SECOND READING.

HC Deb 03 March 1875 vol 222 cc1123-72

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it would remove from the four Universities a restriction imposed on their discretion by an unexpected construction of the law. It would take away the illegality that had been stamped upon a course taken by all the authorities of Edinburgh University at the suggestion of the medical faculty. The Scotch Universities Act gave a power to the University Court, with the consent of the Chancellor, after communicating with the Senatus, and the University Council, to make internal arrangements for the improvement of these institutions, and it was in the belief that those internal arrangements thus authorized included such a subject as the extension of the examinations and degrees to women, that the authorities of the University of Edinburgh made regulations for that purpose. Those regulations were deliberately considered, and received the sanction of the high legal authorities connected with the University of Edinburgh. The present Lord Advocate was the person who made the Motion in the University Court that led to the regulations, and he therefore gave the weight of his legal authority to these regulations. The Lord Sector of the day was Lord Moncreiff, and the Chancellor of the University was the highest legal dignitary on the Scotch Bench, and they both sanctioned these regulations. Therefore, it was with the full weight and consideration of legal authority that it was assumed that one of the Scotch Universities had the power, under the existing law, to admit female students to the benefits of University training and education. After two years, however, those in the University who did not approve of these regulations raised doubts as to the legality of conferring degrees. The question was raised by an action in the Courts of Law in Scotland, before the Lord Ordinary, and the decision was substantially in favour of what had been done by the University authorities. But, on an appeal to the Court of Session, the Judgment of the Lord Ordinary was reversed, and the regulations were declared to have been ultra vires, and it was stated that, if such a power be desirable, it must be obtained either from the Crown or from the Legislature, thus pointing to such a remedy as the one which he now proposed—namely, an amendment of the Universities Act to declare that it was, and ought to be, in the power of the authorities of the Universities, if they should think fit, according to their discretion—with which the Bill did not purpose to interfere—to extend the benefits of the Universities beyond the male students to female students. The object of the Bill, therefore, was to remove the badge of illegality and invalidity which had been stamped upon the proceedings of the University by the decision of the Court of Session. In the Preamble it was recited that—"Whereas doubts have arisen"—and, surely, he was justified in saying that the state of the law was doubtful, when they saw ranged on the one side the highest legal authorities, who believed that the Scotch University Act gave this power to the Universities, and when on the other they found that decision reversed on appeal by a majority of 7 Judges against 5, and in the minority were found the names of the Judges of highest position, of greatest experience, and of the most recognized ability. The judgment of the Court of Session was not final, and might have been reversed by an appeal to the House of Lords; but the parties who felt aggrieved were not wealthy, and could hardly be expected to incur the expense of a third suit, and they might fairly hope that their object would be attained in the manner suggested by the Court, and without resorting to further legal proceedings. There were reasons to suppose that the Judgment of the Court had not placed the question beyond the region of doubt. But, at all events, whether the doubts referred to in the Preamble were well founded or not, still the enacting part of the Bill ought to take effect, which declared that henceforth the authorities of the Scotch Universities might, if they thought fit, extend the benefits of the education given in these institutions to female students. He did not propose to interfere in any way with the discretion or the constitution of the authorities of these institutions in this matter. Some might think that the University Court was not the best body to exercise such a discretion as that; but then the Act of Parliament that created the University Court had already committed to it the responsibility of making internal improvements subject to the veto of the Chancellor, and to communication with the Senatus and the Council. If the University Court was qualified for its other duties, it was fit for this discretion, and there was no ground for assuming that its members would decline to pay any attention to the opinions and arguments of the other bodies in the University whom the law compelled them to consult, and would disregard any deliberate and well-considered Judgment of the Senatus and Council; and the Court was subject to the assent of the Chancellor. The Bill was really only an enabling measure, which would in no way interfere with that which was the proper business of the University—namely, the management of its own affairs, All he proposed to do was to remove from the Universities the bar which the decision of a Court of Law had put against their doing that which one University had thought right to do. It might be said, if this was merely an enabling Bill, and did not interfere with the discretion of the Universities, why should they have Petitions sent up from the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow against the Bill. He thought that those who had sent up Petitions against the Bill were occupied less with the particular provisions of this Bill than with the general question of female education. Indeed, the question of extending the benefits of the Universities to female students was one which had been strongly debated, and which gave rise to great division of opinion in the University of Edinburgh. In that University, as in the Universities of Cambridge and London, there were many Professors of large sympathies and extended views who were quite prepared to take their share in that great movement, which had originated in England, of extending the benefits of University education, by means of the Oxford and Cambridge Local Examinations, to persons of both sexes. The Universities were accepting the great mission of satisfying the hunger after higher education amongst all classes and both sexes. Edinburgh had instituted local examinations similar to those set on foot by Oxford and Cambridge, and those examinations had done an immense deal of good, as hon. Members must know, in stimulating the middle-class schools, and encouraging both teachers and scholars to advance towards a higher education. Those examinations had been as successfully applied to girls' schools as to boys' schools. At the present moment, the lectures which were delivered by Professors of Cambridge and Oxford in the large towns of the North of England were producing great effects in stimulating the artizan class in the acquirement of knowledge. Professors of Edinburgh University were instructing the members of the Ladies Educational Association in literature, philosophy, and science, with most successful results. Twenty-seven Professors in Scotch Universities had petitioned in favour of the Bill. Nine eminent Professors who lectured in the School of Medicine had urged the House in their Petition to place University education within the reach of women. There was evidence that in the University of Edinburgh a desire existed among the more enlightened, active, and energetic of the Professors to extend the benefits of University teaching according to circumstances to female students. The Petition of the Senatus was adopted by a majority of medical Professors, the majority of the non-medical men being in favour of University education for women. It was therefore impossible to disguise from one-self that the opposition to the Bill mainly arose from the medical Professors—he did not mean from all of them, but from the majority of their number. To show that the opposition did not proceed from all, he might remark that there was a Petition on the Table of the House, in favour of the Bill, from the extra-mural lecturers on medical science, who had been in the habit of teaching female students, and who stated that they found an aptitude, a patience, a perseverance, and an intellectual power in the female students quite equal to those of their male students, and that they had every reason to be satisfied with the conduct of those students. The opposition to be encountered was not against the admission of women to a higher intellectual culture, but to their admission into medical practice; and this opposition came from the medical profession. Amongst the pleas of objection was a warning against the association of the sexes in the same classes. But there was no prospect of the two sexes being taught together in the classes of anatomy and surgery. The regulations that were framed by the University of Edinburgh did not sanction any mixed classes, but made provision for separate classes; and he thought the House might entirely dismiss the probability, or even the possibility, of any such mixture. The combination would only take place at the examinations, and he could hardly conceive that any mischief would arise from female students competing by examination for degrees, any more than at present arose from their competing for certificates of honour. Objections were urged; against the capacity and competence of women for the medical art. Let that objection be tested by experience. But it was already disproved. The four ladies who were practising in London and provincial towns had plenty of patients, and cured as high a proportion as other practitioners. But the prevailing objection that influenced the majority of the medical profession who objected to women receiving medical degrees arose from a dread of competition. No profession liked an increase of competition; yet he could not think that there was any ground for supposing that this competition was likely to be of a formidable character, because there was ample room for the admission of female medical practitioners without interfering in any important degree with the male practitioners. There were large spheres of action on which female practitioners might enter which at present were not occupied. There were numberless cases of young women who shrunk from applying for advice at the commencement of a disorder or in small ailments, who yet would at once have recourse to a competent practitioner of their own sex if they were allowed to do so. Again, there were large openings for female practitioners in India. There were in India millions of native ladies shut up in the zenanas, who, however ill they might be, were not willing to receive any help from male practitioners. Here was a sphere which was now opening to female doctors. The zenanas of the Upper Provinces of India were shut against the assistance of medical men. A physician in India had written to say that from his own personal experience he knew the sickness and suffering within these zenanas to be immense, and that had he a hundred medical ladies out there, he could find plenty of occupation for them. The Native gentlemen would gladly avail themselves of European skill for their wives and daughters through female doctors. A number of American medical ladies connected with missions had arrived, and had more practice than they could manage. English women would go; and it surely must be undesirable that ladies should go out there without any official and authoritative stamp as to whether they had got the knowledge and experience requisite to make them competent medical practitioners? Did they not by their present system bring discredit upon English science, by declining to give to the Natives of India that security which they might fairly expect in the case of women going from England to practise there as doctors? Some people were incredulous of the power of women to make use of the advantages which the Universities offered, and of their capacity to successfully apply themselves to scientific studies. If, at present, there was a deficiency of mental power and capacity among women, as compared with men, it arose to a great extent from the deficiencies of their education. The weaker the minds, the more they required to he strengthened by careful and appropriate training. Though nature had established fundamental differences, it had prepared for each sex a line in which it was fitted to excel. The experience of Girton College, and of Merton College, Cambridge, proved that women could pass examinations equally with men, when equally taught. Of this he felt convinced—that women would continue to practise medicine, and it was unwise to compel them to go abroad to got that teaching and those degrees which we refused to grant them at home. Why should we send them to Paris? At the present moment there were six English young women studying in Paris, and in course of time they would obtain their degrees. In other countries of Europe, Universities were open to both sexes. Even Russia, the youngest in civilization, was in advance of us in this respect. In that country there were special schools of medicine for preparing young women to go to those countries whore there was a large Mahometan population, to whom their services were as acceptable as those of English women would be in India. It was a harsh and cruel thing that when these young women had duly qualified themselves as practitioners, our law should be so arranged as to make it impossible for them to obtain legal recognition of the proficiency they had been encouraged by legal authority to attain. He would not enter into the question of the difficulties that might arise in the Universities if they chose to exercise the power which the Bill would give them. That was a matter left by the law to the discretion of those bodies; but he was quite sure that they were not of such a formidable character that they might not be overcome. If the present lecturers were not able to give a second lecture to women, nothing was more easy than to have supplementary teachers. The feeling of Edinburgh had declared itself so strongly in favour of extending the benefits of University education to women, that money had been amply contributed for every purpose for which it had hitherto been required; the Town Council had petitioned in their favour; and he thought the ground upon which he might fairly ask the House to give a second reading to this Bill was, that it was desirable to remove from the Universities of Scotland the disability under which they at present laboured. The Scottish Universities were the only ones where regulations were made under an Act of Parliament, for the English Universities were governed by charters; therefore, it had become necessary to ask the assistance of Parliament for an extension of power; and if granted in the shape of the Bill, it would give to the Universities the power of increasing the scope of their action and their usefulness, and of extending the dissemination of knowledge and of culture of the highest order to both sexes, according to the circumstances under which they desired to attend these institutions. The Universities would thus be made stronger and better adapted to moot the wants of the day. A desire was now prevailing for the improvement of female education, an object which many people in Scotland most ardently desired to accomplish. By opening the door for competent women to become medical practitioners—an honourable profession for which nature had fitted them—they would remove an obstacle at present in the path of many young women who were anxious to earn their own livelihood, and who did not desire any longer to burden their families. It would occupy other young women who, although not absolutely obliged to take up a profession, yet were anxious to rise out of a life of uselessness and frivolity to one of practical work in curing disease. 16,000 women last Session had petitioned Parliament to allow them to be treated medically by their own sex. Surely that was a want to which some attention might be paid. He thought they, who were elected by only one sex, were more bound than they would otherwise be to pay attention to the wishes and wants of the other sex, in regard to a matter of a social and domestic character, not one touching politics, but affecting the comfort, the health, and the welfare of that sex in the community. He conceived that, whether they looked at the case of the Universities, whether they looked at the case of young women, or at the large class of women desirous of having medical practitioners of their own sex, there was every reason why they should more widely open the portals of the Northern Universities, and restore to them the freedom they had been supposed to possess, of educating any of Her Majesty's subjects. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Cowper-Temple.)

