COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th August.] (Hansard, 6 August 1879)

HC Deb 06 August 1879 vol 249 cc290-362 290

§ Bill considered in Committee.

§ (In the Committee.)

§ New 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 buildings 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 he observed:—

(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.) 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 either 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.) 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.) 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.)—(Mr. James Lowther.)

§ Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,
in moving that the clause be read a second time that day three months, said, that before it went any further he hoped the Government would tell them what seemed to him to be the gist of the whole matter—namely, what money they proposed to give under it. They had told them what money they proposed to give under the Intermediate Education Act of last year, and he could not see any reason why such information should be withheld on the present occasion. As far as he was concerned, that was really the whole matter. He did not propose to make any objection to the Bill upon religious grounds; but would extend religious equality to all, and endeavour, as far as possible, to conciliate the Irish Representatives, and respect the prejudices of the Irish people. He felt, however, very considerable difficulty in dis- 292 playing respect to those prejudices by giving over a large sum of money, altogether disproportionate to the grants made to other parts of the Kingdom. He did not object to the due consideration of the prejudices of the Irish people; but there was no doubt that those prejudices had for some time been favourable to denominational education. He confessed he was very much startled when the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) said what would be the effect of the Intermediate Education Bill. The hon. Gentleman told them that the result of that Bill was to encourage the most ultra denominationalism it was possible to conceive; that the effect of the Bill was to give the money almost entirely to the Jesuists and to nunneries. He (Sir George Campbell) had since heard that 96 or 97 per cent of the money would really go to Roman Catholic Institutions of that kind. He was very much startled when such an authority made that statement, and it seemed to him a very strange argument wherewith to induce the House to pass the present Bill, which approached very similar lines. After full consideration, he was inclined to think that the hon. Member for Roscommon was right, after all. He was inclined now to think with the hon. Gentleman that since they had gone so far and made such a false step as to pass a Bill of such an intensely denominational character to deal with Intermediate Education, it was scarcely worth while to make any great objection to their proceeding on a like course as regarded University Education. Therefore, upon religious grounds, he was not going to make any objection to the proposal of the Government; but upon financial grounds he had the greatest possible objection, because it did seem to him that what was intended was to try and smooth over existing difficulties by throwing a sop to the Irish Members, which sop was to be taken out of the English and Scotch taxpayers' pockets. That objection would not be removed until he knew what money had to be given; how and from what source it was to be given; and, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Lowther) an opportunity of stating those things, he should move that the clause be read a second time that day three months. It 293 seemed to him that the Government had lately entered upon a succession of sops to the Irish Members which had always come out of the taxpayers' pockets. Last year the sop was a large sum given in the shape of the Intermediate Education Act; and this year they had had two sops. To one of these sops he could offer no objection—namely, the voting of a portion of the Irish Church Fund to primary education; but now they were to have a sop in addition to that for primary education. Now the Government proposed to give a sop of an unknown amount with regard to University Education. It was for that reason that he and others wished to know, before they went further, what was the amount which it was proposed to grant. He had, on former occasions, remarked that there was a considerable rapprochementbetween the Government and the Members below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed to be rather pleased when such a suggestion was made, because, he said, he was always glad to conciliate the Irish Members. He (Sir George Campbell) had not the least objection to it either, so long as he did not do it by extracting money from the pockets of the English and Scotch people. With regard to the University Question, he might observe that a little time ago there appeared to be some suspicion of benevolence on the part of the Government towards the Bill of the hon. Member for Roscommon, and now there appeared to be a little benevolence towards the Bill of the Government on the part of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), and those hon. Members who acted with him. It was evident that they hoped to get a good lump of money by the Bill. They regarded the Bill as the first stepping-stone towards what they wanted to have; it would not, in their opinion, have a settling effect, but it would give them so much money to the good. He doubted very much the policy of continually throwing these big sops. If a man had a savage and troublesome dog which annoyed the neighbours, it might be dangerous to continually throw him big sops. The more the dog got the more he would want, and would make himself very disagreeable if his request were not acceded to. There was also 294 one further view of the matter—the Government might be doubtful as to their position, and might be throwing out these sops to the Irish Representatives with the view of improving it; but if the Irish Representatives were accustomed to have too much of their own way, government by a Liberal Administration would be wholly impossible. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was stated to have said—"The fact of the matter is, we intended to do nothing, and we should hardly have managed it, if the Irish Members had not assisted us." He (Sir George Campbell) would not have thought that the Irish Members were ready to assist them without a bribe. While he said that, however, he thoroughly acknowledged that they owed a considerable debt to Ireland with regard to primary education; but with respect to University Education he would submit three reasons why the present Bill should not be passed. The first reason was that as regarded this question of giving what he presumed to be a large additional grant from their pockets for University Education, he would submit that it would involve giving to Irish University Education from their pockets an amount of money wholly disproportionate to that which was given towards education in other parts of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members from Ireland seemed to have shown considerable jealousy with regard to the grants given for Scotch University Education. Now, what were the total grants for Scotch University Education? They figured in the Estimates at £18,706. What was the grant already made for Irish University Education, quite apart from the endowment of Trinity College, or apart from the Parliamentary grants? There was paid out of the Consolidated Fund, for that purpose, £21,000; there was another £5,000 for the Queen's University, which was to be the new University; an additional grant of between £5,000 and £6,000 devoted to the expenses of the Queen's Colleges, and another £5,000 or £6,000 given for building purposes. So it was perfectly clear that for University Education in Ireland there was given no less than £37,000, which was exactly double what was now given to Scotland. Now, the population of Ireland was not double the population of Scotland; and as re- 295 garded intellectual requirements, the people of Ireland did not exceed the people of Scotland, and still less was that the case in regard to the advance of education. Therefore, it was quite clear that for University Education Ireland already received from this House a great deal more in proportion than Scotland; and if it were, as he understood it, that the effect of the present clause would be that a large additional sum would be given to Ireland, the grant for Irish University Education would be totally and enormously out of proportion. It was necessary that the matter should be settled, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should tell them whether Her Majesty's Government meant to increase the endowment, or by what means they intended to make the grant without further taxation. That was one very cogent reason why they should not proceed with the clause now before the Committee. Well, then, he had another reason, with regard to which he thought he should have more sympathy from hon. Members from Ireland. It was undoubtedly the case that they left undisturbed the existing grants to Queen's Colleges, while the additional funds for University Education were to be common to the whole of Ireland. Why, then they created what he meant to say was a palpable inequality, and while that existed the Bill would be an unsettling Bill rather than a settling one. It was impossible that there could be anything like equality while they had certain Colleges getting all their grants from this House, and other Colleges which received no such grants. That, he thought, was an argument in which he had the sympathy of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. There was another view of the case which he took. It was quite right that they should be as liberal as possible to Ireland; but the opinion he had formed, from observation in a good many parts of the world, was that there was no greater injury that could be done to any country than that its higher education should be in excess, and out of proportion to the lower education given in that country. It seemed to him that they would do an injury to Ireland if they were to increase its University grants—they would have the head more powerful than the tail. Whilst primary education in Ireland was still deficient, they 296 would be creating a State aid for higher education which would be wholly out of proportion. The result of that would be a very bad effect upon the people who were over-educated in the upper ranks. The people of England and America were beginning to feel that there were considerable evils attaching to higher education, one of which was that there were now too many people who would not work with their hands. He had had too much experience of that in Bengal, where University Education had gone ahead of primary education; and there was another country, in regard to which it was notably so—he alluded to Greece. All the disturbances and difficulties of Greece were greatly due to excessive University Education. The Greeks were an admirable race from a commercial point of view; and he did not think the Irish had rivalled them in that respect.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he must point out to the hon. Member that the observations which he was offering to the Committee, though they might be applicable on a certain stage of the Bill, had no direct reference to the clause now before the Committee. The clause provided for the establishment of certain prizes and buildings under a distinct Charter, and it would be well if the hon. Gentleman would confine himself to the clause now under consideration.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, that his object was to prove that the effect of the clause was to create an additional endowment for University Education, and to submit that it would be an injury to the people of Ireland to give them too much University Education. He was quite ready to admit that the Irish element they had in the House was an excellent one. No doubt, it imparted to the proceedings a variety and a liveliness which they would be without had they not the presence of the Irish Representatives; but be was also inclined to think that the result of increasing the University Education of Ireland would be that they would have three or four times the present number of highly-educated Irish Gentlemen in the House, and they might have a little too much of that liveliness. Perhaps he would not be out of Order in explaining what his view of the matter was, and in explaining the mode in which be thought that the Government might meet the diffi- 297 culty in a satisfactory manner. He could Lost do that by reading; the Amendment he had upon the Paper on going into Committee on the previous day, but which he was unable to move— That this House is prepared to accept a measure analogous to the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act of 1878, provided the total charge on public funds for higher education in Ireland is not increased; the arts department of the Queen's Colleges being absorbed in the new scheme: and (State Colleges confined to physics and professional education. That was the suggestion he desired to make, the effect of which would be the end of the Arts department of the Queen's Colleges; that they should apply the money to the general purposes of University Education under the present Bill; and that they should reserve, probably, two of the present Queen's Colleges as special Colleges for professional and scientific education. That would meet the wishes of the Irish people, without taking any additional money out of the pockets of the people of England. He thought the wording of the clause which was now before the Committee was such that it might be possible that the Government intended to do something of the kind; but he was afraid, judging from observations which had fallen from them, that, in reality, their intention was to give a large additional grant, which he must again describe as an unwarrantable sop to the Irish Members. He wished to vindicate his consistency in that respect, because, when another Bill dealing with the question was before the House, he objected to giving a large grant out of the Irish Church Funds to University Education, because he thought it had better be given to primary education. Now, the Government had acted upon that view which he then expressed, and had given those funds to primary education. But it seemed to him that their position was still worse, if the grant, instead of being given for primary education, was to be given to University Education. He understood that the Lord Chancellor could not assent to the funds of the Irish Church being devoted to Irish University Education, although he had not given expression to such an opinion in the House of Lords. In conclusion, he hoped they would receive some information from the Chief Secretary upon the points he had raised.

298

§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and insert at the end of the Question "this day three months."—(Sir George Campbell.)

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that it was not the practice in Committee to move that a new clause should be read a second time that day three months. It should be met with a direct negative.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, that in that case he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Campbell) had asked him a simple question—whether he was prepared to state the financial arrangements which would be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the Bill? If the hon. Member would refer to the marginal note at the end of the clause, he would find that the proposal of the Government was to prepare a scheme, and within a certain specified time submit it to the House. It was impossible to say what the scheme would involve until they knew what it was. The hon. Gentleman had proceeded to throw out a great number of suggestions which appeared to him (Mr. J. Lowther) as being eminently calculated to develop ideas which might result in a lengthy discussion upon matters with which the Bill had nothing whatever to do. He was rather slow to refer to the question of education in India or Greece upon which the hon. Gentleman had dwelt and about which, no doubt, he was well informed. The hon. Gentleman next proceeded to repeat the statement which he had made on a previous occasion, that it was the policy of the Government to throw sops to Irish Members. He, however, did not object to the sops, presuming them to exist, which he (Mr. J. Lowther) did not, provided they did not come out of the pockets of himself and of taxpayers. The hon. Member then went on to describe the sops, and said that there was a large sop in the shape of the Intermediate Education Act; and that this year, in addition to the present Bill, there was another large sop out of the pockets of the taxpayers in the shape of the National School Teachers Bill.

299

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, he referred to the increase of the National School teachers' salaries.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER,
resuming, said, that no doubt in that case the hon. Member was correct in saying that it came out of their pockets; but he was inaccurate in describing the other funds dealt with as emanating from the pockets of the national taxpayers. The hon. Member had further said that if money was given for this new scheme a corresponding increase ought to be made in the case of Scotland, and that they ought to know how much money was likely to be recommended by the Senate in support of the scheme suggested under the Bill. There was no power in the Bill to enable the Senate or anybody else to dictate to Parliament as to the sum of money to be expended. There was only power to submit the scheme to the House; and it would be fully competent for hon. Gentlemen to discuss the scheme, or to endeavour to induce Parliament to reject it. There would be every opportunity for the fullest discussion. He would venture to throw out the hope that in the few precious hours that remained they would not be drawn into a discussion as to primary education and intermediate education, or as to the relative claims of Scotland and Ireland with regard to higher education. There was no intention or wish on the part of the Government to hurry on the discussion. All that they asked was that the time devoted to the consideration of the measure should be consumed in its bonâ fide discussion, and not with side issues.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
desired to make only one remark relative to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy's (Sir George Campbell's) criticism upon the Bill and upon the present clause. One statement of the hon. Gentleman was wholly erroneous. The hon. Member had stated that the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had informed him privately, presumably, that 96 or 97 per cent of the money given under the Intermediate Education Act went to conventual schools. [Mr. MITCHELL HENRY: Agreed.] The hon. Member for Galway was listened to with great patience on the previous day. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) did not agree, for from whatever source that statement emanated it was entirely wrong, and ought to be cleared up. The hon. Member 300 for Roscommon was present in the House; he was one of the Commission, and knew better than any other Member what the facts were. Perhaps he would explain that there was no foundation for the statement made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.

