HC Deb 11 August 1879 vol 249 cc720-43

Order for Consideration, as amended; read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. James Lowther.)

MR. COURTNEY

, who had an Amendment on the Paper, that the Bill be considered that day three months, said, he did not rise for the purpose of moving it, but simply to make a few remarks. In previous discussions they had been engaged in the question of University Education in Ireland, and they were asked to abandon the present system for a more or less denominational plan. This measure of Her Majesty's Government would undoubtedly destroy the undenominational system of education which had existed for many years in Ireland; but he did not intend to go over that ground again. He would merely say that the Amendments on the Paper were directed to the practical improvement of the Bill, without challenging its principle; and he hoped they might receive from Her Majesty's Government an attentive consideration, as they were calculated to improve the details of the measure, and to make it more efficient.

SIR JOHN LESLIE

said, he was unwilling to intrude upon the House; but he found himself in a peculiar position, owing to the course the Bill had taken, because he had hitherto had no opportunity of expressing his opinion by his vote; consequently, if he did not make his position clear now, he might be told hereafter that "silence gave consent." Representing, as he did, a very large opinion in the North of Ireland that the principle of national education, as a whole, would be disturbed, and, possibly, overthrown by this scheme, especially by the dissolution of the Queen's University, he was bound to say that, sharing that opinion, he was opposed to the principle of the Bill. It was said that the Intermediate Education Act was based on a similar principle, and that those who supported that Bill should, therefore, support this; but he held a different opinion. He regarded the Intermediate Education Bill as a missing link between the elementary and the higher education as belonging to a national system. It was, therefore, equally advantageous to all creeds, and, consequently, was supported by every Irish Member, as rendering that system complete. He and others held that elementary education was of still greater importance even than higher education; and they asked whether, at that moment, that elementary education was in an efficient and satisfactory condition? He naturally turned to the Bill now before the House, which was to ameliorate the condition of the National School teachers, and where was it? He found it was the Tenth Order of the Day, without the remotest chance of receiving the consideration of the House. They knew the causes which had led to the difficulty of passing measures in that House; and, consequently, it was pretty clear why that measure, which had the support of the Government, was reduced at that period of the Session to such an extremity. He believed that the policy of the barricade had recoiled, to a certain extent, upon its authors; and, therefore, remedial measures like this, which would have received unanimous assent, were in the greatest possible danger of not being passed at all. He believed that unfortunate result had been, in a great measure, owing to what he called the "policy of the barricade." They would be told, he supposed, that they must look to next Session, and to next Session he supposed they must look; but if that policy was to continue, he saw no hope for any better state of things in any future Session of Parliament; and the remedy of a grievance acknowledged by every thinking man in Ireland, and which had been acquiesced in by every Member from Ireland, was placed at this moment in jeopardy, to their great disadvantage.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

rose to Order. The hon. Member was discussing a Bill which stood No. 10 on the Orders of the Day. It might be a very interesting question; but he had not yet reached it.

SIR JOHN LESLIE

said, it was connected with the subject of elementary education. However, he had completed his statement.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, under ordinary circumstances, and if this were an ordinary Bill, he should certainly feel very strongly inclined to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney).

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

pointed out that the hon. Member for Liskeard had not moved his Amendment.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

proceeded to say that it was nothing but the extreme difficulty of any legislation on the subject which prevented him (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) from moving an Amendment to that effect. They had now got out of Committee, and they had all the Amendments before them, and he must say that the Bill still remained a very inadequate and dangerous Bill. It contained very grave defects. It left the instruction of Roman Catholics who desired University Education in Ireland entirely unprovided for. Trinity College and the Queen's Colleges still existed for their Protestant brethren; but no provision was made for the instruction of Roman Catholics. That was a very great inequality, which could not be defended on any ground whatever. There was a still greater danger under the Bill, a danger which would have to be looked to very carefully by the Senate—namely, that with the Scholarships and prizes to be given to successful students under the Bill, either a system of teaching by cramming, or a system of University teaching in intermediate schools would spring up, and he did not know which of the two would be the worse—that the University Education of the country should fall into the hands of crammers, or that the Intermediate Education of the country should be spoiled and destroyed by its being mixed up with University studies. He trusted the Senate which was to be constituted would endeavour to provide against both these dangers, which were equally destructive to any prospect of success. It was only because the Bill left a good deal to be done by the Senate, and because the work of the Senate would be constantly under the supervision of the House, that he thought the Bill should be allowed to pass.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. NEWDEGATE

