Commons Sitting of 17 May 1877

MINUTES.
— NEW MEMBER SWORN — The Honble. Frederick Stephen Archibald Hanbury-Tracy, for the Borough of Montgomery.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading —Colonial Fortifications* [174]; Local Government Provisional Order (Sewage) [175]; Blind and Deaf Mute Children (Education)* [176].
Second Reading—Committed to a Select Committee——New Forest* [150].
Committee—Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (re-comm.) [113]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Customs, Inland Revenue, and Savings Banks [143]; Summary Jurisdiction Amendment* [137–173]; Consolidated Fund (£5,900,000) .
Considered as amended—Reservoirs* [132].

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Order 129 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, be extended to Thursday the 31st day of this instant May.—(The Chairman of Wags and Means.)
QUESTIONS.

  NAVY—THE ARCTIC EXPEDITION—COMMITTEE ON SCURVY.—QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYhad the following Notice upon the Paper:—
  "To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why the Report of the Committee on the existence of scurvy in the recent Arctic Expedition has been so long delayed; whether the Report published in the "Times" of the 16th instant is the original Report, or whether it has been in any respect modified or mitigated in consequence of pressure from the Admiralty, or from any other official quarter; and, whether it is a fact that a large part of the supply of lime juice sent down to be put on board the "Albert" and the "Discovery," before they left England, was rejected by the Commanders of those ships on the ground that it had arrived too late and that there was not room for it on board."
  The hon. Member; on rising to put the Question, said, that since he gave Notice of the first part of the Question the Report had been published, and therefore he withdrew that interrogatory. He would, however, put the second and third parts of the Question.
  MR. HUNT: The hon. Member has withdrawn the first Question of which he gave Notice, as to why the Report was delayed. I must withdraw the second, because to my mind the second Question is of an insulting character. It is insulting to the Admiralty, and it is insulting to the Committee; and I must decline to submit to an insult, though put in the form of an interrogation. As to the last Question, I would say that there is no foundation in fact for the allegation contained in it.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I rise to a point of Order. I submit that there is nothing whatever in the Question of an insulting character. I had certainly no intention of asking anything insulting to anybody. It is a well-known fact that Reports are frequently referred back again for modification. I will put the question in any form in which the right hon. Gentleman may desire to have it modified. But I wish to have the information before the public; and, as the House will observe, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered either of these two most important Questions.
  MR. HUNT: Mr. Speaker, the Admiralty appointed a Committee. That Committee was of a judicial character, and the hon. Member asks whether the

  1095
  Admiralty have applied pressure to that Committee in order to induce them to modify their Report. I consider that an insulting question, and I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the Member on the subject. I have answered the third Question—namely, there is no foundation in fact in the allegation implied in that Question.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether the Report has, in any respect, been modified? That is the Question I desire to have answered—whether this is the original Report of the Committee, or whether the Report which is now published, which I may say is a very meagre one, is a modification of the original Report? ["Order!"]
  MR. BUTT: I beg leave to inquire—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member must give Notice of his Question.
  MR. BUTT: I beg leave to move that this House do now adjourn. I must say that the manner in which the First Lord of the Admiralty seems to regard the Question, which refers to a matter of great interest, is not the manner in which a Question ought to be received by one of Her Majesty's Ministers. The Question which the hon. Member for Galway has put is, whether the Report published in The Times of the 16th instant is the original Report, or whether it has been in any respect modified or mitigated in consequence of pressure from the Admiralty, or from any other official quarter? Now, that is a very plain Question, and admits of a very plain answer, and that answer has not been given. It is a matter on which the House has a right to be informed, and on which any Member of the House has a right to put a Question. I really do not understand that this Question does reflect in the manner the First Lord assumes upon any official. I can easily conceive Reports being sent back to a Committee from an official quarter asking to have some error rectified; but, even suppose it does reflect upon anybody, that is the very reason why he should answer it, and why he should deny the allegation; and I say that we submit to a very great curtailment of the rights of Members if we are to be satisfied with a Minister getting up and saying—"I will not answer the
  1096
  Question, because I think there is an implied insult in it." That is a thing to which I think the House ought not to submit. I now move the Adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Butt.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I regret very much that this heat has suddenly grown up; but I must crave leave to say that I think the Question, as it stands on the Paper, does convey a very serious reflection upon the Admiralty, because it implies that the Admiralty have taken some steps to get a Report which, as my right hon. Friend says, was intended to be of a judicial character, modified or mitigated. Now, if that had been done by the Admiralty, it would have been undoubtedly a very serious offence, and one which would deserve serious notice. I do not think, therefore, the hon. Member for Galway has a right to put a Question of that sort, unless he has some ground to found such an assertion. If he has, I think it will be more convenient to the House and more fair to the Government that those grounds should be stated, and that some distinct Motion should be made; and in the absence of anything of that kind I think my right hon. Friend was justified in feeling hurt at a Question of this sort being put, and which by implication reflects very seriously upon the conduct of the Admiralty.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I am entitled to say a word on the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend. The Question I have asked is a definite one, and can be easily and definitely answered. It is, whether the Report is the original Report, or whether it has been modified for any reason? If it has not been modified, then let the right hon. Gentleman say so, for he knows perfectly well that the proceedings of courts martial, which are judicial inquiries, are frequently referred back for alteration in the finding, and so are all these Reports. If this Report has been modified, we have a right to know further particulars; and I should then give a Notice of Motion upon the subject. But I protest against the language of the right hon. Gentleman. I protest against his applying to me—nor shall he do it in

  1097
  this House or elsewhere—language of the kind in which he was pleased to indulge. He spoke of my having put an insult upon him, to which he would not submit. I have done no such thing. These Questions are frequently answered, and I submit that the right hon. Gentleman is disorderly in the language he has used to me, and which will not at all intimidate me in the performance of my public duty.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: I think the hon. Member for Galway misapprehended altogether the judicial character of the tribunal to which this Question was referred, and the misunderstanding arises altogether from that fact. If my lion. Friend had known that the Admiralty had referred this inquiry to a judicial tribunal, I am sure he would be the last man in the House to reflect upon the Admiralty, or to assume for a moment that the Report had been modified. I am quite sure that the First Lord would not be guilty of putting pressure upon any Committee of a judicial character.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRbelieved that if the right hon. Gentleman knew the feeling which prevailed amongst medical men on the subject to which the Question of the hon. Member referred lie would be very desirous to give information upon it. There was, rightly or wrongly, a general impression that a Report was agreed upon by the Committee, and that, for some reason or other, it had been delayed, and finally altered by the Committee. He did not approve of the language in which the Question of the hon. Member was expressed. But, if the right hon. Gentleman had no objection, he would be prepared to ask him, after the other Questions had been disposed of, whether the Report published in the newspapers on the 16th instant was the original Report as it passed the Committee, or whether it had been in any respect modified?
  MR. HUNT: I have not the slightest objection to answer the Question in that form. The Report laid upon the Table of the House is the only Report I have seen or heard of. It bears date the 3rd of March, and was presented to the Admiralty by the Chairman of the Committee, accompanied by a note stating that they had not yet obtained the Report or Memorandum of the Members
  1098
  of the Medical Committee. The Report was detained until that memorandum was received in a complete shape, and as soon as it was received—namely, on the 7th of March, the Report of the Committee was immediately laid upon the Table of the House. I do not know whether it has yet been circulated among hon. Members. There has been no delay whatever in producing it; and no intimation has been given to the Committee by the Admiralty, except to thank them for the pains they had taken in conducting the inquiry.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I beg to give Notice that after Whitsuntide I shall ask whether the Report of the Committee, which has been printed as a Parliamentary Paper and issued to lion. Members, is that which was originally come to by the Committee, or whether it has been in any respect modified?