THE O'CONORDON
said, that as he had been pointedly alluded to by the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) he might be permitted to make an explanation. He was not present when the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) spoke upon the subject; but what he (the O'Conor Don) did say on the occasion referred to was that a very large proportion—he did not think he estimated it at 97 per cent—voted for Intermediate Education went to denominational schools. He did not say Catholic schools, but denominational schools, and, of course, amongst these institutions were Jesuit Colleges and convents. Therefore, he argued, if there was nothing which hon. Gentlemen could object to in the voting of a portion of the Church Surplus for the Intermediate Education Act, which was more denominational than University Education, there could be no objection to devoting a portion of the Surplus to University purposes. He never said that a large proportion went to Catholic schools, but that the proportion of the money that went to Catholic schools would be very much in proportion to the relative number of the population.

MR. NEW DEGATE
said, the Government must remember that the great majority of the House was in no degree responsible for the time at which the measure was introduced; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland appealed to them to slip this Bill through——

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. What he did say was, that the Government in no way asked the House to hurry the discussion through; but he hoped, as time was short, they would not go into the question of education in India, or in other parts of the world, or go into any side issues.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE,
resuming, said, he was not surprised that Her Majesty's Government were exceedingly anxious that reference should not be made to the proceedings in respect to education in India, for there was a much 301 more apt illustration much nearer home—in respect of recent revelations relating to education in France. He could quite understand that, and he was disposed to make every allowance for the difficulties in which Her Majesty's Government found themselves placed. The Government seemed, for some reason hitherto totally unexplained, unable to refuse the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), without giving something in its place. He (Mr. Newdegate) had before commented on that fact. He could not understand the satisfaction that Irish Members experienced in finding the name of the Sovereign withdrawn from educational establishments in Ireland; but he perfectly agreed that in the makeshift measure which they had before them there were no elements which would justify the attachment of the name of the Sovereign to the University which was about to be created. On the contrary, there were the gravest objections to Her Majesty's name being in the slightest degree connected with the proposed establishment. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), representing as he did a Scotch constituency, was no doubt very contemptible in the eyes of hon. Members from Ireland. The Scotch were a quiet people—["Question!"]—but he very much doubted whether they would not remember the kind of treatment their Representatives experienced from, the Irish Members. ["Question!"] He could quite understand that the Home Rule Members, having pursued a course eminently detrimental to the action and constitution of the House, were surprised and delighted to find themselves rewarded for their labours by the present measure. Hon. Members could scarcely wonder at the allusions to which they had rendered themselves liable by the obstructive course they had pursued during the last two Sessions and the present Session. He was quite ready to admit the difficulty in which Her Majesty's Government found themselves placed; but he must remind Her Majesty's Ministers that, although this measure might be popular with a certain section of the Irish people, it was not likely to be popular either in Scotland or England; it was a measure, which would be viewed with the deepest suspicion, and none the 302 less from the circumstance, that Her Majesty's Government proposed to delegate enormous powers to a body, whom they had hitherto refused to name. He proposed, supposing the clause should proceed so far, to move an Amendment, by which he hoped to secure to Members of the House some information as to who were to be the Governing Body, to whom the House was now asked to delegate such enormous educational powers. The Government must not be surprised to find that the secrecy with which they proposed to act excited suspicion. The Members of the House would be grossly wanting to their functions and to their duty, if they voted public money without some assurance as to who was to have the spending of it. According to the present provisions of the Bill, the spending of the public money would be at the discretion of persons as yet unnamed. He did not wish to create unjustifiable obstruction to the Bill. It had been in troduced——

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
rose to Order. He submitted that this speech was upon the merits of the Bill, and the same objection which was made to the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) would apply now.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the observations of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) did appear to him to be, in a great measure, open to the observations he had addressed to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). He could not say that they were wholly unconnected with the clause; but it appeared to him that, in dealing with the clause, the hon. Gentleman had shown a disposition to take a very wide range, and it was desirable for the Committee to keep close to the principle of the clause before them.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE,
continuing, said, he always desired to treat the opinion of the Chairman with respect, and would be the last who would willingly do anything disorderly; but the clause was really in itself a new Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would extend to himself and other hon. Members an indulgence which the circumstances required. The addition of this clause had been postponed in a manner almost without precedent; for, coming in at the end, it proposed to make of the 303 measure nearly a new Bill, so largely would it alter the whole character of the Bill. There was nothing approaching to the present proposal in the Bill when it was originally produced in the House of Lords, or in the form in which it had reached this House; he, therefore, hoped the House would feel that the circumstances of the case justified the extended criticism which the proposal of this clause inevitably elicited, and the consumption of the time which it must occupy. He did not wish to detain the House unnecessarily, but to call attention generally to the necessity of providing that, when the scheme to be formulated by this unnamed body—the Senate—would be submitted to the House next Session, there should be secured full information on the whole subject, especially as regarded the constitution of the Senate, and further, not only as to the amount of money required, but as to the manner and method of directing and conducting the expenditure connected with the University.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
said, he would confine himself strictly within the four corners of the Amendment, and his speech should be brief, for he knew the anxiety of the Committee, and of the Irish Members, to get on; still, this was a very important clause, and there were one or two points which, without wasting time, it was absolutely necessary should be touched on in a few words. He wanted, first, to call attention to the words "relative or absolute proficiency," in the second paragraph. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who seemed to have a great talent for silence in seven languages, to explain the real meaning of those words. Although he could not exactly prove it, he believed they were put in at the very last moment when that clause was announced. The debate had gone on when, suddenly, a suggestion was thrown out by the hon. Member for Galway that payment should be made, not only for merit in scholarship, but also for passes. As far as he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) could make out, Her Majesty's Government clutched at the straw, like a drowning man. There was a little rush out of the House, and a little cooking up of this Amendment, which was then read out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer 304 at a later period of the evening. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) expected that those words, "absolute proficiency," were put in at the last moment as suggested by the hon. Member. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, no!] He was delighted to hear he was wrong in that, as it was only his impression, which many other hon. Members of the House shared with him. However that might be, he wanted to know now what the meaning of those words was? He supposed he would be told that the Senate would settle it; but was Parliament going to divest itself entirely of its legislative functions, and put in words of a vague and unknown meaning, which were to be afterwards defined, not by a Court of Justice, but by a Senate which Parliament itself was to appoint? He could not find those words in any Act of Parliament relating to these matters of any sort or kind; yet they were of the utmost importance, because if they did mean what the hon. Member for Galway demanded—payment for a pass—they were introducing an absolutely new principle in educational matters, and the University to be created would stand on a peculiar footing; for he knew no College, either in the United Kingdom or anywhere else, where persons were paid for passing a pass examination. Payments were made for merit; Scholarships were adjudged, and Fellowships were awarded; but payment for a pass was quite a new thing. He confessed himself, looking at the question not from any religious or denominational point of view, but strictly from an educational point of view, that he could not see why the money of the taxpayers of Ireland, just as much as the money of the taxpayers of England, was to be paid away to students for going through a pass examination. This point was of the utmost importance in its bearings on the 3rd section of the Bill, because in that it was enacted that nothing was to be done under this scheme which was to injure other educational institutions. He knew, however, of no other institution in which a payment was made for a pass; and, therefore, if they introduced into Ireland a new University where payments were given for a pass, it must stand to reason that students would be attracted to it from the existing Universities. He hoped the Government would not be silent on this 305 question, but would really give them an explanation of what was intended by those words. Again, they had a certain bearing on the 4th sub-section. There it was stated that if a student holding a Scholarship, or a Fellowship, or who had gained any other prize at any other University, obtained a prize in this now University, it was to be taken into account. That, however, did not exclude the student from a competition; and, therefore, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent students from other Universities crowding in under the double attraction of payments for the pass, and of facilities given for obtaining prizes in addition to those which they had already obtained in their own University. He confessed that there was, to his mind, a great deal to be said on this whole question, whether it was desirable, and, indeed, whether it was necessary, that they should allow students from other Universities to come crowding into this new University? He knew it would be said that it would tend to keep up the standard; but if they had a properly-constructed Senate, with adequate self-respect, which an eminent body of men would have, and a good set of men as Examiners, they certainly ought to be able to trust them to keep up that standard. There was a great educational objection, also, to this system of allowing what might be called double entries, because it encouraged a system of educational "pot-hunters." Men, under this scheme, would go from one University to another. They were told that men already came up from Cambridge and obtained the great prizes in London. But the two things were not at all alike. In London the prizes were very small in value indeed; but, then, to obtain the prize was a great honour. In the case of this University, however, the amount of money would be very great, and he was afraid it would produce a set of pot-hunters. Men, of course, were not able to keep their terms pari passu at Oxford and Cambridge; but they might, after obtaining a degree at Oxford, go to Cambridge. He knew that was done sometimes; but they were men who were never very well looked upon. If a man went to a University he was supposed to take it for better or worse, and he ought to stay by it, and be satisfied with the prizes it offered, and ought not to go from one to the other in order to put as 306 much money as he could into his pocket. They did not want to encourage in the educational world something like what he was told took place at race-meetings, where people entered their horses simply in order to get a share of the gate-money. They did not want to bring University Education down to the level of the Turf, and yet that was possibly what might come about under this clause. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), it was one more proof how very desirable it was that the expenses of this University should not be made the subject of an annual wrangle; but that the amount should be charged upon the Consolidated Fund, and settled once and for all, or, what would be far better, that they should pay it out of the Irish Church Surplus. He fully believed that until they had got rid of that Surplus there would be no peace about it; and he was beginning to think that the hon. Member was right who said, during the debates on the Irish Church Bill, that a time would come when they would find it necessary to tie up that Surplus in a bag and throw it into the sea.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
observed, that the difficulty in the interpretation of the words "relative" and "absolute" efficiency would have been cleared up, if his noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had only recollected the different systems of their own University and the University at Oxford. He was afraid he would have to say that that was the system at Cambridge; but, at all events, in their time it was a system of relative efficiency. There were the Senior and the Second and Third Wranglers, the Senior and the Second and Third Classics. At Oxford, on the other hand, they had the system of absolute efficiency, and there was nothing but a list of the first-class men. Of course, there might be plenty of University gossip as to who was the best man, and who had just shot in; but before the world the system was one of absolute efficiency. If he thought for a moment that this clause would result in a bribe to men to go in and pass the examination he should vote against it. No desire to help Ireland to a good thing would induce him to degrade academic training in this way; but he could not and would not 307 read the clause m the sense m which his noble Friend had read it. What was an Exhibition? A terminable annuity to an undergraduate. What was a Scholarship? It was a terminable annuity of a superior amount, carrying more privileges, and running into the earlier graduate days. What was a Fellowship? A terminable annuity granted after graduation. These money prizes and Scholarships and Exhibitions were things which were offered at every College in the University, and after each examination; and though they were often given in money, yet more generally they were given in books. How there should be so much difficulty about this question of absolute or relative efficiency passed his comprehension. As to the second point raised by his noble Friend, he (Mr. Beresford Hope) agreed with him very much that the Universities ought to be limited. He thought an Amendment might be moved, limiting matriculation degrees and prizes in this University to other Universities and Colleges in Ireland. He thoroughly agreed with his noble Friend in his objection to that peripatetic system of men tramping about the country getting an M.A. degree at St. Andrew's, and then coming down South to carry off the prizes from their own Universities. That certainly should be stopped; but there was another reason why he supported that view. This Bill was a Bill, as he ventured to say again, brought in exclusively to meet the peculiar circumstances of Ireland. It was a measure which they must regard exclusively as an Irish measure, as to which they must put on one side a good many persona' prepossessions, in order to deal with £ certain state of affairs in Ireland, which they hoped would be alleviated by it Why should they not make it a purely Irish University, and limit the degrees and prizes to Irishmen, or to men who had been for so many months studying in Ireland? That would also meet in e most substantial way the difficulty the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had raised yesterday, of the Irish University competing with the London University, and giving degrees at a less price and with less trouble. If this University were limited to Ireland, and London were limited to the whole world and such Irishmen as preferred to go there, there would be no trouble of this 308 kind; but for the sake of academic education generally, and to make this Bill a substantial boon to Ireland, and to meet the London University grievance, he hoped the clauses would be so dealt with as to show that this University was meant for the Irish.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
said, he thought Irish Members would not thank the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) for his interpretation of the words "relative" and "absolute." What those words meant in the present clause was that a student might be paid for having attained a standard proficiency, and not, as was the case at any existing University, for relative merit. There was a great danger of the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had practically admitted that the proposed system was one of concealed result fees. It was a system of fees paid to the scholar, but reaching, through him, the College. If the assistance to Irish University Education was to be really valuable to the education of Irish Catholics, these result fees must be very large. That was to say, that the Scholarships, Exhibitions, Fellowships, and so on, must be very large, in order that the Colleges might get, through the scholars, some assistance worth having. If these prizes to the scholars were small, the assistance to the Catholic education of Ireland would also be small. That would not be, and was not intended to be, the result of the working of the measure. Thus the country would be landed in a most unpleasant and lowering competition on the part of the new University as against the Universities in other parts of the Kingdom. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had said—"Make this University strictly limited to Ireland;" but that might lead to reprisals, and might shut out the Irish from the English and Scotch Universities. What could be more insulting to Ireland than such a proposition, which practically said to Irishmen that they must be protected from the competition of Englishmen and Scotchmen? In Scotland, Irishmen freely entered the Universities, and won the Bursaries, Exhibitions, and Scholarships, when they proved themselves the best men. The Scotch were delighted to have the hon- 309 our and advantage of competing with them. At one time Irishmen formed nearly a fifth of the students in Scotch Universities, though, at the present time, having got more Colleges of their own, they formed a smaller proportion. The state of affairs he had described as existing in his own country was very proper and desirable, and the idea of establishing a University which would not be open to the whole world—[Mr. J. LOWTHER: No, no!] The right hon. Gentleman said "No, no!". Then he (Mr. Lyon Playfair) supposed that the new University would be open to the whole world. If that was so, in what position would they be? The University would be the place of the keenest competition in the Kingdom; because, as he maintained, the Scholarships, Exhibitions, and other prizes must necessarily be very large in amount. Thus, competitors would come forward from England, Scotland, and Wales, as well as Ireland, not for the purpose of gaining knowledge, but simply to win the valuable prizes offered, and thus the legitimate object of assisting the poor of Ireland in getting a high-class education would be in a great measure defeated. In education the acquisition of knowledge was a noble motive; but the search for it to win gold was ignoble. He thought that that was an extremely serious objection. There was another point which he wished to mention. There could not be a high standard for the classes in the new University. He hoped that they would never adopt such high standards as those of the University of London, although those were in themselves admirable. Every year 700 medical men were required, and yet the London University, so high were its standards, only supplied 25 of them. In the same way, it only obtained about 50 Arts graduates per annum. Therefore, if the new University were to adopt such high standards, it would starve learning. Such standards would not suit a poor country. They would not suit Scotland nor Ireland. If, however, the new University had lower standards, as was necessary, it would come into direct competition with the University of London and other similar institutions, and students from all parts of the Kingdom, seeing much larger payments given for much smaller results than elsewhere, would flock to the Irish University 310 simply for the purpose of making money. This subject was surrounded with such great difficulties that he and other hon. Members were naturally anxious to know who were to be the members of the Senate intrusted with the drawing up of the scheme of prizes. They must have superhuman intelligence and ingenuity, to enable them to do good instead of harm, in drawing up their scheme. The whole Bill, in fact, was surrounded with dangers, and was most incoherent. The last part of the clause did not seem either to be drawn in the usual way. The scheme was to be laid before Parliament; but Parliament was not to have cognizance of it, or have a discussion on it under ordinary circumstances. That, certainly, would require alteration when they came to it.

