholics, because although Trinity College was perfectly willing to make certain concessions I cannot help believing that a deep sigh of relief was heaved when she found she was allowed to pursue her way along the old paths on which she had been so successful, unhampered by a new and unknown element which might have swamped her. There is another objection which is urged by many educated Roman Catholics—that the University is absolutely unnecessary. A well-known Irish gentleman, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, said to me the other day, "Why do you give us this University? We do not want it. There is nobody to go to it. There is virtually no middle class in Ireland, and we do not want a University for ploughboys." I said: "If that is your view, and that is what educated Roman Catholics in Ireland think, why do you not express it in public?" He replied: "We cannot do that, it would not do for us to go against the priests; it would make us too unpopular." I for one am not willing to help those who are not willing to help themselves. I say that the case goes by default, and I do not believe any of your Lordships would be willing to take up the cudgels on behalf of those who had not the courage to take them up for themselves. The last objection which is urged against this University is that it will be priest-ridden; in other words, that it will be governed by clerical influence. Of course it will, and if it were not, I do not believe that in the present state of feeling in Ireland it would satisfy the wishes of the Roman Catholics in that country, I know the Chief Secretary thinks it will be an undenominational University, but I am told that the Chief Secretary believes his administration of Ireland has been successful, and a man who believes that will believe anything. I wish myself that it were not necessary for political reasons to continue this farce of calling it an undenominational University. I wish it could be a purely Roman Catholic University, with a whole bench of Roman Catholic bishops as its governing body, for I do not believe, unless the University is governed by the bishops or by their nominees, that Roman Catholics will attend it, and I would like to throw upon them the responsibility of showing that they are able to manage a University so as to satisfy modern requirements. We live in democratic times, and this is a democratic Bill. We no longer affect to give the people what we believe to be good for them; we give them what they want, and my opinion is that what they want nowadays is generally what is very bad for them. But I believe, at any rate, that if we were to take a plebiscite of Roman Catholics in Ireland at the present time, we should find a large majority in favour of a University to be governed by the clergy. I should like to say a word about the Roman Catholic clergy. I used just now the word, "priest-ridden," and I should not like it to be thought that I said anything inimical or unfriendly towards the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. I have lived amongst them all my life, and amongst their number I can count old and valued friends. It used to be said in old days that the Roman Catholic priest was the centre of every form of political intrigue. I believe that much of that is changed nowadays, and when you find a Roman Catholic priest at the head of a political organisation, it is nearly always more for the purpose of governing and controlling that institution than for the object of urging it politically. I can say that in my part of the world, the West of Ireland, priests are generally occupied in looking after the spiritual and temporal welfare of their flocks, and I must acknowledge that when they look after their temporal welfare, they sometimes wander into political fields where I find myself in acute antagonism to them; but except in those matters and on certain questions of discipline, where they take what I hope they will forgive my calling a rather narrow view of a particular case, I am sure that their object is to live on terms of friendliness with their neighbours be they Roman Catholic or Protestant. Of course, they wish to retain control of education, but I have still to discover the church whose clergy do not wish to do the same, and I have no hesitation in saying that I would far rather that my countrymen were brought up even under the strictest form of ultra Monotheism than that Ireland should follow the example of those nominally Roman Catholic countries where the attendance of a man at Mass is sufficient to bar him from promotion in the Army, Navy, or the Civil Service. I should like to say one word about an Amendment which was proposed on the Report stage in another place and alluded to by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, by which it was proposed that no one should be able to take his degree without being resident two years at the University. I am very sorry that Amendment was not adopted with qualifications, because, as I am in favour of a national University where Irishmen of all religions might mingle, so, in this Roman Catholic University, I am in favour of the establishment of a hostel where those who are destined to be priests will reside, segregated to a certain extent, but yet not cut off altogether from the laity who are there. It is said that the Roman Catholic hierarchy strongly objected to this, but it is whispered that some younger bishops are not so unfriendly to the idea, and I cannot help thinking that if this Amendment had been adopted, with perhaps a proviso that it was not to take effect for ten years, it would not have been so unfavourably regarded in Episcopal circles as the Chief Secretary seems to have imagined. But whatever chance there may have been of having a hostel for the education of priests in Dublin, it was absolutely done away with by the only Amendment of importance which was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. I mean the Amendment which forbade the establishment of a Roman Catholic chapel in or without a college. I was extremely sorry to see that Amendment accepted, because I am sure that there are many Roman Catholics who would gladly have contributed towards a chapel which might have vied with Trinity College, Dublin, and I feel perfectly certain that there is no chance of a hostel for Maynooth students if there is not a place where those students may perform their religious duties in common. I hope that when the Committee stage arrives your Lordships will reconsider that point. One word in a lighter vein. Various questions have been asked as to what shall be the name of this University, arid no satisfactory answer has been given. There is one name which would appeal to Irishmen as a suitable name for the University, that of the University of St. Patrick, but I am told that that is impossible because that name has already been taken possession of by St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, which will become no doubt an affiliated college. Therefore I should like to suggest another name, a name which will recall the great Roman bishop who brought Christianity to this island, and will at the same time, commemorate the right hon. Gentleman who is giving an undenominational University to Ireland; I need hardly tell your Lordships that the name I suggest, is The University of St. Augustine. I shall vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, not because I believe it is the best possible University that could have been devised, but because I should like to show Roman Catholics that where the interests aid stability of the Empire are not in danger, where justice is done between man and man, the minority in Ireland are only too anxious, too willing, to do whatever lies in their power to further the wishes and to benefit the majority of their fellow-countrymen.

My Lords, I cannot profess complete satisfaction at the Bill now before us, establishing as it does a new University, nominally undenominational but having a strong denominational character. I should much prefer to see the youth of Ireland of all denominations educated together, and I believe this might be done without danger to their religious faith. In the course of a tolerably long life I have been fortunate enough to count a considerable number of Roman Catholics among my personal, and some among my intimate, friends, many of them earnest and devout men deeply attached to the doctrines of their Church, and I have never known one jarring note struck which might disturb the harmony of our intercourse or friendship or prevent us joining cordially together when opportunity offered for any public object. It may be said that this is the experience of maturer years when a man's convictions are grounded and settled and when his mind is no longer so receptive of new ideas or strange influences. That is no doubt the case to a certain extent, but I believe the same Conditions might obtain in earlier days. I have been assured by friends who have gone through Trinity College that hot only was there no attempt at interference with their religion, but that they did not find themselves in any way debarred from associating in every manner with the rest of the undergraduates of other denominations. I need hardly point out the great advantage it would be in the future if young men as they grew up would no longer stand arrayed against each other in opposite camps, but would be actuated by feelings of friendship towards those around them, and be able to combine together for any object of public advantage. I would even go further and say, as my noble friend has done, that I should like to see those who are destined to take holy orders educated together with other undergraduates. I firmly believe, and my old University recollections, although dating from a great many years back, confirm it, that it is a great advantage for a society of somewhat thoughtless young men to be leavened by the inclusion among them of those of a more serious character. I also believe it to be a great advantage to those who intend to take holy orders; that they thereby acquire greater knowledge of the world and a keener insight into the various phases of the thoughts, feelings, and aspirations, of those whose course in fife will be different than they possibly could do if they only associated with students of their own character. I believe all this might be done without any danger to the faith of those who would participate in such education. Indeed, if I thought that it was fraught with danger to any young man, that he would be shaken in the faith in which he has been brought up, I should not advocate united education. But unfortunately this feeling of security is not shared in by the great mass of Roman Catholics in Ireland or rather perhaps I should say, of those to whom they naturally look for guidance. They refuse to accept University education Under those terms and I do not think it is right to force upon people an education of which they conscientiously disapprove, or, what comes to the same thing, to force upon them the alternative of accepting this system of education or going without a University education altogether. Therefore, my Lords, I certainly am not disposed to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. There are many points that have been raised in discussion in the other House which I trust will be considered in Committee when it comes again before your Lordships' House. There is one great merit, in my idea, in the Bill—that it leaves Trinity College absolutely intact. I think anyone who dispassionately considers the great work that has been done by that venerable institution during three hundred years, the distinguished men who have been educated within its walls, and the high standard it has ever maintained, would think it nothing short of a public calamity if any change were introduced that might impair its efficiency or reduce the value in which its degrees are deservedly held throughout the civilised world. In this respect, therefore, I consider this Bill to be a marked improvement on other schemes that have been brought forward. I can only hope that the educational advantages which it offers will be largely availed of in Ireland, and that they will have the result which must be the result of any system of higher education, of widening the ideas of those who profit by them, of softening asperities of feeling, and of rendering them more ready to combine with others in anything that may advance the interests of their common country.