, in moving the following new clause:—

(Senate to make annual report.)

"And be it enacted, That the Senate of the University shall, once at least in every year, and whenever the Lord Lieutenant shall direct, report their proceedings to the Lord Lieutenant. Each annual report shall include a statement of accounts, and shall be made up to the end of the academical year, and shall include all prizes offered, and all prizes conferred, together with the names of the candidates for and of the recipients of the prizes offered by the University, stating the places of the previous education of such candidate, and a like account with respect to all candidates for and recipients of the degrees and honours to be conferred or conferred by the University. The name of each member of the Senate, if resident within the United Kingdom, shall be appended to such report, whether assenting thereto or dissenting therefrom, and copy of every report shall be laid before Parliament within six weeks of the same being made, if Parliament be then sitting, and if not, then within three weeks of the next meeting of Parliament,"

said, he desired to propose the clause which stood in his name on the Notice Paper, and which he humbly submitted to the House. He had endeavoured to ascertain whether the House had ever passed an Education Act, such as the Bill contemplated, without requiring an annual Report to be laid before it, and he had been unable to find any instance, in which the House had passed an Education Act of this kind, which contemplated the suppression of a University, appropriated the property of that University, as created under Charter, and applied that property to other purposes; but the Bill went further, for it also contemplated providing for such of the Professors of the suppressed University as might decline to serve in the new University, a different University, which the Bill would create, out of public money to be voted by Parliament. He (Mr. Newdegate) could find no parallel case in which the House had not required an annual Report of the proceedings of the intended establishment. This Bill was drawn in a very unusual manner. In the first part of the measure it contemplated the use of the Royal Prerogative; but, instead of leaving Her Majesty's Prerogative of granting a Charter untouched, by successive clauses the Bill directed and limited the use of the Royal Prerogative, and then, by the 9th clause, totally superseded the Prerogative. With the permission of the House, he would read the terms of this, the 9th clause, which appropriated to the purposes of the Bill the establishment now existing, the Queen's University, and superseded the appointments which had been made by Prerogative, and then undertook to provide funds for paying the appointees. Altogether it was a most anomalous Bill, and especially this 9th clause, the first part of which the House would forgive him for reading. It ran in these words— 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, fellow- ships, and other prizes, and also by the erection of suitable buildings in connection with the University to be established under the said charter Under these words the House was invited to appropriate by Act of Parliament all that had been done by Prerogative, and to apply it to such uses as Parliament might think fit; and not only that, but the Bill undertook to provide public funds. He had taken the trouble of looking through the more recent precedents, and found that, in the year 1845, when the College of Maynooth was re-established, and the Queen's Colleges were created, for the first time each House of Parliament required that annual Reports should be presented to it. He then came to the Queen's University. Now, the Queen's University was established by Charter; but by that Charter the Colleges, established by Act of Parliament, were incorporated. Her Majesty, in an ordinary case, would have directed by Charter that new Colleges should be formed, and no Reports would have been presented to Parliament; but in consequence of the use of the Prerogative for incorporating the Colleges, already established by Parliament, an annual Report from that University had been presented to both Houses of Parliament. In this No 2 University Education Bill, however, up to the present time, although it contained this 9th clause, of which he had ventured to read the first part, there was no provision whatever for a Report to both Houses of Parliament. It appeared to him that the Prerogative had, in this case, been used only to invest Her Majesty's Advisers, Her present Ministers, with an option as to the time, at which this new University should be created. He could not otherwise understand the purpose of the Bill, because, under this very Bill, after the scheme had been matured, that scheme was to be submitted to Parliament. There were very grave reasons why this University should be regarded as a Parliamentary University. It was practically to be created by Parliament. It was to be supplied with funds by Parliament, and there were very grave Constitutional reasons why Parliament should relieve Her Majesty, who held the Throne as a Protestant Sovereign of these Realms, and on the condition of her and her successors being Protestants, from the responsibility, which might thus rest upon her, if it were afterwards discovered that Her Majesty had by Charter erected a Roman Catholic University. It was for these reasons that he ventured to propose the clause, which stood upon the Notice Paper in his name. That clause he had drawn, to the best of his ability, after reference to Clauses 15 and 19 of the Maynooth Act, 8 & 9 Vict., c. 25, after reference to the Queen's Colleges Act of the same Session, 1845, 8 & 9 Vict., c. 66; and also after reference to the Intermediate Education Act of last Session, c. 66, s. 10. All of those Acts required an audit and a Report with respect to the funds, that were appropriated to the purposes of those several measures. Under the 12th section of the Bill, the whole of the property derived under the Act of 1845, the Queen's Colleges Act, and under the Charter of 1850, was to be transferred to this new Body, and that was accompanied by a promise on the part of Parliament, that Parliament would, out of public money, make good any deficiency, or meet any requirements, that might arise from the changes which Parliament was, under this Bill, asked to effect. With regard to the terms of his proposed clause, he had been told that the Report ought not to include the names of the candidates for, and of the recipients of, the honours and prizes to be conferred. But he held in his hand Reports made under the Charter of the Queen's University, and there he found that all the students' names, as well as those of the successful candidates, were given. He had adopted this form, therefore, from the Report for 1878. He wished now to leave his clause in the hands of the House; and he trusted that, in the few observations he had made, he had stated his argument and explained his object with sufficient clearness. If Parliament or this House had come to the conclusion that it was committed to the Bill—if the House of Commons concurred in creating this new University—then he would ask the Members of the House as loyal subjects, as gentlemen, and as men, to require that Reports should be made to themselves, so as to relieve Her Majesty from the responsibility, which the Bill seemed to impose upon her, while Parliament arrogated to themselves the power, which ought to entail responsibility. Thanking the House for allow- ing him to explain the object of his clause, he would now move it according to Notice.