§ MR. PLUNKET
said, this certainly would be a very serious matter, if he interpreted the clause in the same way as his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair). He (Mr. Plunket) was bound to say, however, that he interpreted it in an entirely different sense. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of it as an insult to Ireland, while other Irish Members had expressed their readiness to accept it.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
said, he did not call the Bill an insult to Ireland; he spoke of the proposal to limit the University to the Irish nationality, and no other, as an insult.

§ MR. PLUNKET
said, he did not know where the right hon. Gentleman got the idea from. Perhaps he had conjured it out of his own brain. [Cries of "Hope, Hope!"]

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, he had especially guarded himself against any such construction.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
said, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had based his observations on what he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had said he had mistaken his proposition.

§ MR. PLUNKET
was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon Play-fair), although very sincere in the cause of education, had been carried away by his zeal on this occasion. The clause took the natural view as to degrees and honours to be competed for, and said they should be open to everybody coming from England or Scotland who had 311 matriculated there, or should matriculate; there was no insult to Ireland in the matter. Passing away from that, it was much more important, however, to know whether there was any danger in the clause to existing institutions by undue competition for prizes. As one of the Members for the University of Dublin, he had looked very carefully into this matter, and he observed that care was taken by sub-section 3 to give protection to those institutions. Let him explain exactly what he understood, and what seemed to him the obvious and honest meaning of those words—"relative and absolute." The system already existed, as he understood, in the University he was proud to represent. That University gave prizes—not of a large amount, or to any stated number. The first and second honours were given according to an absolute standard. They sometimes found no one at all in the first-class, sometimes there were six, sometimes nine, and ten, and so on. In the second and third classes the same system was followed. Why should not they have the same system in the new University? It was quite a mistake to call these payments for a pass at all; it was payment for passing a certain standard of excellence. But it by no means followed that every individual who passed the University would be paid for so doing. That would be against the provisions of the 3rd subsection, which provided that no such plans should be suggested or carried out. With reference to the other point mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), that care should have been taken that men did not come from other Universities, he thought that was quite fair. No one was more unpopular in a University than a man who came back with long experience and advantage to pick up prizes never intended for him at all; but when they talked about a man paying additional fees, only to win the difference between the prize he had obtained elsewhere and the prize given by the new University, he thought the danger was becoming rather imaginary. If he thought there were any reason for that, he should very much rather see the Bill defeated; but, as far as he could see, the provisions of subsections 3 and 4 were quite sufficient to guard against that, and against what 312 really were nothing but imaginary consequences.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
Sir, I quite recognize the value of a great many of the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyon Play fair), and the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), and others, who have taken part in this discussion. Undoubtedly, the matter is one which requires very careful attention in regard to the several points which they have brought under our notice. I cannot help thinking, after all the discussion which has taken place this morning, that the actual position, and even the very nature, of the proposal which is contained in this clause is somewhat misunderstood. The Committee must bear in mind that what is now proposed is that the Senate, which is to be constituted in this new University, is to be charged to go carefully into the preparation of a scheme, the object of which is to provide, by Exhibitions, Fellowships, Scholarships, and other prizes, for the proper advancement of learning in Ireland. That is a very difficult and a very delicate task. We propose, in the clause, certain conditions which are to be observed in drawing up such a scheme, and these conditions indicate very nearly the general lines on which we think the Senate ought to proceed; but it must be borne in mind that after the Senate shall have prepared its scheme it will be worth nothing at all, unless Parliament votes the money which is to give effect to it. It is provided that the scheme shall, within a certain limited time, be laid before Parliament; and it will, of course, be for Parliament to consider it as fully as possible. There can be no objection to the words proposed to be added by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that the names of the Senate shall be given; but, as a matter of fact, long before the scheme can be laid before Parliament, the names of the Senate will have been so completely before the public that there can be no need of it whatever. Then, what will happen? We shall have to consider the scheme they prepare, and the relations of the University to the different educational institutions, and this will be a matter which will require very careful consideration, and which will guide Parliament in the course it may take, and in 313 the Votes it may be asked to pass. There seems to be an impression on the minds of some persons—and my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh takes care to magnify that impression—that when you have got a Senate, which is an unknown quantity in itself, it is to have power to draw up a scheme with very general directions, and that it will, of course, exercise the power it will have, by making proposals of enormous grants, and that Parliament will be in some way or other bound by them. I must say that I think all this is rather a hobgoblin. What will take place will be that the Senate will apply itself carefully to the consideration of the scheme, and they will have to bear in mind the conditions proposed here, and they will also have to bear in mind what is the amount it will be possible and reasonable to ask Parliament to vote. I must say, speaking for the interests of the Treasury, we should look rather critically at the amount that it might be proposed that we should submit to Parliament, and it is quite certain the House of Commons will always look very critically at any amounts which might be asked. The noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) threw out the suggestion that these words as to "relative and absolute" were an afterthought. I do not know upon what he founded that; I fancy upon something I said in the course of the discussion when the clause was first proposed. I beg to assure the noble Lord that he is entirely in error. What took place was that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in an earlier part of the discussion, gave a general indication of the kind of proposal we intended to place on the Paper. That was made the subject of some conversation, and a suggestion was then thrown out by the hon. Member for Galway that there should be something in the nature of result fees. Then, later in the day, I read the clause as drawn up and agreed to several days beforehand, and without, of course, any reference to what the hon. Member for Galway had said as to these result fees. This clause was, in fact, also a part of the proposals of the Government. With regard to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyon Play fair), that there was a sugges- 314 tion that we should insult the Irish nation by confining the benefits of this University to Ireland, I think no such suggestion ever was made, and I am quite sure it was not intended to be made by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). What he pointed out was that which was perfectly well known to all those at all acquainted with the working of our University system, that there are cases—I believe it applies especially to London—where men, who have received their education and are receiving their education at other Universities, and who have received and are receiving prizes and awards from those Universities, yet come down, with the advantages of their Oxford and Cambridge training, to carry off various prizes at London. I believe there is some dissatisfaction felt at this, and it is a matter which certainly deserves consideration and care. It is with reference to this that the 4th sub-section has been introduced into the clause; but nobody ever wished that the University should not be open to any Englishmen or Scotchmen who chose to go and matriculate there, and who chose to offer themselves for prizes. The only thing provided is that, if a man holds a prize, it must be taken into account when he comes to obtain a prize at this University. Hon. Gentlemen will see that the course of the Government is not only forced upon them by circumstances, but that it is the more convenient course with reference to obtaining a satisfactory settlement of this matter. In order to provide and establish a proper scheme for the working of such a University as is now under consideration, it is necessary that you should have the advice and assistance of persons thoroughly well qualified to take all the academical considerations into view, and to prepare and elaborate a scheme in the quiet of their own Senate houses or their own apartments. It would be impossible to work out by discussion in this House the details of such a scheme. You must have it, first of all, from those gentlemen, and when they have elaborated it, it then can be laid before Parliament. Of course, even then, this House will not be bound by the scheme, nor will it be compelled to make any grant to support a scheme of which it disapproves. I believe the effect of this proposal will be that the 315 Senate will give themselves carefully to the elaboration of a scheme, that we shall have it thoroughly put before us next Session, and that we shall then be called to give effect to it by Votes submitted to us. If we then find there are matters which require further elucidation, and Parliament is not thoroughly satisfied, explanations will be demanded, or Amendments can then be made.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he had not taken any part in this discussion, because if the Irish Members were satisfied with the Government proposal it would require a good deal to induce him to interfere. He would not, indeed, have said anything but for the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and he now only wished to say very shortly why he should vote for the clause. He thought it was, to some extent, open to the educational objection alluded to by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair); but he was very glad to find that the proposition to have an Irish University, at which no one out of Ireland need apply, was disowned. He was glad of that, because it seemed to him that the proposition had been received with some degree of approval. He could not imagine, however, that any hon. Gentleman could accept such a proposition, if he realized what it meant. Undoubtedly, if this University was to be open to every inhabitant of the Three Kingdoms, there would be cases in which some of these prizes would be won by Englishmen and Scotchmen, and that men who had been students at Glasgow and London, and had got a degree, would not be unlikely to come to this University, where they would get, not only a degree, but also money results. That, certainly, was an objection which applied to this mode of meeting the difficulties of the question more than to the mode of payment to the Colleges by result fees. He should vote, however, for the clause, because, in spite of these objections, he thought it was a mode of meeting what he considered a real Irish grievance. He thought it was a clumsy, and, as compared with the scheme of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), a comparatively inefficient mode of attaining the result desired—that of dealing with what was a real and just grievance; but he thought it did attempt to meet it, 316 and, at any rate, would do so to a great extent. The grievance was that their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in Ireland thought it right to have secular and religious education combined. They should not, therefore, lose the means of obtaining a degree of their share of State assistance. It was to meet this grievance that the hon. Member for Roscommon proposed his Bill, which went directly to the root of the question, by proposing to give assistance to the Colleges for secular education only. The Government found there was something in the grievance; but they could not meet it in the direct way. They could not propose that aid should be directly given to the Colleges, for they had the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) to fear, and they had a great many hon. Gentlemen also, who were frightened by the notion of giving any such aid. Therefore, instead of giving the money directly, they gave it indirectly. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer still indulged a pleasant hope that the money would not result in payment to these Colleges; but they all knew now very well that this clause, which made the Bill into a new Bill entirely, and which was, in fact, the essence of the proposition—a clause without which the Irish Members would not have thought it worth while to assent to the Bill—contained its essence in the word "absolute." They would have the prizes so arranged that they, perhaps, would be very considerable money-helps to the Colleges in which the young men were educated. He thought it was only fair they should do this. It would be much more straightforward and much more creditable to the House—he was not blaming the Government, for the House was much more to blame—if it had done this directly. There would have been greater safeguards for education if this money had been given to the Colleges direct. They would not then tempt young men to go to these places rather for money than for education, and the Bill would not be open to the very great objection that, instead of being an assistance to well-constituted Colleges-—though it would be an assistance to those Colleges also—it would assist gentlemen whom they knew in that House as "crammers." As re- 317 garded straight forwardness, he would have preferred the plan of the hon. Member for Roscommon; but as they could not put the matter straight on the Statute Book they must do it indirectly. That being a necessity, he supposed there was nothing for it but to accept the proposal of the Government. There was one other part of the clause to which he did object; but it was not an objection of sufficient moment to make him oppose the Bill. It was that part which would condemn the House to annual contests in this matter. He did not wish to have the time of Parliament taken up by these annual discussions, and he so far agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) that there should not be uncertainty in University Education. He was in great hopes that this Bill would now pass. It had been a remarkable process of education for hon. Gentlemen opposite, reminding them of another great Bill in which the same hon. Gentlemen were concerned. If it had been stated, on the day that the Government astonished the House at the end of the debate by announcing this new clause, that a Bill in this form would pass the House, some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, including, probably, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, would have been very much astonished. The Bill had come from the House of Lords in one shape; and then they knew very well what was the process of education pursued in former times. The measure was brought in with one interpretation, and then, while passing through the House, another interpretation was put upon it, and, as in this case, a much more satisfactory interpretation had certainly been arrived at. His hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire had been at school, and had been educated to some extent. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) hoped that he would not leave school very shortly; for, having been delighted to hear that his hon. Friend did not object to an annual grant by Parliament, there were strong reasons for hoping that before many years his hon. Friend would cease from resisting the making of a permanent grant.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that he did not remember a more marked instance of narrow-mindedness of modern Liberalism than the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Bradford (Mr. 318 W. E. Forster) had exhibited. He seemed to think that he (Mr. Newdegate) must be ignorant because he was a Protestant, and because, having opposed the Bill of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), he had now voted for the second reading of this Bill, when the right hon. Gentleman must know that in the present state of the House opposition was hopeless. He (Mr. Newdegate) would not uselessly expose himself to the imputation that he was unwilling to do what was called justice to Ireland. He was anxious to give facilities to any Irishman who, by presenting himself before competent Examiners, showed that he had ability which deserved support. But he was warned in this matter by the action that was now going on in France. At that moment, France was divided by faction. Several of the religious Orders of the Church of Rome, and especially the Jesuits, defied her laws and refused to submit their educational establishments to the supervision of the State. The Constitution of this country did not pretend to ignore those characteristics, and he objected to endowing such a Jesuit establishment as that of St. Francis Xavier, and several others in Dublin, just as he objected to repealing the clauses in the Relief Act of 1829 forbidding such establishments. The House had, in 1870, at his instance, granted a Select Committee to inquire concerning such Institutions, and it was proved before that Committee that the chief obstacle to the enormous extension of those establishments was their illegality, and their inability, therefore, to hold property in their own name. He had objected to the Bill of the hon. Member for Roscommon because it would have virtually, nay directly, have recognized, and thus have given a legal sanction to, while it would also have practically endowed, these Jesuit establishments. It might appear to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford that he (Mr. Newdegate) was extremely ignorant on this subject, and that he needed further education; he only wished that the right hon. Gentleman would extend his own education, for he seemed incapable of looking back into history, or of extending his views beyond the narrow confines of these Islands. If the right hon. Gentleman would look to France he might learn something, not from those who, like himself (Mr. Newdegate), he 319 regarded as blind Protestants, but from the Roman Catholics in France at the present moment.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, he wished to make a few remarks in reference to the idea which had been stated that this proposed new University should be confined to Ireland, because he could not but think that if that course were taken great injustice would be done. On that point he entirely agreed with what had been said by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair), who showed clearly the injustice which would result from the adoption of such a course. He (Mr. M'Laren) had himself recently examined the Returns showing the quarters from which the medical students who attended the University of Edinburgh in 1878 came. The total number of medical students was 1,146, of whom only 496 belonged to Scotland; and of the remaining 650, 406 were from England, 76 were from India and Ceylon, 120 from the Colonies, 28 from foreign countries, and 20 from Ireland. All these students, who were not Scotch students, were placed on a footing of perfect equality in every respect with their Scotch companions, the whole of them being equally eligible to compete for the prizes and degrees of the University. Under its regulations they might spend only one year in the University of Edinburgh, undergo the requisite examination, and win Bursaries, Scholarships, or other prizes. It would thus be seen how much Irishmen would lose were the idea carried out of confining Irish University Education strictly to Ireland; and he mentioned it in order to show that anything tending to exclusion in the new University would be unjust to other Universities existing in the United Kingdom. He (Mr. M'Laren) entirely differed from the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford—that the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) was better and more straightforward than that of the Government, which was now under discussion. Both Bills were, in his opinion, bad; but that of the Government was by far the least objectionable of the two. He could not admit the assumption that the giving of prizes to students attending the Irish University would necessarily result in such prizes going into the 320 pockets of students coming from other Universities. What he mainly rose to do, however, was to object to the 3rd section of the proposed new clause. It was in these terms— 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. It was here very broadly stated that a large sum of money taken from the people, not of Ireland only, but of the United Kingdom, was to be given to the new University, so as to enable it to compete on equal terms with the rich endowments of an older University—endowments that were not derived from the taxation of the people. It was one thing to give a rich prize from an old endowment fund, and another to give it from the pockets of the people at large. This was not fair to the people of England and Scotland, as compared with those of Ireland. The whole revenue derived from the latter country was £6,500,000 per annum; while that from Scotland, notwithstanding its much smaller population, was £7,840,000. Therefore, whatever sum of money was paid under this Bill, a corresponding larger amount would be paid by Scotland than by Ireland, and a still greater proportion would be paid by England. But that was not all. According to a Paper recently produced by the Secretary to the Treasury, it was shown that the special grants to Ireland amounted to £1,600,000 yearly, while to Scotland they were only £396,000. These sums included the charges for the police of both countries. It therefore appeared that as Ireland contributed a revenue of only £6,500,000 and got back £1,600,000, her not contribution to the National Exchequer was less than £5,000,000. On the other hand, Scotland's net contribution was £7,400,000. It was, therefore, quite plain that of whatever sum was granted to the new University Scotland would pay 50 per cent more than Ireland, although the Institution was claimed to benefit Irishmen solely. He did not mention these facts because he wanted anything for Scotland, but merely to show the injustice of much of the criticism, which had been uttered in 321 respect of this Bill, and that of the hon. Member for Roscommon. With respect to the way in which the money was employed in the Queen's Colleges, he would only make one or two remarks. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon had shown that there were prizes for nearly every student, and that they were given away apparently in the most lavish manner. He (Mr. M'Laren) had made a calculation that the Queen's Colleges get £32,600 a-year from the Imperial Exchequer, while their students were less than 1,000 in number. Every one of these students must, therefore, cost the country over £32 annually. The money which had been devoted to these Colleges was intended for the benefit of all Ireland, but all Ireland would not accept of it; and he wanted to know, therefore, why part of that money could not be applied to the purposes of a University which was intended for the great majority of the Irish people. What was the position of the Scotch Universities? The amount contributed to them by Parliament was only £16,085, and as there were about 5,000 students, it followed that only £3 6s. was contributed out of the Imperial Exchequer for every Scotch University student, against more than £32 for every student of the Queen's Colleges. As he said before, he was not asking for anything for Scotland; but when he found that Ireland received so much more in respect of University Education, he was entitled to ask that a part of the money already granted to Ireland, which the Roman Catholics would not accept of, should be devoted to the new University intended specially for their benefit. Considering how undue would be the proportion of the money supplied by the inhabitants of Scotland and England, he hoped the subsidy would be considerably modified.

