COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 05 August 1879 vol 249 cc232-85

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee).

MR. COURTNEY

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

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, although the hon. Member for Liskeard had supported his Amendment in a portentously long speech, he hoped the Committee would not agree to it. The University proposed to be created by the Bill was entirely different from Queen's University. The Queen's University was nothing more than an aggregation of Colleges, exactly in the same way as the University of Oxford was an aggregation of 19 different Colleges. But the University which it was proposed to establish by the present Bill was something entirely different. It was much more like the London University than the other. In the 7th clause it was provided that— The University shall confer a degree upon every person who had matriculated in the University. That, of course, simply meant that the students should be what were called unattached. It went on to say— No residence in any College nor attendance at lectures or any other course of instruction in the University shall be obligatory upon any candidate for a degree, other than a degree in medicine and surgery. That plainly showed that the University contemplated was something entirely different from Queen's University. It was, therefore, impossible to supplement the Charter in the way proposed. The Queen's University, as the hon. Member for Liskeard had pointed out, had a history of its own; but, unfortunately, that history did not exactly commend it to his hon. Friends below the Gangway, and for that reason it would be unwise to continue its present name.

MR. SYNAN

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

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

MR. BIGGAE

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

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

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

MR. COURTNEY

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

MR. FAWCETT

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

MR. SHAW

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

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

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

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

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

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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

MR. NEWDEGATE

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

MR. FAWCETT

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

MR. COURTNEY

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Constitution of University).

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

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

MR. ERRINGTON

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

Amendment negatived.

MR. COURTNEY

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

MR. BIGGAR

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

Amendment negatived.

MR. BIGGAR

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COURTNEY

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

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 25, to leave out the word "six," and insert the word "eighteen."—(Mr. Courtney.)

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

MR. SYNAN

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

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

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

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

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

THE C'CONOR DON

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

MR. FAWCETT

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

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

MR. C. S. PARKER

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

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

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

MR. A. MOORE

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

MR. ERRINGTON

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

MR. COURTNEY

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

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 41: Majority 123.—(Div. List, No. 208.)

MR. COURTNEY

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

THE CHAIRMAN

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

MR. COURTNEY

replied that he did not.

MR. MELLON

begged to move, in page 2, line 4, after "six," to insert— That at any election of such elected members of the Senate, each member of Convocation shall have as many votes as there are persons to be elected, and shall be entitled to accumulate them or distribute them at his pleasure. The principle was accepted everywhere else; and as it would work very well in the Bill he thought it might be inserted.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

SIR HENRY JAMES

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

MR. MELLON

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

MR. DILLWYN

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

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

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

MR. RITCHIE

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

MR. SHAW

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

MR. MELDON

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BIGGAR moved, in page 2, line 8, to leave out from "and" to the end of line 9, inclusive. This clause fixed the franchise, and gave votes to gentlemen who had been educated in the Queen's University. He did not understand why they should have that clause; and he thought only elected members should be graduates of the new University, and that the whole of the elections should be left in the hands of those gentlemen.

MR. SHAW

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

MR. BIGGAR

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

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

MR. P. MARTIN

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

MR. GRAY

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

MR. BIGGAR

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

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

Clause, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Convocation).

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

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

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 17, after the word "graduate," to insert the words "and of professors of the University."—(Mr. Lyon Playfair.)

Question proposed. "That those words be there inserted."

MR. O'DONNELL

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

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

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

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

MR. SYNAN

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

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

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

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

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

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 174: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 209.)

MR. COURTNEY

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

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

MR. MACARTNEY

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

MR. COURTNEY

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

MR. NEWDEGATE

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

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

MR. PLUNKET

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

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

MR. SYNAN

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

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

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

MR. PLUNKET

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

MR. NEWDEGATE

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Election of vice-chancellor) agreed to.

Clause 6 (Power to confer degrees) agreed to.

Clause 7 (Provisions of charter).

MR. O'DONNELL

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

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Examinations).

MR. COURTNEY

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

MR. O'DONNELL

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

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

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

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

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

MR. SHAW

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

MR. FAWCETT

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

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

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

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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

MR. COURTNEY

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN moved the omission from line 42, page 2, of the words "degrees and such."

