My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order XXXIX. be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting. That enables us to take Bills through more than one stage, but I desire to say that this power, which is so very ordinarily taken, as noble Lords opposite know, at this time of the year, is not intended to be unscrupulously used. I shall, however, ask your Lordships to deal with the Irish Universities Bill in that manner, so that the Bill with any Amendments that are made may be returned to the House of Commons to-day.

My Lords, the notice which stands in my name is one which, when the House is about to adjourn and Parliament is not being prorogued, is quite usual according to precedent, and I hope your Lordships will agree to it.

My Lords, before this Motion is put and agreed to I beg to ask your Lordships' indulgence while I say a few words regarding the speech which was made by the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I feel some temerity in making any such statement in the presence of so great a financial expert as the noble Viscount who addressed us last night on the finances of the Empire; but I feel that I must take a plunge into this channel of finance. It is an Irish channel; and I trust we shall have some elucidation from the noble Earl the Leader of the House on the subject. There was very little discussion upon this matter during the Committee Stage of the Bill in another place. Before I deal with the point, I should like to quote what the noble Earl the Leader of the House said in moving the Second Reading of the Bill as to its finance. The noble Earl said—

"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, making a total endowment of £55,466.

There is a mistake of £1,000 in that addition, but I will not quarrel about that. The noble Earl continued—

"The new proposal is that £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.

I now come to the point as to which I desire to get some elucidation. The noble Earl said—

"Then as to Dublin the buildings of the Royal University, which cost £77,000, were handed over, and the colleges which formed part of the new University and cost originally and with additions altogether £186,000, making a grand total of £493,000."

I object to the inclusion in the Estimate made by the noble Earl of the sum of £77,000 for the buildings of the Royal University. I know every inch of these old buildings, and they will have to be pulled down and rebuilt. I maintain that it is hardly fair to take the old buildings at their original cost. The grand total of £493,000 refers to new building grants plus the original cost of the University and colleges. They were erected in 1868 at a cost of £77,000, and they ought now to be regarded rather as a minus quantity, for I, personally, would not give £10 for them. Then, when we take the £186,000 which the colleges forming part of the new University cost originally and "with additions," I should like to ask, what is their present value? The buildings are between thirty and forty years old. Is there any depreciation? The noble Earl concluded—

"That, I think, cannot be said to be illiberal finance."

I should like to separate the word "illiberal "and to apply the first part of it to that portion of the finance I have spoken of, and the other to the sort of finance we are forced to endure under the present Government. I hope the noble Earl will explain what he means by including the original cost, because I hardly think it is fair to make up a grand total in this way. I have one more question to ask—Where are, and what has been done with, the savings of the Royal University, amounting to about £70,000? If there are these savings, I think the money ought to be applied to the University in Dublin. Have the Treasury, so to speak, put this money into their pockets? It is most interesting to us Irishmen to know what has become of the £70,000 which this examining University, much to its credit, has saved.

My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Mayo has availed himself of this opportunity of drawing attention to the finance of the Bill, which, of course, we have no opportunity of touching directly; and I cannot help thinking that those of us who are really anxious to see this new University started successfully must have grave misgivings as to the adequacy of the funds provided under the Bill. I have made all the inquiries I could, and from the information I have received, I think it will be practically impossible to equip a new University in a proper up-to-date manner for the sum of £150,000. The other day Lord Curzon, as Chancellor of Oxford University, made an appeal to the public for funds merely to fill up gaps in an old University, and for this purpose he asked for no less a sum than £250,000. But we in Ireland are to build a completely new University, which will require all the modern and expensive scientific apparatus, for £100,000 less than Lord Curzon requires to bring Oxford University up to date. I think those figures ought to suggest to the noble Earl how wholly insufficient is the sum provided for the new University and college in Dublin. To my mind, it is practically impossible to secure for that sum a University and college worthy of the important position it should occupy as a great central University in the capital of Ireland. In that connection I would remind the noble Earl of what was said by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission recommended that the University should be established on a liberal scale, and expressed the opinion that unless it was done on an adequate and impressive scale it need not be done at all. They added—

"It is necessary that in the dignity of the buildings, the emoluments of the teachers, and the equipment of the institution, it should command respect and enthusiasm."

It is, in my opinion, impossible to dream of filling in any of that picture with the funds provided under this Bill. The noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said he did not think the finance illiberal. But does he think it liberal? I am inclined to think that it is illiberal; but, whether it is liberal or illiberal, I suggest to the noble Earl that it is distinctly inadequate. For the sake of the success of the scheme I hope His Majesty's Government will see that another £100,000 should be given to the foundation of this new University and college. I do not see why there should be so much trouble about it. I hope the noble Earl will not say that the Chief Secretary agrees but that the Treasury will not give the money. I am sure the noble Earl will admit that that is an absurd argument. The Treasury is the servant and not the master of the Government, and if the Government say that this money is necessary, it will, of course, be at once given. The Government are embarking on experimental legislation and contemplating an expenditure which I hear estimated at between £8,000,000 and £16,000,000 a year. I think a Government that can contemplate that expenditure should not unreasonably object to giving another £100,000 to so excellent an object as this. I therefore ask the noble Earl to see if he cannot do something in that direction. Galway College is, in my opinion, being specially badly treated in this arrangement. That college is in the poorest part of Ireland, and, therefore, will have less chance than any other college of receiving local assistance. I know that the noble Earl will say that in the past there were not a great number of students at Galway College. I quite admit that the number of students may have been small in the past, but there is a good explanation of that. The reason Galway College had so few students was that it is in the most Catholic part of Ireland, and that when the Queen's Colleges were condemned, students were advised by the Catholic Church not to go to it. But now there is reason to believe that students will flock to the college from those parts. Galway College is to be a constituent college, and it will have to develop itself in order to meet the requirements of its new position. Its equipment, however, is defective. There are professors there who fill four chairs. One professor is professor of history, English, logic, and meta physics; another is professor of zoology, botany, geology, and mineralogy. I think that in any other University in the United Kingdom those subject are specialised and distinct. If Galway College is to get on its legs again it will be necessary to appoint a number of other professors. Let me compare Galway College with Cork College. Cork had £11,200 a year, and under the Bill that is raised to £20,000—that is to say, you add £8,800 a year to the finances of Cork College. But in the case of Galway College the £10,600 which it received is only raised to £12,000. Therefore, while an additional £8,800 a year is given to Cork only £1,400 is given to Galway. Yet there is no reason to suppose that Galway will not develop proportionately even more than Cork. I therefore ask the noble Earl to consider whether it is not possible to increase the figure from £12,000 to £14,000 a year. I think that would meet all the requirements of the situation. I do not think I am making an excessive demand in asking that this additional money should be given.