MR. MACARTNEY
desired to say a few words as to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair). He (Mr. Macartney) was very much surprised to hear that right hon. Gentleman say that, by giving in this now University Scholarships of a substantial and valuable nature, they would be likely to deter poor men from entering for the purpose of education.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
said, he had never made any statement of that kind. On the contrary, he said that the object 322 of Scholarships was to induce poor men to enter.

MR. MACARTNEY
certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman, in one portion of his speech, to say that there were prizes or advantages held forth by this scheme of University Education which would not fulfil the purpose for which a measure of the kind ought to be brought in—namely, the education of the poorer classes in Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman said that such was not his meaning, then, of course, what he (Mr. Macartney) was going to say fell to the ground. The hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. M'Laren) had had complained, in rather serious terms, of the disadvantage, in a pecuniary sense, to which Scotland would be put if the Bill became law; but he forgot, altogether, that if there was one part of the United Kingdom well furnished with educational Institutions it was Scotland, where there were four endowed Universities, as against the two possessed by Ireland. [Mr. M'LAREN: But not supported by Parliament.] No; but in the same way as Oxford, Cambridge, or Trinity, from old endowments. But if they limited Universities to Universities not established with public money, then Ireland would remain with only two. But he merely wanted to say that he was not very much in love with the measure; but he, with others, had accepted it in the belief that it might prove a beneficial compromise. The Government had a very difficult task to perform in finding a plan acceptable to hon. Members who said they represented Ireland, and acceptable, at the same time, to those Irish Members who wore not disposed to swallow the measures proposed from the other side of the House. And now, considering how far the Bill had already progressed, he hoped it would not be opposed further by hon. Members who merely desired to air their own particular crotchets, and ride their own hobby-horses.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, his object in rising was not to prolong the discussion, but to offer a suggestion. It seemed to him that many of the points which had been discussed on the proposal of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) to reject the clause might be, and must, in fact, be raised on the Amendments to be moved to the clause; and, therefore, they might be in danger 323 of having that discussion twice over. For instance, frequent reference had been made to the very serious objection associated with putting the money intended to be given to the new University on the annual Votes, instead of giving it at once, either out of the Irish Church Surplus, or the Consolidated Fund. Certainly, he intended to move an Amendment on the clause which would raise that point, and, of course, it could then be discussed. Then, again, with regard to the question of absolute proficiency—an important point—he knew that an hon. Friend of his intended to move an Amendment to strike out those words; and, consequently, an opportunity would be afforded, later on, of saying whatever might be thought desirable on that point. He only wished to make one or two observations at the present time, in order to prevent a possible misunderstanding. His right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had said that he liked the Bill of the Government less than he liked the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). So far as he (Mr. Fawcett) understood his right hon. Friend, one reason why he objected to the Government Bill, and liked the measure of the hon. Member for Roscommon County, was that the latter would have carried out more fully than the present Bill the principle of result fees. Well, he could only say, differing from his right hon. Friend on this point, that the reason why he liked the Government measure better was that it would carry out less fully the principle of result fees, and he should like it still better if it did not carry out that principle at all. He did not wish, on the present occasion, to raise again a discussion about result fees; but, considering the distinguished position which his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford occupied on that side of the House, it was well that he (Mr. Fawcett) should say that he did not believe that, in expressing the opinions which he had expressed that day, his right hon. Friend expressed the opinions entertained even by the majority, much less by the entire, Liberal Party. He (Mr. Fawcett) thought the Government had already gone too far; but if they had gone further in the direction sketched out by his right hon. Friend, the danger that 324 they would have had to encounter was, he thought, shown by a recent Division which took place in that House, on which occasion 14 Members sitting on the Front Opposition Bench voted one way, and took 28 English and Scotch Liberals with them; while those forming the independent section of the Party took with them exactly double that number of English and Scotch Liberals. Therefore, without saying now which was right, or which was wrong, he certainly thought that if the Government had gone further in the direction which his right hon. Friend had advised they would have met, not only with a considerable opposition on their own side, but also with a very serious opposition from that side of the House.

§ MR. C. S. PARKER
thought that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had given excellent advice; and he, for one, meant to follow it. He should not say a word in regard to any points which could be discussed properly upon Amendments to the clause; and he only wished, as a Scotch Member, to give his support to the second reading of the clause, and to say a word or two only on its principle. The principle on which Parliament had hitherto acted in this matter had been to give national aid to no University Education in Ireland which was not conducted on the principle of mixed, or joint education. In the Bill which had already been read a second time, the Bill as it stood without this clause, a certain definite advance had been made. The principle of the Bill, which the House had already accepted, was that henceforward the State should give aid and should give degrees in Ireland to men who might not have been educated jointly, but as they pleased. Well, what was the principle of this clause, as distinct from that of the Bill? He took it that the principle of the clause was that there should be further and sufficient endowments, in order that the new system might have adequate working power. When the Bill was introduced without this clause it was almost impossible to believe that it embodied the whole plan; because it resembled, one might say, a watch without a mainspring. The endowments of the Queen's University, transferred to the new University, were not sufficient to give the latter working power; and the principle of this clause, he understood, was to give further and 325 sufficient endowments. He might make one remark, not on a point of detail, but on the question whether this was a direct or an indirect way of proceeding. Some language had been used by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford which he thought could not have been very palatable to Members of the Government. He certainly used the word "indirect" in a manner which might be considered as somewhat offensive. Now, the question as to whether any course was direct or indirect must depend upon the end which they had in view, because what was a direct path to one end might be a very indirect path to another end. He gave the Government credit for this—that the end they had in view was to give sufficient support by endowment to education in the now University, and he apprehended that they had no more direct way to that end than by giving pecuniary assistance to the students themselves. If their end was to assist the Roman Catholics of Ireland especially, then he admitted that to pay the students would be an indirect course to that end. But if the object which the Government had in view was that which they professed—namely, not to endow Roman Catholicism, but education, then he thought the most direct mode of doing it was that adopted in this clause. He should say nothing now on the details of the clause, because they could be discussed later on; but there was one other important point of principle which, if pointed out, might save a great deal of discussion. The principle on which the clause was drawn was, that Parliament should not close the question at the present time, when the details of the scheme were not before it. It was remarked the other day that in some respects the Bill, with this new clause, was almost equivalent to a Royal Commission. It had certainly a resemblance to the mode of proceeding by Royal Commission; and it was most important that they should remember that the clause proposed to put the whole thing into the hands of competent academical authorities, that they might draw up a scheme, and distinctly reserved to Parliament criticism upon that scheme hereafter, whether as to the amount of the endowments, the mode of their distribution, or the standards of proficiency. Therefore, he thought they should not 326 now discuss these details, but should give an united support to the clause, and next Session they would have an opportunity before the money was voted of entering into details.