MR. MAITLAND

, in rising to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that clay six months, said, it was with the greatest pain that he felt it to be his duty to put upon the Paper that Amendment. It was painful to him because he yielded to no man in the House or the country in a sincere desire for the improvement of the higher education of women; but while he most decidedly thought the House ought to do all they possibly could to that end, he altogether objected to the Bill. He had no doubt it had been introduced with the very best intentions; but he thought he should be able, before he sat down, to show the House that it had been framed by persons altogether unfamiliar with Scottish Universities. That was the sole objection he had to the Bill. He was not one of those persons who thought that women ought not to have degrees in the medical, or in any other faculty; but his objection was this—that if the Bill passed, the Scotch Universities would become subject to a constant and perpetual popular agitation. The first point to which he wished to draw the attention of the House was the Preamble, and he ventured to say that a more extraordinary statement than was to be found in it had never been made. The Preamble stated, for instance, "that doubts had arisen as to powers of the Universities of Scotland to admit women," and then it added that it was expedient those "doubts" should be removed. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hants (Mr. Cowper-Temple) thought there were any doubts on the question existing at present, he could assure him that he was totally misinformed. In admitting lady students it had been decided that the University Courts had acted in ultra vires, and gone beyond their power. It was true certain ladies were admitted to one of the Scotch Universities, and admitted by the University Court. The matter was taken into the Law Courts of Scotland, and the decision of the full Bench of Judges went against the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. They acquiesced in the decision; they did not, as they might have done, carry the matter to a higher Court, but instead they now came to Parliament to ask for legislation. He had no objection in the world to that; but he had every objection to their stating that there were doubts as to the power of the Universities to admit women. He must therefore argue the question on the basis of there being no doubts whatever as to the present legal position of the Universities in reference to the admission of women. Women were now, and always had been, excluded altogether from the Universities. He was the last man in the House to say that he was not willing to hear arguments on the subject; for, on the contrary, he was exceedingly anxious to hear arguments. He objected to the Bill because it was permissive, and because it asked Parliament to hand over its powers to a body called the University Court, about which they knew nothing. Upon that body would devolve the duty of making arrangements for the admission of women, and in reference to the point, he must be allowed to make this remark—that of great social questions like that, a question affecting the higher education of women, and one which was subject to constant agitation, not in Scotch and English Universities alone, but throughout the whole country—Parliament alone were the proper judges. Again, Parliament was the only recognized authority as judges of great financial changes. If the Bill became law, Parliament would be in this position. They would hand over authority to the University Courts to admit to the Universities, which could not be done without a great amount of expense. For the purpose new classes would have to have formed, and for them separate buildings and an extra teaching staff would he required; but as the University Courts had no power to tax the ratepayers they would be obliged to come to Parliament and say—"You must pay £100,000 or £200,000." He must admit that if it had been a proposal in regard to the University of Oxford, of which he was a member, he should have objected to handing over to the Governing Body of the University, powers which were entirely Parliamentary; but he would have felt that, to a certain extent, the Council of the University of Oxford was a real bonâ fide representation of the University, for it consisted of some 30 or 40 persons, who were elected by the resident graduates, consisting of 200 or 300 in number, all of whom took an interest in the proceedings of their University. But that was not the case with the University Courts in Scotland. Those Courts in Scotland consisted in one University of members, and in no University more than eight. The English Members would, he had no doubt, suppose that those persons were elected, because they had been Professors or at least graduates of the University, and knew something about it. Nothing could be further from the case. The Rector of most of the Universities had three votes, and virtually the control of the Court was in his hands. He must call the attention of the House to the election of the Rector. The Rector was generally a man of letters or a great statesman; no doubt, always a gentleman of great eminence, but not, in the least degree, a man of whom there was any security of the possession of practical common-sense. One of the Universities, St. Andrews, for instance, had elected Mr. John Stuart Mill, an eminent man, but that he was a person to be trusted with the absolute management of a University was a proposition that neither he, nor, he thought, the House would approve of. Then, again, Mr. Carlyle had been elected a Rector. He was the most eminent living man of letters in this country; and he was probably elected because the students wanted to see so eminent a man, and to hear him make a speech. Mr. Ruskin was another eminent man whom the students had elected Rector, and he was probably the greatest art critic in the world; but as to his practical sagacity and common-sense—that was the last thing the students were thinking about. All the men that he had mentioned were Englishmen or Scotchmen, but he would give an instance of a gentleman who, though not elected, had a very close contest with no less a person than the Prime Minister. That gentleman was not an Englishman, but an American. That gentleman was Mr. Emerson, an eminent writer and philosopher, but a person regarding whose sagacity and fitness for deciding the questions that would be referred to him under the Bill, they really knew nothing, and the students less. He might be told that he was taking a very decided line in that matter, but he must call the attention of the House to the composition of the University Court. In the University of Edinburgh there were eight members of the Court. The Lord Rector had three votes—two votes counting his own vote and that of his assessor, and a casting vote—and two other members were the Lord Provost of Edinburgh and the Assessor of the Town Council. He ventured to say that no University could possibly think that the Lord Provost of Edinburgh and the delegate of the Town Council were, in any sense, to be considered University authorities. He considered them municipal authorities, and it seemed to him a most extraordinary thing such gentlemen should have such power over the Universities. The House would then see that the officers he had mentioned had altogether five votes in a Court of eight members, and had, therefore, complete control over the University Court. The majority of the Court, to his mind, consisted of outsiders. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be surprised to hear that not only were the public not admitted to their sittings, but no reporters for the newspapers were allowed to be present. They might issue a decree one day and cancel it the next, and all that the country would know was that the decrees had been issued. But the duties of those Courts under 21 & 22 Vict. c. 83, were set forth in the Act, and they were of a merely subordinate character. They could rusticate and expel students, or enforce discipline, but in no way did the statute appear to contemplate granting them a power to regulate the University. Their powers were either disciplinary or administrative. Again, if the Rector might have complete control over the University, Parliament would be handing over to him, if the Bill passed, the settlement of the question. Who, then, elected the Lord Hector? Not those who had taken their degrees, but young men who were at the time at the University—young men, to his certain knowledge, varying in age from 14 to, perhaps, 21, in statu pupillari. Those young lads, in their choice of a Rector, were generally influenced by political considerations, and they decided, for instance, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, was the better. It was a monstrous proposition to think that those young lads should decide as to the control and management of the Universities, and he thought they would be better occupied in learning grammar than in discussing and taking part in what really was a high legislative function. Therefore, he did not think the University Courts were fit to decide the question which they would be asked to decide if the Bill passed into law; and, further, if they were to arrive at a decision, they would not give, if he might use the expression, anything like a fixed tenure to the women whom they admitted. But if the Bill passed, what would be the result? Why, if the Courts decided to admit ladies, the latter might find they were refused admission the following week. He proposed his Amendment with regret; but the provisions of the Bill introduced ran contrary in every respect to his ideas of what University life and University management ought to be, and he trusted the House would support it.

SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER

seconded the Amendment. It had already been decided by the Courts of Law in Scotland that women could not be permitted to matriculate or to graduate in the Universities of that country, and the very fact that the supporters of that policy now asked for special legislation in their favour was an admission that they had no case. He thought it a very good general rule to judge of the position of men, however honourable, rather by what they did than by what they said. A question of doubt had been raised, and he wished to recapitulate the fact of the matter. In the year 1869, a woman applied to be allowed, as an experiment, to study in the University of Edinburgh. She stated that if there was any difficulty experienced during the course of her medical education she would at once withdraw. The Senatus Academicus received her application favourably, but the University Court decided that it was not advisable for the sake of one woman to attempt to make the necessary arrangements. A short time afterwards the lady renewed her application in company with two other ladies, and the Senatus and Court of the University, on the express understanding that all that was required was a permission to begin, in order to see what would come of admitting women to the medical education afforded by the University, passed some purely permissive and tentative regulations allowing Professors to teach women medicine, provided they did so in separate classes. The University Court held that the women attending such classes must be under the same rules as the male students, and called upon them to pay the matriculation fee. As there was some misunderstanding as to what "matriculation" meant, and as considerable capital had been made out of that at the expense of the University, perhaps he might be allowed to state what "matriculation" was in the Scotch Universities. It was different from matriculation in English Universities. It consisted in the payment of a fee of a guinea, which entitled the student to attend the lectures of the Professors for one year, and the use of the University library. The student also received a ticket, declaring him a civis of the University. At the end of the year he must matriculate again, pay the fee of a guinea, continuing it for every year he remained at the University, and if he pleased he might remain at the University for the whole term of his natural life. Nothing was conceded to the ladies except the privilege of attending the lectures of Professors, who thought fit to teach them in separate classes, and the question of graduation was expressly reserved. The ladies knew very well when they commenced their studies that they could not proceed to graduation. After staying at the University for the period of two years, they applied to the University Court to make certain special and exceptional arrangements by which they might be permitted to take degrees. The University Court then did what it ought to have done long before, and what it would have done if the Court could have supposed that the women would have departed from the understanding on which they were admitted to the University—it consulted counsel whether they were legally entitled to do so. Counsel's opinion was adverse to the ladies, who then proceeded to law, and after much litigation the question, so far as the Scotch Courts were concerned, was decided against them. The charters of the Universities of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and St. Andrew's, distinctly showed that the admission of women to those seats of learning was never contemplated. It was thus apparent that the women were admitted by favour and by a mistake—by favour in a pardonable anxiety on the part of the University to meet their request, and by mistake because the University Court exceeded its powers. On what was granted to the ladies as a favour, they laid the foundation on which to claim a right. That right was tested and found untenable, and now Parliament was asked, under a pretext of alleged doubt, to positively legislate, and that adversely to the decision of the highest Court of Law in Scotland. Seeing that the ladies were very well supported by enthusiastic members of the sterner sex, he could not help saying that he thought it would show more respect to Parliament, if the decision of the House of Lords had been taken before their supporters had flaunted this theory of doubt before the House. If the question of the higher education of women pressed for legislation on its merits, in that capacity let it be brought before the House, and he was sure every hon. Member of the House would give it the fullest and the fairest consideration; but he objected to make a great national change in the system of teaching in the Universities—a change that would surely affect the great medical schools of Edinburgh and Glasgow—under a mistaken pretext and by a side-wind. It was said the Bill was a permissive Bill. That was true; but if it became law, instead of removing doubts it would create doubts. The Bill made no provision for female education, even if the University authorities were prepared to avail themselves of the permissive powers granted by the Bill. The demand of women would entail a double staff of Professors, and, as far as Edinburgh was concerned, he believed a hospital would be required to be constructed. The cost of all that would be very great, and he thought it would be far better if the ladies and their friends would establish a female medical college or University in some of the larger towns, where the hospital field was not already occupied by a medical school. The remedy which the women sought was altogether disproportionate to the grievance they complained of. That grievance was not want of instruction. They could get that, on their own showing, on the Continent, or by extra-academical teaching at home; but what they could not got was the status of being recognized medical practitioners under the Medical Act of 1858. By Schedule A of the Act only those who were qualified, and attained the qualification mentioned in the Schedule, could be put on the register. But, surely, that was no reason why they should subvert the constitution of the Scotch Universities. The Legislature could supply a remedy far short of this. Any one, or more of the Medical Corporations mentioned in the Schedule, might be compelled to give licences to women if found qualified after examination; and by such simple means the grievance would, at once, be removed.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Maitland.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

DR CAMERON

rose to support the second reading of the Bill. It seemed to him that the arguments which had been brought against it by the two hon. Members who had last spoken were, if properly considered, rather arguments in its favour. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Maitland) had laid great stress on the composition of the University Court, and had told them that if the powers proposed to be entrusted to it were given, it would be practically placing those powers in the hands of one man, it might be unconnected with the University, and that man the Lord Rector. Now, the fact was that the Lord Rector rarely interfered with the conduct of business of the University. The very case the hon. Member adduced in support of his argument proved that fact. When he showed that Mr. Emerson was brought forward as a candidate for the Lord Rectorship of Glasgow University, he knew that Mr. Emerson could never have undertaken the duties, and never could have outvoted the rest of the Council. The present Lord Rectors of the Scottish Universities were Lord Derby, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, Dean Stanley, and Professor Huxley. And when the regulations were passed admitting lady students the Lord Rector of Edinburgh University was Lord Moncreiff, and one of the members of the court was the Lord Advocate. Certainly none of them were remarkable for that want of common-sense which the hon. Member appeared inclined to attribute to the average Lord Rector of a Scottish University. The arguments as to the composition of the University Court which had been directed against the Bill were really arguments against the Scottish Universities Act, which it was intended to amend. It seemed to him that the hon. Member had made far too much of the revolutions likely to be effected in Scottish Universities by the Bill now under consideration. All it intended to do was to place the Universities in the position which they occupied before the adverse decision which had been referred to. It was imperative that the law should be declared, and in a sense on which the opinion of the House could be definitely taken upon it. The argument of the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire (Sir Windham Anstruther) was upset by the fact that the adverse decision in the case of these female students against the University authorities was given on the ground that the regulations to admit female students into the Universities were ab initio, ultra vires. Had this not been so, there was not the smallest doubt the Court of Session would have required the University of Edinburgh to provide such facilities for female students as were necessary to enable them to become undergraduates. They were told the Bill proposed to make a corpus vile of the Scotch Universities, in order to extend the system of female education. The answer to that was, that one of the Universities had chosen to make a corpus vile of itself, and another was extremely anxious to do so. When Edinburgh University opened its gates to female students, however, it certainly did not think that it was doing anything to be ashamed of. On the contrary, it boasted loudly of its superiority to vulgar prejudices. In fact, its conduct then, and since, was exactly described by the satirist. Like to a dog which lighteth on a bone, His tail he waggeth, and his joy makes known; But if the boneun to his tail you tie, He then is frightened and away doth fly. The University, however, had found that it was an easier matter to enter into a contract of this sort, than to get rid of it; and it was not until after this system of female education had been carried on for two years that the ultra vires was thought of. Having been discovered, it was important that the defect should be remedied. If Edinburgh would not avail itself of its powers, St. Andrews would. If Edinburgh would not get rid of the injustice and hardship inflicted on these ladies, another University would. Another argument which had been brought against the Bill was that the Scotch Universities were very poor, and that the admission of female students would add a great deal to their expense. But it was one of the most noteworthy features in connection with the history of the student-life of these ladies that they had never gone to the University authorities hat in hand. They had always been prepared to pay whatever expenses might be necessary. Even in regard to the expense of additional class-rooms, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) last year mentioned that when it was said, as an objection to their admission, that additional classrooms would be required, a subscription was entered into, and £65,000 was raised to supply the necessary accommodation. There was no need, therefore, to anticipate any of those unconstitutional forms of taxation which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright. Another argument used last year against the measure was, that Professors would not be able to bear the strain of the extra teaching; but in Edinburgh many of the Professors found time to give separate instruction to ladies, and in Glasgow some of the Professors had to teach in more than one branch of science—the Professor of Natural History being also Professor of Geology, and the Professor of Moral Philosophy teaching also Political Economy, and yet they found time to pursue researches, and to give extra-academical lectures to ladies besides. A system which could not be carried out without quite as much labour as would, if properly directed, afford female students all the instruction necessary to enable them to graduate. However, it was not proposed that any compulsion should be exercised. They were told that if the Bill became law, there would be nothing to prevent the admission of women at one time and their exclusion at another, but all martriculated students would be entitled to enforce the completion of the contract for graduation; and, subject to that, it was a merit of the measure that the authorities would have the opportunity of re-considering any decision they might come to on the subject. He should certainly vote for the second reading of the Bill.

MR. FORSYTH

said, that when this question came before the House last Session, in the form of a Motion which could lead to no practical result, he took no part in the discussion. On the present occasion, it had taken the form of a Bill, the second reading of which he should unhesitatingly support. The necessity for legislation on the subject arose in consequence of the judicial construction which had been put upon a certain section of the Scotch Universities Act. In consequence of that decision, Parliament was now asked, not to compel the Universities to admit women to degrees, but to enable the Universities to so admit them, if they thought tit, under certain regulations. What could be fairer than that proposal? The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill (Mr. Maitland) spoke in contemptuous terms of the University Court, and had described the Lord Sectors as men without common-sense.

MR. MAITLAND

explained that what he had said was that Lord Rectors were not elected for their common-sense, or their practical acquaintance with the affairs of the Universities.