New Clause (Senate to make annual report,)—(Mr. Newdegate,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he sympathized with the object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate), in proposing the clause, that a Report should be annually made to Parliament on the subject of this University. It was the intention of the Government that such a Report should be made; but he (Mr. J. Lowther) thought it would be more in accordance with the precedent that the provision for it should be in the Charter. The Charter of the Queen's University provided that the Chancellor or Vice Chancellor should annually furnish a Report to the Lord Lieutenant on the condition and progress of the University. His hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire desired that such a Report should be laid before Parliament with regard to the new University; and, no doubt, under the exceptional circumstances of the Bill, on which the House was engaged, that was not unreasonable. He would suggest, however, as a better and more convenient means of attaining the object in view, that words should be introduced, at the end of the 10th clause, carrying out the principle contained in the Charter for the Queen's University. At the end of Clause 10, then, he should move, in due time, to insert words providing as follows:— The Chancellor, or, in his absence, the Vice Chancellor of the University to annually furnish a Report to the Lord Lieutenant on the condition or progress of the University, such Report to be laid before Parliament within six weeks, if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not, within three weeks in the next Session of Parliament.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland appeared to contain great part of the substance of that which he (Mr. Newdegate) desired by his Amendment, or, rather, proposed clause. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would follow the precedent of the Reports furnished to both Houses of Parliament under the Charter of the Queen's University, the Charter of 1850. He, therefore, asked leave to withdraw his clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 (Constitution of the University).