My Lords, the noble Earl who opened this discussion made, I think, no criticism on the figures which I announced with regard to the future finance of the colleges so far as their yearly income was concerned.

I said the figures were correct.

The noble Lord not only said the figures were correct, but he kindly repeated them. But it was on the question of the building grants in which he joined issue with me to some extent. I carefully guarded myself, I think, in what I said from allowing it to be supposed that I gave the values of £77,000 for the Royal University and £186,000 odd for the Queen's Colleges as their existing value. I said that it was what they cost. The noble Earl joins issue with me on that, and says that if these buildings were put into the market nobody would give that for them. You have to consider for what purposes buildings are used. It is not the value they might be to anybody, but the value they might be to a University. I do not know what Christ Church, Oxford, would sell for if put up for sale, but there is no doubt as to the great value of the buildings there for the particular purpose for which they were designed. The noble Earl said that all the buildings were old. My recollection certainly of some of the buildings of the Royal University in Dublin is that they are in an exceedingly good condition. The laboratories, which, if I remember right, are only used now for examining purposes, are undoubtedly the best in Dublin, and they form a very valuable asset indeed of the new University. Then as regards the Queen's Colleges, these buildings, the noble Lord said, were thirty or forty years old. But many of them are extremely good buildings. It is impossible to value these things at the value of the moment. Buildings of that kind, set apart for a special purpose, have not got a market value. All you can say is that they are of a certain value for the purpose to which they are to be devoted under this Bill, and it is relevant to state the total sum of money which is to be applied for University education in Ireland under this Bill, and to mention the cost price, stating, as I did, that it is the cost price, of these buildings. Then as regards the £70,000 of the Royal University, that £70,000 will be available for the superannuation of the present officers, and if the noble Earl will look at Clause 14 of the Bill, subsection 2 (a), he will see that the Commissioners may make a scheme for certain purposes, and the £70,000 under that scheme will be set apart for meeting the claims of existing officers.

Is that stated in the Bill?

It will be stated in the scheme.

Then it will be pin money for the Commissioners to do what they like with.

So much less, therefore, has to be spent out of the sum voted, or out of the general means of the University in satisfying those claims which have to be met under the Bill. Then the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, joined issue with us as to the general finance of the Bill, and he said that we are behaving in an otherwise than liberal manner towards Ireland. I quite agree that this Irish University is not to be judged by the rules which apply to Universities in England, Scotland, and Wales. We have all agreed that under the special circumstances it is necessary to devote to this purpose sums of public money which we should never think of applying in the case of the other three countries; but I am bound to say that I do not think that that fact necessarily means that we are bound to institute a University which, in all respects, is going to leap into existence fully armed as a rival to any other University in the three kingdoms. I do not think that there is anything in the circumstances of Ireland which absolves Ireland from the necessity of contributing, according to its means, to this University. Ireland is spoken of as a poor country. In a sense it is a poor country. There are a large number of poor people in it, but there are a considerable number of well-to-do, and for various purposes, as we know, large sums of money can be raised in Ireland. We fully admit that the particular circumstances make it necessary, if this scheme is to succeed at all, that a considerable sum of money should be found, but we certainly do look to Ireland to follow the example, in particular, of Wales, which is not a rich country, and where the subscriptions of quite poor people have been devoted to these edu- cational objects, and we do not think that that is by any means an unreasonable or unjust claim to make. Therefore, when the noble Lord talks in an airy way of another £100,000, I think that is a consideration which has to be borne in mind. Of course, these are all matters of opinion; but I still maintain, and I appeal to noble Lords who do not come from Ireland, with some confidence, that the finance of this Bill is not of an illiberal character. The noble Lord, in his character of "the man for Galway"—a well-known phrase—very properly spoke up for his local college. I have a very pleasant recollection of the Queen's College at Galway. The buildings are both substantial and ornamental, and I know that the education that is carried on there has been of a high grade, and that the general business of the college has been carried out with great devotion by the professors. As to the precise merits of the allocation which has been made as between the four colleges, I confess I am not entirely competent to speak; but I think it is pretty clear, from the course which my right hon. friend has taken in allocating more of the now grant to Cork than to Galway, that he did consider that the capacity of extension in Cork was somewhat greater than the capacity in Galway. On that he has undoubtedly been advised by those best competent to judge, and at this time of the day it would be useless to ask him to reconsider this point. Personally I should have been glad if Galway had had a little more, but it is useless to proceed further with the matter at this stage.