  NAVY—H.M.S. "NEWCASTLE."

    QUESTION.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in accordance with his promise made in this House on the 9th February, a Court of Inquiry has been held to investigate the circumstances attending the drowning on the 13th of December last in the China seas of Mr. Wingfield, midshipman, and three seamen belonging to Her Majesty's ship "Newcastle?"
    MR. HUNT,in reply, said, that a Court of Inquiry would sit to-morrow at Sheerness to inquire into the matter referred to in the Question. The Court would be an open one. The father of the poor young man who had been midshipman on board the ship had received notice of the inquiry; and although lie could not, according to the rules, appear as a prosecutor, either in person or by counsel, any question he might suggest to the Court would be put to the witnesses, subject to the discretion of the president.

  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS—CHARGES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been called to a correspondence in the Manchester newspapers on the subject of the

    1099
    anomalies of the Post Office Telegraph charges; whether it is true that a message of twenty words from hence to Vienna costs 7s. 8d., while a message from Vienna to Manchester costs barely 6s.; a message from hence to any part of Germany costs 7s., while a message from Germany to Manchester costs barely 6s. 3d.; the registration fee for a letter from England to Germany costs 4d., while a registration from Germany to England costs only 2¼d.; a pattern weighing under an ounce from England to Germany costs 1d., while a pattern of similar weight from Germany to England costs ½d.; and, whether he will consent to the changes that have been proposed, in order to relieve those who are engaged in the commerce of the country?
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: My attention has been called to the correspondence in question. In respect to the telegraph charges, they are based on the regulations settled at the St. Petersburg Telegraph Conference of 1875, and another Conference will sit in London in the spring of next year, when these particular charges will be re-considered and probably reduced. In respect to the postal charges, they are based on the regulations of the Postal Conference of 1876; and although another Conference will be held in London in 1878, I cannot, of course, predict that these particular charges will be modified or reduced. I may add that the pattern post charge of 1d. from England to Germany carries matter up to two ounces in weight, and not only up to one ounce as stated in the Question.

  QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY (IRELAND).

    QUESTION.
    MR. COWPER-TEMPLEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it be true that the bye-law passed in 1876, by the Senate of the Queen's University for the admission of women to examination for degrees in art and medicine, has been thwarted and rendered inoperative by a refusal on the part of the Councils of Professors of the Queen's Colleges of Belfast, Galway, and Cork, to admit any of the female students who presented themselves for matriculation?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: I have no official knowledge of the proceedings of the Councils of the Queen's
    1100
    Colleges; and I have not been able to obtain in the short time that has elapsed since the right hon. Gentleman gave Notice of his Question, full information as to what may have passed in them on this subject. But, so far as the information enables me to reply, I do not think that any action taken by them can fairly be described as thwarting or rendering inoperative the bye-law of the University allowing women to be admitted to examination for degrees in arts or medicine. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have no authority over the College Councils in such matters; and it appears to me that, even if they had, any attempt by the Government to compel them to act in a certain direction, would be contrary to the spirit of the law under which they were established.

  THE MAGISTRACY—COMMITTALS AT KNUTSFORD.—QUESTION.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the complaint made by the justices of Altrincham, in the county of Chester, that they were called upon to try offences committed at Knutsford, seven miles off; whether, the police gave as an excuse that they could find no magistrate at Knutsford; whether, in consequence, prisoners are sometimes kept at Knutsford several days for trial, and are conveyed handcuffed to Altrincham; and, whether he will use his influence to correct this state of things?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, some of the magistrates at Knutsford having been returned to that House, and others having died, he had received representations as to the inconvenience which had thus been caused in the neighbourhood, and had sent them to the Lord Lieutenant in order that he might take action in the matter.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—NATIONAL SCHOOL OF RAHEERA.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BUTTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether any representations have been made to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to the effect that Colonel Lloyd, being the manager of a National School in the

    1101
    county of Monaghan, has endeavoured to compel the tenants on the estate of Lord Rossmore, over which he is agent, to withdraw their children from the neighbeuring National School of Raheera (although that school is conducted in all respects in accordance with the rules of the Board) by threatening to deprive them, and actually proceeding in some instances to deprive them, of the privilege of turbary, which they have hitherto enjoyed in connection with their farms, if they permitted their children to attend that school; and, whether any steps have been taken by the Commissioners in reference to Colonel Lloyd's position as manager of a National School in consequence of such representations?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: I am informed that some representations of the kind referred to have been made to the Commissioners of National Education by the Rev. L. J. O'Neil and other priests in the neighbourhood; but, on the other hand, other representations have been made by Colonel Lloyd that undue interference has been exercised by -the priests in obtaining the withdrawal of children from schools of which he is manager. The whole question is at present under the consideration of the Commissioners of National Education.

  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND)MONAGHAN.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN LESLIEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to existing difficulties concerning National Schools on Lord Rossmore's estate in the county of Monaghan; whether the Rev. Laurence J. O'Neil, who has been the recognized manager of Rakeeragh National School, is the same person who was dismissed from the chaplaincy of Monaghan Gaol for procuring the signature of a prisoner to a Poor Law voting paper; and, whether there is any objection to lay before the House a Copy of the Correspondence which has taken place relative to Drumgarley, Rakeeragh, and Tattencleare National Schools, between the managers of said schools, the district inspector, Colonel Lloyd the agent to Lord Ross-more, and the Commissioners of the National Board of Education?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: This Question is one of administration by the Commissioners of National Edu-
  1102
  cation, and my attention has only been called to it by the Notices of the Questions of my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, and by a communication which I have received from my hon. Friend. I am informed that the Rev. L. J. O'Neil is the same person who was dismissed from the chaplaincy of Monaghan Gaol for procuring the signature of a prisoner to a Poor Law voting paper. I do not think there would be any objection to the production of the correspondence on the subject, except that I believe it is rather voluminous; but if produced, of course it should fairly show both sides of the question.

  POST OFFICE—SEIZURE OF BOOKS, &c.

    QUESTION.
    MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is a fact that during the last week a large quantity of publications, including the following, viz.: a newspaper called the "National Reformer," three pamphlets written by Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, and a pamphlet entitled "No. 10 of the Freethinker's Text Book," written by Mrs. Besant, have been seized and detained at the General Post Office, under the Act 33 and 34 Vic. c. 79, s. 20, as "indecent or obscene;" if he is aware that these publications have been regularly sold without complaint or prosecution; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Regulations issued with the approval of the Treasury required by the Act?
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: I am informed that none of the publications specified in the Question of the hon. Gentleman have been detained at the General Post Office, and I cannot say that I know anything about the circumstances of the sale of these publications. Some copies of a publication entitled Fruits of Philosophy have been detained under the Act 33 & 34 Vict. c. 79, s. 20, as "indecent." Regulations were made under Section 20 with the approval of the Treasury. They are dated the 26th of September, 1870, and I shall be happy to lay a Copy on the Table of the House if the hon. Member moves for it.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE LATE NEGOTIATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

  1103
  Whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that after the Conference at Constantinople, and before the negotiations preceding the Protocol of London, the Government of the Sublime Porte had itself propounded or suggested its willingness to send a Special Envoy to St. Petersburg to treat on the subjects of disarmament or demobilisation; and, whether the phrase in the Russian declaration attached to the Protocol, viz.,
  "qu'elle envoie à St. Petersbourg un Envoyé Spécial pour traitor du désarmement, auquel Sa Majesté L'Empereur consentirait aussi de son coté,"
  was more than a reference to this previous suggestion or proposal of the Porte?
  MR. BOURKE: I am afraid I can only inform the hon. Member for Dundee that we have no information at the Foreign Office with respect to the willingness of the Sublime Porte at any time to send a Special Envoy to St. Petersburg, beyond that which is contained in the Papers which have been laid upon the Table.