MR. FORSYTH

said, that the hon. Gentleman had referred to Mr. John Stuart Mill and Mr. Ruskin as not distinguished for their common-sense. The Universities of Scotland Act provided that the University Courts should make improvements, provided they obtained the consent of the Council and the Chancellor. Therefore, the whole Governing Body of the Universities had to give their assent before any steps could be taken. What was the interpretation that had boon put upon the Act by the Courts of Scotland? In 1869, five ladies entered a University in Scotland. They went through their examinations, and had every reason to believe that they would be admitted to take their degrees. But some time afterwards "a change came o'er the spirit of their dream," for a resolution was come to which practically stopped them from taking their degrees. An appeal was made to a Court of Law which supported the views of the University authorities. The ladies felt, however, that it was a great hardship that they should be prevented from taking a degree by an accidental barrier arising out of the construction of an Act of Parliament. Aberdeen and St. Andrews might be in favour of the admission of women. Edinburgh and Glasgow might be opposed to it. Was it not a hard thing that those Universities which were willing to make arrangements should be debarred from doing so, simply because Edinburgh and Glasgow objected? It was perfectly well known that arrangements could be made for separate classes, especially in the medical department, so as not to mix young men and women together. In the opinion of the lecturers of the University of Edinburgh, there was no reason, in justice or expediency, why women should be refused to practise medicine, especially among their own sex. [Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR: Not the University.] It was the lecturers in the School of Medicine in Edinburgh. There was the Petition of 27 Professors of the University—including among them Professors of Rhetoric, Moral Philosophy, Public Law, History, and Mathematics—which said there was a general and growing opinion throughout the community that women who desired to have scientific education ought to have the way open to them, and ought to be encouraged rather than discouraged in their honourable pursuit. He might rest his case in favour of the measure on the fact that this was an enabling Bill, and not a compulsory one. It left things as they were, and merely took away an artificial barrier. If the authorities of the Universities did not wish to admit ladies, they need not do so; but the Bill gave the authorities power to admit them if they thought fit. Although the Bill, if passed, would open the University examinations generally to female students, permitting them to take all degrees—and he was quite prepared to go that length—he believed they would confine themselves almost exclusively to the study of medicine, and the only arguments that could be maintained against their being allowed to do so must be based either on their intellectual unfitness, or disability on the score of sex. With reference to the first argument, he would only say it reminded him of the argument of the sophist that there was no such thing as motion, and his challenge to the philosopher to prove it. The answer of the philosopher was solvitur ambulando. They had only to look to the Continent of Europe to find that in most European countries—notably in Italy, France, Switzerland, Saxony, Sweden, and Russia—women were admitted to the practice of the medical profession, and many of them had attained to great eminence. Similar instances—few, unhappily, in number—were to be found in this country; but he did not think Englishwomen were so far behind the women of the Continent that they could not practise with equal ability? Take the case of Mrs. Garret Anderson and Miss Blackwell, whose names had been put on the register, and who had a large and extensive practice. It was surely a narrow and bigoted view to take of any question like the present that England and Scotland should refrain from taking a forward movement, until they had received an example and an impetus from foreign countries. In reference to the argument of sex, he said that women constituted the majority of the population, and that in many diseases they shrank from the attendance of a male doctor. In that view, who were more fitting attendants on women than women themselves, if they were properly qualified? The object of the Bill was to enable them to get the best education the Universities could supply with regard to medicine to enable them to practise. If they were fitted intellectually, and not unfitted by sex, what reason could be urged why they should not practise? We lived in times when it was very often most difficult even for an educated man to obtain a livelihood. Nothing could be more painful than to see that when a place, with a very small salary, the duties of which a man of education could perform, was advertised, an immense number applied for that place. But if the competition was intense with regard to posts that men could fill, what was it with regard to women? They formed, as he had said, a majority of the whole population. What were the careers open to women of education? He was not talking of women employed in shops or in factories. He was talking of women of education, who had faculties which God had given them, and which might be employed in a useful and honourable career. We all knew what miserable salaries were paid generally to governesses and schoolmistresses. It might be said that authorship was open to women of education, but a man or a woman that was not a successful writer could not live by authorship. One of the greatest writers of modern times (Sir Walter Scott) said—"Never regard authorship as a crutch, but only as a staff to lean your hand upon." If women of education could earn a livelihood in an honourable and useful career, he thought it was a cruel injustice that that career should not be open to them. For those reasons he would vote most assuredly for the second reading of the Bill.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he would not have risen at that point of the debate if it had still continued in the hands of Representatives of that part of the Kingdom with which the Bill substantially dealt; but the hon. Member who represented him (Mr. Forsyth), and who was also at the same time one of his (Mr. Beresford Hope's) constituents, had transferred the question to a larger ground, and he had now a right to say a few words on it. His objection to the shape of the Bill this year was an objection which he ventured to bring before the House last year. It was this—that the persons who were engaged in a crusade about a great question had taken advantage of a small issue upon an alleged local grievance to introduce a much wider subject. Why had his right hon. Friend entered into a local squabble? What did his right hon. Friend care particularly about Scotland? Scotland was a very active, intellectual, money-making, and picturesque, not to say patriotic, portion of the United Kingdom; but yet it was hardly fair, under the pretext of a Scotch grievance, that an attempt should be made to snatch a precedent from Parliament on a matter in which the whole of the United Kingdom was concerned. If that were not the case, why should his right hon. Friend rush from the Solent to the Forth? It was really an instalment of the question of women's grievances. His right hon. Friend could hardly conceal from the House, could hardly conceal from himself, that in fighting the battle of these young ladies of Edinburgh he was fighting the battle of a great many other ladies—young, old, and middle-aged—all over the United Kingdom. The question was, the graduation of these ladies in a medical degree, but his right hon. Friend could not conceal from himself, neither could the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth), that the question really was, whether women should graduate in every branch of art and science, and follow any profession. The grievance was not only that ladies had not been able to practise as doctors of medicine. It was equally a grievance that they should not be barristers or attornies-at-law, and he supposed his right hon. Friend would quite as logically complain that they could not be able to deliver an occasional sermon in Westminster Abbey. What were the arguments employed by the supporters of the Bill? A certain number of women had been disappointed in their hopes of obtaining a medical degree in Edinburgh, and now it was proposed that the Universities in Scotland should not be allowed to make their own terms with these women, but that these women should make their own terms with the Universities, and come in on the basis of an alleged claim. The claim was that as to all professions, all means of livelihood, women should be put on an absolute equality with men; but what he (Mr. Beresford Hope) contended, was not that the career of women was not identical with, but parallel with that of the men. A pamphlet which had been sent from Edinburgh University, which, no doubt, hon. Members had read, appeared to him conclusively to dispose of the grievances which women were alleged to have endured there or elsewhere. The medical profession, which had originally been practised generally as the healing art, had now become divided into numerous special branches, and had ramified among us in a remarkable manner. In old times there was simply the healing man, who was both surgeon and physician. But now one physician might be consulted on one branch of disease, and another man on another branch of disease. Why should not the ambition of those women who desired to do good to their fellow creatures in some branch of this healing art develop their unrivalled speciality in the art of nursing? The duty of prescribing and dictating the course of treatment had, by instinct and common sense, fallen to the share of the men. The carrying out of their orders, the watching and tending of a patient, were admirably suited to the gentle patient temperament of the female sex. Let them follow the example of Florence Nightingale and Mary Stanley, women whose names were household words in the history of the art of healing. Was it not better to be a nurse like one of those noble women than to make one of those she-doctors elbowing their way in the world with a masculine activity? He strongly objected to the Bill, with its slippery enabling faculties, when it was really a pistol put to the head of the Scotch Universities. Talk of enabling—it only enabled a mass of odium to be thrown on the Universities, if they would not accept the invitation of his right hon. Friend and carry out his behest. Lot them develop in women that which could be well developed in them—the faculty of nursing. Provide a college of nursing if they liked in London, Edinburgh—where they pleased. Nursing now required many high, not to say scientific, qualities. The Florence Nightingales represented a very different nurse from the Sarah Gamps of former generations. But they put the whole movement in respect to women in a wrong groove if they attempted to make women the rivals and antagonists of men, instead of giving them a specific province founded on the eternal difference between men and women. So much for the question of medical degrees. If they went into the question of the professions altogether, were they prepared to see women admitted to plead in the Law Courts; to have their sisters and daughters engaged getting up evidence for the Divorce Courts, and what not—the necessary work of a solicitor? If they did not do that, the argument of the supporters of the Bill was an unreality, a false security. Either women must go in for everything or nothing. They must fight it out with men, the weakest going to the wall, the strongest to the fore, or no plea remained in favour of the Bill. The impossibility of women being men, and unsexing themselves in the unnatural struggle to follow up the other sex, carried with it the whole state of the case. He contended for the development of womanly careers, for opening up professions to women could follow; but he was utterly opposed to this epicene policy in breaking down the distinctions between women and men and producing this result—that, if all professions be thrown open without discrimination, the strongest would be the winners. The strongest were men. There would be a short, feverish excitement; perhaps, for a time, a sentimental feeling in favour of giving the advantage to the woman who was plucky enough to enter for the stakes. That would not last long; common sense and self-interest would assert their sway. Selfishness would play the part it always did, and men would in a generation or so win all the prizes, and women would find themselves out of those means of livelihood which were acknowledge theirs, and which might have been made more strongly theirs. Thus they would lose their real chance—they would be disappointed, baffled, and reduced to a worse condition than they were in now. They would become what they were not now, the failures of the world, because they had not tried to hold their own as women, but had entered into a race in which they were over weighted by those whose strength, both physical and in some respects intellectual, armed them for the battle of life as women by the eternal order of the world were not armed. On these grounds, and as an advocate of the development of a true womanly education, and of the movement to find for women every honourable career for which they were suited, he must give his decided vote against the Bill.