MR. COURTNEY moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 25, to leave out "six" and insert "twelve." He explained that the Amendment referred to the composition of the Senate of the new University. By the Bill the Senate was constituted of 36 members to be appointed by the Crown. Therefore, they started with 36 nominees, the appointment being for life. When vacancies occurred by death or resignation every alternate vacancy was to be filled up by election by Convocation until there were six elected members, which would be the total number elected under the scheme of the Bill, or one-sixth of the entire number comprising the Senate. In the constitution of the Senate of the Queen's University one-fourth were elected members. He now proposed, by his Amendment, to increase the proportion of elected members from 6 to 12, or one-third of the whole body. These alterations would not come into effect for some considerable time, as it would be observed the whole of the 36 members of the Senate were named for life. He, therefore, did not propose to alter the working of the scheme of the Bill until at least 12 vacancies occurred. The alteration involved no present element of danger; but, on the other hand, it would tend to make the University self-constituted, and would give it a more independent life. In that respect it deserved the support of everyone interested in University Education. It would be impossible to conduct University Education if it was again and again to be interfered with by the introduction of Party politics. He had on the Paper a further Amendment, providing that there should be an election once every year to fill up vacancies among the elected members, and that at such elections each member of Convocation should have as many votes as there were persons to be elected, and be entitled to accumulate or distribute them as he pleased. This would have a valuable effect, because it would give to the minority sure and absolute representation on the Governing Body. The hon. Member concluded by moving the first of his Amendments.

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

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

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not agree to this Amendment. It would be a new departure from the policy of the Bill, and throw the power into the hands of the present graduates of the Queen's Colleges for a considerable time, rather than into the hands of the graduates of the new University. This was a circumstance which they wished to avoid, and in taking that new departure the Irish Members came forward to say that they preferred being left to the mercy of Her Majesty's Government, rather than to the mercy of a coterie in Dublin. He thought this was one of those subjects on which it was better not to say too much. The Bill itself recognized a new departure, and he ventured to think that it was a departure in the right direction. He believed that in Ireland they were all disposed to give this Bill, if it became law, a fair trial; and although he confessed he sympathized somewhat with the considerations which his hem. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) gave expression to, he could not help thinking that the fears of his hon. Friend were groundless. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) believed it was the intention of the Nobleman now at the head of affairs in that country to work the scheme out in a thoroughly national and comprehensive spirit. He could only say that he hoped that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would abide by the number of elected members fixed in the Bill.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

supported the proposal of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), which would have been still more in the interest of the University if it had gone further. At least one-half of the members of the Senate ought to be elected by the graduates. In the case of the University of London, which comprised a somewhat larger number than the body to which the present Bill applied, they had felt that they were too much under Government tutelage—that they were not left with sufficient authority to control their own proceedings, and that it would be for the benefit of the University if a greater number of graduates were elected by the Convocation to the Senate. The objection of the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was one which would equally apply to the existing state of affairs. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) held that one of the worst things that could possibly occur in University life was to have the Government of the day constantly interfering; and, therefore, he should support the Amendment, and thought that Irish Members, if they studied their own interests, would also support it.

MR. SHAW

said, it struck him, as this Amendment, if carried, could not possibly come into operation for the next 12 years, that they might just as well wait for a time and see how the clause operated first. The difference between this case and the London University was, that here they were beginning with a very large constituency already made, and it might be a dangerous thing to enlarge the powers of the constituency. He believed there could be nothing more unfortunate than to introduce any element which might make it seem that the present students of the Queen's University had any interests against this Bill, and he feared very much that by enlarging the scope of the elected members they might introduce that element. He hoped that in the course of a few years there would be an amended Bill brought in; and if that was clone there would be then no difficulty in considering this question. Before he sat down there was one point he would like to allude to. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) said something about loyal Members, and that they objected to the name of "Queen's University." That had nothing at all to do with the matter. He did not believe that there was a single sane man in Ireland who would object to the name of Queen's University. What they did object to was the thing, and not the name, and they thought—and he believed the Government thought with them— that it would be better to change the name, so as to prevent misapprehension.