  AFRICAN EXPLORATION—MR. STANLEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communication has been received at the Foreign Office, or to his knowledge by any of Her Majesty's Consuls in Africa, from Mr. H. M. Stanley, in reply to Lord Derby's Despatch, informing him that he had no authority to use the British flag in his attacks on the natives at Bambireh Island, Victoria Nyanza, in July and August, 1875?
  MR. BOURKE: I think the most satisfactory answer I am able to give to the Question of the hon. Member for Glasgow is, "No."
  MR. ANDERSON: As none has been received, I beg to give Notice that I will repeat the Question in June.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF ALBERT JONES.—QUESTION.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will inquire whether it be true that, on the third instant one Albert Jones, aged eight years, was committed to Montgomery Gaol by
  1104
  two of the Welshpool Borough Justices, to be kept on remand until this day, on a charge of stealing twenty-four shillings—bail being refused; whether, as stated by the mother to one of the Visiting Justices, she was, on the 10th instant, requested to induce her husband to vote for the Conservative candidate at the now pending election, and declined to do so because her boy was kept in prison; and, whether, on the following day, the boy was released by an order signed by one of the committing magistrates on the express stipulation that the boy's father would vote for the Conservative candidate?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Since this Question was put to me the other day, the hon. Member handed to me a letter signed by a Mr. Crewe Read, and in consequence of that letter I thought it right to make inquiry in the locality. I have not yet got an answer by post myself; but an hon. Friend of mine has placed in my hand a letter signed by the Mayor and one of the committing magistrates, in which they say they entirely deny the statements, or that there is 'the slightest foundation for the accusation. I received a few minutes ago a telegram from the Mayor of Welshpool to say that he has replied to my communication by post denying the charge, and that, if necessary, he would come up this evening in order to explain the whole matter.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYD: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the letter of Captain Crewe Read that I handed to him? ["No!"] May I ask if the boy was committed?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, lie thought he had explained that he had written down to Welshpool, and that he had not yet received an answer. As soon as he received it he should be glad to place it in the hands of the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDgave Notice that he would again call attention to this question after the holidays.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)—STATISTICAL RETURNS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstance that, owing

    1105
    to the functions of the Local Government Board not extending to Scotland, the statistics of local government and taxation supplied for England and Ireland are not supplied for Scotland; and, if he will take steps to provide for such Returns?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that the hon. Gentleman should remember that the Local Government Board was merely an extension of the old Poor Law Board. If the hon. Member would communicate with the Lord Advocate, he would have no difficulty in obtaining the information he wanted.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR—BLOCKADE OF THE BLACK SEA PORTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. WAITasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, On what date official advice was forwarded to the British Consul at Odessa that the commencement of the blockade of the Black Sea ports by the Ottoman Porte had been deferred for seven days; if it is true that the British Consul received this important information only through the Italian Consul; and, why no official notification was forwarded to him, while foreign Despatches reported the decree of blockade on the 5th instant?
  MR. BOURKE: A telegram was sent on the subject to Consul General Stanley at Odessa, and to the other Consuls in Turkey on the 10th instant. The regulations regarding the extension of the time of the blockade were received at the Foreign Office on the 8th instant, and were immediately made public.

  CHINA—THE MARGARY EXPEDITION.

    QUESTION.
    MR. HOLT (for Mr. MARK STEWART)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Report of Mr. Grosvenor's Mission to Yunnan, with the remainder of the Papers connected with the Margary Expedition, and also the Papers of the recent Convention between Sir Thomas Wade and the Chinese Government, will be laid upon the Table?
    MR. BOURKE: I can assure the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government are as anxious as he is that these Papers should be produced as soon as possible; but there are a great num-
    1106
    ber of other Papers of a very voluminous character now being printed at the Foreign Office. These Papers are now in a very forward state, and they will be presented to the House as soon as possible, taking into consideration the importance and the voluminous character of these and the other Papers which are now being printed by the Foreign Office.

    ARMY PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT.

      QUESTION.
      MR. CHILDERSasked, When the scheme of the Government with regard to Promotion and Retirement will be submitted to the House?
      MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, that the subject was still under the consideration of the Treasury, and he had not received their opinion upon the scheme. He proposed, when he was in a position to do so, to lay before the House a Paper containing the heads of the scheme. He would then make a statement to the House, so as to give hon. Members a full opportunity of discussing the subject, and it was his desire to give the House the fullest information at the earliest possible moment.

    ARMY—MILITIA RECRUITS.

      QUESTION.
      MR. BRIGGSasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will inform the House how many of the 38,000 recruits enlisted last year for the Militia were under 18 years of age, how many were between 18 and 25, and how many were over 25 years of age?
      MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, there was no Return in the War Office on the subject. It would be necessary to communicate with every Militia Adjutant in the Kingdom to obtain such information as the hon. Member desired. He did not think it was worth while to make investigation, and therefore he was not prepared to call on the Militia regiments to make a Return.

    TURKEY—BOSNIA.—QUESTION.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received any Report from Vice Consul Freeman as to the recent massacres at

    1107
    Ochievo in Bosnia, or generally as to the condition of that province?
    MR. BOURKE: We have received a telegram from Consul General Holmes stating Mr. Freeman had returned from visiting Glamosch and Ochievo, and that his Reports are on their way home. They will be presented without delay when they arrive.

    PARLIAMENT — THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday the 31st day of this instant May."
    MR. GOSCHENthought it would be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman would state what Business would be taken on Thursday, the 31st, and on the following Monday.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We propose on Thursday, the 31st, to take Supply (Civil Service Estimates), and on Monday, assuming that we do not finish the University Bill tonight, to go on with that Bill.
    Motion agreed to.

    ORDERS OF THE DAY.
      UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 113.]
      (Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Assheton Cross, Mr. Walpole.)
      UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 113.]