§ MR. COURTNEY
agreed fully with his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) that it was inexpedient to raise discussions now which would be renewed again by-and-bye; and, therefore, he was not going to enter into any discussion of the merits of the proposal to make grants "in respect of either relative or absolute proficiency," inasmuch as he proposed, when they came to these words, to move their omission. But occasionally it led to economy of time to get some points in dispute cleared up; and, in relation to this matter, he could not help seeing that there was some confusion at present in the Committee as to what was intended, which might be removed before they really entered on the discussion of the Amendments to the clause. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had said that if he thought by these words it was meant to give prizes in the form, of Exhibitions to persons for pass examinations he would most stoutly oppose it. He thought that if his hon. Friend would look at the previous subsection he would see that there was a danger of something of that kind being intended, because it was there stated that the prizes should be awarded for proficiency. But he did not want to dwell upon that point now. What he did wish to point out to his hon. Friend was this. He also said that it would be well to avoid competition between the University of London and the new University—competition which might seriously affect the standard required in either of these Universities—by confining the new University to Irishmen, so that it should be for Ireland, while he went on to say that the University of London should be open to all the world.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
wished to explain. His noble Friend the Member for Calne(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had pointed out the evils of "marauding students," and, without laying down any I hard-and-fast rule, he (Mr. Beresford Hope) was dwelling on the necessity of preventing the new University becoming a hunting field for the whole world.

327

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, he would like to know how his hon. Friend proposed to do that.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, he was not the Senate, to whom it would have to be left. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, hon. Members might cheer that remark; but either they were going to exclude certain persons who went for this object, or not. The "marauding students," as they had been called, were very well known to the University of Cambridge. They came from Scotland, from London, and elsewhere; and he did not see how, if residence was not essential, it would be possible to exclude them from the new University. He could not appreciate the way in which it was proposed to meet the difficulty; but he would reserve his criticisms on the point.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, that before the clause was put he thought there ought to be an answer to the simple question put at the beginnings—namely, what was to be the limit of the money to be given under it? It was no answer to say that the amount was to be fixed by the Senate, for there could be no possible limit if the Senate was to have carte blanche in the matter. He much feared that if the scheme of the Senate was laid before Parliament and the country, just on the eve of a General Election, Her Majesty's Government would not be much inclined to deal harshly with it, even though it proposed a large expenditure of public money. He could not but remark upon the strange and unwonted unanimity of silence on the part of the Irish Members. ["Hear, hear!"] It was quite clear that they did not want to prolong the discussion. [Cheers] It had been said that if the Irish Members were satisfied there was no reason why others should not be. But they had to pay for it, and he did not think it was conclusive in favour of the Bill that the Irish Members were satisfied and silent. It was a silence which he feared was due to the fact that the Senate were to be endowed with practically unlimited powers to endow the new Irish University out of money provided by the taxation of the whole United Kingdom. He had been looking at the Estimates of the London University, and he found that the grants for Scholarships and Exhibitions there were extremely mode- 328 rate. If the Government would assure them that the endowments were to be fixed on the scale of the London University, he, for one, would cease his opposition.

§ MR. FAWCETT
appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) not to divide against the clause, because, if he did, he would place many hon. Members in a very awkward position. If the clause was amended, some of them would not object to it; but, if it was not amended, they would have a straighter issue on the proposal that the clause be added to the Bill, because, then, they would divide upon the broad question.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, he should challenge the Question, but not insist on a Division.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Clause read a second time accordingly.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, he had now a very important Amendment to propose—an Amendment which would have the effect of raising again a question which had been raised before, but not settled. As far as he understood what had been already said, there was an unanimous feeling against raising the necessary funds in such a way as that they should form an annual Parliamentary grant, and thereby form the basis of an annual Parliamentary debate. Whatever views he might hold as to the expediency or inexpediency of establishing this University, Parliament had decided in its favour; and he now wished simply, as a practical politician, accepting the opinion of the majority in the House, to make the new Institution as efficient as possible in an educational point of view. It could not be urged that the passing of the Bill would in any way tend to the promotion of higher culture in Ireland if the machinery of the Bill was so constructed as that it would open the door to annual political wrangles in the future, and especially as, at the outset, the scheme of the Senate would be promulgated on the eve of a General Election, and would be subject to all the demoralizing influences which usually prevailed at periods of the kind. It would he unfortunate that this new University should be put in such a position as that it would be in perpetual danger of being sacrificed to the exigiencies of rival 329 political Parties in the House; especially would it be unfortunate that such a course should be taken at the present moment, when the country was on the eve of a General Election. Nothing could be more important than to keep the great educational Institutions of these Kingdoms free from the blighting and benumbing effects of political conflict. There had always been an anxiety to take this course as far as the older Universities were concerned, and he saw no reason why the principle should be started or renewed now that it was proposed to found a new University. It would be cause for regret that, after this new University had been founded, Parliament should be subject to the annual wrangles which for many years marked the application for the Maynooth Grant. The next question was as to the source from which the endowments for the new University should be drawn; and this, though important, was, in his view, a matter of secondary importance as compared with the question of making the grant a subject for annual vote and annual wrangle in Parliament. To take it from the Consolidated Fund would be to bring about the result which he wished to attain; but he could see no reason why it should not be taken from the Irish Church Fund, especially as money had already been taken from that Fund in order to provide for the cost of Intermediate Education in Ireland. Notwithstanding what had been said on that point, he could not admit that the applying of part of these funds to the promotion of the higher education of the Irish would be taking a course likely to benefit the rich as against the poor of the country; for an Institution in the nature of a University, wisely administered, would be as much, in the long run, to the interest of the poor as of the rich, in that it would offer to poor boys of ability as great advantages in the way of education as were enjoyed by the sons of the wealthiest people in the land. He would, therefore, move, as an Amendment, that the monies necessary for the conduct of this University should be drawn from the Irish Church Surplus Fund.

§ MR. SHAW
agreed with a great deal that had been said by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). Nothing was more inconvenient than having questions connected with education, especially 330 the education of a country like Ireland, where Parties were so violent, and where, unfortunately, sometimes political feeling ran so high, being constantly brought forward for discussion; but he thought this was hardly the time for raising the point. In fact, it struck him that they had been occupying three quarters of a day in discussing a scheme which they hoped to have before them next year in all its details; and he imagined that when the scheme of the Senate came before the House, that would be the time to move the Amendment now proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney. He did not think there could be any more suitable application of the Church Surplus Fund than to the purposes of education in Ireland. If they devoted that Fund to any other purpose, almost—if they devoted it, for instance, to the maintenance of lunatics, who were numerous in Ireland as well as in England, they would find that every such application of the money, although it looked a very sensible thing on the surface, would really relieve the rich rather than the poor, because all such matters were better provided for out of the rates. But education in Ireland, unfortunately, was in a very unfortunate state, and this Bill was the first step towards re-organization. No doubt, discussions on the Estimates on the question of education were inconvenient; but that could not possibly be avoided, and they would not be avoided until there was a full and complete settlement of the question. Irish Members did not intend that expense should be put upon the Church Surplus, or the Consolidated Fund, or upon the annual Votes, until they had seen the plan, and until they knew what was about to be done. When they knew what was to be done—and he had every hope that it would be a fair and full settlement of the question—it would be found that no men in the House were more anxious to remove these discussions, or anything that was irritating or unpleasant, and to place these subjects as they ought to be outside the region of Party politics. Nothing was more detrimental to the cause of education than Party squabbles; and he must say that both in and out of the House there had been one or two references made which were unworthy of the men who made them. It was suggested that "sops" 331 had been thrown to the Irish Members, and that their votes had been retained. Such things were perfectly absurd, and he thought they were very discreditable to the hon. Gentlemen who put them forward. The Government of the day were in duty bound to bring forward measures which they thought would be for the good of the country; and were the Irish Members to be taunted and insulted, because they thought it right to support those measures which were honest movements towards a settlement of that great question? It would be perfectly absurd on their part, and they would be worthy of a lunatic asylum, if they did not honestly support anything of that kind, no matter from what quarter it came. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) said it was impossible, if a certain line of conduct were pursued, for the Liberal Party ever to come back to power again. In his (Mr. Shaw's) opinion, it would be perfectly impossible for the Liberal Party to come into power at the next General Election, if there were not a much larger proportion of "stupid men" returned to the House on their side.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
wished to know the exact meaning of the words in the clause—"Of the moneys to be provided by Parliament." Would it cover the case of a Vote out of the Consolidated Fund, or would it only apply to monies provided by annual Vote?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he was unable to say what the legal construction of the words might be. The Government in framing the words certainly intended that the provision should be by annual Vote; and had, therefore, used the ordinary phrase that was commonly adopted for that purpose.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, he had no desire to put the Committee to the trouble of an unnecessary Division, and he would be content to withdraw his Amendment if he could obtain an assurance from the Government that the necessary funds would not necessitate an annual grant and possible debate. He would suggest that words might be introduced which would only pledge Parliament to vote the money, and would leave it an open question as to the source from which the money should be taken.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, of course, it would be com- 332 petent for Parliament to pass a Bill directing the money to be taken from some particular source; but the course that was now being taken was the right one to secure that Parliament should have control over the starting of the new scheme. If afterwards it should be the pleasure of Parliament to make a more permanent arrangement, that would be a matter for consideration; but he did not think the present Parliament had any right to bind a future Parliament on the subject. Some other arrangement might be made afterwards. He quite felt the force of the argument that this educational question ought to be removed from the field of Party discussion as far as possible. That applied to all the Universities in the Kingdom. But Parliament must have a proper control over the system; and between the two difficulties he feared they were not at present ripe for making an arrangement for the adoption of such a course as seemed to be favoured by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) and others.

§ MR. COURTNEY
remarked, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said if this clause were adopted as it now stood nothing would be necessary to be done after the scheme had been submitted to Parliament, but to move an annual Vote in the ordinary Estimates, which, of course, would be incorporated afterwards in the Appropriation Bill. Therefore, by accepting the clause as it stood, they would accept the question of an annual Vote. Now, what would happen if they struck out the words altogether about "moneys to be provided by Parliament," and inserted nothing in their place? He thought that would meet the difficulty. They would then be in this position. The Senate would draw up their scheme, and it would be for the House then to consider how the money should be provided. They would then be bound to consider it, which, according to the present wording of the clause, they would not be. He and others wished to have the question reserved—and necessarily reserved—for consideration, and that was the whole point. They wished to secure the guarantee that would be afforded to them by the necessity of having a Bill brought in to determine out of what fund that money should be taken. If those words passed they would not be so placed, and he wished to have that 333 point reserved. He might claim, at any rate, that the House should not so far prejudge the question as to say the funds should be provided by Parliament. The question would come before the House in a proper shape if they determined now nothing about the fund. Therefore, he thought his lion. Friend might very well persevere in a Motion to strike out those words.

§ MR. SYNAN
said, now he could fully appreciate the humour of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), when he said he expected the next General Election would send them stupid men on that side of the House. Nothing could form a stronger argument to illustrate that than the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). Here was a scheme to pay for Scholarships, prizes, and Exhibitions, and the scheme was proposed to be left a blank as to the means which it was to provide. That was to say, the Senate was to apply the means out of a blank. They might as well send a blank bill into the market to be negotiated as to leave a blank of that kind. Surely, it only required to be looked at, and the absurdity of the suggestion proved itself, without further comment.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER,
did not see how the Government could accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liskeard, although it was quite true the words were in the Preamble, which was not generally considered to contain enacting words. He entirely agreed with the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). He was strongly opposed to having an annual Vote, and he saw no reason why this money should not be provided out of the Church Surplus, just as much as for Intermediate Education, and just as much as for some other projects which the Government had got in hand. But he appealed to his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment to a Division, and for this reason—that he must be very well aware there would be a large majority against him, and that would rather more bind the House in its future action than if the words were allowed to stand without a Division, especially after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's express declaration—which he was glad to hear—that not only was the House not precluded from making an alteration by Bill, but, as he understood the right 334 hon. Gentleman to say, he was aware of the difficulties that would permanently result from having an annual Vote. It was not very easy to provide any other thing than that the first money should be taken by an annual Vote, because if it was to be done in any other way at the beginning they would have to introduce clauses accordingly into the Bill. Therefore, he hoped his hon. Friend would be content with having raised the question.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, although he had had some considerable experience in dividing against majorities, he felt he might be doing more harm than good if he divided on this question. His Amendment would probably be defeated by a very large majority, and that might be used as an argument that the House had decided, by a very large majority, against paying this money out of the Irish Church Surplus. He understood, from the interpretation of his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster), that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not consider the words in question were an actual pledge to the House in favour of the system of annual Votes, and, indeed, as he understood it, they could not do so. All they could say was, that they pledged themselves that a certain sum of money should be provided by Parliament; and it seemed to him it would be equally provided by Parliament, whether it were provided out of the Consolidated Fund, or the Irish Church Surplus, or the annual Votes. Therefore, reserving to himself the right of raising this question whenever the scheme was presented to Parliament, he should certainly—after the favourable reception which the proposal as to the Irish Church Surplus had received—not give the Committee the trouble of dividing on the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. KAVANAGH
begged to move the Amendment he had on the Paper, as follows:— To insert after the words 'and other prizes,' in line 3, the following words:—'including the payments to the heads or other governing bodies of colleges of fees dependent on the results of public examinations of students.' He was anxious to remove, as far as he could, the inequality which it struck him would remain after the Bill had passed, as it stood at present, and he should feel bound to take the sense of 335 the Committee upon it. The new clause provided that there should be certain prizes open to all comers, and, so far, there was equality. But there was inequality, in so far as all parties would not possess the same opportunities of preparing1 themselves for the competition. Now, hon. Members on his side of the House would not listen to any proposition for levelling down by disendowment of existing Institutions, and there seemed to be equal objections to the plan of levelling up. In face of the objections to these two plans, he could not see any other way of dealing with the matter than by his Amendment, and that was by granting results fees to the heads or Governing Bodies of Colleges, to be paid for proficiency in secular subjects. By that means, the money would be allowed to go in aid of those teaching Institutions which the House could not directly endow, and he hoped that by degrees those teaching Institutions, which at present had no State aid at all, would improve in their condition and efficiency, and that, indirectly, the inequality he had endeavoured to indicate would be in a great measure removed. He believed his proposal would effect that, without infringing, in the slightest degree, upon what he might call the now-exploded principle of denominational endowment, because his Amendment was governed by sub-section 1 of the new clause, which provided that these Exhibitions and prizes should be awarded for proficiency in secular education, and not for any subject of religious instruction. That, he thought, would remove any objection to his Amendment on the ground of religious endowment. All he desired was that some of the result fees should be given to the teachers instead of to the scholars. He proposed that it should be open to all, to Protestants, to Presbyterians, to Methodists, just as much as to Roman Catholics, and he could not think there was very much denominationalism in that. But he must ask, if that was so, what was there essentially different between a result fee and a Scholarship, Exhibition, or other prize? Were they not all the means of giving money—was not that what they all, practically, did? That being so, he did not think the principle of his Amendment could be so dangerous as was represented. It was simply to allow some 336 of these money payments to be made to the teacher, instead of to the student. As he said before, it was guarded against being viewed in any sectarian or religious light by the words of sub-section 1, and it was, in no sense, a denominational grant. If the Committee rejected the Amendment, they would be refusing to place the students of these Roman Catholic Colleges on the same footing as other students; and he did not think anybody would wish to refuse to the Roman Catholics, simply because they were Roman Catholics, proper treatment in this matter. It was mere sophistry to represent that result fees were denominational endowments, and that Scholarships, and other prizes, were not. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept some such Amendment as this.