This is an Amendment on a point of great interest, and undoubtedly a point of very considerable complexity; all the more so because it seems quite impossible to lay down any principle—so far experience guides us—as to what the position of these governing bodies ought to be. You take one class of University and you find argument on the side of the noble Lord. You take another class of University, and you find argument in the other direction. The noble Earl asked what I should think if there was a question of altering the constitution of my old college. What he said is perfectly true. The old English Universities are, no doubt, entirely independent of any kind of civic representation. Civic representation was hardly realised when the colleges which comprise the great Universities were founded, and although modifications of all kinds have taken place in their constitution, yet that particular element has not been introduced. The same applies to the Universities in Scotland. In the case of the Scottish Universities there is some slight and almost nominal municipal representation; but, take them altogether, they are no doubt almost purely academic in their governing bodies. But when you look at the modern English Universities you come to an entirely different state of things. The supreme body of the great modern English Universities is the court. Well, the court of those Universities has a very small academic element upon it. There are members of the various local authorities, members representing all sorts of scientific and other interests, and members appointed in respect of the offices they hold; but the actual academic element is very small. The court is the great legislative body for those Universities. The same thing applies to their executive. Their executive body is the council, and there, again, the academic element forms a small minority of the total number. It is perfectly true that, so far as the internal administration of a college goes, that is confided to academic hands; but that will equally be the case with these new colleges. The academic council will be the body which will manage the actual daily work of the college, and it is only with questions of principle and of what may be called constitutional changes that these governing bodies will be concerned. The problem which the Government had to consider in dealing with this matter was, no doubt, a different one from any other. The Queen's Colleges have to some extent served their localities, but they have not, except in the case of Belfast which, I think, has been subscribed to, aroused any local support. I do not think the noble Lord will contradict me there. One of the reasons has been that all their officers have been nominated by the Crown, and that, I quite agree, is by no means a happy state of things. Our idea in reconstituting these colleges was that they should rouse the greatest possible degree of local interest. They are not—I so far agree with the noble Lord—constituted and endowed on a scale that is intended to make them independent of local support. We do not profess that they should be; and in order to secure that local support, it certainly did seem very important to us that a large element representing the different neighbourhoods should be placed on the governing body. I wish to repeat once more, because it is important to remember it, that the actual affairs of the college will be managed by the academic council. Those persons representing the county council and other bodies will have to come a considerable distance, and I know how it is on the courts of English Universities. A great many of these members only attend when some specially large question is under consideration. Some people do not go that far, and therefore I think it is not safe to assume that these people will be continually busying themselves with the minor affairs of the college, or that they will in any way assist to create what the noble Earl is afraid of—a political atmosphere, or an unacademic frame of mind. This is a question, no doubt, on which different opinions are certain to be held. The noble Earl has admitted the idea of municipal and outside representation, and therefore we need not argue that point Then it comes to be a question of numbers. Unlike, remember, the modern English Universities, we are giving these councils a very distinct academic majority, and, that being so, I cannot think that there is any real argument to be used against the number of those who are to represent the particular municipality. They represent people over a very wide area, as a rule one for each body, and if you cut them down I am not quite sure whom you will exclude. It means that you leave out the representative of some one particular county, and although I quite admit that there are two sides to this question, yet I hope the noble Earl will not persevere with his Amendment, principally on this ground that these constitutions do not appear in the Act but in the charter. If it should be found, which personally seems to me almost incredible, that the working of these colleges should be in any way interfered with by the presence of this municipal element, which we believe to be all for the good, it will be open to those concerned to apply for a modification, of the charter. I do not expect noble Lords opposite to look at it precisely in the way we do, because they entertain a very rooted distrust of the county councils, and, therefore, I can appreciate a certain dread which they feel of the considerable number of members of these bodies; but as it is only a question of numbers I hope the noble Earl will be induced to withdraw his Amendment.

I do not think I said anything about rooted fear. I said rooted distrust.

said he had no rooted distrust of those nominated by the Crown, notwithstanding that they heard that some of the gentlemen appointed recently to judicial positions were connected with the Freeman's Journal. He contended that when once the charter was granted it was exceedingly difficult to get it altered. Mr. Birrell had stated that he was disposed to place the constitution of the governing bodies in the charters instead of in the Act itself, because this was an experiment and he preferred to proceed by way of charter which could be easily modified without the risks and dangers attendant upon getting a measure through both Houses of Parliament. For himself he would rather have the criticism of Parliament and the necessity for a Bill than that the provision should be placed in the charter, for it was an extremely troublesome and difficult matter to get a charter modified. If the noble Earl divided upon his Amendment he would support him. He was of opinion that no fair comparison could be made between a modern English University, upon the governing body of which the academic element was small, and the Irish Universities. The members elected by the county councils would give to the governing bodies a strong political complexion, and there was a danger of political questions of a very acute nature being introduced into the composition of those bodies. The noble Earl had said it was desirable to introduce local interest; but under the provisions of the Bill they would have parochial interests, and all sorts of jobbery would be brought in, and discussions would arise upon matters which ought to be academically treated by an academically-elected body.

said the noble Earl who had moved this Amendment had been very frank and had admitted that, if he had his way, he would get rid of the representatives of local bodies altogether. That was the spirit, though not the exact wording, of the noble Earl's Amendment. The experience which he (Lord Ripon) had gained in connection with building up Leeds University satisfied him of the necessity of obtaining increasingly large assistance from local bodies in such an enterprise, and it would be impossible to obtain such aid unless the local bodies were encouraged by being given a fair share of representation upon the governing bodies. He thought the introduction of a local representative element would do much to help towards the success of the Irish Universities. He believed that if the representatives of local interests were reduced to one-fourth it would be merely a first step to their being got rid of altogether, and he could not think that that would help the success of this great and noble experiment.

My Lords, the noble Earl who leads the House admitted very frankly that this question was a complicated and difficult one, and he said that the difficulty of dealing with it was increased because we had no analogies and no experience to guide us. I rather agree with him in so far as his argument is founded on the absence of analogies, because I think that an analogy drawn between these new Universities in Ireland, and the old Universities with which we are familiar would be a misleading one; and when I heard the noble Marquess who spoke last cite the case of a younger University with which he is connected, the University of Leeds, I almost ventured to tell him that I doubt extremely whether an analogy drawn from the local bodies of Yorkshire is one which counts for much when you are dealing with local bodies in parts of Ireland. As for our absence of experience, I think that argument is not so strong. We have experience, and a great deal of experience, of the manner in which Irish local bodies conduct their affairs, and it is no use mincing words in regard to such a subject. We know that they do manage their affairs in a political, and, I am afraid, a strongly partisan spirit. My noble friend, very rightly, I think, suggests that it is not desirable that these partisan bodies should be too powerfully represented upon the governing bodies of the colleges, and I certainly agree with him in thinking that the proportion of members assigned to them is very much too strong. It is a number which would probably in many cases turn the scale. Does the noble Earl believe for one moment that these elected members of the governing bodies will really be selected upon purely academic grounds? I for one am quite unable to put myself in that frame of mind, and I would point this out, that in the case of the governing body of the Dublin College no less than eight members are to be selected by the General Council of County Councils. We know something about the General Council of County Councils. It was a body which in its inception was intended to be of a more or less impartial and non-political character. Several well-known Irishmen, one or two Members of this House, were at first connected with it, and bore a conspicuous part in its proceedings; but, as time went on, affairs were so conducted as to make it absolutely impossible for them to retain their connection with this council, and it is now a purely partisan body. The noble Earl told us—I think I correctly apprehended what he said—that the matter did not signify so much because what he called strict academic questions would be dealt with by the academic council. But I would ask the noble Earl to bear in mind these two points. He says that the governing bodies have only to do with large questions of policy. But am I wrong in believing that the governing bodies virtually elect the professors? Is it not the fact that the governing bodies have to put forward three names from which the choice must be made. That is not a question of policy, that is a question of patronage, and it is exactly the kind of question which I believe——

Perhaps "policy" was not exactly the right word to use. What I meant was that the daily life of the college and the atmosphere, of which the noble Earl opposite spoke, did not seem to me to fall within the purview of these bodies so much as of an academic body.