        COMMITTEE. [Progress 15th May.]
        Bill considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        Clause 23 (Union of Colleges and Halls or combination for education).
        MR. DODSONmoved, in page 8, lines 30 and 31, to leave out "with the consent in writing of the visitor of the College." The clause enacted that—
        "The Commissioners, in statutes made by them, may from time to time make provision for the complete or partial union of two or more Colleges, or of a College or Colleges, with a Hall or Halls, or of two or more Halls, or for the organization of a combined educational system in and for two or more Colleges or Halls, provided application in that behalf was made to the Commissioners on the part of each College and Hall, as follows:—(1.) In the case of a College in the University of Oxford, by resolution passed at a general meeting of the College, specially summoned for this purpose, by the votes of not
        1108
        less than two thirds of the number of persons present and voting, with the consent in writing of the Visitor of the College."
        The clause, as it stood, would apparently give the Visitor a direct and concurrent power with the College itself in that matter. The consent of the Visitor was not required in the University of Cambridge, and he did not see why a difference should be made in the case of Oxford.
        Amendment proposed, in page 8, lines 30 and 31, to leave out the words "with the consent in writing of the visitor of the college."—(Mr. Dodson.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would not feel himself justified in depriving the Visitor of a College in Oxford of exercising the power which the Amendment sought to take away from him. He maintained that, in a matter of such importance as the union of Colleges and Halls, the Visitor was a very proper person to be consulted, not against the Commissioners, but for the benefit of the Colleges. Therefore, although the consent of Visitors might not be required at Cambridge, where they had never been called in in the same way as at Oxford, he adhered to the clause as it stood.
        MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENremarked that as the Visitors did not seem to be of any practical use, the present occasion might very well be taken to get rid of them. He confessed that the existence of these Visitors had always been a mystery to him. Each College was totus, teres, atque rotundus in itself, and there was besides a Governing Body for each University to assist the College if necessary. He could not see the necessity of a Visitor, who was only an additional complication of authority, and certainly it was not desirable to increase his authority as was now proposed.
        MR. GOSCHENconsidered the proposed power unreasonable. There was at present considerable feeling against the Visitors, and it would be unwise to complicate the matter further by giving them this power. It had been truly said that the power was proposed not against the Commissioners, but as a veto upon

        1109
        the Colleges, and that was practically a veto on the Commissioners. If anything would damage this useful Bill, it would be the introduction of such words as formed part of this clause.
        MR. STAVELEY HILLtrusted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) would give way, because he could not see any reason for putting the power into the hands of one man of preventing the union of Colleges.
        LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEdid not see that the Visitor, who had no proprietary rights, had any title to interfere in the manner proposed by the clause. The clause was not a judicial matter at all.
        MR. BERESFORD HOPEtrusted that his right hon. Friend would not consent to the Amendment. An Oxford Visitor was a totally different person from a Cambridge Visitor; and it was only equitable that he should be put in the position which the clause proposed to give him, and that his consent should be obtained to any proposal for a union of Colleges and Halls, or for the organization of a combined educational system in those Colleges of Halls. In Oxford the Visitor had already the power to veto certain statutes.
        SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTchallenged the statement that there was any difference in authority between the Visitors at Oxford and Cambridge. There might be a difference in principle in the two cases, but not, as far as he was aware, in any other respect. He thought that nothing was so desirable in the interests of a University as the amalgamation of small powers.
        MR. DODSONremarked that the function of the Visitor at Oxford was to interpret statutes when a doubt or question arose as to their meaning; he was applied to as an arbitrator in the case of difference, and he had, in some cases, power when alterations were proposed in the statutes. This was substantially the case at Cambridge.
        MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not see why, even on the largest view of the rights and privileges of the Visitors, their assent should be required to the organization of a scheme of combined education in connection with contiguous Colleges, and he suggested that the clause might be altered so as to make the consent necessary in the case only of complete union of the Colleges.
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYwas willing to agree to such an Amendment.
        MR. GOSCHENasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended that in a case where, say, two-thirds of the members of two Colleges agreed to union and the Commissioners also agreed, it should be in the power of a single Bishop to prevent it? If that was the result, the matter would probably soon have to be re-considered.
        MR. MOWBRAYthought the concession which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) sufficiently met the case, and he insisted that much was due to the position of the Visitor as the permanent representative and guardian of the interests of the College.
        MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that at last he perceived the reason why the Visitor was dragged into this clause. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Mowbray) had just spoken of Colleges "of which two-thirds of the Fellows might be young men." There, then, was the secret. The Government desired to have these Visitors—most of whom were Bishops in the case of Oxford—to check and control the enthusiasm of the younger Fellows for College reforms. Now, at last he understood the matter, and it increased his objection to the words of the clause. But since these words were not to apply to Cambridge because its Representative (Mr. Walpole) found that Cambridge did not want them, he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) wished to know how far the feeling at Oxford on the matter corresponded with that which had so satisfactorily been obtained from Cambridge? And what was the reason of the Government for applying a principle to one University and rejecting it in the other?
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he thought he had gone as far as he could in accepting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). The present clause, he might add, had come down from the House of Lords in the Bill of last year, and, as not a single objection to it had been made on the part of Oxford, it might fairly be taken for granted that the University was not opposed to it.
        Question put.
        The Committee divided:—Ayes 160 Noes 112: Majority 48. — (Div. List, No. 132.)
        MR. DODSONgave Notice that he would again submit his Amendment on the Report.
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYundertook to introduce in the clause, on the Report, the words suggested by the hon. Member for Liskeard.
        Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
        Clause 24 (Saving respecting Hulme Exhibitions at Oxford.)
        MR. MOWBRAYmoved, in page 9, line 2, after "thereto," to insert—
        "Except as regards so much of the funds or property of the trustees under the same as the Charity Commissioners under any scheme or schemes published by them have assigned for Scholarships or Exhibitions at Brasenose College, Oxford,"
        the effect of the Amendment being to take away the Exhibitions from the control of the Charity Commissioners.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 9, line 2, after the word "thereto," to insert the words "except as regards so much of the funds or property of the trustees under the same as the Charity Commissioners under any scheme or schemes published by them have assigned for scholarships or exhibitions at Brasenose College, Oxford."—(Mr. Mowbray.)
        MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON,who had an Amendment on the Paper requiring that the Charity Commissioners should give their consent to any transfer, the effect of the Amendment being to leave those Exhibitions, &c., under the control of the Charity Commissioners, and to exempt them from the control of the University Commissioners said, as a trustee of 15 years standing he objected to the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, which had now been published after four years' consultation with all the parties interested, being taken out of their control and handed over to the University Commissioners who might found Professorships out of the educational prizes now offered to the schools of Lancashire and Cheshire by the proposed scheme.
        MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, as he understood the case, some of the funds of this charity were devoted to academical and others to non-academical purposes. The Amendment ought to deal only with the academical funds for the benefit of Brasenose. He would withdraw his Amendment to leave out Clause 24.
        GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the Charity Commissioners had received a large sum, and had devoted a part to the benefit of the two counties, and another part for the benefit of Brasenose, for Scholarships. He understood his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mow bray) to mean that the money assigned to Brasenose should be dealt with by the University Commissioners. As the consent of the Charity Commissioners was completed when they assigned the money to Brasenose, he could not see the use of the words "with the consent of the Charity Commissioners."
        MR. HIBBERTsaid, that the scheme limited the persons to receive those Scholarships to persons brought up in Lancashire or Cheshire, and the money should be devoted to that purpose.
        MR. ASSHETONthought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Cheshire (Mr. W. Egerton) was the better.
        MR. GOSCHENagreed with the right hon. Gentleman that as far as these funds were academical they should be dealt with by the Academical Commissioners; and as far as they were charitable they should be dealt with by the Charity Commissioners. The object of the hon. Member's Amendment ' was to preserve the local character of certain Exhibitions, which was in direct opposition to the general tendency of University reform.
        MR. A. EGERTONremarked that the Amendment, if accepted, would upset the work that had been in progress for many years.
        MR. OSBORNE MORGANobserved that close Fellowships and Scholarships had been the bane of the Universities, and he hoped to see them swept away.
        MR. BERESFORD HOPEcontended that it was absurd to designate as close, Scholarships and Exhibitions which were open to counties with such large populations as Lancashire and Cheshire. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowbray) was waking a sleeping lion by his Amendment.
        MR. MOWBRAYsaid, that the scheme was that 16 Exhibitions of £100 per annum were to be established, tenable for four years, at Brasenose, and if the holders were refused at Brasenose, at some other College at Oxford. The holders were to have been at some Lancashire or Cheshire school.
        SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it had been proposed for the first time that these Exhibitions, which were open to all the world, should be limited to Lancashire and Cheshire in the face of all University reform, the great object of which had been to throw open the Universities to everybody. He had had a letter from the principal of Brasenose, who had authorized him to say that the College considered that it would be a very serious evil to the College if changes of' this limited character were introduced, and they desired that the matter should be left to the Commissioners.
        MR. BARINGwished, as he was the only Member who had ever been a Fellow of Brasenose College, to deny absolutely that the property in question had ever in any way belonged to the University of Oxford, or to Brasenose. Nor had either the University or the College ever exercised over it any control whatever. The funds arose from a private trust which was vested entirely in three trustees, who must at least by residence be connected with Lancashire, their choice of Exhibitioners being, however, restricted to persons who had resided for a certain number of terms at Brasenose. He could not assent to the statement of hon. Members opposite that the scheme of the Charity Commissioners ran counter to the spirit of recent legislation, and the course of the former University Commission. He knew that half the Scholarships at New College could only be held by boys educated at Winchester; that many of those at Jesus were limited to Welshmen; that the Hastings Exhibitioners at Queen's must come from certain schools in Yorkshire; and he believed that at Balliol there were many valuable Exhibitions, tenable only by youths from one of the Scotch Universities. It seemed to him, therefore, that hon. Members somewhat strained the fact when they said that the object and tendency of the legislation of the last 24 years had been to get rid of the connection between particular schools and localities, and the Exhibitions or Scholarships in the University. He thought that the clause might very well stand as it was in the Bill; but of the two Amendments he very much preferred that of his hon. Friend just below him (Mr. W. Egerton).
        MR. LYON PLAYFAIRthought the clause as proposed by the right hon.
        1114
        Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hardy) answered all purposes, and that the Committee might divide upon it, although he feared that the Government would not now support their own clause.
        MR. GOSCHENwas desirous that the Commissioners should deal with all Scholarships and Exhibitions. Academical, and not Charity Commissioners should deal with these questions.
        MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONsaid, he could not see how Exhibitions which were thrown open to 3,000,000 of people could fairly be called close Exhibitions. The trustees had not been behind the spirit of the age, and when they proposed to throw open the Exhibitions to the whole of the University they were met by Brasenose College with a refusal.
        SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he thought the Commissioners ought to have the power of dealing freely with those foundations to the extent of not restricting them to particular Colleges. If they were to have free trade in respect to counties, they ought to have free trade in respect to Colleges. Was there any power in the Bill to open local trusts now limited to particular Colleges?
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that it would depend on what the Exhibitions were. Those really attached to one College could not be removed to another or thrown open to the University.
        Amendment amended.
        Question put,
        "That the words except as regards so much of the funds or property of the trustees under the same as the Charity Commissioners under any scheme or schemes published by them may assign for scholarships or exhibitions at Brasenose College or elsewhere in Oxford' be there inserted."
        The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 68: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 133.)
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 25 (Severance of canonry from Greek professorship at Cambridge).
        MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved, in page 9, line 11, after "character," to insert—
        "With power nevertheless for the Commissioners, with the concurrence of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if they think it expedient,