MR. NOEL

said, he desired to bring the House back, after the speeches of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) and the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth), to the fact that this was a Scotch question. They had been travelling away to the general rights of women, and their usefulness when engaged in certain occupations. They were forgetting that the Bill exclusively concerned Scotland and the Scotch Universities. He would yield to no man in his in the higher education of women, and in his anxiety to promote such an education as would give their intellectual faculties the greatest scope possible, so as to qualify them for any post for which they might be fitted. He even went further, and said he agreed with much that had fallen from the hon. Members, who believed that women might be perfectly fitted for the profession of medicine, and for many other professions. But they were not asked to express an opinion upon that subject that afternoon, and he begged English Members to come back to the thought that they were dealing with a question which touched only the Scottish Universities. Those institutions were more to Scotland than were the English Universities to England; for while the latter attained to a higher degree of scholarship, as far as general education went the Scottish Universities had a much greater influence on the mass of the population than had the English Universities. The House ought, therefore, to be very careful before they did anything that might in the slightest degree interfere with the efficiency of these great institutions. Evidence had been advanced during the debate to show that in the judgment of those who had the best right to form an opinion on the subject—namely, the large majority of the teachers in the Universities concerned—such a Bill as this, if carried, would be injurious to the Universities. The House was bound to turn aside altogether from all the considerations that had been brought before them that afternoon as to the necessity of women being educated in medicine for service in India. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hants (Mr. Cowper-Temple) that there was such a want, a great want, in India. But the subject before them was not the want in India of women who had been educated as medical practitioners. What they had to discuss was whether the Bill would be useful or not? Would it interfere with the prosperity of the Universities to which it related? On that point, the opinion of those most nearly concerned should have the greatest weight. It had been argued that this was merely an enabling Bill; that it forced nothing on the Universities; that it was only an extension of the Act under which they now existed. It was, however, something far more than that. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbrightshire (Mr. Maitland) had pointed out that the University Courts were not the best bodies to decide what, in a case of this sort, was for the best interests of the Universities. But the case would not be the same in the future as if this Bill had not been brought in. It would not be as if this was an old law which had remained dormant, and was only now for the first time brought before the Courts, and not forced on their attention by an Act of Parliament. If the Bill should pass, the Courts that refused the demand which must be immediately made upon them would be placed in a most invidious position. It would become at once a question as to what the Lord Rector would do, for his influence would be very great. Allusion had been made to the late Mr. Stuart Mill. However much they respected that gentleman's memory, and agreed with many of his views, the strength of his opinions on this particular point would have rendered him an unfit guardian for the interests of the (Scotch Universities. The House must see with what force Mr. Mill's arguments would have come in the University Court if this Bill had been passed during his Rectorship. The majority of the House were not personally interested in this question, and he therefore begged them to regard it from a Scotch point of view; not to vote as upon the higher education of women in the abstract, or upon the question whether female doctors would be a great benefit or not, but upon the question whether, after hearing what the Members for the Scottish Universities had to advance, they were of opinion that the Bill would be for the advantage of those institutions, whose prosperity they desired to promote. Much as he regretted appearing to oppose the higher education of women, he felt bound to vote against the Bill on the grounds he had stated.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, for the most part the remarks of the hon. Member for Kirkcudbrightshire (Mr. Maitland) were directed against the University Act for Scotland and the constitution of the University Courts. The hon. Gentleman stated that had the hon. Gentleman who introduced that great measure for the establishment of the University Court in 1858 been more conversant with Scotch Universities and education, he would never have ventured to introduce such a Bill. The House would be surprised when he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) informed them that Lord Advocate Inglis was the Gentleman who introduced that Bill—one of the most distinguished lawyers of the day, and now the Lord Justice General; who was educated at the University of Glasgow, and was thoroughly conversant with all the Scotch University arrangements; who carried off the highest prizes there, and thus was enabled to go to Oxford, and there distinguish himself. But more than that, he was supported in his efforts by Lord Moncreiff, a Gentleman whose eloquence had repeatedly charmed that House, and who now stood second in the Court of Session as Lord Justice Clerk. For a Gentleman to pretend that he understood Scotch affairs, and to tell English Members that they knew nothing about Scotch matters, and then to display so much ignorance on the subject, was to him (Mr. Orr-Ewing) very surprising. But besides that, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maitland) gave an exposition of those University Courts so incorrect that he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) would like to state to the House how really the University Courts were constituted. He had had the honour of a seat in the University Court of Glasgow for six years. He was first elected as the Assessor of the Lord President, who was then Lord Rector, and for the three last years he had been elected as Dean of Faculties by the Senate. The Court consisted of seven members. The Chancellor was the late Duke of Montrose, and he hoped that the hon. and distinguished Baronet the Member for Perthshire (Sir William Stirling-Maxwell) would be his successor. The Lord Rector was a member, and had the power of appointing an Assessor, as also had the Chancellor. The Chancellor made it a point to name as Assessor so distinguished a man that he was made generally the Clerk of the University Court. The Senate elected two members. The Council of Graduates elected one. Now, he said that, although English Members might fancy that was a complicated way of electing a Governing Body of a University, he could inform them that he had never heard a single objection to the action of the Courts in the Universities of Scotland. Nay, more, the Councils of the Universities had lately been agitating for power to elect a greater number of members to the Court, not that they were dissatisfied with the action of the Court, but in order to give the graduates a greater interest in the Universities; and there had never been one statement at any meeting of the graduates complaining of the action of the University Court. The hon. Gentleman said that the Lord Rectors had the sole control of the University Courts, and that they were elected by boys between the ages of 14 and 21. He would say that they had always displayed great wisdom in the decisions they had come to. They had invariably elected men distinguished in science, literature, or statesmanship. It was not correct to say that the Hectors had an overwhelming power in the University Courts. The Lord Rector was satisfied to be represented by his Assessor, and therefore his own power was of the smallest description. Another member of the Court was the Principal of the University, who was always one of the most distinguished men in the country. Although he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) intended to vote for the second reading of the Bill, he did not agree with all the objects desired to be obtained by it. He agreed with that part of it which, from its title, one would suppose was its real object—namely, the granting of degrees to women. But he did not agree with what he considered the more important part of the Bill—namely, that the University Court should have the power of insisting that women should be taught in the Universities. He thought it was a great hardship that ladies who had qualified themselves by education received beyond the walls of our Universities, should not have an opportunity of getting that distinction which alone gave them the power of pursuing the profession to which they wished to attach themselves. They would not get such distinctions on easier terms than men, so why should they be deprived of the privilege? At the same time, he objected to the admission of women as students in our Scotch Universities. In the University of Glasgow the number of male students was 1,400 or 1,500. Would it not be dangerous, for the sake of the education of the youths, to introduce a disturbing element into our Universities? Some ladies were so masculine, and some men so effeminate, that between such there was not much danger. But, unfortunately, the mass of mankind was differently constituted. They were all subject to an elective affinity, which was greatly promoted by proximity and opportunity. He was very much afraid that if ladies were admitted, the peace and quiet so necessary for a student's life would be greatly disturbed. That, however, was no argument against their giving women the means of obtaining a degree for which they had qualified themselves by an education beyond the walls of the University. He also objected to the Bill because it gave increased powers to the University Courts. By the 12th clause of the Act of 1858, the University Court had power over the internal arrangements of the University, but it had no power over the modes of teaching or the selection of students, which was left entirely in the hands of the Senate. The Bill was, therefore, by a side-wind, endeavouring to overturn the Act of 1858. It might be an expedient and wise thing to do, but before doing it he thought they should have a Commission of Inquiry on the subject. He also objected to the Bill on the ground of its permissive character, and because it would only change the scene of agitation from Parliament to the Universities if it became law. If the proposals of the Bill were right and proper, they should be made generally compulsory. If they were not right and proper, they would not be made more so by being permissive. However, he was so anxious to give the ladies an opportunity of becoming medical practitioners if they wished—and nobody would be obliged to employ them who did not choose to do so—that he should vote for the second reading of this Bill.

MR. MARK STEWART

said, it appeared to him very probable that the hon. Member who had just sat down, although his name was to be found on the back of the Bill, was not very fervent in his desire for its success. For himself, he thought, its permissive character was highly objectionable. One argument which had been used, and which would probably carry conviction to the minds of many persons outside was, that a number of worthy ladies, who at present had no great object to which to give their attention, would be benefited by the Bill by being enabled to become medical practitioners. He, however, would ask the supporters of the measure, when within the circle of their acquaintance they found many persons who, in case of serious illness, were content to have recourse to a female doctor? In such cases it was not the loving attendant and careful woman who was called into requisition, but a practitioner of the sterner sex. The so-called rights of women were often advocated in that House in a vague fearless sort of way by hon. Members who, in their amiability of character and their desire to do good to others, did not in the least foresee the consequences of their agitation. The House was asked to agree that it would be a good thing to admit females as medical practitioners, and hon. Members would come into the House without having heard any of the arguments and give their votes on the question. That was not the way in which legislation should be carried out. Indeed, he thought they had too much legislation altogether, for they were constantly moving new laws and changing old ones. It was absurd to suppose they could make the education of men and women identical; or that they could fit women, however excellent and deserving, for duties for which the nobler and sterner sex alone were suited. Nature, in the end, would no doubt right herself, but, meanwhile, they should endeavour to avoid making laws which were opposed to Nature. He was willing women should have a good education, and be admitted to the hospitals and infirmaries to perform such duties as they were qualified for; but they could not expect to rank with physicians, whose whole life was generally spent in the study of some particular phase of disease. A great evil in connection with the admission of females to study at the University, if the Bill became law, would be that they would have to meet with the 1,400 or 1,500 young male students. If as had been stated, plenty of money could be found to pay for the medical education of ladies, why not establish a special University, with a special staff of teachers especially for them? and to this he would have no objection whatever. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) had quoted the opinion of some University Professors in favour of the plan which the Bill sought to legalize; but the gentlemen he had named were only Professors of Rhetoric, History, and Logic; whereas 10 out of 12 of the Professors in the Medical department of the Edinburgh University had signed a protest quite the other way. He should decidedly oppose a second reading.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, there were three points to consider—First, was there any demand for female medical practitioners? Secondly, was it expedient to have them? And thirdly, if expedient, how were they to be educated? The existence of a demand was proved by the circumstance that Petitions signed by thousands of persons in favour of the Bill had already been presented to the House, one Petition alone being signed by 16,000 people; whilst it was also a fact that female practitioners had practised in London for some time past with great success. The very existence of the demand made it to his mind expedient that these lady practitioners should be allowed. There were many diseases specially applicable to women, and which could be best treated by female doctors, who were gifted with a keenness of perception which enabled them more readily to discover the diagnosis of such cases. There were many female complaints of a delicate nature, where women either were afraid to call in a medical man at all, or, if they did call him in, did not give him sufficient information as to the symptoms to enable him to understand the case. In such instances female practitioners would be a great public advantage. Then, premising that it was expedient to have such practitioners, he came to the question of how they were to be educated. Surely, if they were to have them at all, they should have them well educated; they should be allowed to enter the first Universities of the land, and if they did not allow them to do so, they must expect to be troubled with quacks and empirics; because if there was really a demand for female practitioners, they would assuredly practice in spite of all opposition. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill had told them he was a member of the University of Oxford. He (Mr. M'Lagan) had not the honour of belonging to an English University; but he had passed through the whole curriculum of one in Scotland, and was a member of the Council of the University of Edinburgh. If the hon. Member (Mr. Maitland) had been one of the Council, and had received more of his education in Scotland, he would not have fallen into some of the mistakes which had characterized his speech. He had in that speech condemned the University Courts in a manner which his hon. Friend had twice proved to be unjustified. He would not refer to his remarks as to the non-possession of common-sense by their Lord Rectors, but the hon. Member had also, in speaking of the Lord Provost and his Assessor, ridiculed the idea of their being members of a University Court. Did the hon. Member know that the eminence the Edinburgh University had achieved had arisen entirely from the past management of the Lord Provosts and the Town Council? For centuries the University was governed entirely by those municipal authorities, and under their management attained a celebrity it could never in future surpass. It was for that reason that, when some years ago the laws relating to its management were altered, the Town Council was still allowed to send its representatives to the University Court. His hon. Friend thought there would be a great expense attending the admission of ladies to the Universities of Scotland; but if the ladies of England and Scotland wished to enter any of those establishments, and the University Court gave them the privilege, he did not doubt that all the necessary funds would be forthcoming. The hon. Member forgot one point—namely, in the University of St. Andrews there was not a single medical student. [An hon. MEMBER: Two.] At all events, there was plenty of scope there for the ladies. His hon. Friend had spoken as if they were going to make an attack on Edinburgh University; but the hon. Member who introduced the Bill explained that he had his eye on St. Andrews, where there was plenty of room for the ladies without having mixed classes. It had been well remarked that all the principal avenues to wealth and position in England were closed against women. That was a misfortune, inasmuch as its effect was only to drive them to frivolous occupations to which they were so improperly condemned. He trusted that the House would now decide to open the medical faculty to ladies, and give the University Courts the legal powers necessary to that end. He agreed that the Preamble of the Bill was decidedly wrong in stating there was a doubt as to the power of the University to admit women. He thought the fact that they had not such power could not be doubted, and he supported the Bill all the more strongly on this account. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mark Stewart) complained that they were always making and altering laws. Well, he always understood that that was the business of a Legislative Assembly, and it was certainly for such a purpose that he was sent there, even if the hon. Member for Wigtown was not. The discussion that afternoon had been confined mainly to the question of women studying medicine; but there was almost as much to be said in favour of their being admitted to the Universities to study other branches of knowledge, and it was singular that, although almost every speaker had announced himself favourable to giving higher education to women, yet many of them seemed disposed to shut against them the doors of those great Universities where the higher education was to be obtained. He cordially supported the second reading of the Bill.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