I still think my argument is a sound one, and that the bodies which are charged with the election of professors, are bodies which ought, if possible, to be constituted on purely academical grounds. What you really want is academical strength, and that, I think, will be best gained by keeping out, so far as you can, purely partisan spirit. But I do not want to prolong this discussion. I do not know whether my noble friend would be wise in pressing this Amendment if it is greatly objected to by His Majesty's Government; but I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he will not keep an open mind on the subject to this extent, that he might accept, perhaps, instead of the larger number given by my noble friend, a smaller number—let us say, for the sake of argument, two-thirds.

I am afraid I am not in a position to accept anything on this point; but if the noble Earl likes to insert that figure in this House, it will remain with my right hon. friend in the other House to see whether he will accept it or not.

said they all recognised the special circumstances of this case, and did not desire to dissociate local interest from these colleges. All they had urged was that too much representation was being given to municipalities as compared with the representation given to the college itself. If he did not press the Amendment, would the noble Earl ask the Chief Secretary whether, in issuing these charters, this point might not be reconsidered with a view, not, if they liked, to diminishing the municipal representation, but to giving the college itself a little larger representation than what was being offered to it now?

I will, of course, lay that point before my right hon. friend.

I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment. I quite understand the motives which have actuated the noble Lord in proposing it; but it seems to me it would be rather an anomalous course to take. These Commissioners are a temporary body; they include several people who have no connection whatever with Ireland, and who will, I conceive, cease to have any connection with these Universities when their work is done. In those circumstances it seems an anomalous and strange thing to place this recognition in their hands rather than in the hands of the Senate, which is to be the regular governing body of the University. It is perfectly right that these experienced men should have the power of drawing up the statutes, those statutes including the general principles on which recognition should take place; but when it comes to deciding whether or not a particular college should or should not be recognised, it seems to us only possible to leave that to the permanent governing body of the University.

said it was, of course, for the Government to decide how they would work their own scheme. But, personally, he thought the proposal of his noble friend was a reasonable one, and that it provided a means of, if he might say so, getting this University on its legs in the quickest possible way. The noble Lord had mentioned the Royal College of Science. He believed that it would be expedient for the new University to recognise that college at the earliest possible moment. It was fully equipped, and he would have thought the matter one worthy of immediate and prompt attention.

I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment, for reasons which I will explain as shortly as I can. The effect, of course, is to make the process of recognition more difficult, and not only the process of recognition, but equally the process of withdrawing any form of recognition or the imposition of any conditions on that recognition. Therefore, supposing a particular college is to be recognised, and supposing that the governing authority of the University desire to raise the standard of education required in that particular college, they are not at liberty, if the noble Lord's Amendment is carried, to do so without the matter being brought before the Privy Council. I have an Amendment on the Paper which gives an appeal to the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. It seems to me a preposterous suggestion that the affiliation of a particular college should be placed in the hands of this body rather than in the hands of the University itself. So far as the English Universities are concerned, there is no restriction of this kind. Liverpool can affiliate any college it likes by ordinance; Birmingham, Leeds, and Manchester, I think I am correct in saying, can affiliate simply by resolution. What is important is that the standard of the affiliated college should be high. That is provided for and clearly should be maintained; but as to the question of whether the religious views entertained in a particular college, or anything of that kind, should or should not debar it from recognition, I should be very sorry indeed if that became a matter of controversy, as I think it possibly might if the noble and learned Lord's Amendment were accepted.

said this Amendment not merely touched a highly important subject, but it had a political significance which he thought deserved attention. The main object of the Bill was to give satisfaction to the Roman Catholic people and clergy of Ireland. He knew something of the subject, and he was certain the more impartial attention was given to it the more it became clear that the only thing that would satisfy those classes in Ireland was a Roman Catholic University pure and simple. The gravity of the question, whether the Imperial Parliament should set up such an institution, he did not in the least minimise; but what he protested against was that they should put masks on their faces in dealing with that question. He supported the Bill because he had understood that it was an honest attempt to establish in Ireland a Roman Catholic University which would give satisfaction to the people of Ireland. He recognised that it was a large departure from the principles which had hitherto guided the party opposite in dealing with questions of education, and, moreover, it was a complete reversal of the policy which had prevailed during what he might call, roughly speaking, the reign of the Liberal Party. He was no more an advocate of a reactionary policy in regard to Universities than any noble Lord opposite. But he was convinced that, unless power was given to the Roman Catholics of Ireland within the University to give full effect to their religious propensities, and, he would add, without offence to their prejudices, this offer of a University was a mockery. It must be remembered that the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland were to a large extent masters of the situation, and unless they were satisfied with the Bill the same influence which wrecked "the godless colleges" would wreck this University. It was a complete fallacy to suppose that in setting up a Roman Catholic University they were doing what was called handing over the youth of Ireland to the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy. The bulk of the youth of that country were in the hands of the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy at present. The only question was whether Parliament should not afford an opportunity of having infused into the domain of higher education in Ireland those humanising and liberalising influences which the Roman Catholic Church—to give it its due—knew so well how to use, as was illustrated by the signal success of the Jesuits in educa- tion, and he was sure their Lordships would agree with him in saying that that distinguished man Dr. Delany was a worthy representative of these traditions and achievements. It was a strong step; it was a final step; but he, for his part, took his share in the responsibility of taking it. He thought it ought to be done, and accordingly he was a supporter of the Government in carrying forward this Bill; but when he turned to the clause about tests, and particularly to the Amendment of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, he must say he began to feel not very proud of his work. What was the good of putting in a clause about tests when they had a governing body such as that described in the Bill? If he were having a University to please himself, he would say, "Abolish tests to your heart's content, if you give me the right governing body." When they looked to the proposed governing body of the new Dublin University they must feel convinced that not a man would be placed in any high office unless he satisfied the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy. He asked the noble Earl and his colleagues on the Front Ministerial Bench, to whom he had given not less valuable because silent support up to now, whether they were really going to contend that this was an undenominational University. Was this Amendment intended to carry that joke so far as this, that they would say that they had actually put in a clause which prevented even the chairs of divinity and theology from being denominational? Did they think that even their own supporters would find their credulity untaxed by that? It seemed to him that the third clause, with its huge apparatus, was a complete farce. He was speaking now of the institution in Dublin. He perceived that the skilful hand of the draftsman had coupled Belfast and Dublin together, so that it was possible for the noble Earl's colleagues to say on the platform, "We are treating the subject generally, and will anyone say that it is wrong to have no tests in Belfast?" He contended that that ignored the vital difference between the two institutions. He took no interest in the University of Belfast, because it did not give rise to the political problem in which he was interested. But in the University of Dublin it was absolutely certain that what they had done was to hand over the teaching in that University to the Roman Catholic Church. As he had said, he approved of the Bill. It was an entire reversal of Liberal policy. It was a reversion to what was called, in former days, "concurrent endowment" giving to the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland money for the teaching of its own doctrines. Why attempt to conceal it? He understood that fig leaves were required in another place, where there were some pruderies that required a little delicate cultivation; and this Amendment, he suspected, was part of that rather elabortate apparatus of make-believe and concealment. They had now a very adequate explanation of the mysterious disappearance of the English Education Bill. It had been relegated to a rest cure to avoid the open shame which would have come upon its authors if the English Education Bill and the Irish Universities Bill had been run through the House of Commons in double harness. Even the most hardened supporter of the Government would hardly have consented to Monday and Thursday being devoted to Cowper-Templeism, and Tuesday and Friday to Maynooth. That was the difficult problem which was mitigated, if not solved, by relegating the Education Bill to a later period, by which time it was hoped that something would have occurred to draw a sponge across this latest achievement in which he was helping the Government. He was afraid that the only inference which the man in the street would draw when he saw the supporters of the Government in Ireland getting denominationalism and their supporters in England getting undenominationalism was that Liberal policy about education was simply a job from beginning to end. He had used these straight words because he wished to emphasise the position of the Government in bringing forward those two Bills. Let them not put on masks for the purpose of discussing this Bill, let them speak the truth about it, and the truth was that this was an honourable attempt by a purely denominational University to satisfy the aspirations of Roman Catholic Ireland.