        1115
        to allow the present Professor to resign the professorship, and to hold the canonry as if it had never been annexed to the professorship."
        Amendment agreed to.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 26 (Saving for statutes of Trinity College, Cambridge, as to professorships of Greek, &c.) agreed to.
        Clause 27 (Alteration of trusts of Dixie Foundation in Emmanuel College, Cambridge) agreed to.
        Clause 28 (Saving for headship of Magdalene College).
        SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved the omission of the clause which provided that
        "a statute made by the Commissioners shall not affect the right of nominating or appointing to the headship of Saint Mary Magdalen College in the University of Cambridge, unless the consent by deed of the person entitled to that right is first obtained."
        Private nominations of that kind were, in his opinion, inconsistent with a scheme of general reform.
        MR. WALPOLEpointed out that this was a special case. The right of nomination had been reserved by the founder of the College to himself and his heirs, and was exactly analogous to a private right of Church patronage. If such a right were taken away, he apprehended it could only be by arrangement with the patron.
        MR. GOSCHENasked whether the right of nomination was absolutely unfettered? As a matter of fact, it had generally been exercised in favour of a relative. He suggested that the Commissioners should be empowered to seek the consent of the parties interested in order to put an end to the present preposterous arrangement.
        MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENinquired whether it was really meant that the Commissioners should have power to alter the arrangements as to the Headship of the Colleges in every case but this one, in which the Headship happened to be in the gift of a wealthy nobleman?
        SIR CHARLES W. DILKEobserved that the analogy drawn by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) was hardly correct; for, inasmuch as the person presented took his turn as Vice Chancellor of the University, it would
        1116
        be truer to compare the right to a right of nomination to a Bishopric.
        MR. BERESFORD HOPEsupported the view taken by his right hon. Friend, and asked who had been damnified by the arrangement? The present Master of the College possessed great influence in Cambridge, and was emphatically a representative man. The list of Masters of Magdalen College might well compare with that of the Masters of other Colleges. For instance, in one of the decadent periods of the University Dr. Farmer, one of the fathers of Shakesperian criticism, held the post.
        MR. A. MILLSwished to know whether there was any check whatever on the nomination?
        MR. WALPOLEread an extract from the Latin charter of the College, showing that the power of appointment was vested in the owner of the estate of Audley End: and he added that it was necessary the person selected should be a graduate of the University and a Master of Arts. He submitted that it would be an unreasonable thing, under the special circumstances of the case, not to reserve the right proposed to be continued by the clause.
        MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENhad heard no sufficient reason why Magdalen College should be the only one exempted from the operation of the Commissioners. As his question had not been answered, he took it for granted that it was the fact that this was the only College with whose Headship the Commission was to be specially forbidden to deal. Now, how stood the matter? The Government had just voted against confining certain exhibitions to two counties. Parliament had dealt with founders' wills in this way over and over again, and deprived particular localities of Scholarships and endowments bequeathed specially for those localities, and they had so interfered with only one justification—namely, that of public policy. Now, was it in accordance with public policy that an individual should receive consideration denied to localities, and that an exception should be made in order to give to a nobleman and landed proprietor that which you denied to others—the right to keep a privilege against the public interest?
        MR. MARTENcontended that the course suggested ought not to be adopted