All the speakers who have addressed the House in favour of the Bill have spoken as if it were limited to a single question—the admission of women to the profession of medicine. That is not the limited scope of the Bill. Its scope is to admit women to instruction and graduation in all Faculties—those of Arts, Law, Medicine, and Divinity. No one could have gathered this from the speeches delivered. My right hon. Friend who introduced this Bill, the Member for South Hants (Mr. Cowper-Temple), gave two minutes to this general part of the subject, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) gave exactly half a minute. All the rest of their long and able speeches was devoted to the rights of women to practice medicine. But that is a question for the reform of the Medical Act, not a justification for the abrogation of Royal Charters. I decline to discuss this general question, as I wish to confine my remarks to the essence of the Bill. My right hon. Friend had the advantage last year of a pretty full discussion of this question, and might then have learned some of the difficulties connected with the proposal to admit female students or graduates to the Universities of Scotland. But he takes up the subject again, and introduces a Bill in a spirit of admirable simplicity, as if he approached it for the first time in a state of ignorance of the character and constitution of these Universities. The form and provisions of the Bill make it absolutely useless for his purpose. It begins with a legal misstatement. What does he mean by the words in the Preamble—"Whereas doubts have arisen?" My right hon. Friend has had long experience in Parliament, and he must know that the only interpretation of such words is, that there is a legal doubt and unsettled law on the subject-matter of his Bill. No such expression can refer to the doubts of individuals; it is only applicable to doubts of law. Now, there are no such doubts. The Supreme Court of Scotland has decided that the Charters of the Scotch Universities do not empower them to graduate women, and there has been no appeal against that judgment. Again, who asks this House to legislate on the subject? Certainly not any of the constituted authorities of the Universities. There are three of these—the General Council, or body of graduates; the Senatus Academicus, or body of Professors; and the University Court, a body of half-a-dozen representative men. Has this House received a Petition in favour of the Bill from any single constituted authority of one of the four Scotch Universities? Petitions from some of them have indeed been laid on the Table; but they are all against the Bill. Who, then, are the clients of my right hon. Friend? No doubt, they are the promoters of women's rights, desirous that there should be equal chances of education and graduation for women as well for men. Such a claim is comprehensible, and has no small amount of arguments in its favour. But to advance it openly and honestly, my right hon. Friend ought to have begun his Preamble thus—"Whereas it is right that our national Universities should be equally available to men and women." We could all understand the magnitude and importance of such a claim. But with an honest Preamble of that character, my right hon. Friend knows the House would not listen to him. Parliament is too sensible of its own responsibilities to pass over a question of this character to be legislated upon without reserve by a few gentlemen in a Scotch town. Is the House prepared to pass this great change in our University system on the Bill of a private Member? My right hon. Friend has tried to excite the sympathies of the House for a few meritorious ladies who entered the University of Edinburgh as students, but who were unable to become graduates. Personally, they were most meritorious, and deserved any academical honour. But they entered the University as a mere experiment, the result of which was always doubtful. They were not invited, nor were they desired by the University. With wonderful persistency and courage they knocked at the gates till they secured admission. They had certain sympathizers among a few of the Professors, who made voluntary arrangements for instruction in classes separate from the male students. These Professors had classes of a couple of hundred male students, and at great inconvenience they repeated their courses of lectures to these half-dozen ladies. They made the experiment for one year, and no consideration would induce one of them to repeat it again. The work was found incompatible and injurious to the general work on which they were engaged, and in several cases their health broke down in the attempt. The University Court had authorized the experiment to willing Professors, but all became unwilling to repeat it. Then arose the question of powers of graduation, and the Supreme Court declared that the University Charters did not confer them. The case is a hard one to the individual ladies; but the law is often hard when it is assailed in ignorance. And what does the Bill propose to do? I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend does not in the least know what a strange and arbitrary measure it is, and to what extent it violates all academical safeguards. Graduation in the Scotch Universities is governed by statute (21 & 22 Vict., cap. 82), and by ordinances made under it. Now, by these, no changes—even in regard to existing degrees—can be made without passing through many stages to secure ample consideration and deliberation—in fact, there are five stages necessary. The Senatus Academicus, the University Court, the General Council, the Chancellor of the University, and, finally, the Queen in Council, must be consulted before a change in a degree is allowed. All this has been arranged with care and order to prevent rash innovations in the case of degrees for men. But, while my right hon. Friend contends for equal treatment of women, he jumps at a bound over all these safeguards; for he confers on a select committee of from six to eight gentlemen, called the University Court, the right to make what regulations they please regarding the education and graduation of women. He not only deprives the other constituted authorities of their joint rights in such questions, but he also abrogates the approving authority of the Queen in Council. Can he expect the House to adopt such a Bill? I hope that the House will observe that they are not asked in any true sense to legislate by this Bill; they are asked to decline legislation. For, on one of the most important subjects which could occupy Parliament, we are asked to leave all legislation to half-a-dozen irresponsible gentlemen sitting in Edinburgh, St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, without control, and with all the safeguards provided by statutes knocked away. Upon such a Bill I refuse to discuss the large question of female education. Perhaps on this subject my views are as advanced as either of my right hon. Friends the Members for South Hants and Halifax (Mr. Cowper-Temple and Mr. Stansfeld). I oppose the Bill on two grounds. First, because in itself it is a bad Bill, wholly unsuited to the constitution of the Universities, and at variance with the practice of this House, which is asked to delegate its legislative functions on an important question to a small committee of irresponsible gentlemen in Scotland. Secondly, I object to it, because, if it became law to-morrow, it would be useless in the attainment of its purpose. Take, as an example, the case of Edinburgh University, against which it is chiefly aimed. That University has 800 medical students, surely a large enough number to occupy the attention of all its Medical Professors. Now, if to these you add a dozen medical students of an opposite sex, requiring separate classes, you distract the attention of the Professors from their legitimate work, and deteriorate the whole teaching-power of the school. The promoters of the Bill say, let them be taught outside the walls of the University, and be simply graduated. But they do not know that the very essence of a Scotch University is its teaching power. It is not a mere graduating machine. St. Andrews does indeed possess graduating powers independent of its teaching; but for that very reason, that privilege has been limited by ordnance to 10 medical men annually of the mature age of 40 years. But this Bill is drawn up by persons who know none of these things. It would give unlimited powers to half-a-dozen gentlemen in St. Andrews to graduate any number of young lady doctors, while the Queen in Council refuses to allow more than 10 male graduates of not less than 40 years of age. That one fact-will show how little consideration the Bill has received. My right hon. Friends may, indeed, abandon their position as to female medical students and make a wide claim for graduation in all Faculties—Arts, Law, Medicine, and Divinity; but I deny that they have any right to deal with such a wide question in a Bill of this kind. To deal with a question of this scope and magnitude by remitting it to a committee of irresponsible gentlemen would be unworthy of Parliament. If you did do so, the Scotch Universities are the most unfit for the trial of such experimental legislation. Their teaching and their pecuniary resources are small, and both are taxed to the utmost. What is the use of conferring powers upon them which they do not want, and which they could not exorcise, if they possessed them. For the possession of powers involves responsibilities in their exercise, and this Bill does not provide a single additional means for carrying out a system which is avowedly beyond the existing resources of all the Scotch Universities.