The noble and learned Lord implied that he had earned our gratitude by maintaining a, strict silence during the recent discussion of this subject. I can assure him that that is not the case. It might conceivably be the case as regards some noble Lords, though I do not think it is so as regards any of those who have taken a prominent part in this discussion, and certainly it never is likely to be the case with regard to the noble and learned Lord, whom we always hear with the greatest pleasure. I do not propose to discuss with the noble and learned Lord the question of whether we are, or are not, consistent in bringing forward this measure, and in bringing forward the English Elementary Education Bill. He and we start from different premises on that subject. He regards England and Ireland as one country. We regard them as two. I cannot admit that there is any inconsistency whatever in applying different remedies to the different circumstances of the two countries. If the preponderance of Roman Catholics in England was the same as it is in Ireland, I frankly admit it would be impossible for us to bring in our Education Bill in the shape we brought it in. As regards this particular point, the noble and learned Lord says that in connection with this University we were wearing a mask. He did not say so, but he meant that we were playing something of the part of hypocrites. I am disposed to challenge that statement. This University is, if you like, on paper, an undenominational University. It is perfectly true that we do believe and design that it should have a Catholic atmosphere. That is its object. But, my Lords, Trinity College, on paper, is an undenominational University; but it is a Protestant University, and it seems to me it would be equally reasonable to suggest the imposition of tests at Trinity because all that you have done, and all that Mr. Fawcett attempted to do in 1873 in removing tests from Trinity, has not succeeded in making anything but an essentially Protestant University unacceptable to the Catholics of Ireland, But there is another argument. We are determined to keep this University undenominational, if you like still upon paper, and for this reason. Several noble Lords have lamented that instead of instituting this University on the lines we have, we did not institute it on lines which would enable Protestants and Catholics to be educated together. They assume, and probably rightly assume, that now this University will be mainly Catholic in character. But we are not legislating for to-morrow or the day after to-morrow. It is quite conceivable that a change might, come over opinion in Ireland in that respect. A time may come—it may be distant—when Irishmen will be glad that Protestants and Catholics should be educated side by side. There is nothing to prevent their being now so educated in Trinity. There will be nothing to prevent their being in future educated in this new University; but if we are to impose Roman Catholic tests and to endow Roman Catholic professorships, which, on the noble and learned Lord's argument, would be an equally rational thing to do, we should close the door in the face of that possibility. I am not in the least ashamed of admitting that this Dublin University will be in essence Catholic, but neither am I in the least ashamed of keeping it in terms rigidly undenominational for the reasons which I have endeavoured to explain.

My Lords, I rise for the purpose of expressing my entire concurrence with what fell from my noble friend on the back benches to whom we listened with so much pleasure. Indeed, I ventured the other day to say something very like what he said in the debate on the Second Reading. I accept the Bill of His Majesty's Government with my eyes open, and knowing that it is intended to produce a University which shall be in substance undenominational, but which will be accepted by the Roman Catholics of Ireland, because it is going to be a denominational University in essence. The noble Earl himself admitted that the University was to be undenominational; on paper only. With regard to the particular clause before us, I confess that I attach very little importance to it.

It is a very small matter.

Yes, a very small matter. It is, if I may say so, put into the Bill for the purpose of shop front decoration, and very little more. The reference of my noble and learned friend to the Education Bill now before Parliament recalls to my mind another Education Bill—the Bill of 1906. Your Lordships will recollect that it was a prominent feature in the Bill that tests were to be abolished, but it also was a prominent feature that there were to be schools with a predominant denominational atmosphere, and we asked what means were to be provided to satisfy ourselves that the teachers who in those schools would be entrusted with the duty of imparting religious education possessed any knowledge of the kind of education they would have to impart; and I remember we extracted from the noble Earl opposite the admission that although these teachers would not have to submit to tests, there would be no difficulty in finding some means of ascertaining quite sufficiently whether they were or were not qualified to give religious instruction of a particular kind. So it will be under this Bill. You have no tests in theory, but in practice we know perfectly well that the whole atmosphere of these colleges will be frankly denominational. We had better look that matter in the face, and, having looked it in the face, I admit it is not our business to cavil at proposals of this kind.