§ Amendment proposed, In line 3, after the word "prizes," to insert the words "including the payments to the heads or other governing bodies of colleges of fees dependent on the results of public examinations of students."—(Mr. Kavanagh.)

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

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) that it would be a fairer way, and a less mischievous way, to pay directly for the secular results of education, rather than indirectly, and that it would remove very much the deterioratory influence which would arise if they made the Scholarships of a very high value, and brought them into competition with other Universities. But he begged the hon. Member for Carlow to observe the terms of his Amendment, and in what way it would work. He did not think the hon. Member intended it to work in that way; but it would be impossible for himself and his Friends to vote for it, unless the form was changed, because there was no definition in the Amendment of the Colleges to which it referred. The result would be, if the Amendment were passed as it stood, that they would be doubly endowing all the small "diocesan Colleges," as they were called, of Ireland. He was sure that was not what the hon. Member intended. If the hon. Member wore to add to the word "Colleges" in his Amendment words like these—"which the Senate approves as 337 having a sufficient curriculum of education"—that would express what he meant, and would enable some hon. Members, who could not vote for the endowment of mere diocesan Colleges, to vote for the Amendment. He only wanted the Committee to understand the Amendment before they discussed it.

MR. MACARTNEY
thought if the Committee accepted the Amendment of the proposed Amendment they would stultify themselves, and if it had the slightest chance of passing it would be better to reject the Government Bill altogether, and take the Bill of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). This Amendment, as amended, was, in fact, that hon. Gentleman's Bill shortened. If the Committee adopted what the House had already rejected when it was brought forward by a loading Member of what was called the National Irish Party and a Representative of the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland—if they accepted the very same tiling from a Protestant Member on the Ministerial side of the House they would certainly surprise him very much.

THE O'CONOR DON
said, he concurred, to a certain extent, with his hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) that if the Amendment were adopted it would make the Bill very much more like the Bill that he had the honour to introduce; but he really thought that since the Government Bill was first brought into notice it had been approaching his Bill by degrees. Even with regard to the fund from which, eventually, the University would be supplied with money for carrying on its proceedings, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had indicated, he (the O'Conor Don) thought pretty plainly to-day, that very likely next year, or the year after, the fund that was so much objected to would be devoted to the purposes of this new University. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to state that he did not say that.] Well, he would not enlarge upon the point, but would confine his attention to the subject really before the Committee. He was quite sure the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) would not object to the insertion in his Amendment of some such words as those suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair). He (the 338 O'Conor Don) quite concurred with his right hon. Friend that the Amendment, as it stood, was objectionable. In the Bill he had the honour to introduce the Colleges were defined, and it was desired to limit them, and to shut out from the payment of result fees all the small diocesan Colleges. He could not support a proposal to give result fees to all those intermediate or ordinary schools. He did not know whether it would be in Order to amend the Amendment; but, if required, he would venture to move the insertion of the words which had been suggested.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the hon. Member would be quite in Order in moving to amend the Amendment if he thought proper.

§ MR. KAVANAGH
said, he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment, in order to allow the hon. Member for Roscommon to move his.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that would not be necessary.

THE O'CONOR DON
said, in that case he would move to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "which the Senate approves as having a sufficient curriculum of education."

§ Amendment proposed, to the proposed Amendment, After the word "colleges," to insert the words 'which the Senate approves as having a sufficient curriculum of education."—(The O'Conor Don.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be inserted into the proposed Amendment."

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he was sorry to have to object to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh); but it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, inasmuch as it went to the extent of endowment of denominational institutions, and, for that reason, he should feel bound to vote against it. Reference had been made to the fact that the Government had introduced alterations and modifications of their original plan; but, as he stated last night, those alterations were entirely in accord with the statements which wore made in "another place" on the introduction of the Bill. If that was considered inconsistency, there was one point on which the Government had been less inconsistent. They had always said they could not 339 sanction this principle of result fees. Personally, he had always objected to the money earned by University students being handed, behind their backs, to somebody else; and he thought it was a sound principle that the payment of students should be personal to the students themselves, and not to the denominational institutions at which they had received their education. An hon. Gentleman representing an important Irish constituency announced just now that the acceptance of this Amendment would be fatal to the Bill; and the matter really came to this—Her Majesty's Government objected to the introduction of this principle, and apparently a large section of the House also objected to it, and the question they had to consider now was this—were the Committee willing to accept the Bill as it stood on this point, as a reasonable scheme for the settlement of Irish University Education, or did they desire to compel the Government to abandon the scheme altogether, in favour of another which he thought was not likely to obtain acceptance in this or any other Parliament? He hoped his hon. Friend would be satisfied with having raised a discussion on the point, and would not press his Amendment to a Division.

§ MR. SHAW
said, he was in great hopes that the Government were about to accept this Amendment; but they seemed to have been frightened by the short speech of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney). He (Mr. Shaw) would try, if possible, to reassure the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone was, no doubt, a Member of very great ability, with a very large following in that House, and his opposition to this Amendment would be a very serious thing. But, on the other hand, he (Mr. Shaw) knew most of the hon. Members who sat on his own side of the House did regard with very great favour indeed this Amendment, and he could not, for the life of him, see why the Government should object to pass it. One very strong argument he could put forward, and that was, that if this Amendment were passed it must sweep off every other Amendment on the Bill, because all the other Amendments were set down on the supposition that this one would not pass. He was sure the 340 noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) would not press his Amendment if this were accepted; and other hon. Members, he believed, would do the same. The result would be that the Government would very quickly pass this Bill, and it would be impossible to say what amount of Business they would get through between that time and 6 o'clock, for they would all be in such a state of good humour. This, it must be remembered, was really a very serious question, for it raised the point whether the education the Government was going to give under the Bill should be a scattered thing all over Ireland, thrown into the hands of private schools, or whether they should endeavour to make it a real thing, and so have four or five Colleges in Ireland which would act as the centres of light and influence to the rising generation. He was quite sure the Government desired to do the best thing for the Bill; and he had not the least doubt that they were frightened, more than was necessary, by the opposition offered by a few hon. Members who were not Gentlemen carrying immense weight in the House. This could not, in any sense of the word, be looked on as a denominational endowment. The Government had often been taunted with following too much in the lines of the Bill of the hon. Member for Roscommon; but he (Mr. Shaw) did not think they should be turned away from passing a good Bill by that taunt. There certainly was a great difference between the two Bills; and he would say at once, if this change were admitted, that the Government Bill was the better one of the two. One of its present advantages was that it did not establish a new third University in Ireland, but took old existing Institutions and endeavoured to work them into one large University. In that way it was preferable to the former Bill; and it only wanted this one Amendment, which he hoped the Government would consent to, to make it a very different measure. He therefore hoped the Government would regard it favourably, and not be frightened by the opposition of the hon. Member for Tyrone.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
I am afraid the matter goes further than that. This is really the cardinal point, or one of the cardinal points, upon which the scheme of the 341 Government rests. We may be right, or we may be wrong; that is another question; but we are proposing this scheme on the principle of not giving result fees. We feel that it would be very difficult indeed to insure the working of a system of result fees; we shall not run the risk, at all events, of making this a denominational endowment; and, after having very carefully considered the subject, we have come to the determination that we must really have nothing to do with the system of payment of results fees. The matter, no doubt, is one on which a great deal may be said on both sides; but, in announcing the opinion and determination of the Government, I must say we should feel ourselves entirely breaking faith with the House if we were to attempt so serious and complete a modification ^* of the Bill as is proposed. Now, it is said that by giving payments to the students through these Scholarships and Exhibitions we indirectly give result fees to certain Institutions. It is impossible to say what may be the indirect effect in some cases of prizes so given; but in a very large proportion of cases, at all events, I very much doubt whether it will have any effect of that kind. You give to the student, who has qualified himself by such means as he may find the opportunity of obtaining, a prize or an Exhibition. Well, it is said he would immediately go and hand it over to the College or Institution at which he received his education, and in that way Institutions will indirectly receive the benefit. Of course, the student may dispose, as he pleases, of the money that may come to him; but I do think it extremely improbable that that would be the kind of use made of it as a general rule. The question, of course, is one whether the student should be incited by his own exertions to get a better education for himself, or whether he is to be making money, not for the promotion of his own education, but to assist the education of others. When a young man gains a Scholarship of £10, £20, or £30, that, of course, is a great advantage to him, and it enables him to continue the education he would not have been otherwise able to get on better terms. Perhaps the Institution might get some of it; but that is a very different thing to its being handed over and distributed amongst other persons who are to have 342 nothing to do with the earning of it. That, of course, is the distinction and the principle. I can only add that when the lion. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) says if we pass this Amendment the Bill will at once be done with, that, perhaps, it would be done with in a different sense to what he means. It is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER,
said, nothing could have been more artistic than the way in which the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) had endeavoured to persuade the Government to accept this Amendment. But although he was generally successful in his attempts, he did not expect him to succeed in it on this occasion. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not doubt it was a cardinal point in the Government Bill that there should be no results fees, for nothing in the Bill gave direct aid to the Colleges. He did not want to say anything which appeared to cast a slur upon the action of the Government; but really the cardinal point alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that they should do this thing without appearing to do it, and that they should give aid to these Colleges, and, at the same time, that hon. Members should be able to tell their constituents that the Government declared that they would not give it, and were merely paying individuals what they earned. One would suppose that they were bringing in a new mode of earning money. They did not vote the money that these young men might live by it, but in order that they might get themselves better taught, and to give them opportunities of being taught. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not suppose the money the individual student received would be paid to those interested in helping him to earn it, he could only reply that, of course, it would be paid to the superintendents or the managers of the Colleges or Institutions at which he had received his education. The right hon. Gentleman declared that he would not give these annual payments simply to enable a man to go into a higher education as a sort of mode of earning so largely; but that the money was given in order that young men should be able to get their education more or less at the public expense. That surely meant that 343 the Colleges should be paid for giving it them. It was perfectly true that there was no more denominational endowment in the one ease than in the other. He thought there would be none in giving direct aid to the Colleges, provided it were given for secular results and for secular education only. He was convinced this would end in result fees. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) had said the Committee would stultify itself by accepting this Amendment. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) differed from the hon. Member, for he thought the Committee would stultify itself by voting against the Amendment. They were going to give this advantage, as everyone knew, to the Irish Members, and were going to accept these proposals, because they would give, as everyone knew, aid to the Colleges. The real stultification was that they were trying to persuade themselves, and trying to persuade their constituents, in which they would be thoroughly unsuccessful, that this was not so. If the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Kavanagh) went to a Division, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) should certainly vote with him; but he was afraid his Amendment was far too straightforward to stand any chance of being accepted.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
could quite understand the attachment of hon. Members to the Colleges at which they had received their education. He had been at some pains to ascertain which were the Colleges which would receive a benefit under this Amendment. He found that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) was educated at Clongowes Wood. The hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) was educated at Clongowes Wood. The hon. Member for Cavan was educated at Clongowes Wood. And this was known to be a Jesuit establishment, which was early after its institution under the presidency or direction of Father Kenny, who was at first one of the Professors of Maynooth. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway had given them a specimen of his education in that House, for there had been no more determined Obstructive than the hon. and gallant Member.

THE CHAIRMAN
I must point out to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that the conduct of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway is not a sub- 344 ject for discussion, more especially as he is not in his place.

§ MR. GRAY
rose to Order. He wished to know whether, in any case, to describe an hon. Member as a "persistent Obstructive" was in Order; and, whether the use of such words was Parliamentary?