My Lords, with your permission. I shall offer a few remarks upon the Bill which it is proposed to read for the second time. I have taken a deep interest in the question of University education in Ireland, and I have paid special attention to the subject whilst still connected with Irish Government. I am not willing, therefore, to give a silent vote or to abstain from defining my position in regard to this Bill, and expressing my views upon the general question. Happily, it is no longer necessary to state the reason or to demonstrate the necessity for the provision of greater facilities for University education in Ireland. All political parties are in practical agreement on that point, and if in recent years any divergence of opinion has existed upon it, that divergence has been composed by the labours of the two Royal Commissions which have recently considered the subject. We in Ireland have been looking forward with hope to the result of that agreement. Whatever may be the particular measure to be adopted for giving it effect it cannot fail to promote intellectual progress in Ireland and the material prosperity of the country. The Bill before your Lordships proposes to carry that general agreement into effect by a multiplication of Universities in Ireland. It establishes two Universities in addition to the University of Dublin, and I think I am correct in saying that by a natural process of evolution a fourth or even a fifth University may eventually come into existence. This, it is argued, proceeds on the analogy of recent academical developments in England and derives support from the actual state of things which prevailed in the Scottish academical world. This method of dealing with the University question in Ireland was very clearly before the minds of those who considered the question before the present Chief Secretary ever addressed himself to the subject. I can only speak for myself, but I may perhaps be permitted to say that in considering the subject there was complete unanimity of view and absolute identity of purpose between the distinguished men who considered the subject and myself. Speaking, therefore, for myself, I confess that I entertained very serious doubt as to whether those Scottish and English models were suitable for the existing state of things in Ireland. In my humble opinion the success of the Scottish University system depended not so much upon the number of Universities as upon the excellent system of primary and secondary education which exists in Scotland, and upon the co-ordination of that system with the higher teaching of the University. But Ireland is lamentably behindhand both in regard to primary and secondary education, whilst no serious attempt has yet been made to co-ordinate the work of the two classes of school. Even if we were sanguine enough to hope that this most necessary co-ordination of primary and secondary education in Ireland would be taken in hand at once, many years must elapse before the new Universities would be able to derive from the schools the assistance which they would want, before they could themselves bring to bear upon the schools the influence necessary to stimulate them to activity. Passing to the English developments, my opinion was that the analogy between the great commercial centres in England which are the seats of the Universities and the state of things in Ireland is extremely remote. The demand for higher and better technical education in England was, I think, the chief factor which led to the establishment of the newer Universities, but that demand can hardly be said to exist at all in Ireland at the present time. Moreover, the population of the districts served by those new Universities is far in excess of the population of the whole of Ireland, and if regard be has to the resources of the two localities the comparison would be still more adverse. These were some of the material considerations which induced myself and others with whom I worked to think that a scheme of multiple Universities was unsuitable for Ireland, and our conclusions upon that point were confirmed by considerations of academical efficiency and political expediency upon which I should like to touch. It is known to your Lordships that one of the greatest difficulties we experience in the administration of Ireland is due to the religious dissensions which distract the energies of our population and divide it into hostile camps. We may have been over-sanguine, but we believed that that difficulty was not insuperable. The promise of events in recents years had led to some assuagement of those hereditary animosities, and my own experience as a student in Queen's College convinced me that the association, under proper safeguards, of young men of all religious beliefs would powerfully contribute to advance mutual toleration and comprehension, objects which should be dear to the heart of every patriotic Irishman. We thought that by bringing Irish University colleges within the University of Dublin in accordance with what the Charter of the University and extant legislation show to have been the intentions of its founders and supporters, we should be giving a powerful impetus to the cause of religious and political toleration in Ireland. Still more, we believed that the bringing of the new colleges into association with the older University, with its great teaching and its high traditions, offered the best guarantee for the maintenance of a high standard of academical efficiency of a lay, though reverent spirit in University and collegiate administration and of general repute. I have never heard of any objection from an academical point of view to this plan which did not on examination prove either invalid or susceptible of easy removal. The plan was approved by a majority of the last Commission as the best which could have been adopted. It was received with acquiescence and favour by the entire Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland, and by the Roman Catholic laity, by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, by distinguished representatives of the Episcopal Church of Ireland, lay and the clerical, and by some of the prominent supporters of Nonconformity in England. I myself will never cease to regret that the plan, which was not only a measure for the advancement of education in Ireland, but for the mutual reconciliation of contending parties, did not commend itself to the authorities of Trinity College. In my opinion the authorities of Trinity College made the great refusal when they declined to place themselves at the head of this great movement, which was a movement not only for the renaissance of learning in Roman Catholic Ireland, but also a movement which would have lead to the reconciliation of contending parties and to the promotion of prosperity throughout the country. I have heard it urged as an objection to the Bill before your Lordships, that the new Universities will undersell the University of Dublin and starve it to death. If this be the result the responsibility will rest on the authorities of Trinity College, who have, I believe, sacrificed the best interests of their country and University to what I regard as an outworn prejudice. Should this event come to pass I can only hope that the wise aspirations of the senior Member for the University of Dublin will be borne in mind, and that the opportunity of fusion which was rejected in 1907 may be turned to good account at some future time. Failing the plan of a national University, I should have been glad to have seen another plan adopted in the place of this Bill. I should have liked to have seen a new college situated in Dublin included in the Dublin University in accordance with existing legislation on the point, and the colleges united into a revived University with charters and constitutions somewhat similar to those in the Bill. But as the Government deemed the support of Trinity College necessary to any Bill which could pass through Parliament, and as Trinity College would only give its support on condition of "Hands off Trinity," I admit that the Bill now before your Lordships is as good as any that could be accepted from that unholy alliance. I am, therefore, not disposed to subject this Bill to any meticulous criticism. I accept it as a whole, but with one reservation. Wherever and whenever in Ireland in recent times the cry of University reform has been raised, that cry always contemplated the creation of not merely teaching but also residential colleges. It is, therefore, to me and to all Irishmen a source of extreme regret to find that the colleges which are now presented to us are to be mere collections of classrooms and laboratories. It has been said in the course of these discussions that the modern idea of a University excludes all that association of students and all those amenities of college life upon which every University man's memory loves to linger. If that be the case, I must only regard this modern idea of a University as a Bæetian; I think I heard from the noble Earl on the front bench that it comes from Sheffield. At all events, I wish to quote to you, in comparison with that idea, the following passage from a great and revered master, the late Cardinal Newman—

"If I had to choose between a so-called University which dispensed with residence and tutorial superintendence, giving its degrees to any person who passed an examination in a wide range of subjects, and a University which had no professors or examinations at all but merely brought a number of young men together for three or four years, if I must determine which of the two courses was the more successful in training, moulding, enlarging the mind, which sent out men the more fitted for their secular duties, which produced better public men of the world, men whose names would descend to posterity, I have no hesitation in giving the preference to a University which did nothing."

My Lords, I commend that extract to your consideration. The subject is not one of detail. It is one of principle, and I think that the Government will not launch this great undertaking in a manner suitable and in accordance with the wishes of the Irish people unless some further grant is made for the purpose of establishing residential colleges. I would also suggest that by this means, by establishing residential colleges, you will bring about that result which so many speakers have desired, the bringing of young students from Maynooth to attend lectures at the University. If it be impossible to obtain a further grant from the Treasury, I would submit to you that there is one place in Dublin which could be utilised for the purpose of the Dublin College. It is a place and a site around which many memories, inspiring memories, of Irish life linger. In ancient Celtic tradition it was a place of learning and of saintliness; in mediæval times, of Norman prowess, of the doings of the Knights Templars and Knights Hospitalers, and later on down the centuries from Tudor times to present days the name of the hospital at Kilmainham frequently occurs in Irish annals. If the Treasury are unable to find the money, let them make over that Institution to the new college, and in that way throw some lustre upon, and attach some dignity to, this new creation.