The Amendment standing in my name to this clause represents a promise which was made by my right hon. friend in another place to deal with the question of appeal. He proposes, therefore, to make the appeal to the Lord Lieutenant in Council and the Universities Committee to be appointed under this Bill. An Amendment to be moved later on, after Clause 17, deals with the appointment of this special Universities Committee. It is very much on the lines of the Scottish Universities Committee. It is worth noting that this Committee will deal not only with appeals against statutes but with appeals against schemes. That is provided for later on in the Amendment after Clause 17.

This Amendment merely inserts the names of the Commissioners, which have already been made public.

The noble Lord was quite right to put down this Amendment if he desired to draw attention to the subject, but he is aware that as a matter of fact it is not necessary, for there is nothing whatever to prevent any part of the voted sum being devoted to residential quarters if thought desirable. But what the noble Lord wanted was that a further sum should be voted in respect of the need for residential buildings. I have great sympathy with much that the noble Lord has said. I should have been very glad, if it had been possible, to make the sum large enough to supply a certain number of residential buildings, especially in Dublin, in view of the fact that Trinity is a residential college; but the claims of other institutions and of other objects prevented my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer from doing that. This object may very properly be regarded as one for private benefaction.

This is an Amendment of the same character as the one which led to the interesting speech of the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Robertson. It is desired that these theological and divinity professors should not be eligible for membership of the General Board of Studies or of any faculty other than the faculty of theology; and, so far as I know, no exception is taken to this Amendment by those most concerned.

The noble Lord is quite right in stating that these words were inserted in the Standing Committee and were afterwards struck out by a large majority on the Report stage in the House of Commons. I do not think that it is possible to regard this really as a matter of principle on either side. Personally, I frankly admit I should have raised no objection from my own point of view had the words been retained; but this Bill, as your Lordships know, represents a coming together of people of extremely different sections of opinion. Each side has had to give up a good deal which it values. It would be very easy to point to clauses in the Bill to which strong objection may be taken from the Roman Catholic point of view, and others to which equally strong objection may be taken from the Protestant point of view. This is one of the latter. It is regarded as the hoisting of a flag of denominationalism in the case of a particular college, and it is objected to on that ground.

Hear, Hear!

I am very glad to know that the noble Marquess agrees. I do not know whether he was in the House when I made my observations on the question of the undenominational character of this Bill.

Yes.

In that case I need not repeat anything of what I said then. I am given to understand that there is no prospect of this Amendment being accepted in another place. I, therefore, trust the noble Lord will not press it.

My Lords, we on this side of the House are ready to go great lengths in facilitating a settlement of this question; but I really think that in regard to this particular Amendment the noble Earl has asked us to do more than he has any right to expect. What is this proposal? Simply this, that it should be lawful for the friends of the people who frequent this University to erect, at their own cost, a chapel which the students can attend. There is no question of public money. We all regret that this University cannot be given a residential character. We can quite understand that at this moment it should not be possible to go as far as that; but is it not fair to say that the absence of residences renders it doubly necessary that we should provide whatever means we can of bringing the students of this University together, and is it not, at any rate, important that they should have an opportunity of frequenting the same place of worship? What are the objections? I understand that one of them is founded upon the fact that these chapels, or this chapel, would be built upon a site which was once acquired at the expense of the public. That seems to me to be pure pedantry, and I will not spend time in examining the argument. Then comes the real reason, the reason frankly avowed by the noble Earl who has just spoken. He says that if a chapel were to be built, we should thereby be hoisting the flag of denominationalism in this University. My Lords, really has it come to this?

I did not say that that was my opinion. I said that a great many people thought so.

I really would not attribute such a view to the noble Earl; I have too much respect for his common-sense; but he is the mouthpiece for people who entertain this extravagant, and, I must say, absurd opinion. You are going to have a college which we all admit is going to be a Roman Catholic college; yet in order to save appearances you go the length of saying that you will not allow friends of these students to provide a chapel in which they can worship on Sunday. This is a kind of hypocrisy to which I cannot be a party, and, therefore, I hope my noble friend will press his Amendment. If it meets with an adverse fate elsewhere we shall submit to the inevitable; but I do not think the House of Lords ought to be a party to such a disingenuous proceeding as that which is recommended to us. This proposal has had many vicissitudes. It was not in the original Bill; it was put in with a good deal of acceptance; it was afterwards rejected from the Bill, and I venture to think your Lordships would do well to reinsert it in its place.

The new clause which I move after Clause 17 is the one upon which I said a few words at an earlier stage, and in which I understand the noble and learned Lord opposite desires to make some slight Amendment. The clause sets up this special Irish Universities committee, giving the Lord-Lieutenant power to appoint it as he thinks fit. The proviso is that two of the members of the committee

I shall not oppose that Amendment to my Amend- ment. But I do not know that the noble and learned Lord has a precedent for it.

said that if the noble Earl desired only to follow precedent in legislation concerning Ireland, he did not know how far he would get.

The Amendment sent to your Lordships' House from the Commons is—

"In page 20, line 41, after the word 'date,' to insert the words 'Provided that where such a tenancy was a tenancy from year to year, the compensation payable in respect of an improvement comprised in the Third Schedule to this Act shall be such (if any) as could have been claimed if this Act had not been passed.' "

It is a legal point entirely. It has been most carefully considered by the Parliamentary counsel, by the Parliamentary draftsman, and by the Board's legal advisers, and they assure me they are satisfied that this Amendment will secure the landlord's rights, which, of course, everybody is anxious to maintain. The point is rather an intricate one, and I respectfully ask your Lordships to be good enough to agree with the Commons' Amendment.