        1117
        unless the proprietor of the right sought to be affected had an opportunity of being heard. It was a chartered right granted to Lord Audley and his heirs. Parliament was not accustomed to interfere in the manner suggested with rights granted by charter, much less to delegate such a power to Commissioners. To do so in the present case would establish an evil precedent. No case had been made out for any interference with the charter. The right was one which had hitherto been exercised by the possessor of the estate of Audley End, to the satisfaction of' the University and the public. Everyone who had the pleasure of the acquaintance of the present Master of Magdalen College would acknowledge that he was a most distinguished man, and worthy, in every respect, to rank with any head of a College in the University. As to a possible sale of Audley End, there was no reason to apprehend such a contingency, or to conclude that any future appointment under the charter to the office of Master of the College would be otherwise than such as would conduce to the welfare and honour of the College and University.
        SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the grant was to the " heirs and assigns," and the assignee might not only not be a member of the Christian religion, but might be a rich but ignorant tradesman, who would not certainly be the best judge of the qualifications necessary for the Headship of a College.
        Question put.
        The Committee divided: — Ayes 63; Noes 43: Majority 20. — (Div. List, No. 134.)
        Clause agreed to.
        Clause 29 (Communication of proposed statutes for University, &c., to Council, &c.), agreed to.
        Clause 30 (Publication of proposed statutes for Colleges), agreed to.
        Clause 31 (Suspension of election), agreed to.
        Clause 32 (Saving for existing interest), agreed to.
        Clause 33 (Production of documents), agreed to.
        Clause 34 (Power in Cambridge for Chancellor to settle doubts as to meaning of University statutes), agreed to.
        Representation of Colleges.
        Clause 35 (Election of Commissioners by Colleges).
        MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENmoved in page 11, line 8, after "persons," to leave out "to be Commissioners." He regretted that this point, one of the most important in the Bill, should have come on at such an unfortunate hour (9 o'clock), and in such a thin House. It had at first been suggested to him to move that these three Representatives should be assessors instead of Commissioners; but his difficulty was that he had never been able to ascertain exactly what an assessor was. He had therefore preferred, in a subsequent Amendment, contingent upon the success of that which he now moved, to define what the duties of these gentlemen should be, without assigning to them any particular name. The object of his Amendment was that the Representatives to be sent by the Colleges should be sent as persons to assist the Commissioners and give them every information as regarded the Colleges, but not to act as Commissioners. He desired that a College should elect three persons to represent it in relation to the making of statutes for the College by the Commissioners, and that the Representatives so elected should be entitled to be present at the meetings held by the Commissioners for the making of such statutes, and also to be heard on all matters appertaining thereto, but not to vote as Commissioners. If they did so, there would be a different Commission dealing with each College, and different principles might be applied to different Colleges. This would be unfair to the Universities which had a right to expect uniformity of action in the Body which was about to deal with their revenues and management, and unfair to the Colleges as between College and College. Wherever a College had one of its members appointed by name a Commissioner in this Bill, that College would have, with the three Commissioners proposed to be added by the clause, four of its own members out of the total number of 10, and in the case of All Souls, which had two of its members so named, that College would actually be dealt with by a Commission of which half would be composed of its own members. The Colleges did not desire this, and if

        1119
        a decision adverse to the opinion of a College was arrived at by a narrow majority of the Commission thus constituted, the weight of such decision would be much diminished, and complaints would be made. He could not do better than read an extract from a Petition presented to the House by Oriel College. It ran thus—
        "That your Petitioners desire moreover to point out that the Commission, in dealing with the several Colleges, will not consist of the same persons, and that the introduction of the Representatives proposed to be given to each College is sufficient to make a sensible difference in the balance of opinion in the Commission, so that principles adopted by the Commissioners for one College might be varied in the case of other Colleges by means of the vote of their Representatives. Your Petitioners would therefore desire that the Representatives of the Colleges should be of the nature of assessors to the Commissioners, empowered to state the views and circumstances of the Colleges, but not to vote."
        After all, it seemed to him (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) that this was a question of confidence in the Commissioners, and upon that point he wished to say a word. On that side of the House, they had been taunted with their expression of confidence in the Commission which they had tried to alter. But although they had tried to strengthen the Commission by the addition of certain names, no one, that he was aware of, had expressed any want of confidence in the seven names proposed. He himself had objected to one name—that of Dr. Bellamy, but solely because he was the Head of a House, upon a Commission on which he thought Heads of Houses ought not to sit, and he had on the same ground abstained from voting for the Head of a Cambridge House, proposed by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington). Personally, no one could be more fit than Dr. Bellamy; but how would he be situated under this clause? With three of his own Fellows by his side, he would only have to gain over one other Commissioner in order to have half the Commission on his side to resist any change distasteful to St. John's College. But suppose some question arose of making St. John's contribute to the Professoriate in the same proportion as Magdalen, these being two of the richest Colleges in Oxford. How would Magdalen feel if the proposal were defeated by the votes of these four Representatives of St. John? He moved his
        1120
        Amendment in no unfriendly spirit to the Bill, but because he foresaw bickerings and jealousies from the clause as it stood which he wished to avoid. The Bill ought to be made to commend itself to the public opinion of the University; upon this would depend its successful working, and he trusted that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War would conciliate that public opinion, avoid differences and dissensions, and secure uniformity of action in the Commission, by adopting his Amendment. That would secure uniformity of principle and of action in the proceedings of the Commissioners, while it would also tend to remove that jealousy and suspicion of unfairness in reference to their dealing with different Colleges, which might otherwise arise.
        Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 4, to leave out the words "to be commissioners."—(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
        MR. BALFOURobjected to the appointment of a large number of Commissioners, believing that the business would be better performed by a smaller body. He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) would see his way to accepting the substance of the Amendment.
        LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsuggested that the clause should be omitted altogether, and that some words should be added to the 36th, giving each College the power of being heard by two delegates, or by counsel before the Commissioners.
        MR. GREGORYthought that the Amendment should be considered on general grounds with reference to the justice of the case. The question was, how, and to what extent, the Representatives of the Colleges should be heard? and they could not do less than let the Colleges have a right of voting when their property was dealt with. Justice and expediency coincided with the Bill as it stood.
        MR. BRISTOWEbelieved that if the representatives of the Colleges were allowed to vote, there would be a lack of uniformity in the decisions of the Commissioners. In every way he thought