My Lords, we have listened with the greatest interest to Lord MacDonnell's speech, but there is one remark I wish to make arising out of it. The noble Lord said that the scheme which we in Ireland know as Mr. Bryce's scheme would have brought about the mutual conciliation of contending parties and that practically the contending party was Trinity College. To that statement of the noble Lord I agree. Then he went on to say that as it was a case of "Hands off Trinity," we had to accept the present Bill. I agree, and what I want to say-to your Lordships to-night is that I, for my part, accept the Bill, because Trinity College is not in any way to be interfered with. Then as to the remarks from the noble Earl who introduced the Bill into this House. The noble Earl said that there was haste in the matter and that it was bad to allow the matter to simmer too long. That was followed by a remark from the noble Marquess who leads us on this side of the House to the effect that it might be an Irish stew that was simmering. Then the noble Earl, in dealing with the Bill, went on to say that it was like a caravan that was marching through the desert with the dry bones of the different preceding schemes lying on each side. Well, I only hope that the dry bones will not prove to be the dry bones of the Irish stew. I assure your Lordships that we are not going to allow this matter to become dry bones; we have the Bill and we are going to work together to try and make it a success. I think it is right that we should congratulate the Chief Secretary that at last he has succeeded in bringing in, and passing, a measure of education, and that that education is to apply to Ireland. But there can be no doubt, no matter what has been said about it; that this is a denominational measure, because the charters and their working must result in there being a denominational University with a college in Dublin. I do not quite understand how the Nonconformist conscience has been got over in this matter. The other day I was speaking to a Nonconformist minister and he said to me—

"Well, in this matter we consider Ireland to be quite outside the range of our thoughts; in regard to education we have put aside the question of Ireland altogether."

It comes, therefore, to this, that in this matter Nonconformists consider Ireland to be absolutely a separate entity. No doubt the Bill will pass the Second Reading to-night and we shall follow the Leader of the House of Commons in this matter. At this point I must unhesitatingly congratulate the Chief Secretary on having got all parties and all creeds in Ireland to agree on this measure and I am sure the Bill, within its limitations, will be a success. As to its defects, there is first and foremost the fact that this University of Dublin is not residential. That, to the minds of those of us in the south of Ireland, is one of the most important things. The Royal University is swept away, and I noticed that the Chief Secretary, in dealing with this matter on Saturday last, mentioned that Lord Castletown, the present Chancellor of the Royal University, helped him in every way to annihilate himself and to annihilate the University! The University was solely an examining body, and another had been put in its place with the difference that the new University in Dublin is to teach as well as to examine. As regards the non-residential factor in this Bill, it is a question whether parents will be willing to send their sons to lodgings in Dublin. It will also have this effect, that there will be no kind of discipline. There is a college but no college life, and there are no college friendships formed— friendships of long endurance. Then as to the buildings, which buildings I know very well, and which were the old Exhibition buildings of 1868, I have no hesitation in saying that there is plenty of room in the grounds that exist there for the building of, at all events, a small residential college. A small one would be a commencement. I do not think there is any great hurry in this matter, and small beginnings make great ends, whilst I am sure that there are many who would be willing to help materially out of their own pockets to build a residential college and to meet the Government in the matter. Maynooth would, no doubt be affiliated, and in regard to that I should like to draw attention to a most remarkable passage in the evidence given before the Robertson Commission by Dr. O'Dyer, the Bishop of Limerick, who strongly advocated a residential University. Remembering the criticism that has been poured on this measure by Dr. O'Dyer, it is interesting to note what he said. His words were—

"We are, in Dublin, within very easy distance of Maynooth, which is our great ecclesiastical college, so that if we had a central institution in Dublin we might hope in a very short time to have in it a very large number of students. I should not be at all surprised if our numbers were well over 1,000, or, perhaps, 2,000 students in a very short time, and then we should have really an immense institution in the country. Then, again, we think it ought to be a residential institution. Trinity College is residential and, while we do not think that residence or attending University lectures ought to be an absolute condition of getting University degrees, yet we think that there ought to be an opportunity for an adequate number of our students getting the education of a residential University, because we believe that residence, by itself, and the mixing of students with one another, and with the fellows and their teachers, has a great educational effect upon them. It is particularly desirable therefore that we should get a residential institution in Dublin, and we consider that it would be rather unfair and unequal treatment to have Trinity College here, in Dublin, for the Episcopal Protestants who can reside there, and to have our Catholic young men without any home knocking about in the lodging-houses of the town."

I think that is a very remarkable statement, and one with which many of your Lordships will agree. It would be of incalculable benefit to young men who will be our future priests, and who will take care of the Roman Catholics throughout Ireland, to go up to Dublin for a short time and live in a college away from Maynooth, mixing with the other collegians in their work and in their games. The noble Earl who leads the House knows Maynooth very well, and I should like, I hope without hurting the feelings of any Roman Catholic, to mention a little incident which occurred. We had a meeting of the Archæological Society of my county at Maynooth and were addressed by Dr. Brown, now a bishop in the South of Ireland, on the antiquities in the neighbourhood, and then we were shown over the place; going into the library I asked the assistant librarian: "How do you teach history, and have you got a History of England in the library?" He replied: "No; history is taught by the lecturer." That shows, therefore, that history is taught not from the books that one would find in any ordinary library but by the lecturer whose ideas about history are communicated to the young men who have charge more or less of the population of Ireland. Then with regard to the finances of this Bill: there were some figures dealt with by the noble Earl about which I was not quite clear—the mention of a sum of £46,555 out of the present endowment. I do not quite understand what that means.

That is the sum total of the additional grant, as compared with the present grants paid to the various Queen's Colleges. It is the difference which comes from the Treasury.

That is satisfactory. Then there is the £20,000 per annum. That is a fairly generous gift, and I should have thought there would have been enough money to build a residential college. It must be remembered that that £20,000 is part of the monies acquired by the disestablishment of the Irish Church and it is to be divided between Dublin and Belfast. That is all very well, but it is Irish money. In Dublin there is to be a Roman Catholic atmosphere and in the other a Presbyterian atmosphere. The Chief Secretary said on the First Reading of the Bill in another place—

"Where Ireland would be, or where should I be, without this Church fund, I dare not think; it is indeed a horn of plenty."

I am a member of the Irish Church, and I like to have it recalled to my mind that the horn of plenty is being used for a Roman Catholic University in Dublin, and a Presbyterian one in Belfast. It is an interesting fact that has now become almost a historical fact. I make these remarks not in any carping spirit whatsoever. I welcome the measure in every possible way, and say that this Bill has every reason for passing both Houses. We shall all, I think, try to make it a success, and I, with many others, will watch with the greatest interest the progress made by our latest University, and I feel it will depend almost entirely, talking of Dublin, on the way the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Roman Catholic laity work together for the good of this great—I think it will be a great—University. We may criticise details, but one great principle remains: the Roman Catholic population have as much right to a college with an atmosphere of Roman Catholicism as we have to help to hold Trinity College.