MR. STANSFELD

said, there had been a perfect chorus of profession of violent friendship towards woman among hon. Members who were combining to defeat the Bill. Whether they were justified and would succeed in that object remained to be seen; but he had yet to learn that when that House considered it just and expedient to open any profession to the public, they were in the habit of consulting or bowing with undoubting deference to the opinions which might be held in opposition to the proposal by those who were exclusively members of the profession in question. There was a great deal of Trade Unionism to be discovered in the community generally outside the Trade Unions of working men, and he thought a good deal of that spirit was evinced in the opposition to this Bill. Indeed, he knew no profession in which there was more of the feeling of Trade Unionism than in the medical profession. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had been loud in his expressions of devotion to the sex, and he was not satisfied with advocating the laws of Nature, but he must favour the House at no inconsiderable length with his own views, not easy to follow or understand, that women were specially meant and destined by Nature for the work of nurses. But when they took a step further, and they asked ladies to apply their faculties to the study of the medical profession and science, so that they might not only become nurses but medical women, then the hon. Gentleman said that was beyond their sphere. The hon. Gentleman had cited the name of Florence Nightingale, and he appeared to be under the impression that that lady was a person whose faculties were to be characterized, and whose life was to be described, as that of a "highly accomplished nurse." Now, he (Mr. Stansfeld) had to tell the hon. Gentleman that there could not be any definition of the faculties, career, and work of that admirable and extraordinary woman more inaccurate and more incompetent than the definition of her as simply being an admirable nurse. The work of Florence Nightingale had been much more of a man's work in the world, because it had been the work of a great reformer and great administrator. The hon. Member who had moved the rejection of the Bill (Mr. Maitland) had also been abundant in his professions about women; but he appeared to have become a recent convert to the powers of persuasion and argument of his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Lyon Playfair). He said the Bill contained a great untruth in its Preamble; because it stated that doubts had arisen as to the powers of the Universities to admit women as students. Now, it was no part of the case that there were doubts. The case of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper-Temple) was rather strengthened, if there were no doubts; because, if the law was clear, lot them alter it. There had been much discussion about the constitution of the University Courts. It had been said that these were not bodies to be admired or respected, and a good many Scotch Members had come down to the House to inform them on the subject, and to assure them that they had hitherto been under a delusion, and that they had paid to these bodies too much respect. Well, he had been in the habit of judging of institutions by their fruits, and he maintained, against the opinions and declarations of those hon. Members, that the Scotch Universities might, in many matters, be followed with advantage by the Universities of this country. He refused to believe that bodies which had hitherto managed with so much success the great educational institutions of Scotland were incapable of administering a law like that which was contained in the Bill. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Play-fair) had evidently spoken to-day rather in the character of the Representative of the University of Edinburgh, than as one who was giving utterance to his own profound convictions on this subject, because he was entirely at one with them on the general subject of the higher education of women; and he objected to the Bill, because the University which he represented objected to it. Now what were his objections to the Bill. He said it was declaratory, and did not enact any law. He took issue with him on that statement, and his right hon. Friend must know that it was a mere quibble, because this really was an enacting, and not a declaratory Bill. He had also, with some surprise, heard his right hon. Friend say that the Bill did not oven legislate, but that it relegated this question to certain local bodies. He also took issue, distinctly and directly, upon that proposition. What it would be for them to decide was, whether the conditions of their locality and of their special institution enabled them with advantage to themselves, and to the cause of education, to undertake this task. That was, therefore, to his mind, a most reasonable permissive measure; and it was not weak, because it was permissive, for it recognized that the admission of women to medical degrees might be expedient at one University, and not at another. He admitted entirely that if it was the opinion of that House that the doors of Universities should be closed to women, then let them not agree to the second reading of tins Bill; because, if they did so agree, it would be held to carry with it the expression of the opinion of Parliament that the medical profession ought to be open to women, that being the purpose of the Bill. It had been said that, provided the Bill was passed, the University of Edinburgh would not see its way to adopt its provisions. That might be so; but did anyone mean to say that the University of St. Andrews would not accept the measure? Both the frame and form of the Bill had been objected to; but these had been decided upon in reference to the history and facts of the claim of the ladies to petition Parliament for justice. From that history, it appeared the University of Edinburgh allowed, if they did not induce, these ladies to enter upon a course of study with the well-founded expectation that they would be permitted to graduate, and he held that the University was bound in honour to carry out the engagement. Instead, therefore, of petitioning against an alteration of the law which would enable them to fulfil an honourable contract, they ought to be the first to come to that House and ask for help in carrying out the contract into which they themselves had chosen to enter. To show that he was not for a moment overstating the ease, he would appeal to the words uttered by the Lord Rector of Edinburgh University (Lord Moncreiff), who said he did not think that the regulations of the University Court admitted of any other interpretation than that they enabled women to qualify for graduation. He also said that on the faith of those regulations the "pursuers" went through a considerable part of the prescribed curriculum, and that to deny them the degree which was essential to their entering the profession for which they were studying, on the pretext that no such end was ever contemplated, was in his opinion unjust and unwarranted. The question before the House was this—The Supreme Court in Scotland had decided that the admission of these ladies into the University of Edinburgh was ultra vires, and the Bill proposed to put such admissions within the power of the Scotch Universities. The judicial decision applied to those Universities only, and that was the reason the Bill was confined to them. It contained the minimum of legislation, and if, as he hoped, some of the Scotch Universities acted upon the power it would give them, and came to that House hereafter for a grant in aid to enable them to carry out the power, he, for one, should be quite ready to support such a grant. Believing that the Bill would remedy an injustice and confer a right, the exercise of which would be for the public advantage, he should cordially support the second reading.

MR. ROEBUCK

I approach this subject quite as an outsider, though I have been told since I entered the House that it is entirely a Scotch question. Now, I am not one of those who are friends of what are called strong-minded women, and I rise to take part in this debate simply as a man of the world, asking himself what the Bill does, and whether what it proposes to do will be mischievous to the community or not. This question has been, I am sorry to say, mixed up with various subjects. We have been told a great deal about the Scotch Universities, and of the difficulties which would be incurred by them if the Bill were to pass. In one breath we have been told that the Bill does wonders, and in the next breath we have been told that it does nothing. As I understand the question, in the present state of the world there is great competition amongst us all for the powers of life. That competition greatly exists amongst men, but still more amongst women; and it has been considered by those whose thoughts have been devoted to the good of their fellow-creatures, that some means might be provided for the better employment of women's time, in order the better to provide for their subsistence. Now that is not simply a Scotch question, but a large and general question which I wish to consider. Under the circumstances to which I refer, it has been proposed that women should direct their attention to medical science, so that they may employ the energies and abilities which God has given them for the benefit of their follow-creatures. Some of these ladies have accordingly endeavoured to learn the science and art of medicine, and have devoted themselves to its study with great intelligence and unwearied industry. They have gone down to Scotland, because they knew that that country has within itself a great teaching body of medical science, and that there they would learn that science well. Well, they go down there, and after being admitted they are all of a sudden met with difficulties, and it is found that their time has been thrown away. They not unnaturally ask their friends—"What are we to do?" Their friends inquire of men learned in Scotch law, and they tell them that what has been determined against them in a Court of Appeal in Scotland if it goes to the House of Lords will be sustained, and that in opposing it, they will probably lose both their time and money; but, they say, there is a power in the world above the final Court of Appeal, and that is the Court of Parliament, and this Bill is brought in to remedy what was said to be the state of the law. Is there anything so wrong, or is there anything to find so much fault with, in the Bill brought in under those circumstances? The Bill enables Scotch Universities to give ladies degrees, if they desire them, and it confers no more nor less than medical degrees on women. What objection is there to that? You may hide it as you like, you may cover it up with fine phrases, you may speak of it in the strong language in which it has been spoken of to-day, but at the bottom the opposition to the Bill is a Trades Union opposition. It is seen by the medical profession that they will have more competition, and that women will be their competitors, and therefore they oppose the Bill. But I would ask, what harm can possibly be done to any class of human beings by granting the powers asked by the measure? What possible danger can arise to any human being from its becoming a law? The answer must be, that there can be none; and if that is so, how can you possibly refuse to pass it? We are here a body of men, deciding upon the interests of the community, and we ought not to forget that in spite of ourselves the feeling of our own sex rises up, and men's interests are preferred to women's interests in spite of all the soothing words we hear, and men will desire to do that for men which they will not do for women, you may talk for a month, you may bring great law to bear upon this question, you may quote names great in history, arts, and science; but you cannot rub out the stain which will be on this House if it refuses to do justice to women, and prevents them using that intellect which God has given them in a fair, honest, and upright manner for their own good.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he must repudiate with scorn all the allusions which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) and by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, about the opposition to the Bill proceeding from a spirit of Trades Unionism. He could only say that the movement in favour of the medical education of women in the University of Edinburgh took its origin in the Medical Faculty, and that they were the great supporters of the movement; therefore, it was in vain to say that their present opposition now proceeded from a spirit of Trades Unionism. On the contrary, the Faculty engaged to give private lectures to enable ladies to obtain medical education, and they did give the lectures as long as they could do so. It was only after they found that the experiment could not be worked, without exposing themselves to a state of circumstances, which prevented them from doing justice to the ordinary students, that they said they could no longer continue these private classes. Originally, it had been proposed that there should be classes established in which instruction could be given both to male and female students at the same time; but that was at once objected to by the University Court, who said that they would be no parties Whatever to such an arrangement. But the present Bill proposed to give power to the Universities in Scotland to give instruction to women, either "in separate classes or otherwise;" so that what the House was asked to sanction was, the education of women and men separately, or together in mixed classes. On that head he would merely quote the opinion of one of the Scotch Judges, who was one of the minority in favour of the ladies. He said he felt it to be his duty to state his decided opinion that the promiscuous attendance of men and women in mixed classes, with concomitant participation in the administration of medical exposition, was a thing so unbecoming and so antagonistic to the delicacy of the female sex, that the law and constitution of the University, which was bound to seek to promote the advancement of morality as well as learning, could not sanction or accept such a proposition. And yet one of the provisions of the Bill was, that the Universities might be allowed to give instruction to females in "separate classes or otherwise." He was a member of the University Court at the time the experiment he had referred to was made. When it was found that the Professors were unable to continue their private instruction—which was the only mode of imparting the kind of education required sanctioned by the University Court—and when it was found that the scheme had broken down, an intimation was received to the effect that the ladies claimed to have instruction in the public classes of the University. That being so, it was found that the question required to be tried in a Court of Law, to see whether there was power in the University Court or in any other body connected with the University to confer a degree upon a lady. That was tried, and the result was, that all the Judges came to the unanimous conclusion—and he admitted it was contrary to his first impression (but lawyers often found it necessary to change their first opinion, after hearing the arguments of the case)—tame to the conclusion that there was no original right of admission to females in the Universities of Scotland. Such a right did not exist in this country, and it existed only to a very limited extent in any foreign country. That being so, the only argument that could be brought forward by the legal advisers of the ladies was, that their case should be rested on the resolution passed in 1869. The Court with regard to this special ground, held, by a majority, that there could not be any right given to the ladies, because if there was no right of graduation under the original charter, it was ultra vires in the University authorities in 1869 to pass their resolution. Well, this was the position of matters when, instead of making a general proposal with regard to the education of females in England as well as Scotland, a Bill was brought forward for the purpose of enabling all the Universities in Scotland to give degrees to ladies. The first question that arose was, what was the spirit of this legislation? It appeared to him to be rather intended to enforce a supposed contract with certain ladies which was made by the Edinburgh University in 1869. If that were the spirit of the Bill, why apply the Bill to the other Universities? The Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen, which he represented, had nothing to do with the contract at all. They never entertained the question, and, therefore, it was he said the Bill went beyond the evil which it was intended to remedy. Then why should the Bill apply to the Universities of Scotland only? It was a great question involving Imperial interests, not only Scotch; and it so happened that all the ladies, with one exception, were English ladies, who went down to Scotland for the instruction they wished to obtain. Why did the Bill not say, then, that the same principle as that suggested for Scotland should apply in England—that in all the Universities of Scotland and England women should be entitled to graduate as well as men? He was not arguing at all, and he said so in a spirit of sincerity, against the higher education of women in Great Britain. On the contrary, he had shown that he was actuated by no motives of that kind by what he had done when he was a member of the University Court in 1869. But they had experience since then, and had found that the difficulties which beset any attempt to educate ladies, especially in connection with Colleges or Universities which were originally intended for male students alone, were too great, and they feared there would be great difficulty in carrying out any such arrangement as that proposed in this Bill. If it was right that this Bill should pass, it should be made compulsory; certainly as regarded those Universities which were parties to this arrangement in 1869. Why, however, should it not apply to the London University, which was not a teaching University, but an examining University; so that none of the difficulties, which arose in the Scotch Universities with regard to the teaching of women, would apply? Wiry was it not applied to the London and to the Oxford and Cambridge Universities? The Bill, he thought, was an attempt to bring on legislation in favour of women without having duly considered what might be the consequences, especially as regarded those questions affecting the Scottish Universities which had been referred to in such glowing terms by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Noel). He (the Lord Advocate) prayed that the House would not by its present procedure, introduce that which he feared would be unfortunate, and which would sow an element of discontent and argument amongst those who had the management of the Universities.