        1121
        the Amendment would be an improvement.
        MR. GOSCHENthought the clause was the greatest possible blot in the Bill, and out of character with it; it was injurious to the free action of the Commissioners, in whom the right hon. Gentleman opposite professed to have thorough confidence. It was also one of the most important. There should be a settled plan for the Commissioners to act upon, and care should be taken that in taxing the Colleges for the benefit of the Universities general principles might be followed, so that no Colleges should be unfairly burdened, whilst others were unduly relieved. No clause should be introduced that would deprive the Commissioners of power to resist proposals made by Colleges would have the effect of weakening the relations between them and the Universities. By the Bill, as it was submitted, the Government would put into the hands of the Colleges a power which many of the Colleges did not otherwise desire; and on that point he could speak for Oxford, with many of whose most eminent men he had been in communication; and he was enabled to say the feeling was that this clause, if retained, would prove most injurious.
        MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the clause really involved the representation by minorities; two of the Commissioners would often vote one way, and the other in opposition to them, so the sum total would be a majority of one amongst them. The cumulative vote had been overlooked.
        LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that the voting would not be necessarily of a Party character. He hoped that the Amendment would be adopted. The special evil of the clause as it stood was that the Commission proposed to be constituted under it would prove a drag where reform was most needed, and would act as an impetus where, perhaps, a drag was required.
        MR. OSBORNE MORGANremarked that the clause, if adopted, would utterly destroy the unity of the scheme of reform, which he, at least, desired to see carried out. Every question which touched the Colleges would be submitted to a contantly fluctuating and varying body; and the result would be that there would be one system of University reform for Balliol, another for Trinity, and so on. Such large powers ought not to
        1122
        be given to a body of whom they knew nothing.
        MR. BARINGfelt bound to enter an indignant protest against the imputations on the Colleges of Oxford contained in the speech of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. He had charged him with acting from selfish motives. [Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN: No, no!] Well, he might have misunderstood the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire; but certainly the gist of what had been said by many others, in opposing the appointment of Commissioners by the Colleges, was that these Commissioners would be sure to act together in the interest of their College as contrasted with the interest of the University. The Colleges were actuated by no such spirit of selfishness, and this they had proved. Corpus, a comparatively poor College, had recently endowed four University Professorships; and Jesus, which was, perhaps, still poorer, had only last year contributed largely to the endowment of a Professorship of Celtic. There had been other cases of the same sort; but these were enough to show that the Colleges were not as niggardly as had been asserted. As to the supposed unanimity of the College Commissioners, he was convinced, from his personal knowledge of Oxford, that there was scarcely a College there in which the majority would be able to elect all three persons of their own way of thinking; and if the different composition of the Commission in each case should lead to different treatment of the several Colleges, he thought such a result far better than that they should all be reduced to a dead level of uniformity.
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, it could not be doubted that strong arguments had been adduced on both sides of the question before the Committee, but hon. Members seemed to forget that for some time the Colleges would have the power to form schemes by means of which the work of the Commissioners would be assisted; and that the Commissioners would be in a position to arrange their proposals in a form which would affect both the Colleges and the Universities. He could not agree with the proposal that everything should be done upon precisely the same pattern. It was much more to be desired that the Commissioners should commence their work with unfettered hands, and should

        1123
        be in a position to deal with each College in accordance with its means and its needs. His impression, derived from full consideration of the question, was that almost everything would be settled in a very different way from what some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think, and that there would not be that disputation and collision between the Commissioners and the Colleges which certain hon. Members apprehended. Twelve months would elapse before the Commissioners would have to sit upon the statutes, and during that time they would have ample opportunity of becoming acquainted with the mind of the Colleges, and of then acting upon the information which they had received.
        Question put.
        The Committee divided: — Ayes 92; Noes 72: Majority 20. — (Div. List, No. 135.)
        MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that so far as the cumulative vote was concerned, he had not forgotten it, as the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) supposed, but thought it hardly worth notice, since he felt assured that there would be no contests and divisions in Colleges; but that, as a matter of fact, each College would, by an amicable arrangement, elect its Representatives, who would probably vote together. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hardy) spoke of them throughout as "assessors," showing what was the impression on his mind—namely, that their correct position was that of persons who should assist and give information to the Commissioners, but not vote as Commissioners themselves. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the chief part of the business would be done by the Colleges themselves in the "year of grace." He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) quite agreed, but he said that if arrangements were made by the Colleges during that year, it would be far better that those arrangements should be reviewed by a body of seven independent Commissioners, rather than by a body of whom three, four, or five, had been the very parties who had made those arrangements. Parliament was about to confer great powers upon the Commissioners, and it was something in the nature of a censure upon them to say
        1124
        that they could not be trusted to deal with the revenues of any one College without having three members of that College added to their number, in order to protect the College. If they had been ruthless and revolutionary Commissioners, who were likely to attack College property and deal rashly and hastily with these matters, he could have understood the necessity of adding to them in the manner proposed; but having been carefully selected by the Government and approved by the House, he could see no danger. The Secretary of State for War said that he was opposed to a dull, dead uniformity; but his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) advocated uniformity in principle, not in detail, and this was most desirable.
        MR. MOWBRAYmoved, in page 11, line 15, after "fit," to insert—
        "In the University of Oxford the Principal of a Hall shall be a Commissioner to represent the Hall in relation to the making by the Commissioners of statutes affecting the Hall."
        Amendment agreed to.
        On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
        MR. BALFOURexpressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to introducing some qualification which should limit the clause.
        LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he should enter a formal protest against it.
        MR. GOSCHENwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would not consider the question of a general scheme being laid down by the Commissioners before the Colleges sent in their own schemes, and also whether he would not consent to reduce the number of delegates from each College from three to two?
        SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he should feel it his duty to vote against the clause, unless some, alteration in this direction was promised by the Report.
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would further consider the point to which reference had been made.
        Question put.
        The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 77: Majority 26. — (Div. List, No. 136.)
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 36 (Notice to College of meeting), agreed to.
        Clause 37 (Validity of acts as regards Colleges), agreed to.
        Schools.
        Clause 38 (Notice to Governing Body of school, &c.), agreed to.
        Clause 39 (Provision for case of contingent right), agreed to.
        Clause 40 (Governing Body a Corporation), agreed to.
        Clause 41 (Statutes for schools dissented from), agreed to.
        Clause 42 (Provision respecting right of preference when retained by school), agreed to.
        Universities Committee of Privy Council.
        Clause 43 (Constitution of University Committee of Privy Council).
        LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that as the duties of the Committee would be of a judicial character, he proposed, with every respect to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to substitute the name of the Master of the Rolls for that of the Archbishop.
        Amendment negatived.
        Clause agreed to.
        Confirmation or Disallowance of Statutes.
        Clause 44 (Submission of statutes to Queen in Council), agreed to.
        Clause 45 (Petition against statute), agreed to.
        Clause 46 (Reference to Committee).
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYmoved, in page 14, at end of clause, to add, as new paragraphs—
        "It shall be lawful to the Queen in Council to make, from time to time, rules of procedure and practice for regulating proceedings on such petitions.
        "The costs of all parties of and incident to such proceedings shall be in the discretion of the Universities Committee; and the orders of the Committee respecting costs shall be enforceable as if they were orders of a division of the High Court of Justice."
        Amendment agreed to.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 47 (Disallowance by Order in Council), agreed to.
        Clause 48 (Statutes not disallowed to be laid before Houses of Parliament), agreed to.
        Clause 49 (Disallowance in Parliament), agreed to.
        Clause 50 (Evidence of disallowance or not in Parliament), agreed to.
        Effect of Statutes.
        Clause 51 (Statutes to be binding and effectual), agreed to.
        Alteration of Statutes.
        Clause 52 (Power for University to alter statutes, &c.)
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYmoved, in page 15, at end of clause, to add, as a now paragraph—
        "But where and as far as a statute made by the Commissioners for the University affects a College, the same shall not be subject to alteration under this section, except with the consent of the College."
        Amendment agreed to.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 53 (Power for University to alter statutes, &c.), agreed to.
        Clause 54 (Confirmation or disallowance of altering statutes), agreed to.
        Tests.
        Clause 55 (Saving for Tests Act), agreed to.
        Clause 56 (Operation of Tests Act as regards theological offices), postponed.
        Reference of other Statutes to Universities Committees.
        Clause 57 (Statutes awaiting submission to Queen in Council, or made before cesser of powers of Commissioners).
        MR. MOWBRAYmoved, in page 16, line 8, after "Council," to insert—
        "and (3), every statute, ordinance, and regulation made by or in relation to a College under any former Act or ordinance since the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, and before the passing of this Act."
        Amendment agreed to.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        On the Motion of Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, a new clause was read a second time and added to the Bill, providing—
        "That nothing in the Act should authorize the Commissioners to endow the whole or any

        1127
        part of the offices of an ecclesiastical character by means of any portion of the revenues of a University or College not forming, when the statute comes into operation, an endowment or part of an endowment of an office of that kind."
        MR. BALFOURmoved, after Clause 11, to insert the following clause:—
        (New statutes.)
        "In order to assist the University or any college, or the governing body of any college, in making statutes under the next preceding section, it shall be the duty of the commissioners, any time before the end of the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, and after communication with the commissioners of the other University, to lay before the University and the colleges, or the governing bodies of the colleges, a statement of the principles on which they intend to act with regard to the following points:—

        (1.) The amount and nature of the contribution to be made by the colleges to the University;

        (2.) The number, tenure, and advantages of fellowships to be held in any college."

        MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he could not consent to the clause proposed by the hon. Member, which would prove an embarrassment for the Commissioners of each University.
        MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had promised to secure a general scheme as to contributions.
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had only promised to take the matter into full consideration.
        MR. WALPOLEsaid, he could not accept the proposal of his hon. Friend, because the clause which he had moved could not be worked in connection with the other clauses in the Bill, and would prevent the Colleges from originating measures which they would otherwise have an opportunity of suggesting to the Commissioners.
        MR. J. G. TALBOTobjected to the clause, on the ground that the subject was one which it was best to leave to the Commissioners.
        MR. DODSONthought it was a mistake to suppose that this was a matter which could be left to the Commissioners. It was just one of those things they would hardly consider themselves entitled to interfere with unless they had some guidance from Parliament.
        SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if Colleges and Universities were to make separate proposals, reforms would never be carried out. The only
        1128
        plan on which they could be effected with consistency was by the Commissioners laying down general principles.
        MR. FAWCETTsupported the clause.
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYpromised to give the matter his best consideration during the Recess, and if, as he hoped, he found himself able to do what was desired in a shorter form and with less particularity than the hon. Member had put in his clause he would do so.
        MR. BALFOURwithdrew his clause, and intimated that he would propose it at a future time.
        MR. BALFOURmoved, after Clause 19, to insert the following clause:—
        (Degrees to Women.)
        "The Commissioners shall, if they think fit, give power to the University to confer degrees on women under such regulations as the University shall determine."
        He observed that the function of women as educators was increasing throughout the country, and he considered it a matter of great importance that the privileges given to men should be extended to women. He thought such a proposition would be advantageous to the interests of the public.
        MR. BERESFORD HOPEobjected to hamper the Universities with the bewildering and embarrassing obligation of granting degrees to women; a degree meant honours, and honours ultimately involved a share in the administration of the University. Besides, what would the degree be? He concluded "Spinster of Arts." The Committee had already disposed of the question as brought forward by the hon. Member for Liskeard by a majority of 200.
        MR. COURTNEYmoved to report Progress, as it was almost impossible at that time of night to discuss this important question properly.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Courtney.)
        SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it would be better first to settle this clause. At the next Sitting of the House there would be important questions to dispose of, though not of a feminine character.
        MR. CHADWICKsincerely hoped that unless the Government assented to the clause, the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate would be pressed.
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYhoped that if those who had borne the burden and heat of the day were willing to go on with the discussion of the clause, they would be allowed to do so. With regard to the question which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) had raised, it was one that ought to be discussed on its own merits in a separate and distinct Bill, and not at the fag-end of a Bill dealing with Universities for men. It was too important a question to be delegated to Royal Commissions to decide.
        MR. PARNELLsupported the Motion to report Progress, on the ground that three-fourths of the Members of the House had gone home for their holidays and the clause under consideration was one which was of very grave importance.
        Question put.
        The Committee divided: — Ayes 22; Noes 149: Majority 127.—(Div. List, No. 137.)
        MR. JAMESmoved that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought some respect should be paid to the majority. This question had already been pronounced upon by the House, but he had too much respect for the Members of the House to keep them walking through the Lobbies of the House; and if the Motion were persisted in he should feel it advisable to yield.
        LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEhoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion. With regard to the discussion about women, he thought there had been a great deal too much of it both in this House and out-of-doors, and he hoped the House would not hear anything more on the subject. It was disgusting to hear so much of it.
        MR. HOPWOODregretted to hear the noble Lord speak so disparagingly of the views and aims of women, and assume to tell them, who advocated those views in that House, when was the fitting occasion on which to promote them, and when it was out of place. The subject was one upon which agitation would be continued until success was arrived at. He should support the Motion of the hon. Member.
        MR. GOSCHENexpressed his great desire that the Committee on the Bill might, if possible, be concluded that Sitting.
        MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that though he, too, was anxious to finish the Bill that night, he should not resist the wish of the Committee to report Progress, if that were its desire.
        Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. PARNELLmoved that the Chairman should report Progress.
        Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
        The Committee divided: — Ayes 16; Noes 113: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 138.)
        MR. HOPWOODmoved that the Chairman leave the Chair.
        LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHrecommended the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) to withdraw the clause which was under discussion.
        MR. BALFOURsaid, he should be most happy to withdraw it, if he could do so.
        THE CHAIRMANsaid, it could not be withdrawn until the Motion before the Committee—that the Chairman leave the Chair—had been disposed of.
        Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
        Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday 4th June.

        CUSTOMS, INLAND REVENUE, AND SAVINGS BANKS BILL.— [BILL, 143.]
        (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
        COMMITTEE.
        Bill considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        MR. MONKmoved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause:—
        (Abolition of Duties on appointments to benefices.)
        "After the passing of this Act the Duties charged under the Act thirty-three and thirty-four Victoria, chapter ninety-seven, upon appointment, whether by way of donation, presentation, or nomination, and admission, collation, or institution to, or licence to hold any benefice specified in Schedule B to this Act shall cease to he payable."
        Now Clause—(Mr. Monk,)—brought up, and read the first time.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
        SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved to report Progress, as he did not think that an important Money Bill should be discussed at ten minutes past 1 o'clock in the morning.
        Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
        The Committee divided: — Ayes 5; Noes 81: Majority 76.— (Div. List, No. 139.)
        MR. BIGGARmoved that the Chairman leave the Chair.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAtrusted that after the decisive opinion of the House just expressed the Motion would be withdrawn.
        THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERtrusted the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would not press his Amendment, and that the Committee might be allowed to proceed with the Business.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Original Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
        The Committee divided: — Ayes 67; Noes 18: Majority 49. — (Div. List, No. 140.)
        Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday 31st May.

        COLONIAL FORTIFICATIONS BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Secretary Mum:, Bill to make better provision respecting Fortifications, works, buildings, and land situate in a Colony, and held for the defence of the Colony, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary HARDY, Lord EUSTACE CECIL, and Mr. STANLEY.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 174.]

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (SEWAGE) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Local Government Act, 1858," and "The Sewage Utilization Act, 1865," relating to Dungannon, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 175.]

    BLIND AND DEAF MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. WHEELHOUSE, Bill for the Education of Blind and Deaf Mute Children, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHEELHOUSE and Mr. ISAAC.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 176.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock, till Thursday, 31st May.