My noble friend Lord Macdonnell is, as far as I know, the only Catholic Member of the House who has as yet spoken, and I think, therefore, that possibly it is only right that some Member from this side of the House who is a Catholic should, however inadequately, endeavour to put before your Lordships some of the views which many of us Catholics hold in connection with this question. I can say myself, honestly, that in so far as I have taken any part in political life either in Ireland or in this country in another place, this question of Irish University education for the Catholic people of Ireland has always deeply interested me, and it has for many years seemed to me to be far and away the most important question in connection with Irish matters. Also, my Lords, the reality of the grievance under that heading, and the urgent and ever growing necessity for dealing with that grievance, has always received, whether in public or in private, whether in sympathetic or in unsympathetic company, my unwavering support. And in later years, inasmuch as I am a Senator of the Royal University, which University is to be dissolved under this Bill, and inasmuch as I am also a Commissioner of National Education in Ireland, it has also more or less teen my duty to give some attention to the state of affairs in connection with this matter, and to the consequences arising therefrom. Accordingly, I should like, with your kind indulgence, to endeavour this evening to give expression to some of the views which I hold on this question, and some of the considerations which influence me in connection with this matter, and also I should like, on this important occasion in the history of Ireland, to give expression for my part, to the great pleasure and the great hopefulness with which I see at last this question apparently about to reach a satisfactory solution. In the first place, and I think it only right, I should like to add my humble tribute of sincere admiration for the courage and perseverance, the tact and patience, to say nothing of course of his well-known abilities and eloquence, which the Chief Secretary for Ireland has shown in tackling this most difficult problem, which had baulked so many great men before him. For my part, I warmly admire the bold, and even chivalrous, determination with which the Chief Secretary for Ireland has insisted upon finding a solution to this problem, and with which he has insisted furthermore in carrying that solution to a successful issue, and that in spite of great difficulties and great and threatening dangers and risks, both to himself personally and to the Party to which he belongs. When I have said that, I think that even he, the triumphant hero in this matter, will generously agree with me that, although nothing can deprive him of the credit of having settled this question, or of the victory, the rough and difficult way which I admit he has trodden to the goal had been, to a large extent, smoothed and paved by the earnest and the powerful advocacy which Mr. Balfour has now for twenty years given to the furtherance of this question. When I recall to mind the many speeches which Mr. Balfour delivered on this question in another place, specially the famous speech delivered nineteen years ago, at Partick in Glasgow, when I recall further a passionate speech of his in response to a hostile deputation of his own constituents that waited on him in Manchester, I cannot but feel that, although Mr. Balfour was denied the satisfaction of adding the settlement of this question to the many other remedial measures which he passed for the benefit of Ireland, the eventual settlement of that question owes a great deal to, and was largely facilitated by, his powerful advocacy and loyalty on this subject. But, my Lords, when I think of that advocacy, when I recall to mind the many eloquent speeches which he delivered on this question, when I recall to mind what I might almost call his pathetic appeals to his own Party to let him, their leader, and above all, their chosen leader in Irish matters, deal with this question, it is painful to me to think of how he was obstructed and successfully prevented from dealing with this question by the intolerance and the selfishness of a small section of his own Party. Many of us in Ireland felt that very much, because we considered that this was one of those Irish grievances that stood out from others as a just complaint of the Irish people which this Parliament, as long as it is responsible for Irish affairs, was bound to listen to and bound to remedy. We considered furthermore that the duty of settling that question devolved especially on that Party in the State whose principal maxim and pledge was, in reference to Irish affairs, that the Imperial Parliament was willing and capable of dealing with any real Irish grievance, which is to my mind the only possible position for any feasible Unionist policy in Ireland. It is, if we come to think of it, but a continuance of that policy known as justice to Ireland which even O'Connell advocated many years ago as an alternative policy to repeal of the Union, and certainly, as far as I am concerned, it is the only Unionist policy that I have ever supported, and the only Unionist policy that I can ever imagine myself supporting. Accordingly, my Lords, it was with dismay, amounting almost to despair, that many of us in Ireland in the later days of Unionist administration saw the weakening of that policy, and saw a great and just complaint of the Irish people such as this shelved and put on one side and actually contemned, and Mr. Balfour beaten in his own Party and in his own Cabinet, on this puestion. Many of us in Ireland winced under what we felt was a true indictment, namely, that the treatment of this question by the official Unionist Party had furnished an unanswerable argument in favour of Home Rule, and had struck a heavier blow at the Union than it had ever received before. However, fortunately sometimes, even in this world, things turn out better than anyone expects, and now, the carrying of this great, measure of justice for the people of Ireland, carried in the Imperial Parliament, in a Protestant Parliament, in what I might call, to make use of a much abused word, a denominational Parliament, with the assistance and co-operation of both the great Parties in the State, is to my mind a redemption and an eloquent exemplification of what I have said must be a fundamental and essential pledge and maxim of any possible Unionist policy in Ireland, namely, that Irishmen can look to the Imperial Parliament for the removal of any real Irish grievance. The question then arises: Is this a real Irish grievance and has the settlement of this question been urgent? I do not want, to go into the whole history of this question, especially at this late hour of the night, but I think, in order to understand somewhat the genesis and the growth of the demand of the Catholic people in connection with this matter, it is necessary to take a brief glance at Irish history. It is necessary, however shortly, to look to past times in Ireland, when the Catholic people, who were the majority of the people, had all their property confiscated, their churches and their schools destroyed or taken from them, when education was a crime, and their whole social and political position was ruined and destroyed, and when the people lived as serfs or banished from their own country. We see them then living on for generations, and for centuries, without churches, without schools, without property, without education, but still true to and steadfastly holding by the faith of their fathers, in spite of every worldly temptation and inducement to do otherwise. I do not wish to dwell on that part of Anglo-Irish history. I am only too glad to turn my back upon that dark passage of history, but if I do so, I do so on one condition, and that is that we remember that we have left the Catholic Irish people very poor and very uneducated and without any opportunity of being in any other position. But when we turn from that period, and come down to pleasanter times in the history of Ireland, we see down through the decades of the last century the Catholics being gradually emancipated, gradually given means of education, gradually being enfranchised and allowed to take some part in the government of their own country. And as we come to the last decades of the last century what is the position? We then find that, so to speak, a new class has grown up in Ireland, a new generation. They are the same people, but they hold a different position. There is a great body of Catholic people whom this House and Parliament emancipated, whom this House enfranchised, into whose hands Parliament has given all local and political power in Ireland, and in whose hands rests, for good or for bad, absolutely, the future destinies of Ireland, When that is the position, when you have that class in Ireland holding that great position, that great power, and those great responsibilities, it has always passed my comprehension how anyone could hesitate to give them every possible facility far education and refuse to give the democracy, which is going to rule in Ireland as elsewhere, every opportunity of taking an enlightened and broad-minded view of its own powers and responsibilities. My Lords, it is for the purpose of meeting the needs of that new class, of that new generation who are so powerful in Ireland, that a Bill like this has been brought into Parliament. It is for the purpose of meeting the needs of those classes that for the last forty years the Catholics of Ireland have been asking Parliament to assist them in making arrangements for the higher education of the Catholic people of Ireland, and it is on account of that situation that almost every statesman, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House has pointed out, during the last forty years, who has had any connection whatever with the Government of Ireland, has borne testimony to the necessity of settling this question. Those gentlemen have for the most part, my Lords, been Englishmen. They have been Protestants, and their natural prejudices would not have inclined them to take this view. There are such well-known instances as the noble Viscount who sits on the Front Opposition Bench, Lord St. Aldwyn, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who was for so many years Chief Secretary for Ireland; Viscount Morley, also Chief Secretary; and such statesmen and well-known politicians in connection with Ireland as Mr. Lecky, Sir Edward Carson, Lord Cadogan, and Mr. Wyndham. Also, as has been pointed out, two Royal Commissions composed of the greatest educational experts that could be discovered in these islands, Scotsmen and Englishmen, for the most part Protestants, have also borne testimony to the necessity of settling this question, and the tragedy of the situation is that we should be only now settling it when it is almost too late. I say it is almost too late because, although it is impossible to exaggerate the injury that has already been done in Ireland by the neglect of this question, the whole of the higher and nobler life of three-quarters of the population of Ireland has been thwarted and stunted during that period. A bitterness has been created in the Catholic class in Ireland that did not exist and need not have existed. All the influences of higher education and culture, which do so much for the general good of the community in innumerable ways, have been almost entirely absent during all this period as far as the great body of the Irish people are concerned, and it is because this state of affairs, even though late, is going, I believe, to be remedied, that I have no hesitation in welcoming this Bill. I believe that under this Bill you will be founded a great national popular University, reflecting public opinion and therefore able to guide public opinion, reflecting popular aspirations and therefore able to guide popular aspirations, reflecting the popular opinions and tastes of the Irish people, and therefore able to guide them. It is for these reasons that I, although like other Members of this House, I do not consider this in all respects an ideal measure. I welcome it. I welcome it as, to my mind, the best under all the circumstances. I welcome it as a practical solution of a practical question, and I say that it should not be judged on rigid principles or on abstract theories or ideals. The case of Ireland is always a concrete, practical one, and to my mind many of the mistakes that are made in the government of Ireland arise from the fact that questions are treated on theoretical lines. Ireland fits in with no theory or ideal or principle that was ever heard of. Its people are too varied, its history has been too checkered, and its Governments are too fickle, and therefore in this matter, as in every other Irish matter, all we should ask for and all we should look for is the best under all the extremely contrary Hibernian circumstances. Although, I welcome this Bill as a practical solution of a practical question, there are, of course, in it some blemishes which I regret to see. I think it is a thousand pities that the Chief Secretary has not been able to make some provision for residential quarters. That fact will disappoint the people of Ireland. They are unanimous on that subject. It will temper, I fear, the enthusiasm and gratitude that this Bill is going to arouse in Ireland, and it will create jealousies of other Universities, and to my mind it will prevent this measure having finality. When I think of how far the Chief Secretary for Ireland has gone, of how successful he has been in carrying this measure so far, I think it is a pity that he should not even now meet the wishes of the Irish people on this subject. I shall not detain you any farther at this hour of the night by going into many other points, which I could easily do, that have been raised, such as whether the University is denominational or not. To my mind it is not denominational in any proper sense of the word. There are no tests, there are no barriers, there are no means, of excluding anyone, it will not be denominational and only Catholic; because the people of Ireland are Catholic, and if all the people of Ireland went to bed to-night Catholics but woke up tomorrow morning Mahomedans, with turbans on their heads, this Bill could be sent over to Ireland without a single change in its constitution, and it would suit the Mahomedans of Ireland just as well. I shall not detain your Lordships further, but conclude by again expressing my sincere pleasure and my great hopefulness in connection with the settlement of this question. I consider that the settlement is in the first place a noble work in the cause of the education of the people of a country. I do not see how you could do a greater work. When, furthermore, I consider the difficulties of the situation, I think it is an act of the highest statesmanship. I also look upon it as a great measure of justice, of conciliation, and of reparation to the people of Ireland. This Bill removes the last disability from which the Catholic people of Ireland suffered and which through so many centuries and generations handicapped them so hopelessly in the struggle of life, and late as this measure of relief and justice has come to Ireland, I, nevertheless, think now that it has come that there should be recognised and seen in this settlement of this question a generosity of spirit, a toleration, a liberality of thought, and a friendliness of disposition on the part of the people of England and of Scotland which deserve and ought to receive the grateful appreciation of the people of Ireland. For my part, my Lords, I earnestly trust and pray that this crowning act of conciliation to the Catholic subjects of His Majesty in Ireland may do much to increase that peace, that mutual confidence, and that mutual good-will which we should all desire to see existing and growing between the people of these two islands that God and nature have put so close together.