MR. SYNAN

said, the matter was discussed in Committee and a Division taken upon it, when the Amendment was defeated by a majority of about 100. He was, therefore, rather surprised at, he would not say the pertinacity of, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) bringing the matter forward again. If this were a new foundation, no Irish Member would stand up for the nominee of the Lord Lieutenant against the graduates of that foundation; but it was not. There were already 1,200 graduates, and it was into their hands that the hon. Member for Liskeard wanted to throw the whole power. So far as election was concerned, if the system which had been proposed to the House upon the second reading of the Bill had been adopted, and affiliated Catholic Colleges had been connected with the University, the hon. Member might have had some reason for moving his Amendment; but, under the present circumstances, he (Mr. Synan) called upon the Government to stand firm and not accept the Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Courtney) would see that the matter had resolved itself into a contest between hon. Members who represented the interests of the London University, and hon. Members from Ireland looking after the interests of the scheme as represented in the Bill—a sort of trial race, in fact, between the two Universities. The former wished to use the new University as a corpus vile, on which to try an experiment for the benefit of the London University. It was evident, he thought, that there was no wish on the part of Irish Representatives to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Liskeard, and he, therefore, hoped the House would not accept it.

MR. FAWCETT

had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have found some argument more deserving of the consideration of the House than the statement that it was a contest between the London University and the Irish Universities. The London University had nothing whatever to do with the question. It had only been brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Roches- ter (Sir Julian Goldsmid) as an argument in favour of the Amendment, and, seeing that the Government had referred so much to the London University, the hon. Member for Rochester was quite justified in doing so. The Irish Members supplied the most unanswerable arguments in favour of the Amendment, because they seemed to anticipate the predominance of one class of graduates, which it was the very object of the Amendment to prevent. The only argument advanced against the Amendment was that the question had been discussed in Committee; but he would point out that the Committee had been galloped through on the Bill, and several important questions were reserved for consideration upon Report. He should support the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 32: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 221.)

Further Amendments (Mr. Courtney), by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 6, that after "Majesty," these words be inserted— Provided always, That one-half of such persons so nominated by Her Majesty shall he graduates of the said University; the intention being to secure a due representation of the graduates on the Senate.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 6, after the first word "Majesty," to insert the words "Provided always, That one-half of such persons so nominated by Her Majesty shall be graduates of such "University."—(Sir Julian Goldsmid.)

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he could not, on behalf of the Government, accept the Amendment. It was unnecessary, and unduly trenching on the Royal Prerogative. It was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day that the Government intended to retain the services, as far as possible, of the existing members of the University.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Convocation).

MR. J. LOWTHER

, in moving the following Amendments:—In page 2, line 17, before "graduates," insert "male;" page 2, line 18, at end of clause, add— Provided that any other persons who shall be at the date of the said Charter members of the Convocation of the Queen's University shall, on complying with such conditions, become and continue members of the Convocation of the University to be established under the said Charter; said, the object which the Government had in view was to place women in the same position as in England, with regard to University Education, as men.

Amendment agreed to; words added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 (Examinations).

MR. COURTNEY moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 1, after "for," to insert the words "degrees and for such."

MR. J. LOWTHER

, on behalf of the Government, said, he would accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to; words added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Senate to prepare scheme).