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

, in reply, said, that the question at issue was whether women might have a share in the highest education or be restricted to inferior teaching, and whether they should be excluded by law from the practice of medicine. The House ought not on this question to be guided by the wishes of the majority of the medical profession, and it was just and reasonable that the House of Commons should have regard to the desire, the feelings, and the interests of that large portion of the community who were not represented there.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 194: Majority 43.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.

AYES
Adam, rt. hon. W. P	Carter, R. M.
Anderson, G.	Cave, T.
Archdall, W. H.	Cavendish, Lord F. C.
Arkwright, A. P.	Chadwick, D.
Ashley, hon. E. M.	Cholmeley, Sir H.
Backhouse, E.	Clarke, J. C.
Balfour, A. J.	Clifford, C. C.
Balfour, Sir G.	Collins, E.
Barclay, J. W.	Conyngham, Lord F.
Bazley, Sir T.	Corbett, J.
Beach, W. W. B.	Corry, J. P.
Beaumont, Major F.	Cowan, J.
Bective, Earl of	Cowen, J.
Biggar, J. G.	Crawford, J. S.
Bolckow, H. W. F.	Cross, J. K.
Boord, T. W.	Crossley, J.
Briggs, W. E.	Davies, R.
Bright, rt. hon. J.	Denison, C. B.
Brocklehurst, W. C.	Dickson, T. A.
Brooks, M.	Dilke, Sir C. W.
Brown, A. H.	Dillwyn, L. L.
Browne, G. E.	Dixon, G.
Callender, W. R.	Dundas, J. C.

Errington, G.	Meldon, C. H.
Evans, T. W.	Mellor, T. W.
Ewing, A. O.	Monk, C. J.
Eyton, P. E.	Morgan, G. O.
Fawcett, H.	Muntz, P. H.
FitzGerald, rt. hn. Sir S.	Nolan, Captain
Fitzmaurice, Lord E.	O'Gorman, P.
Fletcher, I.	O'Reilly, M.
Fordyce, W. D.	O'Shaughnessy, R.
Forster, Sir C.	O'Sullivan, W. H.
Forster, rt. hon. W. E.	Palmer, C. M.
Forsyth, W.	Pease, J. W.
Gore, W. R. O.	Pennington, F.
Gourley, E. T.	Plimsoll, S.
Grieve, J. J.	Plunkett, hon. R.
Hardy, J. S.	Polhill-Turner, Capt.
Harrison, C.	Powell, W.
Harrison, J. F.	Power, J. O'C.
Havelock, Sir H.	Power, R.
Hayter, A. D.	Price, W. E.
Herbert, H. A.	Rathhone, W.
Hermon, E.	Richard, H.
Hervey, Lord F.	Robertson, H.
Hill, T. R.	Roebuck, J. A.
Hodgson, K. D.	St. Aubyn, Sir J.
Holland, Sir H. T.	Samuda, J. D' A.
Holland, S.	Sanderson, T. K.
Holms, J.	Sandford, G. M. W.
Holt, J. M.	Seely, C.
Hopwood, C. H.	Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Jackson, H. M.	Sherlock, Mr. Serjeant
Jenkins, D. J.	Sherriff, A. C.
Johnstone, Sir H.	Simon, Mr. Serjeant
Kay-Shuttleworth, U. J.	Smith, E.
	Smyth, P. J.
Kencaly, Dr.	Stacpoole, W.
Kennaway, Sir J. H.	Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.
Kensington, Lord	Sullivan, A. M.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Knight, F. W.	Taylor, P. A.
Lawson, Sir W.	Tennant, R.
Leeman, G.	Tremayne, J.
Lefevre, G. J. S.	Trevelyan, G. O.
Leith, J. F.	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Leslie, J.	Wait, W. K.
Lowe, rt. hon. R.	Whitbread, S.
Lubbock, Sir J.	Whitworth, W.
Lush, Dr.	Wolff, Sir H. D.
Lusk, Sir A.	Yorke, J. R.
Macgregor, D.	Young, A. W.
Mackintosh, C. F.
M'Combie, W.	TELLERS.
M'Kenna, Sir J. N.	Cameron, C.
M'Lagan, P.	Temple, rt. hon. W.
Matheson, A.	Cowper-

NOES.
Adderley, rt. hn. Sir C.	Beaumont, W. B.
Agnew, R. V.	Bentinck, G. C.
Allen, Major	Bentinck, G. W. P.
Arkwright, F.	Beresford, Colonel M.
Arkwright, R.	Birley, H.
Ashbury, J. L.	Bourke, hon. R.
Assheton, R.	Bourne, Colonel
Baggallay, Sir R.	Bright, R.
Bailey, Sir J. R.	Brise, Colonel R.
Barclay, A. C.	Broadley, W. H. H.
Barrington, Viscount	Bryan, G. L.
Bass, A.	Buckley, Sir E.
Bates, E.	Burrell, Sir P.
Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.	Campbell, C.

Campbell-Bannerman, H.	James, Sir H.
	Johnson, J. G.
Cartwright, F.	Johnstone, H.
Cave, rt. hon. S.	Johnstone, Sir F.
Chambers, Sir T.	Jolliffe, hon. S.
Childers, rt. hon. H.	Kavanagh, A. MacM.
Churchill, Lord R.	Kingscote, Colonel
Clifton, T. H.	Knowles, T.
Clive, Col. hon. G. W.	Learmonth, A.
Close, M. C.	Lee, Major V.
Cochrane, A. D. W. R. B.	Legh, W. J.
Coope, O. E.	Leigh, Lt.-Col. E.
Corbett, Colonel	Lewis, C. E.
Cordes, T.	Lewis, O.
Corry, hon. H. L.	Lindsay, Col. R. L.
Cross, rt. hon. R. A.	Lloyd, S.
Cubitt, G.	Lloyd, T. E.
Cust, H. C.	Locke, J.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lopes, Sir M.
Dalrymple, C.	Lowther, hon. W.
Davenport, W. B.	Lowther, J.
Deakin, J. H.	Macartney, J. W. E.
Denison, W. E.	Macduff, Viscount
Dickson, Major A. G.	Mahon, Viscount
Disraeli, rt. hon. B.	Majendie, L. A.
Dunbar, J.	Makins, Colonel
Dyke, W. H.	Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Eaton, H. W.	March, Earl of
Edmonstone, Admiral Sir W.	Marjoribanks, Sir D. C.
	Marten, A. G.
Edwards, H.	Mills, Sir C. H.
Egerton, hon. A. F.	Montagu, rt. hn. Lord R.
Egerton, hon. W.	Montgomerie, R.
Elcho, Lord	Montgomery, Sir G. G.
Ellice, E.	Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
Elliot, G.	Mulholland, J.
Elphinstone, Sir J. D. H.	Nevill, C. W.
Emlyn, Viscount	Neville-Grenville, R.
Eslington, Lord	Newdegate, C. N.
Fellowes, E.	Newport, Viscount
Ferguson, R.	Noel, E.
Floyer, J.	North, Colonel
Freshfield, C. K.	Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.
Gallwey, Sir W. P.
Gardner, J. T. Agg-	Norwood, C. M.
Garnier, J. C.	O'Conor, D. M.
Gibson, E.	Onslow, D.
Goddard, A. L.	Peploe, Major
Goldsmid, J.	Percy, Earl
Gordon, rt. hon. E. S.	Phipps, P.
Gordon, W.	Playfair, rt. hn. Dr. L.
Gorst, J. E.	Plunket, hon. D. R.
Greenall, G.	Raikes, H. C.
Greene, E.	Ramsay, J.
Halsey, T. F.	Read, C. S.
Hamilton, Lord C. J.	Rendlesham, Lord
Hamilton, I. T.	Repton, G. W.
Hamilton, Lord G.	Ridley, M. W.
Hamond, C. F.	Ritchie, C. T.
Hanbury, R. W.	Rodwell, B. B. H.
Hankey, T.	Salt, T.
Hardy, rt. hon. G.	Sandon, Viscount
Hay, rt. hon. Sir J. C. D.	Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.
Heath, R.	Scott, M. D.
Hogg, Sir J. M.	Scourfield, J. H.
Holford, J. P. G.	Sidebottom, T. H.
Holkor, Sir J.	Simonds, W. B.
Home, Captain	Smith, S. G.
Hood, Captain hon. A. W. A. N.	Smith, W. H.
	Smollett, P B.
Hope, A. J. B. B.	Somerset, Lord H. R. C.
Hunt, rt. hon. G. W.	Stanley, hon. F.
Isaac, S.	Stanton, A. J.

Starkey, L. R.	Wheelhouse, W. S. J.
Stewart, M. J.	Whitelaw, A.
Storer, G.	Whitwell, J.
Sturt, H. G.	Wilmot, Sir H.
Sykes, C.	Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Talbot, J. G.	Winn, R.
Tollemache, W. F.	Wyndham, hon. P.
Torr, J.	Yarmouth, Earl of
Vance, J.	Yeaman, J.
Verner, E. W.	Yorke, hon. E.
Wallace, Sir R.
Walsh, hon. A.	TELLERS.
Watney, J.	Anstruther, Sir W.
Welby, W. E.	Maitland, J.