In view of the late hour of the evening, I am unwilling to detain your Lordships for long, but I am also unwilling to give an entirely silent vote in supporting the Bill which is now before us. I am sure it will be admitted by the noble Lord opposite, who, I believe, is to wind up the debate on the part of the Government that whatever criticisms have been made from this side of the House have been friendly criticisms. They have not been criticisms attacking the Bill with the object of destroying it, but have been rather criticisms expressing dissatisfaction that the scheme which is at present before us is not complete enough in certain respects. I do not think that can be said of the criticisms in the speech of the noble Lord opposite, the late Under-Secretary for Ireland. His criticisms I do not think I describe unfairly when I say that they attacked the structure set up by the measure now before your Lordships far more than did the criticisms levelled from this side of the House, and I confess that if I had been blindfolded and had heard the speech without knowing who was delivering it, I should not have been very surprised to hear it finish with a Motion for the rejection of the Bill. I think it will be interesting for the future historian—it is not our business to do so to-night in view of our ignorance of all the facts of the case—to puzzle out how it is, in view of the contrary views which the noble Lord holds, that the Bill is in its present shape. And here, my Lords, I want to disagree a little with the speech of the noble Lord and the noble Lord who introduced the Bill as to some of the history that has been put before your Lordships. The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, gave us a most complete resume of the efforts to supply a University education which would be satisfactory to the wants of our Roman Catholic fellow citizens in Ireland, but I noticed he passed by very lightly what is known familiarly as Mr. Bryce's scheme, whereas on the other hand, the noble Lord opposite devoted the most part of his remarks to pointing out its excellencies. The noble Lord assured us that practically that scheme was received in Ireland with open arms. I did not quite catch, but I think he suggested, that it was so received by the Anglican Church of Ireland.

Distinguished members of the Church of Ireland.

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. My Lords, I am a loyal member of the Church of Ireland, and I desire, to remain at all times loyal to its most distinguished men, but I think I can promise the noble Lord that if it had ever been suggested in our synod that we should have approved of Mr. Bryce's scheme, some of my friends in Ireland could have given the proposer of that measure a very lively time. The scheme was undoubtedly received by some people at first acquaintance, with favour, because we were all disposed to receive any attempt to deal with this long delayed question with favour, but on examination I do not think there were many people in Ireland in favour of the scheme, and I am certain there is nobody in favour of it now outside the immediate circle of its authors. It was very soon after its creation damned with extremely faint praise, and surely a justification and a final proof of that fact lies in the fact that it forms no part of the present scheme. I want, if I may—I think I can do it accurately—to amplify a little some of the history which has been put before us this evening. The noble Lord opposite had a great deal to talk about, and, therefore, I am sure it was only an accidental omission on his part, but I think he showed a tendency to attribute the failure of adoption of Mr. Bryce's proposals solely to the attitude of Trinity College. I do not think that is a fair reflection to put upon Trinity College. I do not think it is fair to argue that this scheme is only brought forward because the Opposition of Trinity College made Mr. Bryce's scheme impossible.

I certainly did not mean to say that, although I may have seemed to imply that that was the only cause, but it undoubtedly was a ruling consideration.

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I quite agree that the opposition of Trinity College was a cause, and an important cause, but it was not the sole cause, and I do not think it was even the most important cause, which, I think, lies in the fact that the scheme would have been absolutely unworkable in practice, in view of the invariable practice of the Roman Catholic Church in dealing with educational matters, because, word it as you like, the Bryce scheme would have set up a system of mixed education, a system of education which Protestants and Roman Catholics were to be asked to share together, a system of education that we Protestants, many of us, approve of, but a system that hardly any Roman Catholic can be found to advocate. I take that from the action of the Roman Catholic bishops. They in times past could have had systems of mixed education on several occasions. Trinity College did their best, by offering them the provision of a divinity school, to bring the Roman Catholics into Trinity College on absolutely equal terms with their Anglican fellow-subjects. The Roman Catholic bishops did not like the proposal. I do not blame them for that. It was a subject on which they, and they alone, were qualified to judge as to whether they would accept it or not. Whether you look at the system of elementary education in Ireland or in England, whether you look at the treatment of the negotiations of Trinity College on this matter, it has been made perfectly clear that the Roman Catholic hierarchy will not countenance any system of mixed education, whether it be, as I say, elementary education or higher education. I do not grumble at this, because they are the proper people to make up their minds on that subject. But I believe that that state of things, which exists to-day just as strongly as ever, would have made the working, although it would not have prevented the passing, of any scheme founded on Mr. Bryce's proposals absolutely impossible. That, my Lords, is all I desire to say beyond this. I have ventured to say several times before that I live in Ireland every day when I am not in London for Parliamentary purposes, and I realise to the full, that, whereas I have had the advantage of a University education, I am surrounded by neighbours in many walks of life who tell me, not in a spirit of complaint, but in a spirit of regret, that they have never had the advantage of a University education, and have never had the opportunity of receiving a University training, the advantages of which they all recognise. My noble friend who has just sat down spoke of the Chief Secretary for Ireland obtaining a victory in bringing the Bill as far as he has brought it. But I think my noble friend was a little sanguine. I do not deny the great work which the Chief Secretary has done, and I do not as an Irishman deny him the fullest gratitude that we find the present Bill to-day placed Upon our table, but victory, my Lords, is not yet. Victory is only in sight. It is in the working out of the proposals and in the administration which is made possible by the Bill before us this evening, that we can hope, and that we must hope, to attain to victory, if victory is to be attained, and I as an Irishman cannot be any less sincere than any who have spoken in saying that I sincerely hope that victory may come to us, and that victory may come to us rapidly, as the result of the passing of this Bill.