MR. COURTNEY

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 29, to leave out the words "that they shall be awarded in respect of either relative or absolute proficiency and," said, the system proposed was that of paying result fees to students who passed any examination in a decent manner—a system which would degrade education and develop the worst forms of cramming. He apprehended that it would also affect the standard of University Education, by instituting a competition between the new University and that of London. The new University would correspond with the London University in so far as it would not require residence, and it would attract students under the conditions proposed. He apprehended a considerable influx to the number of students in striving to obtain the result fees, and by the passing of moderate examinations they would certainly obtain those fees. Education would thus be very materially injured. He would take the sense of the House upon the principle of this proposition.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 29, to leave out the words "that they shall be awarded in respect of either relative or absolute proficiency and."—(Mr. Courtney.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. CHARLEY

said, there was nothing analogous to the proposal in any University which he knew of.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was in hopes that a discussion would have taken place the other day on this point. In that case, it would not again have been adverted to; but he would remind the House that it would be the duty of the new Senate to establish a standard which would by no means come under the category described.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 26: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 222.)

MR. ERRINGTON moved the insertion in page 3, line 33, after sub-section 2, of the following words:— Provided always, That such exhibitions, scholarships, fellowships, and other prizes as may be awarded in respect of absolute proficiency shall be paid only to students who shall have pursued their studies in a college for at least six months of the twelve months immediately preceding the period of the examinations. A college for the purposes of this rule shall mean, in the case of prizes for matriculation, any educational institution which affords classical or scientific education to students, of whom not less than thirty shall have made at least one hundred attendances during six of the nine months immediately preceding the period of the examinations. In the case of prizes for any degree examination, a college shall mean any educational institution in which not less than ten matriculated students of the University shall have pursued a course of University studios during at least six months of the twelve months immediately preceding the period of the examinations. By the Amendment he proposed to remedy an evil in the Bill so serious that, though it received some discussion in Committee, he felt justified in raising the point now. The Bill had, as it stood, this one great drawback—that, though it preferred to have for its object the spread of University Education in Ireland, it would really do more to encourage a system of private tuition. He regarded the Collegiate Education as an essential part of a University system; but here the Bill was a direct encouragement by these prizes of a system of cram and superficial knowledge. The evils of cramming had been brought out distinctly the other day by an investigation to which he need not further refer, and, not to take up the time of the House further, he would move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 33, after the word "expedient" to insert the words "Provided always; That such exhibitions, scholarships, fellowships, and other prizes as may he awarded in respect of absolute proficiency, shall be paid only to students who shall have pursued their studies in a college for at least six months of the twelve months immediately preceding the period of the examinations. A college for the purposes of this rule shall mean, in the case of prizes for matriculation, any educational institution which affords classical or scientific education to students, of whom not less than thirty shall have made at least one hundred attendances during six of the nine months immediately preceding the period of the examinations. In the case of prizes for any degree examination, a college shall mean any educational institution in which not less than ten matriculated students of the University shall have pursued a course of University studies during at least six months of the twelve months immediately preceding the period of the examinations."—(Mr. Errington.)

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that undoubtedly the subject was of great importance, and one which the hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in raising. But the House would see at once that if they adopted the Amendment it would completely alter the whole aspect of the Bill, and it would be necessary to set on foot a system of affiliated Colleges, and, at the same time, lay down the principle that no person having been educated privately should avail himself of the offer of these prizes. That was altogether contrary to what had been contemplated in the Bill, and he hoped it would not be accepted.

MR. SYNAN

said, the object of the Amendment was to secure that for some period, at all events, the student should have Collegiate Education. He was astonished that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) the advocate of Collegiate Education and a high University scheme, had not spoken in favour of it. As it appeared that the Irish Party would be left to go into the Lobby alone, both sides of the House being against them, he recommended his hon. Friend (Mr. Errington) not to divide.

MR. ERRINGTON

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

in moving, as an Amendment, the omission of subsection 4, which provided that holders of prizes in other Universities should not compete without the value of such prizes being taken into account, said, that there should be a reciprocal provision by which students in the new University should equally be debarred from taking prizes in this and other Universities. As it stood, the Bill was one-sided and unjust, placing English and Scotch Universities at a disadvantage, for their prizes would be open to all Irish students, while, on their side, their students would be prevented from competing in Dublin. Failing such a provision as would put all Universities on the same footing, he would move the omission of the sub-section. If, however, the Government would give some promise that such a provision should be inserted, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 41, to leave out sub-section 4 of Clause 9.—(Sir John Lubbock.)