Before your Lordships pass this Amendment I should like to say one word upon it. This Amendment, I think I am correct in saying, is the result of an agreement come to between the Board of Agriculture and those who are desirous of continuing the existing definition of tenancies from year to year that Parliament applied to tenancies at the passing of the Market Gardeners Act, 1895. I believe this Amendment is very carefully drawn for that purpose, and I think that to a very considerable extent, and perhaps entirely, it will carry out the purpose which we have in view. While I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Earl for having managed that this Amendment should be inserted in another place, at the same time I am rather inclined to express my regret that these particular words should be employed in the Amendment. The Act itself is of really great value to the agricultural interest in that it expresses in an admirably clear manner all the details of the different Agricultural Holdings Acts, and, in fact, we are given in this one measure the whole of the law dealing with the subject. Perhaps the greater advantage of the Act is that it is simple and free from any reference to existing statutes. I am sorry, therefore, that in this particular Amendment this practice has not been entirely carried out, because reference is made to an existing state of the law on the subject. The existing state of the law on the subject is exceedingly difficult to find out. If the tenant of a market garden whose year-to-year tenancy was covered in 1895 wants to find out his exact position in the matter, he looks, no doubt, first of all to this Consolidation Act, and finds nothing at all about it. He then, perhaps, is advised to refer to the Market Gardeners Act, and again he will discover nothing as to his position, although at the beginning he is referred to another Agricultural Holdings Act, that of 1883, and he may wade through sixty clauses of that Act without finding out anything. In the sixty-first clause he will come to the matter relating to his position, but expressed in such complicated terms that no farmers and very few land agents would be able to translate it without the assistance of a lawyer. While this Consolidation Act is brought in for the express purpose of simplifying the law on the subject, I am very sorry that this particular Amendment, which does express our views, is not couched in more clear and precise terms. I was going to raise the question whether this Amendment is competent, because it refers us to certain Acts of Parliament which under this Bill are repealed. Both the Acts I have referred to are repealed; but I understand the noble Earl has consulted his legal advisers on that matter, and is satisfied that it is correct. What I should like particularly to ask the noble Earl now is whether he could not at this period of the session so alter the wording of this Amendment that it would express in clear and precise language what the Government and we intend.

I have to thank the noble Earl for what he said about the Bill, and I can assure him that the greatest possible pains have been taken to meet the wishes of himself, the Duke of Northumberland, and other noble Lords who had doubts on the subject. Our great object has been not to bring into this Consolidation Bill any fresh matter of any sort or kind, in accordance with the pledge I gave, and our legal advisers thought that the Bill as it stood covered the whole ground; but to meet the wishes of the noble Lord and the Duke of Northumberland we proposed these words, which were shown to noble Lords opposite, and they agreed that the Amendment was perhaps in the best language that we could find. I hope the noble Lord will not object to this Amendment. It is very important that we should get it through. I can assure him that all the rights of landlords are perfectly safeguarded, and that no fresh matter has been brought into the Bill in any shape or form.

I do not wish to express any objection to this matter at all. I know it brings in no fresh matter, but I think the Amendment might have been expressed in language which the ordinary farmer or other person could have understood.

I dare say your Lordships will remember that this was a somewhat important Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, which caused a considerable difference of opinion in your Lordships' House, which was not confined to one side. The case involved is where a tenant consents in writing to a compulsory acquisition of land by the Estates Commissioners; it was provided in the Bill that he should sign in the presence of two witnesses, and it was added that the consent should be filed as a record in the office of the Land Commission. That Amendment was inserted at the instance of Lord Atkinson, who added that notice of such filing should be given to the landlord and inserted in two successive issues of a newspaper; further, that such consent should not be acted upon if the landlord interested in or having a claim on the land should satisfy the Judicial Commissioner that the tenant had been compelled to give consent by unlawful means. That is the Amendment with which the Commons have disagreed, and I am in hopes that your Lordships will not insist on your Amendment, because in another place, when my right hon. friend moved to disagree with it he was supported in the strongest terms by Mr. Long on behalf of the Opposition. Nobody will dispute Mr. Long's experience in dealing with Ireland, and when he went so far as to say that he considered this Amendment made the Bill practically useless it must be taken as an expression of opinion by one who is qualified to speak from experience. Our argument was —and it was the argument, no doubt, which appealed to Mr. Long—that the process would be so long and troublesome, and possibly so expensive, that the purpose of the Bill, which is generally admitted to be a reasonable one, would be very seriously interfered with in these particular cases. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will agree not to insist upon this Amendment.

Your Lordships may perhaps remember that when this Bill was before us I expressed great doubts as to the value of the second part of the Amendment inserted by your Lordships' House, so much so that I was unable to vote with my noble friend who moved it. I think the Bill as it came to us at first was much too loosely drawn, and that the Amendment made by this House, as it was accepted by the other House, has very materially improved the Bill. It requires that the consent of the tenant should be given with proper formality and in a manner which, to a certain extent, would preclude fraudulent consent being given; but the latter part of the clause I look upon in a different light. I cannot bring myself to believe that anything would be gained by allowing the landlord to set in motion the very cumbersome machinery provided by the second part of the clause. The remedy would be one of extremely doubtful value to him, and it would be open to the great drawback that it would lead to an amount of litigation which could not fail to have a very bad effect in the country and in the neighbourhood. It is also to be borne in mind that the proposal was objected to by a number of the tenants most concerned in this particular matter. Under these circumstances I earnestly hope that your Lordships' House will not insist upon your Amendment, or, at any rate, will not insist upon the whole of the Amendment, but will be content with that portion which has been accepted by the House of Commons.

After what has fallen from my noble friend on the front bench I feel it would be useless to press this Amendment on the House, but I should like to point out that this Amendment, moved by Lord Atkinson, was not so much directed in the interests of the landlord—at least in the opinion of most of those who supported him—as against intimidation practised in the district. We do not think it likely that intimidation is going to cease, taking into consideration the present policy of His Majesty's Government in Ireland, but at least it might be made more difficult, and though the people who are practising intimidation might gain their point in the end there would be considerable delay about, and additional publicity would be given to the existing state of things. The Amendment would not affect the tenant who was ready to go in consideration of the pecuniary advantages offered to him. On the other hand those in the neighbourhood who wished to remain would be to a limited extent protected from exposure to intimidation by the process indicated in the last sentence of the clause. It would be perhaps more of a protest against intimidation than anything else, but it might have had some effect.