My Lords, I think the Government are to be congratulated on the reception which has been accorded to this Bill in your Lordships' House. There has been criticism, but it has been criticism of the fairest and most temperate description; and I do not think I misinterpret the feelings of noble Lords who sit behind me when I say that it is their desire that this Bill should pass into law, and that without too much delay. We are led to this predisposition in favour of the Bill by various causes. In the first place, I think I am right in saying that in the minds of most of us there is a feeling of great weariness in connection with this subject of University education in Ireland; and that were it only for somewhat ignoble motives of that kind, we should be glad to see the question disposed of. But apart from motives of that kind, there is a higher motive which points in the same direction. I think most of us feel that it is little short of a calamity not only to the people of Ireland, but to the whole United Kingdom—I will go further and say the whole British Empire—that the Roman Catholics of Ireland, who number a large majority of the people of that country, should during all these years have found themselves unable to avail themselves, at any rate to anything like a sufficient extent, of any of the opportunities which we have been able to afford them for the purpose of acquiring what we usually speak of as higher education. Therefore, most of us are, I think, ready to welcome a settlement of this difficult question without inquiring too scrupulously into the conditions attaching to it. The spirit in which this problem is now approached is much more tolerant than that which prevailed within the recollection of many of us, and there is a general inclination to adapt our theories to the convictions of other people rather than to force the convictions of other people to fit themselves to our theories. Speaking for myself, I may say frankly that I am deeply convinced, in the first place, that it is highly desirable that this question should be settled; and that, in the next place, it is no manner of use to offer to the people of Ireland a settlement which they are not willing themselves freely and readily to accept. That leads me to two conclusions. In the first place, in regard to Trinity College, Dublin, that we should be extremely careful not to impose upon that distinguished and illustrious body any combination which it is not prepared to accept. When we come to the question of the manner in which we ought to deal with the Roman Catholics of Ireland, then I say do not let us be so foolish as to assume to ourselves credit for generosity when we offer to the Roman Catholics conditions which we know perfectly well the Roman Catholics will not accept or will not be allowed by their advisers to accept. Holding these views, I share the feeling of my noble friend, Lord Clonbrock, when I find that, in the first place, the Bill leaves Trinity College, Dublin, severely alone. Next I come to the terms which the Bill offers to the Roman Catholics. What are those terms? We offer them a University which is to be something more than a mere examining University. It is a University which, we hope, will have some—I wish I could say all—of the attributes of what we in this country associate with a teaching University. But, at any rate, we hope it will offer the students who resort to it some of those opportunities for contact with their fellow-students and for association in the life and studies of the University, which play so large a part in the Universities of other parts of the United Kingdom. We hope that this new University will have a local colour and produce something which can be described as "local patriotism." I was struck by a statement of the Chief Secretary in the course of the debates which we have followed with so much attention lately, in which he said that, in his view, it was essential that Dublin men or Belfast men should really be Dublin men or Belfast men. I hope that is an object of which we shall not lose sight. Now what are the conditions under which we are going to offer this University to the Roman Catholics in Ireland? There has been a great deal of playing upon words in connection with this subject. Is it, or is it not, going to be a denominational University? Is it going to be a Roman Catholic University or a University for Roman Catholics? I confess I am not very much moved by these verbal distinctions. What seems to be important is that we are going to establish a University which, from the force of circumstances, must inevitably be a Roman Catholic University. I do not see why we should for an instant be ashamed or reluctant to face that fact. If this scheme stands any chance of being accepted by the Roman Catholics of Ireland it is for the very reason that the scheme in its operation will give the Roman Catholics that kind of University which they desire—a University with a strong Roman Catholic atmosphere, guided, and in fact dominated by the Roman Catholic Church. That fact—and I believe it to be a fact, weighs with me much more than the fact that in the Bill upon the Table tests are specifically excluded. We have learnt, at any rate, this much from these discussions, that the absence of tests is perfectly compatible with the presence of a distinct denominational atmosphere, and that is a point which, I daresay, many of us will bear in mind when we come to consider other educational controversies which are not yet concluded. In this case the whole machinery of the the new University is so constituted that it cannot fail to have eventually a distinctly denominational complexion, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy make no secret of the fact that it is on this account that the scheme finds favour in their eyes. We may say that all this is very retrograde, that other Universities are emancipating themselves from these influences; we may say that these things are injurious to the highest interests of education, but I confess I look upon the matter in this light and in this light only—are these conditions or are they not the only conditions upon which you can obtain a settlement which will be acceptable to our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens in Ireland? I take it that that is a matter which is beyond dispute, and His Majesty's Government have left us in no doubt that that is a condition sine qua non in the understanding which has been arrived at between them and the representatives of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. But, my Lords, I am afraid I must go on to say that the desire of His Majesty's Government to render this scheme acceptable to the Roman Catholic hierarchy has led them at one or two points to make a somewhat serious departure from what I conceive to be the principles which they had in view, when the scheme of this Bill was first formulated. I desire, in the first place, to refer to those provisions of the Bill which have reference to the recognition of other colleges—that recognition which the noble Earl who leads the House frankly told us was simply another expression for what we commonly describe as affiliation. If your Lordships will look at the fourth section you will find no doubt that it bristles with safeguards as to the manner in which this right of affiliation is to be exercised. The noble Earl told us that the right was carefully safeguarded, and it is quite true that we are told that affiliation can only take place when the Senate are satisfied that students are pursuing a course of a University type—a course approved by the governing body of the University, conducted under teachers recognised by the governing body for the purpose, and subject to conditions or limitations contained in the Charter. All these safeguards are, I venture to say, safeguards of the very thinnest description. What I think will take place under this clause—and I do not think there can be the slightest doubt about it—is that Maynooth will come in, will be recognised, will be affiliated, and it is perfectly well understood that this is to be the case. If that takes place, then at once the condition of residence in the new University disappears entirely, because we know that the authorities of Maynooth are not content to accept any conditions necessitating residence on the part of their students. What it will come to will be this, that the Dublin degree will become not a Dublin degree, but a Maynooth degree, and that the Dublin man will turn out to be a Dublin man in name, but in fact a student of Maynooth. That seems to me to be a very serious departure from the principles upon which this Bill professes to be founded. The result, cannot fail to be this, that the influence of Maynooth will swamp the new University and that, to use a very apt expression which fell from a friend of mine who was describing this clause the other day—

"The centre of academic gravity will tend to shift from Dublin to Maynooth."