Question proposed, "That the said sub-section stand, part of the Bill."

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he could not give any such promise. If the arrangements in other Universities were not so perfect as he hoped to make this, the responsibility rested with those who conducted those Universities.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 30: Majority 81.—(Div. List, No. 223.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 (General powers of Senate and Convocation).

MR. J. LOWTHER moved, as an Amendment, to add to the clause words providing that the Chancellor or Vice Chancellor of the University shall draw up annually a Report to be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, and afterwards placed before Parliament.

Amendment agreed to; words added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Queen's University.

Clause 11 (Dissolution of Queen's University).

MR. COURTNEY

said, that the Amendment which ho had to propose was one of so simple a character, that he thought it ought to recommend itself to the Government without any argument; indeed, he believed it to embody the plan which they themselves had formed. Hon. Members would be aware that this part of the Bill provided for the dissolution of the Queen's University within a period of two years from the granting of the Charter to the new University. It was a necessary condition that this dissolution should not take place before the Charter was given; but it was a fact that, as the clause stood, wihin a period of two years, the Queen's University would be sacrificed. Now, the object of his proposal was to provide that no Charter should be given to the new University until the scheme to be prepared by the Senate had been laid before Parliament. It was, in his opinion, essential that that should be done. They were going to sacrifice the Queen's University; but he urged upon the Government not to do so until they had something substantial to put in its place. Merely chartering the new University supplied nothing, inasmuch as the constitution of the new University depended upon what was going to be put into it, in furtherance of the scheme to be drawn up by the Senate. The extinction of the Queen's University, therefore, should be suspended until that scheme was placed before Parliament. He would be reluctant to take another Division; but, with the object he had described, he begged to move the addition to the clause of the words— But not until the expiration of a month after the aforesaid scheme shall have been laid before both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 23, after the word "charter," to insert the words ""But not until the expiration of a month after the aforesaid scheme shall have been laid before both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Courtney.)

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

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, the House should not embrace the proposal of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), unless they wished to continue the foundation of the Queen's University up to the very day on which the new University was constituted. If accepted, the Amendment would lead to a chronic war between the two bodies. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment would not be entertained.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he could not accept the Amendment. The object of the Bill was to make provision for the institution of a new University, and it would be impossible to do that until the old one was dissolved. It would perpetuate the old University, and leave the two, more or less, side by side.

MR. SYNAN

said, he was astonished at the proposal of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), which meant no other than that the Senate, which was to prepare the scheme for the new University, should not come into existence until after their scheme had been put forward.

MR. FAWCETT

said, it appeared to him that some hon. Members from Ireland, and amongst them the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), had entirely misunderstood the object of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), which raised an important practical question. He (Mr. Fawcett) thought that the Government should give some kind of answer to two questions which ho had to put. One of these arose out of an answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that afternoon. The question was—would it be necessary to place the Charter on the Table of the House for ratification, in accordance with the provisions of the Act to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred, in the same way as it would be necessary to place the Charter of the proposed University in the North of England upon the Table of the House? The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had said that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard proposed that two Universities should exist together. But he (Mr. Fawcett) wished to point out to the House that the object of the hon. Member was that there should be no injustice done to the students now studying in the Queen's Colleges. It seemed quite possible to him (Mr. Fawcett) that the Queen's University might be abolished at such a time as would leave those new students who were preparing to take degrees in the position of having no University in which to take them; because, on the supposition that the Queen's University was abolished immediately, the Charter for this new University was granted, and before the scheme to be presented by the Senate of the new University came into operation, where would be the University under which those students could obtain their degrees? That was his second question. It appeared to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard, taking into consideration the case of those undergraduates, afforded the best security that this proposed new University should not place in their way such an obstacle to the obtaining of their degrees. Unless the clause was made clearer than at present, it was quite possible that, the Queen's University being abolished before the completion of the scheme of examination to be presented by the Senate, the preparation of which would necessarily occupy some time, there might be no University in existence where the undergraduates who belonged to the Queen's University at the time of its dissolution could take their degrees. That would inflict upon them an injustice which he was quite sure the Government had no intention of inflicting. The object of his hon. Friend was to make the matter more clear, and he trusted the Amendment would be accepted by the Government.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