rose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Metropolitan Police, and to ask His Majesty's Government: (1) Whether the constables found to be guilty of misconduct will be suitably dealt with; (2) Whether it is proposed to compensate the man Gamble or Pearce who was found by the Commissioners to have been injured by a police constable; (3) Whether steps will be taken to impress upon all ranks of the Metropolitan Police Force the supreme importance of telling the truth at all times and warning them not to commit perjury in order to conceal a breach of duty. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in dealing with, the Report of the Royal Commission upon the duties of the Metropolitan Police, and in calling attention to one or two individual cases of misconduct, I cannot more fitly begin than by stating how entirely I endorse the general findings of that Commission as to the excellence of the police force as a whole and to the services they render to the public. It has been my misfortune to appear, to a certain extent, as a person attacking the police in isolated cases, but I am glad of the opportunity of saying that I have never suggested that the police force as a whole were corrupt or unworthy of our confidence, or that they did not render very great services to the law-abiding public in the Metropolis. A good many individual cases, as they are called, were investigated by the Police Commission, and I do not propose to detain your Lordships with details of them; but in a certain number of those cases the police constables were found to be guilty of misconduct of a more or less grave character. In one case a constable was found to have been misconducting himself when he should have been on his beat. In another case a constable was found guilty of misconduct in arresting a respectable married woman in the street. In yet another case a constable was found guilty of misconduct for arresting a man because he had lost his temper without sufficient reason. Then there was the case of a market porter named Mullins, in which the Commission found that Police Constable Morgan lost his temper and assaulted him, and subsequently arrested him, making a charge against him which the Commission found not to be proved. In addition to those cases, there is one case of a most serious character to which I refer specifically in my second Question, namely, that of a man called Gamble or Pearce. In that particular case, after a very long and minute investigation, the Commission found that the police constable was guilty of misconduct. The allegation was that he knocked this man down and kicked him when on the ground, injuring him so seriously that he had to spend many months in hospital and will not ever entirely recover. Sergeant Sheeney was guilty of misconduct in not intervening between Gamble and the constable and also in omitting to make a report to the inspector or any other responsible officer. Those cases, however, in no way bear out the suggestion that the police as a whole deliberately make false charges or do anything which could be described as behaving in an improper way at the beginning of an assault or disturbance. But when the police have made a mistake or when there has been some little lapse on their part they sometimes attempt to cover it up by taking more severe measures, or by making charges which cannot be supported against people with whom they have differences. I assume that the Report of the Commission has been considered by the Home Office and the Commissioner of Police, and that these constables will be dealt with according to the character of their offences. In the particular case of the man Gamble I hope the Home Office will see fit to compensate the man, because he has suffered by the wrongful action of the constable as found by the Royal Commission, an injury which is not only very grave, and which confines him to hospital for several months at a time, but has really made him unfit ever again to do a good day's work. On the third Question your Lordships have to bear this fact in mind, and I regard it as very significant and important. Whatever the particular degree of misconduct of which these constables have been found guilty, in every case they have gone into the witness box and sworn a statement of facts which the Royal Commission have found to be false, not only in the police court but in the inquiry before the Commission, where they have attempted to cover up their misconduct by deliberate perjury. I think it might be said without injustice that when a mistake has been made there is some tendency on the part of the police to prefer to stick to the original story, or the story which they think they ought to stick to, without proper regard to the truth, and for that reason I hope steps will be taken—some have already been taken since Mr. Gladstone became Home Secretary—to impress upon all rank so the Metropolitan Police Force the importance of telling the truth. It has been suggested to me—of course, not by the police themselves because one has not the opportunity of ascertaining their opinion—but by those who say they know something about it and the discipline of the force, that these men sometimes do not tell the truth about these matters because the discipline is so extremely strict and severe that they are likely to be punished for an oversight or a comparatively trivial error or trivial breach of discipline as if they had done something very blameworthy from a moral point of view. I recognise there must be reasonably strict discipline over a large body of men, but I think your Lordships will probably feel that this discipline goes rather too far if every error which any man may commit in the very trying, anxious, and sometimes doubtful work he has to perform, is to be regarded with severity. If for an innocent mistake a man is to be treated as if he had committed a grave wrong you increase his inclination to cover up his mistake and back it up, I am sorry to say, by perjury afterwards.

The reply to the first Question is in the affirmative. It had been decided to take judicial proceedings against the constable concerned in the Gamble case. The question whether any proceedings should be taken against any of the other officers concerned in the same case is under consideration. As to the other constables whom the Commission found to have been guilty of misconduct, one was dismissed forthwith. In another case the Commission reported that the punishment inflicted at the time was adequate. Another case which the Commission thought might have been more severely dealt with at the time it is not proposed to reopen, seeing that the incident took place five years ago. The cases of the four remaining constables have been referred to the disciplinary board at New Scotland Yard to be dealt with. The second Question of the noble Earl cannot be considered until after the result of the judicial proceedings has become known. With regard to the third Question, there is no need to impress upon the force the importance and necessity of telling the truth. A regulation already exists which directs a constable to speak the truth at all times and under all circumstances, and, when called on to give evidence, to state all he knows without fear or reservation, and without any desire to influence the result either for or against the prisoner. The Commission report very favourably as to the observance of this regulation, and as to the general trustworthiness of police witnesses.

I desire to express my regret that the noble Earl opposite should have put his third Question on the Paper. To any ordinary mind it conveys the impression that in the noble Earl's opinion the Metropolitan Police Force as a whole is open to the odious imputation of habitual untrustworthiness. That is putting an entirely unwarrantable affront on a very worthy body of men. The result of the inquiry has been to exonerate the force of very many of the charges that were brought against them and redounds greatly to their credit and their reputation. The noble Earl disclaimed any desire of charging the Metropolitan Police with untruthfulness, but I think he cannot be acquitted of having put on the Paper a Question which certainly suggested the idea that the force was open to a charge of the kind.

rose to ask the Lord Chancellor whether the law of Scotland allows a divorce a vinculo for desertion; whether this amounts to divorce practically being obtained at discretion or had led to other evils; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to alter the law of Scotland. The noble Earl said: The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other day in discussing the question of divorce for desertion stated that the effect of such a proposal, as I understood him, was that divorce might practically be obtained at discretion, or almost at discretion, by the parties to the marriage. I understood that that is the existing law of Scotland, and I thought the noble and learned Lord was speaking with some knowledge of the state of affairs in his own country, and I should be glad to know whether this is found to be the result of it. The particular evils suggested by the noble and learned Lord could hardly take place in this country under the Matrimonial Acts, as conduct conducing to the offence would be a bar to the remedy, but there may be facts with which I am unacquainted which make a ground for granting divorce which has led to these evils. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will inform the House whether it has been found to be the case in Scotland, and whether it is proposed to alter the law. I wish to put the Question on the Paper.

My Lords, I believe that according to the law of Scotland if there has been malicious and obstinate non-adherence for four years there may be a divorce after public admonitions in the pulpit and a sentence of excommunication under an ancient Act of Parliament. I am not aware that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to alter that law. In regard to the remainder of the Question I think the noble Earl will agree that his question is argumentative, and I hope he will excuse me for not offering an argumentative answer.