What I confess somewhat puzzles me is this. Why was it, when you screwed up your courage to the point of contemplating the admission of Maynooth, that you could not screw up your courage a little further and allow the Roman Catholic students of the new University to have a chapel of their own? I understand that a chapel might have been provided at the expense of munificent donors, who were ready to come forward. The proposal providing such a chapel was accepted by the Chief Secretary, and then at the last moment, owing to influences which I need not particularise, the clause was dropped out. I confess that seems to me to have been a very deplorable exhibition of weakness on the part of His Majesty's Government, and I hope attention will be called to the matter when we come to the Committee stage. I am inclined myself to go further still and to say that, if you have made up your minds that there is to be in Dublin a University which is to be a University for Roman Catholics, you might just as well have provided them, not only with opportunities for divine worship in a suitable chapel, but with some kind of opportunities for residence in buildings, call them hostels or what you please, which would have prevented these young men from being scattered over the city of Dublin without that protection of which youths of that age stand so much in need when they are pursuing their University studies. I therefore say that I regard these proposals of affiliation with the utmost suspicion. On the merits I should have been disposed to support a proposal for diminishing the facilities for such affiliations, but I noted the words of the noble Earl opposite when he told us that in his opinion any attempt to diminish these facilities would have been fatal to the reception of the Bill in Ireland. That is a very serious statement. I take it as meaning nothing less than that if this House were to insert in the Bill clauses which would prevent an operation of this kind from taking place, the Bill, which the Roman Catholic hierarchy are now prepared to accept as a settlement of the question, would not be accepted by them as such a settlement. If that is so—and I do not think that I misunderstood what the noble Earl said— much as I dislike the possibilities which this clause unfolds, I will not take the responsibility of suggesting that it should be materially modified in Committee. But, although that is my feeling, I cannot help thinking that the clause at other points stands in need of further examination. I cannot, for example, see why this process of affiliation should be rendered as easy as it is under this Bill. I cannot see why it should be in the power of the Senate of the University by simply a resolution to effect a great operation of this kind. I should have thought that the proper machinery to set in motion would be that of statute, and that such statutes should be laid on the Table of the Houses of Parliament, and that there should be an appeal to the Privy Council for any persons who took exception to the terms proposed. There is one other point at which the provisions of the Bill seem to me to be open to considerable criticism. I refer to the composition of the governing bodies, and particularly the governing bodies of the constituent colleges. These governing bodies contain a very liberal representation of what has been spoken of as the civic element. Now, my Lords, the civic element apparently means the representation of the Irish county councils, and I confess that I have the gravest doubt, knowing what we do of the manner in which these local Irish bodies approach their duties, whether it is desirable that they should have so important a part in managing the affairs of these new Universities. We who have some knowledge of Ireland know perfectly well that these local bodies are conducted on extreme political and partisan lines, and we know that in the case of the most ordinary appointments which fall within the patronage of these bodies regard is had not so much to the fitness of the individual competitors as to their political connection and antecedents; and to my mind it seems altogether wrong that people actuated by feelings of this kind should be given an opportunity of using an influence which may be in some cases a preponderating one in the conduct of the affairs of the Universities, and in the appointment of professors and other officials who will be responsible for their management. I will not detain your Lordships longer. I am deeply convinced that whatever this Bill may be in theory, the fruit of it will be, so far as Dublin is concerned, a University which will be for all practical purposes a denominational University, and I believe it is because that is to be the result that the Bill has been accepted as it has been by those concerned. I am under the impression that His Majesty's Government were in this position—that they had to agree to a Bill of this kind or else leave matters untouched, and I frankly confess, if that was the choice put before them, I can quite understand that they should have preferred to propose the Bill which lies upon the Table of your Lordships' House. I trust that it may do much good in Ireland, that it will bring some, at all events, of the advantages of higher education within the reach of a large section of the population to whom those advantages have hitherto been denied, and I also trust, therein sharing the feelings of some noble Lords who have spoken from this side of the House, that in a future which may, perhaps, be distant, but to which we nevertheless may look forward, this Bill may lay the foundation for a more liberally conceived arrangement, which may bring within the reach of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland University life and the opportunities of higher education in a manner more closely analogous to what we understand by those words in this country and in Scotland. At any rate, if I criticise this Bill, I do so in no unfriendly spirit, but with a sincere hope that the most favourable anticipations which have been indulged in with regard to it by noble Lords opposite may eventually be realised

My Lords, the Government certainly have no right to complain of the manner in which their effort to deal with the long standing question of Irish University Education has been received by the House. Least of all have we to complain of anything which fell from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, earlier in the evening in his able and interesting speech, or from my noble friend who has just summed up the debate for those who sit behind him. Indeed, the only real criticism of the principle which underlies this Bill has come from our own side of the House in the interesting speech, to which we all listened with the deep attention it deserved, of my noble friend who sits behind me (Lord Macdonnell). In the few observations which I shall address to your Lordships I may have a few words to say with regard to that speech. Dealing for the moment with the speeches of noble Lords opposite, I observe, in the first place, that a very large portion of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, was taken up, quite legitimately, with matters no doubt of importance but nevertheless matters more properly discussed in Committee. Some of these points were dwelt on a few moments ago by my noble friend. First of all there is the question whether the affiliation of these new colleges, to which it is proposed to give a certain position in the University in regard to their students, had better be done, as is proposed in the Bill, by resolution of the Senate, or whether it would be better to do it by a statute. There is a kindred point as to whether, so long as the University Commission is in being, the recognition of the student courses in such colleges, and, indirectly, of the colleges themselves, might not, as the noble Lord seemed himself to prefer, be entrusted to the University Commission. And there is, lastly, the point, upon which both my noble friend who spoke a a moment ago, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, dwelt, as to whether or not the civic element, as it has come to be called, should be accorded so large a representation as is accorded to it in the government of the new University and of the constituent colleges. I do not understand that it is disputed that it would be desirable to give some representation to the civic element, but what is disputed is whether we may not have gone too far. I venture to say that all those points, important as they are, are points which are more properly raised in Committee. I think the answer with regard to the Question of affiliation, as a matter of principle and not of detail, was given by my noble friend when he introduced the Bill. I am not going to conceal—it would be idle to do so, because these facts are publicly known—that the concession which the Government have made to the views of the Roman Catholic body upon the question of affiliation has gone far to strain the allegiance of some of our most sterling supporters in both Houses of Parliament. On the other hand, it is the undoubted fact that we were desirous to lay broad and deep the foundations of an edifice to which time, no doubt, might make some additions, but which in principle would not be altered, and the desirability of which would not be called in question; and we came to the conclusion that unless we made this concession to our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen we should have laboured in vain. I cannot help saying, in connection with this matter—it was not in the speeches either of Lord Ashbourne or of my noble friend, but in some of the more pronounced speeches elsewhere—that bitter, and, as I think, unjust, taunts have been levelled at the Nonconformist Members of the Liberal Party on account of what has been, as I think, cruelly and unjustly called their hypocrisy, because while they had accepted this concession with regard to the affiliation of Maynooth, for that is what the clause in practice will mean, they at the same time objected to the provision of a University chapel. Both of these are matters which, with perfect consistency, in England, Scotland and Ireland, the Nonconformist body has opposed; and it seems to me to be a curious and unjust thing that when the great body of Nonconformists have accepted the larger concession which was asked of them with regard to the Roman Catholic position, they should be charged with political hypocrisy because they did not make the other concession—that is to say, that when they have made the major concession in regard to the affiliation of the colleges, they should be charged with hypocrisy because they did not make the minor. That is absurd, unjust, and illogical, and even although some appearance of contradictory conduct may be alleged, the world is not governed in these matters by the strict application of logic, and what I believe will be recognised—and recognised outside Nonconformist and Liberal circles—is this, that at a critical moment in the history of Uni- versity education in Ireland the great majority of Nonconformists did come forward and did accept a position most distasteful to them in order to satisfy their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. If anyone likes to amuse himself by charging Nonconformists and the Nonconformist conscience, at which it is so easy to sneer, with hypocrisy in this matter, I make him with pleasure a present of their merriment. But I venture to say that in this matter the Nonconformists have shown, not only generosity, but the highest statesmanship. If anybody desires to see the Nonconformist position in this matter stated with great clearness, moderation, good feeling, and ability, let him read the letter in the Westminster Gazette of to-night by one of their most trusted leaders, Mr. John Massie, who is so honourably known in the life of the University of Oxford. We have heard a good deal about the poverty of this Bill in that it does not provide a residential college in the University of Dublin. Far be it from me to say that a residential college in that University might not be a very desirable thing in many ways, but, after all, there must be some limit, especially at starting, in regard to matters of expenditure, and I unhesitatingly say that to set up a residential college in a proper and substantial manner—and it would have been no use to do so unless we did it in a proper and substantial manner—would have added something like £100,000 to the cost of the Bill. Therefore, I say that upon grounds of economy alone we were not in a position to make that great addition to the schedule of expenses. I think the evils caused by the absence of a residential college have been a little exaggerated. It is quite possible to have collegiate life and to have social and athletic clubs and associations in a college which is not a residential college. I was, until the other day, for many years a member of the Council of University College, London—that great building in Gower Street, with the existence of which I find many people in London are not at all acquainted; and I can only say that in that college, which was not, and, I believe, never will be, a residential college, there is most active social life amongst the students, and they have all the athletic, scientific, and artistic clubs and associations which are to be found in any college at Oxford or Cambridge. Therefore, while I think it would have been a desirable thing, if our means had permitted it, to have had a residential college, I do not at all despair of there growing up in the new University at Dublin, nearly, all those movements which are so desirable in the encouragement of good feeling amongst the students themselves. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Killanin, to whom we listened with great interest and attention, dwelt upon the early history of this question. He showed the House, with unanswerable force, that this is an ancient question, and I have no intention, especially at this late hour of the evening, of following him over the ground, interesting as it is, which he attempted to open up. I took part many years ago in the great debates on the University Bill on which Mr. Gladstone's first Government fell. Those debates, if referred to now, will be found to be mines of information as to the historical origin of this question. Nobody—not even those, and I was one of them, who disagreed with my own party and opposed the Government Bill—would deny for a moment that the speech which Mr. Gladstone made on that occasion, not only in its great eloquence, but also in its historic learning on this great question, was one of the most remarkable monuments of his genius. We are undoubtedly in this matter the inheritors of the difficulties of a remote past. The University question began really as soon as the occupation of Ireland in the reign of Henry II.; but, if we are the inheritors of the difficulties of a remote past, I think it would be ungracious of us if we did not recognise that we are also in recent years the inheritors of the goodwill and of the previous labours of our immediate predecessors. I agree with my noble friend to whom I have just alluded, that it would be ungracious if we did not recognise that in some of the provisions of this Bill we were anticipated by Mr. Balfour. I make that acknowledgment with perfect sincerity. Those very parts of the Bill upon which we had to make the strongest demand upon the loyalty of our Radical and Nonconformist friends are precisely those parts of the question upon which Mr. Balfour laboured for many years to convert the public. I do not deny that some portions of this Bill, which I support, may not be consistent with some of my own speeches, but, as Emerson says—