MR. O'DONNELL

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BIGGAR

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

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (General Powers of Senate and Convocation) agreed to.

Clause 10 (Dissolution of Queen's University).

MR. O'DONNELL

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

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

MR. O'DONNELL

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

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 (Transfer of property).

MR. O'DONNELL

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

MR. O'DONNELL

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

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 32, after the word "University," to insert the words "and the endowments of the Queen's Colleges."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE O'CONOR DON

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

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

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

MR. NEWDEGATE

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

MR. SHAW

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

MR. SYNAN

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

MR. O'DONNELL

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

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

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

MR. GRAY

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

MR. PARNELL

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

MR. COURTNEY

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

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

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

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

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

THE CHAIRMAN

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

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 130: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 210.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 (Saving for Queen's Colleges).

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE moved, in page 4, line 6, after "University," to insert— The professors of the said colleges shall be called or designated, as at present, University professors; and the said colleges shall be hereafter called or designated Queen's University Colleges. The noble Lord said, his Amendment did not raise over again, as might appear at first sight, the question which he and his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had brought forward at an earlier stage. It was not an Amendment intended in any way to, nor did it, come into opposition to the Queen's College Professors. It was simply meant to secure to the Queen's College Professors, so that they should suffer no diminution of status or title by this Bill. He believed that was the intention of the measure; but he doubted whether, as now drawn, it would be carried out.

MR. J. LOWTHER

expressed a hope that the Amendment would not be pressed.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HOLT

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

MR. O'DONNELL

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

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

MR. MACARTNEY

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

Clause agreed to.

New Clauses.

New Clause (Saving of rights of officers of Queen's University).

Clause read a second time.

On Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill?"

MR. PLUNKET

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

MR. NEWDEGATE

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

THE CHAIRMAN

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

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. J. LOWTHER moved, in page 3, after Clause 8, to insert the following Clause:—

(Senate to prepare scheme.)

"And whereas it is desirable to promote the advancement of learning in Ireland by means of the creation, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of exhibitions, scholarships, fellowships, and other prizes, and also by the erection of suitable building's in connection with the University to be established under the said Charter: Be it Enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Senate, within twelve months after their first appointment, to prepare and forward to the Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, a scheme for the better advancement of University Education in Ireland, by the provision of buildings, including examination rooms and a library, in connection with the University to be founded under any such charter, and by the establishment of exhibitions, scholarships, fellowships, and other prizes, or any of such matters, in which scheme the following conditions shall be observed:—

1. "(1.) The said several exhibitions, scholarships, fellowships, and other prizes shall be awarded for proficiency in subjects of secular education, and not in respect of any subject of religious instruction;
2. "(2.) They shall be open to all students matriculating or who have matriculated in the University, and the scheme may propose that they shall be awarded in respect of cither relative or absolute proficiency, and that they shall be subject to any conditions as to the age of the candidates, their standing in the University, their liability to perform duty, and otherwise, as the Senate shall think expedient;
3. "(3.) In fixing the value and number of the said several exhibitions, scholarships, fellowships, and other prizes, the senate shall have regard to the advantages of a similar kind offered by the University of Dublin and Trinity College to students matriculated in that University, so as to avoid as far as possible any injury to the advancement of learning in that University and college;
4. "(4.) Provision shall be made that no student holding any exhibition, scholarship, fellowship, or other similar prize in any other University, or in any college attached to a University, or in any college endowed with public money, shall hold any of the said exhibitions, scholarships, fellowships, or other prizes in the University to be created by the said Charter without taking the value of such previous exhibition, scholarship, fellowship, or other similar prize into account.

"Such scheme shall, within three weeks after the same shall have been forwarded by the senate to the Lord Lieutenant or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, be laid before both Houses of Parliament if Parliament is sitting, or, if not, then within three weeks after the beginning of the next ensuing Session of Parliament."

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

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

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lyon Play fair.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

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

MR. COURTNEY

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

MR. BIGGAR

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

MR. SHAW

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

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

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

MR. FAWCETT

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

THE O'CONOR DON

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 128: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 211.)

SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN

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

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Sir David Wedderburn.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.