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) has asked me a question which it is, perhaps, not very easy to answer, because there is no doubt the highest authority in this House has laid down that wilful and persistent obstruction amounts to a breach of the Privileges of the House. At the same time, I must point out that the word "obstructive" is certainly a Parliamentary phrase, and there cannot be any doubt that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire is in his right to say that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) is obstructing or has obstructed a particular measure. It would be rather in the application of the phrase that any breach of the Order of the House would consist. I think to merely state he had obstructed would not be a breach of Order. To say that he has practised determined obstruction is probably more open to question.

§ MR. GRAY
begged to remind the Chairman that the words used were "persistent Obstructive."

THE CHAIRMAN
I think I shall be in the recollection of the Committee that that was not the phrase used by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. The words he used were "determined Obstructive," and I am bound to say he was rather trenching there upon the limits of Order.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he would certainly be more careful in future. He found that the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) was educated at Clongowes Wood. So was the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan). The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was educated at St. Ignatius's College, Tuam; and the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. O'Clery) at St. Munchin's College, Limerick. He could excuse the partiality of these hon. Members for the places of their education; but, at the same time, he could not help thinking that this partiality ought not to influence the Committee so far as to induce them, by adopting this Amendment, to abrogate the main principle of the Bill in favour 345 of the views of a particular section of that House. He could only say that he rejoiced that Her Majesty's Government were about to reject this Amendment, for if they had consented to accept it he should have felt it his duty to do every thing in his power to defeat the Bill.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
did not exactly understand why this reference had been made to the places where hon. Gentlemen were educated. It was not to be supposed that everyone educated at those Colleges held the exact opinions of the hon. Members to whom reference had been made. By a book on the Table, he found that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was educated at Eton and Christ Church. Now, he (Sir William Harcourt) did not think it would be correct to suppose for a moment that everybody who had been educated at Eton and Christ Church held the same views as the hon. Member. He rose, however, for the purpose of asking the Government to answer the question to which no reply had yet been given. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to affirm that result fees were not in their nature a direct endowment of the Institutions to which they were given; but that if secondary results fees were given to denominational Institutions, that was a denominational endowment. Now, he wished to ask the Government when they gave result foes in the Intermediate Education Act, did they intend to give endowments to denominational Institutions? That was given out of the Funds of the Irish Church. Now, he wanted to ask what was the value of their cardinal principle? Was this principle not a cardinal principle when applied to Intermediate Education, and was it a cardinal principle when applied to University Education? That was a question which deserved an answer, and yet the Government had never attempted to answer it, except in one phrase of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who said that the children educated in intermediate schools were younger than those educated in Colleges. No doubt they were; but how did that affect the cardinal principle? The Institutions were in either case equally denominational. He thought he had heard it said, and he believed it was so, that the Institutions to which they gave result fees in the Bill of last year 346 were, if possible, more denominational than any of the Institutions which would come under the provisions of this Bill. If they wore to got a list of those schools, they would find names quite as alarming as any of those which they had recently heard as the result of the research and ingenuity of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate.) [The O'CONOR DON said, they were the same.] He was told that they were the same denominational Institutions which Government had already endowed out of the Funds of the Irish Church. Now, he wanted to know what had become of their cardinal principle? He would venture to call it, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford had done, a hollow sham with which they were going to the country, to pretend that in this Bill they had not given any endowment to denominational Institutions. Had not the Government endowed denominational Institutions in the Intermediate Education Act? They gave result fees there; but now they declined to give denominational endowments. Why was it right to give it last year, and where was the value of their cardinal principle, when they would not give it this? What was the distinction between the two cases? If he was right the Institutions were exactly the same. Why was this cardinal principle observed when they gave it to children under the name of Intermediate Education, and why was it not observed when they gave it under the name of University Education? Such a pretence as that would not hold water. The moment these things were examined they were seen to be a complete sham, and when the Government were pretending to take their stand upon some sort of definite principle it was quite evident that they had no principle to stand upon at all. The Government said there were two things they could not do. They could not give result fees to denominational Institutions. His answer was, they had done it. The next thing they said they could not do was that they could not think of giving endowments out of the Irish Church, because that would go to denominational education. His answer again was, they had done it. These were questions which wore sure to be discussed, and would deserve very different answers from those already received. He would ask either the Chan- 347 cellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary for Ireland to tell them how this cardinal principle was preserved in the case of the Intermediate Education Act, but would be violated by the Amendment proposed?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
What I said was, that the payment of result fees would render denominational endowment much more disadvantageous than the payment of prizes to individuals. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, is not the case the same as you made out for Intermediate Education as working in that way? Well, I am not prepared to say whether it has or has not worked exactly in that way. But, undoubtedly, the main difficulty of the Government proceedings at the beginning of the Session to legislate upon the Irish University Question was that we wished to see how Intermediate Education would work. If it is true, as we are told, that the effect of what has been done amounts to the endowment of denominational education, that is only an additional reason for our being more cautious as to what we do in the much more important and serious question of University Education. The case on which the Vote for Intermediate Education rested was a wholly different one. When you had no proper system of Intermediate Education in Ireland you were desirous of providing—and you were, therefore, taking steps to endeavour to provide—for the establishment of a proper Intermediate Education system. But here you have in Ireland a system of University Education, which you are endeavouring to make more efficient. That is one distinction between the two cases. There is also a very great distinction with regard to those who are to benefit by your assistance. We are told, by giving prizes to individual students, we are doing indirectly what we refused to do directly. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) endeavours to point out to us that that is the case. Let us take an illustration. Supposing you had a System of Exhibitions founded in order to enable young men who were receiving their education somewhere or other to continue their education at the University of Oxford. Supposing you said that you would give Scholarships of £50 a-year, or whatever it might be, to enable them to go to 348 Oxford, to any man who could obtain it. Supposing a young man comes up from Rugby, and he obtains it, and it enables him to go to College at Oxford, he gets that money for himself. But supposing you said, if he got the prize in this examination, he was to return to Rugby, where he had obtained his education up to that point, you would then be giving the money not for himself, not to enable him to pursue his education at Oxford, which he could not do without the Scholarship, but you would be giving something for the benefit of the school at which he was educated. If we were to adopt the proposals of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) the money would go, not to the young man to enable him to continue his education, but it would go as a pecuniary payment to the Institution which had produced the scholar. In the intermediate system it is altogether different, because he would remain at the Institution, and the money he earned would enable the Institution to give, or continue to give, a better education than would otherwise be afforded him. But that would not be the case with University prizes. What I said was, not that I considered this to be a cardinal principle which must be adopted in every case, but a cardinal principle of this Bill—that we having to deal with University Education, and being about to bring a system of University training into competition with another University training such as you have already, then it was necessary we should take care, in so doing, that we did not attempt to endow the Institutions out of which the young men were to come who were to gain their degrees and finish their education at this University.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question. The right hon. Gentleman put the case of a young man coming from Rugby and going to Oxford and winning an Exhibition there. No doubt, in that case, the money for the Exhibition went into the pocket of the student, and not into the pocket of the Rugby School. But did the right hon. Gentleman suppose for a moment that the cases were, similar? These young men in Ireland were not going up to a University in which they would have to reside—they would not have left the school or College at which they had 349 received their education—but, year by year, they would receive from the University money which would go to defray their education at the College where they were. He could not find a more apposite illustration of the case than the right hon. Gentleman himself had just given them.

MR. MACARTNEY
said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford forgot completely his own argument, which was quite different from the case now put. But was it not probable that these young men would get a certain amount of education at the Collegiate Institutions, and then, with the aid of private tutors, would go on with their education at the University? Of course, they could not do that if the money were paid to the place where they had been educated.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
said, it was important the Committee should understand the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The supporters of the Amendment contended that the result fees paid for secular education under the Intermediate Education Act were quite as denominational in character as those which could be paid under the Bill, if it were fair to class either one or the other as denominational, simply because the secular results were attained in denominational schools. Now, let them take the case of the large intermediate school of Clongowes Wood. By the Intermediate Education Act of last year, Clongowes Wood received large payments from the Church Surplus Fund as result fees. A youth under that Act might win for his College public money until he was 18 years of ago. Suppose at that age he matriculated at the University, and went back to Clongowes to carry on his education, where was the difference, because he was a month older, that any money won under the proposed Amendment should be denominational because he was 18 years and one month old when, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the results fees were undenominational at 18? The fact was, result fees paid for purely secular education were not in any way denominational. The only effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) would be to limit the payment of result fees to one or two well-ordered lay Col- 350 leges, with an efficient curriculum. But the Bill without the Amendment would practically endow, or at least support, every diocesan priestly school in Ireland; and it was because he wished to prevent this ecclesiastical monopoly of education that he would vote for the Amendment.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) was looking exceedingly happy, whether the Amendment passed or not. The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that if this Amendment was passed he would not get his Bill; and, therefore, although they might go to a Division, if the hon. Gentleman would take his advice, a little more would be said about this matter if he wanted the Bill, and it was his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) impression that the Irish Members did want it. He quite admitted that the Intermediate Act was passed in a great hurry, and his firm conviction was that if the Bill had had a chance of being fairly and properly discussed, and if it had been shown to the House what some of the schools in Ireland really were which would be benefited by it, and that many of them were places where a superior education ought to be given, it would never have passed in the shape it did. At the same time, he firmly believed that there was a great want among the middle class in Ireland for education. He was honestly anxious to meet that want; but now they wore asked for a totally different thing. The large mass of the Roman Catholic population belonged to the middle and lower classes, and they wanted the Intermediate Education Act. They were told there was to be a proper Conscience Clause in the Bill; but he doubted whether the Conscience Clause was not big enough to drive any number of coaches through. Now, although the Queen's Colleges had provided, as had been well shown, a good higher education, the Roman Catholics had declared they did not meet their claims, and the Government had brought in a Bill to try and meet these requirements. It was understood, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that there would be no result fees, and it was upon this condition that the Bill was allowed to pass. The Government stated they adhered to what they had said, and he and his Friends certainly intended to hold them to that, 351 They did not mean to go one inch beyond where they were now; and, therefore, it would be far better they should have a Division and settle the question.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
said, the discussion would certainly have one great advantage, because it would, undoubtedly, be a good advertisement for Clongowes Wood. He wondered whether it had occurred to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) that they had absolutely contradicted one another. The one said that the payments under the Intermediate Act last year, having been made for secular results, were undenominational, and the latter said that, as they had been made to denominational schools, therefore they must be considered denominational.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, he had merely stated that that was the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
also explained that he had said he did not regard the result fees as denominational endowment, because they were paid for secular instruction.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
said, he was inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this was denominational endowment, although intended for secular results. The payments to these Colleges placed the teachers in exactly the same position as the teachers of an English University occupied before the passing of the Test Act. A certain sum was paid to the Governing Body of a large number of Colleges, which was used for the payment of teachers, every one of whom, in one way or another, had to submit to a religious test. That was the objection to the result fee plan. He did not wish to go into the question; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford must know that he differed from the majority of English and Scotch Liberals. He therefore felt it right once more to enter a protest against the view he had put forward. He begged to add, at the same time, that though he attached considerable importance to his Amendments, he felt that it might be for the convenience of the Committee that he should take the opportunity of stating that they had been pressed upon 352 him by those who might not be considered the best and most legitimate guardians of the interests of the Roman Catholics in the matter of education in the House that he would not be altogether consulting their views or wishes by pressing those Amendments at that stage of the proceedings. If it had been an earlier period of the Session, he believed he should have obtained for his Amendments a considerable amount of support, as the Amendments were worthy of careful consideration. But as it was wished, if possible, to take the Committee that day, he thought he should not be consulting the wishes of the majority of the Committee by pressing his Amendments. He did not, however, believe the question would ever receive a definite settlement till something was agreed to of the nature of the Amendments he had placed on the Paper, but which he should not now press.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, with reference to the remark of the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), that Clongowes Wood needed no advertisement, for it had produced in the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) one of the best Artillery officers of the present day; while, as regarded eloquence, they had a very fair exhibition of what it could do in the person of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. J. Smyth). And as to the education it gave, lie knew that boys who were in the third and lowest class of the school, and in the middle of their class, had not merely passed the Examinations at Queen's College, but had actually got Exhibitions. That only showed that what they had heard about the high standard of Queen's College was unmitigated bosh.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
appealed to his hon. Friend (Mr. Kavanagh) not to press his Amendment, because it would be impossible for the Government to proceed with the Bill if it were carried; and, therefore, the only result would be to defeat the object which they all had in view. It would arouse the opposition of the Nonconformist Party in the House, and all those who were hostile to what he called denominational education. He wished the Bill success, and therefore it was that he appealed to the hon. Member not to divide the Committee. He agreed with the views embodied in the Amendment; but he thought it would be a very injudicious 353 thing to press them now. Next Session the question would be opened up again, and by that time the new University would be in full work, and there would be much better opportunities of discussion.

§ MR. KAVANAGH
said, that, personally, he had no wish to give the Committee the trouble of dividing, and if hon. Members opposite who felt an interest in the question were satisfied he would withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member will not be in a position to withdraw his Amendment until the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Eos-common has been decided.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Question proposed, That the words 'including the payment to the heads or other governing bodies of colleges which the Senate approves as having an efficient curriculum of education, of foes dependent on the results of public examinations of students,' he there inserted.

THE CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member now wish to withdraw his Amendment?

§ MR. KAVANAGH
said, he did.