"Too great a belief in consistency is the virtue of weak minds."

There are moments when you have to accept unwelcome facts. You have to bear in mind that compromise is the very elixir of political life, and, therefore, it is that, though I am willing to grant that I very largely share on this question, as I always have shared, the views of my Nonconformist friends, I am not ashamed to say that, for the sake of peace, in order that this long chapter may be closed, I am willing to stand and defend things which are not absolutely consistent with what would be my own personal and individual views in the matter. If a man is not prepared to do that upon given occasions, I think he is not fit to take any part in public life at all. But this much I do venture to say, that there is one essential difference between this Bill, even with its undoubted concessions to denominationalism, covered as these concessions are by the abolition of tests and the prohibition of rules, and other demands in regard to religious belief, and the Bill in regard to which it was the misfortune of very many active Liberals—Professor Fawcett, Dr. Lyon Playfair, Mr. Harcourt, and many others whom I could name, who since those days held high office in Liberal Governments—to differ from Mr. Gladstone in 1873. There were two great objections to Mr. Gladstone's Bill, which were urged in the House of Commons and which destroyed that Bill. The first was one which, perhaps, was in importance rather exaggerated but it seized hold of the public mind and struck the public imagination. There was a prohibition in the Bill against the University teaching either history or mental or moral philosophy. Nor was the prospect improved when somebody discovered that this prohibition was borrowed from a clause in a charter to a Spanish University in the darkest days of Jesuit supremacy in Spain in the early eighteenth century. That however was, comparatively speaking, a matter of detail perhaps, though it caused a great amount of excitement; but the other and really vital point was this, that Mr. Gladstone's Bill would have made one University in Ireland just as in Napoleonic times there was one University only in France. We objected to that, in the first place because we thought it would be bad for University life on educational grounds that there should only be one central University, as in France was still the case at that time, in 1873. I may remind the House that since the days of those debates the whole University system of France has been entirely altered, the great central University having been largely broken up and the old provincial Universities restored. But there was another reason. Religious and political passion at that time, as my noble friend observed just now, were running higher than at the present day. I never recollect a time when the air throbbed with religious and political passion more strongly than in that great debate which caused the fall of Mr. Gladstone's first Government. It was argued, with almost unanswerable force, that the affiliation clauses relating to new colleges in Mr. Gladstone's Bill within a time easily calculable would so have packed the senate of the only University in Ireland with delegates of small Roman Catholic colleges that the whole control of University education would have passed into the hands of the archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, and a document had been published which told the Prime Minister of 1866, Lord Russell, that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland demanded, and would be contented with nothing less than, the absolute control of all the professors, of all the books, and of all the students, and we accordingly feared even risking to give them under such circumstances an absolute monopoly of power in a not distant future. There was, in the speech of Lord Donoughmore, almost a challenge as to whether we had any reason to suppose that this Bill would be received in the spirit in which it was intended. That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. I am quite aware that that criticism has been made, though it has been made, oddly enough, more abroad than here. Naturally, in the position which I hold in connection with foreign affairs, I have to be a student of foreign newspapers, and I have observed this criticism. It has also been made in one or two quarters in England. The Liberal Government are told that they are making this experiment, which depends so largely upon the goodwill and support of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, at a singularly unfortunate moment, because the authorities of the Church of Rome have selected this moment to plunge into a great controversy which has embittered University life all over Europe, known as the Modernist controversy. I am not alarmed by that. I think that we may I not unreasonably hope from what we see that, so far from the Roman Catholic hierarchy being dragged at the heels of an unprogressive clement of their communion on the Continent, it may work out the other way, and that when the Roman Catholic Church sees the desire of this Protestant nation to do justice and to march with the times, the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church generally in Europe may be influenced thereby, and become in the whole assimilated to what I know is her position in America to University education, where practically none of these difficulties about the class of books which students are to read exist at all. I may be over-hopeful, but there are signs in Ireland that the old passions are dying down with regard to education. There is, I think, a real and genuine wish for conciliation. It is realised that this question must be settled; that, as my noble friend said just now, it has gone on too long; and that the credit of Parliament is involved in a settlement. In the great debate to which I just now alluded, when political passion ran so high, there was one speech which caused an immense effect, and it did so because it struck a rather different note from all the others. It was a speech made by one who afterwards became a distinguished statesman and held high office, by a man who was one of the greatest living scientists in England, and a distinguished University professor, and himself at that time a representative of a Scottish University—I allude to Dr. Lyon Playfair. In a speech which can be perused even to-day with advantage, he asked the House not to look at this question simply and solely as, a political and religious question, but to think of nothing except the educational needs of Ireland. He said—

"I have endeavoured to look upon Ireland as part of this Kingdom not split into sections by religious differences, but inhabited by our fellow-countrymen, who hare a right to all the advantages which the State can give them in regard to higher education. I have remembered the circumstances of the country, which render it more important that Ireland should enjoy these advantages without stint or hindrance than either England or Scotland. Ireland has had many obstacles to progress, some political, others material. She possesses hardly any of those great raw materials of industry, which give such advantage to other divisions of our country. She has to import the chief part of her coal from England and Scotland, and that is the mainspring of all industries. With small natural resources, except those for agriculture, it is above all things essential that the intellectual resources of Ireland should supplement her deficiency in natural resources. As civilisation progresses science and knowledge, applied to production, become more important factors than the mere possession of raw materials.

"Not only then as regards industrial development but also to increase the fund of intelligence among the youth of Ireland, so as to give them outlets for employment which the restricted industry of their country does not afford … a case is made out for a juster development of the new system."

My Lords, it is for that reason that the Government have brought forward this Bill, in the earnest hope that by it they may abolish and clear away the gloomy distrust bred of the fanatical intolerance in past days of Catholics and Protestants, and as has been well said by a modern author "may restore to Ireland the consoling vision of widening education and disappearing hates."