MR. SULLIVAN
said, he did not wish to interfere. The Amendment had been moved in a spirit of justice and fair play, for which lie gave the hon. Member for Carlow the sincerest thanks. If lie preferred not to press it now, none the less should he feel grateful to him for his act. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) had put to the Committee the ease of "grinders." That was the exact issue they were now trying, whether they would deliver the young men of Ireland over to the grinders and coaches, or whether, by passing the Amendment as it stood, they would give them the chance of a real Collegiate career.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 151: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 212.)

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, the Amendment he proposed to move was very short, and would not give rise to much discussion. It was to omit, in line 9, the words "buildings including." The clause proposed to provide buildings, examination rooms, and a library. But 354 they were told that the University would be simply an examining body; so that he could not understand what new buildings were required at all. He should have supposed that the buildings of the Queen's University would have been amply sufficient for the new University. How would they examine? He supposed in certain rooms, and he would not object to the building of examination rooms; but he did not see what an examining body wanted with any other buildings besides examining rooms. If the Chief Secretary could explain what other buildings were necessary he would be satisfied.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, what he described the other day as a local habitation for the University fell within very narrow limits. The hon. Gentleman did not object to examination rooms and library, and he must point out to him that there must also be a secretary's room, a place for Convocation, another for the Senate, and offices and rooms for other purposes.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, if he was to understand that the buildings were to be confined to what was necessary to enable the University to work efficiently, such as Convocation, secretary's rooms, & c, he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN
asked if the hon. Member for Carlow wished to move another Amendment?

§ MR. KAVANAGH
No, Sir.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
said, as he was anxious that the work of the Committee should be completed that day, he would not move the various Amendments which he had placed upon the Paper.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, he was sorry he could not withdraw the next Amendment, which appeared to him to be one of extreme importance. It was in subsection 2, where the words occurred stating that the exhibitions, &c., "shall be awarded in respect of either relative or absolute proficiency," to strike out the words "relative or absolute proficiency." He hoped hon. Members would consider how the scheme of this University would work. They proposed to have an examining body in Dublin or at some other convenient spot in Ireland, and by this clause it was proposed to give Exhibitions, Scholarships, Fellowships, and other prizes in respect of re- 355 lative as well as absolute proficiency, by which he understood that every person who passed a certain moderate standard would be entitled to receive a prize. These prizes were not analogous to the prizes referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University—book prizes; they were meant to be money prizes. It was proposed to give a prize of this kind to every student who had satisfied a certain moderate standard, and these prizes were to be open to all comers. It was well known that for a long time past Englishmen had been in the habit of going to the University of Dublin, simply because they were able to do so without any great expense, and if they passed an examination they could obtain a degree there. As Dublin was in communication with every part of the Kingdom, a great many Englishmen had, from time to time, gone to Dublin and graduated there, simply because they could get the degree by passing the examination. If that was the case with regard to Dublin, where there were no prizes open except such as could be obtained after some struggle, how much more would the prizes offered in the new University stimulate the coming of men from all parts of the Kingdom to Dublin, in order to obtain what would enable them to satisfy the low standard of the examiners? The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had shown that in Edinburgh more than half of the students there were not Scotchmen; and in the case under notice they could easily draw a continual affluence of students, if they opened the matriculation examination and the degrees in this way to all comers, and gave them prizes for a certain moderate standard; and the result would be a considerable number of imperfectly-educated persons going in for the examinations, self-educated persons, persons who had been educated by the aid of coaches and others, for the sake of the chance of obtaining £20 or £30. That would not be the only mischief, as this state of things would also work injuriously to the London University. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) had admitted the force of that objection, and proposed to remove the difficulty in some way or other. But it was clear to him (Mr. Courtney) that if the schoolmasters, ushers, and head boys of schools, who now came up to London and passed 356 matriculation and the first and second B.A. examinations, after going through a great deal of hardship and struggling to compete at these examinations—if these people were offered the facility of passing the same examination, and, at the same time, gaining valuable money prizes, they would certainly go to Dublin, where they could go for a moderate cost, and pass the examination there. So the prizes would be competed for by persons coming from England and Scotland, as well as by those in Ireland itself. The only way to get rid of this difficulty was to make the prizes competitive among those who had attained a high standard. If the scheme was maintained as indicated by the Bill, a considerable number of young men, ushers in schools, and other self-educated persons, would go over to Dublin in the hope of obtaining £20, if they passed successfully. The gain of that sum would encourage them to go over again. That would do what had been deprecated in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, and would give persons an opportunity of making a money gain out of the University. He believed that the House did not want to develop that kind of University system; nobody desired it; but the result of it would be that their desire to develop higher training in Ireland would be defeated. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had spoken.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, this matter had been very fully discussed that afternoon, when the matter was dwelt upon by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) and others. It was not correct to speak of this Bill as a scheme to entice students away from the existing Universities. It had been explained at an earlier period of the Sitting that the standard was not stated in the Bill, because all this was to be left to be arranged by the Senate. The object was to offer certain inducements to young men in prosecuting their studies, and it would rest with them to make such use of their opportunities as they thought fit. The scheme could not in any respect, from an educational point of view, be open to the objections urged by the hon. Gentleman. The Senate would, he believed, fix a standard of examination sufficiently high to obviate the objections raised, and defeat the abuses apprehended by the hon. Member.

357

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he objected to the Amendment. Of course, the students who got prizes would hand them over to the Colleges, in order that they might prepare them for future examinations; and in this way the Colleges would indirectly, and, as he had already said, in a clumsy way, gain indirect support from the Bill. The payment would be given to the successful student year by year; the hon. Member for Tyrone did not seem to be aware of that. The student, after being six months or a year in the College, went up to the University and gained on his matriculation £20. He went back and said to his College, "Qualify me for going up for the first B.A. examination." He went up and gained £30. Government could not stultify themselves by refusing to give that aid, or by striking out these words, which would have the effect of withdrawing all aid from the Colleges.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ MR. ERRINGTON moved to amend sub-section 2 of the new clause by substituting, in line 3, "as well as" for "or," so that the prizes should be awarded in "respect of relative as well as absolute proficiency."

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, it was scarcely necessary to do that. The words, as they stood, were in the spirit of the scheme.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. C. S. PARKER
proposed as a clerical Amendment to omit "any," and insert "such," that the students "shall be subject to such conditions."

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, this could be considered on the Report.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. ERRINGTON
said, his next Amendment related to a matter of great importance. The Government wore said to have treated this question with very great unfairness. The hon. Gentleman below him had stated that, in reality, this clause was more or less a sham; that, in fact, they might just as well accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh), which would do openly what the clause proposed to do in an underhand and secret manner. It appeared to him (Mr. Errington) that the answer to that was, that if that were the case the hon. 358 Member for Carlow would only to have had to move his Amendment and insist upon it. He believed that the Government had made fair and honest efforts to deal with this question, and that they might be willing to go further than they had done; but they found that they had various interests to consult, and they could not do so. He regretted that they had not seen it in their power to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow; but he hoped that when they remembered that this was not in any sense a cardinal question, and that the Amendment he was about to move did not involve result fees, although they could not accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, he hoped they would accept this Amendment of his (Mr. Errington's). He did not propose to enter upon its details; his object was simply and solely on academic grounds to prevent the giving of a stimulus to the system of cramming. The Government desired to give assistance to genuine instruction; but under the Bill the temptation to the manufacture of a spurious sort of instruction which would not be learning would be very great indeed. The result of the Amendment he now proposed would be to leave the ordinary prizes given for relative proficiency as the Bill now proposed, to be competed for by the three classes of persons most likely to be benefited by them; one class would be the students of the Queen's Colleges or the endowed schools; secondly, Collegiate students in non-endowed schools; and, thirdly, the general public, educated either at home or by tutors. He proposed to make the other classes of prizes open only to the Queen's College students, and those who had studied six months in other Colleges. The object would be, in reality, not in any way to establish result fees, but to avoid the use of the University by those who would attempt to gain its prizes merely by cramming. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said there would be great difficulty in deciding the amount that might be required; this scheme of his (Mr. Errington's) would diminish very much indeed the amount of money required. He moved to insert at the end of subsection 2— Provided always, That such exhibitions' scholarships, fellowships, and other prizes as may be awarded in respect of absolute profi- 359 ciency, shall be paid only to students who shall have pursued their studies in a college in Ireland for at least six months of the twelve months immediately preceding the period of the examinations.

§ MR. SHAW
said, he hoped the Government would assent to this Amendment, which was one of very great importance, and would go to some extent to do away with the weak part of the Bill. In case they would assent to it, he would appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), who had an important Amendment on the Paper, to withdraw it. It was quite evident that that Amendment could not be discussed with fairness at that time of the day, and it was of great importance to get the Bill through. He hoped the Government would see the importance of the present Amendment and accept it, perhaps with some technical emendations.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
said, the Amendment would do what the promoters of the Bill professed they did not intend to do—namely, limit the University to people in Ireland, because it provided that the Exhibitions should only be given to those who had pursued their studies in Ireland. That would be taking away its character of a University, and making it an Institution to which only Irishmen could go; and every speaker had professed that that was not his wish.

THE O'CONOR DON
said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had not given the whole effect of the Amendment. What his hon. Friend (Mr. Errington) proposed was that a certain class of Exhibitions—those for absolute proficiency—should be attached to Colleges under that Bill as it stood: The Queen's Colleges would have the advantage of that; and he proposed that there should be some inducement under the new Act to students to go to Colleges rather than to "grinders." He did not propose that all the rewards should be confined to Irish Colleges, or the Queen's Colleges, but that one particular form of prize should be attached to Colleges in Ireland for absolute proficiency; and, so far, it would be restricted to Irish Institutions.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he thought that what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University (Mr. Lyon Playfair), and what took 360 place before with regard to the proposal to limit the advantages of the University, would have convinced the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) that he was treading on very dangerous ground. At that stage of the Bill, the Amendment would be introducing an element of possible discord, which might go a very long way to undo what they had already agreed upon. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. It was upon a system of Free Trade that the University was to be established.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, it would be a great advantage to get through the Bill that day. The hon. Gentleman had scarcely contemplated the extent to which his Amendment would reach.

§ MR. ERRINGTON,
said, he would withdraw the Amendment at that stage, and bring it in again on the Report.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. BIGGAR
had the following Amendment on the Paper:— In Mr. James Lowther's proposed new Clause after Clause 8, sub-section 4, to move to leave out after 'Charter,' and insert 'and every college at which any student or number of students have been educated or granted a decree shall get a sum of money for each one of such students who is granted a degree equal to the average expense to the State of the Queen's College students who are granted degrees in the same year.'

THE CHAIRMAN
announced that after the decision upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) this Amendment could not be proposed.

§ MR. SYNAN
said, he had an Amendment to propose to prevent students who held Scholarships and prizes from going to another University for the purpose of competing for additional ones. As the clause stood at present, the concluding words were that the prizes held in any other University or College should be taken into account in the giving of the prizes in the new University. But that might be doing an injustice, and might lead to inconvenience. If those words were struck out altogether it would produce a better effect. The effect of the clause would be the same as the clause in the Intermediate Education Act—namely, that students in the Queen's Colleges or Dublin University getting Scholarships in their own University could not compete for prizes in the 361 new University, while all other students could. His Amendment would prevent that injustice and inconvenience which had been adverted to in the previous part of that day's discussion. He must leave the matter in the hands of the Government. If they would omit the words he had specified it would make the Bill more perfect. He proposed to leave out the words after "charter" in line 34, to the end of line 35.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
thought that, if a lad won a prize of small value, he ought to be allowed to resign it and take one of greater value. It would be very hard because he had won £5, to prevent him from taking one of £20.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
proposed to add to the end of the clause, where it provided that the scheme be laid before Parliament within three weeks after it had been forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant, the following words:— Together with the name of each member of the Senate; and the name of any person from time to time nominated or elected to fill any vacant seat in the Senate shall be in like manner laid before Parliament. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would consent to give the names of the Senate when their scheme was prepared, and that, afterwards, any change in the constitution would be like wise laid before Parliament.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
thought the hon. Gentleman would find his object attained if he would stop at the first semicolon of his Amendment. That would be sufficient to secure his desire.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
asked whether there were likely to be any annual Reports or accounts presented connected with the College, because it might happen that by nomination or election the whole character of the Senate might be changed?

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
reminded the hon. Member that every opportunity would be offered for debate on the Vote in Supply.

§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

§ MR. MURPHY,
in moving, in page 4, after Clause 13, to insert the following Clause:— 362 (Application of sections seven, eight, and nine of Attorneys' and Solicitors' Act (Ireland), 1866, and of section thirteen of Solicitors' Act, 1877.) The provisions of the seventh, eighth, and ninth sections of the Act of the Session of Parliament held in the twenty-ninth and thirtieth years of the reign of her present Majesty, chapter eighty-four, intituled 'The Attorneys' and Solicitors' Act (Ireland), 1866,' and the thirteenth section of the Act of the Session of Parliament held in the fortieth and forty-first year of Her Majesty, chapter twenty-five, intituled 'The Solicitors' Act, 1877,' shall extend to and be applicable to the University created by this Act, said, the object of the clause was merely to give the same privileges to attorneys and solicitors as they enjoyed under other schemes.

§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID
asked when the Report would be taken?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
replied, that he would take it on Friday.

§ Preamble agreed to.

§ House resumed.

§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 283.]