, pointed out that the 2nd clause of the Bill provided for the creation of a new University by Charter, and that the 11th clause, then under discussion, merely provided that— On a day within a period of two years from the granting of any such Charter, to he fixed by the Lord Lieutenant by Order made by and with the advice and consent of the Privy Council in Ireland, the Queen's University in Ireland shall be dissolved. The only thing left open was the day on which the dissolution would take place, and that would be met by the words of the clause now being passed by Parliament, after due consideration, which provided that the day should be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant by Order made by, and with the advice and consent of, the Privy Council in Ireland. It would then be submitted to Parliament.

MR. HOPWOOD

thought there was still some misconception. The question was not one of fixing the date by the Houses of Parliament. Whereas the Bill provided that within two years after the Charter was granted the Lord Lieutenant should fix the date of dissolution, his hon. Friend said that this might happen within a week or two of the granting of such Charter, and that he wanted to insure that provision should be made for scholars and persons who might be students at that time of the old existing University. Therefore, his hon. Friend asked, by a simple expedient, that the Lord Lieutenant should not exercise that power of dissolution, until the scheme of the Senate had been laid for a month upon the Table of the House. There was every precedent in favour of such a course, and he (Mr. Hopwood) could not conceive how any misunderstanding could exist upon so simple a matter. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had clearly made a mistake as to the effect of the Amendment proposed. But sometimes the indisputable and self-evident nature of a proposition excited something like mirth. The Houses of Parliament had nothing to do with fixing the date of dissolution.

MR. FAWCETT

requested to know, whether he would be in Order in moving, as an Amendment— That the Queen's University should not be dissolved until the New University was in a position to confer degrees?

MR. SPEAKER

pointed out to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) that there was already an Amendment before the House.

MR. SHAW

said, that the hon. Members who put forward these Amendments seemed to think that those who were to carry out the scheme of the new University in Ireland were very foolish people. The idea of their shutting up one University, before the other was opened, and leaving the students without the means of getting their degrees, would not be likely to be carried out by the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council. Besides, it might happen that when the University was dissolved no Parliament might be sitting for months, so that if the Amendment was carried the very thing which the hon. Member for Liskeard wished to avoid would be brought about. He could not at all understand the necessity for this Amendment.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, it was intended that the scheme should be laid before Parliament, so that it might express an opinion upon it before the scheme took effect. If the existing University were dissolved before Parliament could express an opinion, a hardship would be inflicted upon the students of the Queen's University. It seemed to him that the effect of not having some such words introduced as were proposed by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), an impediment would be placed in the way of Parliament exercising its discretion by expressing an opinion upon the scheme. He did not see what practical inconvenience could ensue from the adoption of these words. On the other hand, not to adopt them would interfere with the discretion of the House, inasmuch as hon. Members would feel that by interposing they would inflict a certain degree of hardship upon the pupils, who were waiting to take their degrees, especially if Parliament were to interrupt the proceedings of the University by the expression of any adverse opinion. Ho hoped that Her Majesty's Government would admit these, or similar words.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that suggested by the hon. Member for Hackney, which would secure the object he had in view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FAWCETT

said, he would not trouble the House by repeating the arguments which he had already stated. No possible harm could come from the adoption of the Amendment he was about to move. It had been well pointed out by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that some time might elapse, and, as it wore, a hiatus caused by the possible rejection of the scheme by Parliament, during which the students of the existing Queen's University might suffer considerable inconvenience. He would, therefore, move, in page 4, line 25, after "dissolved," to add the words— Provided, That the Queen's University be not dissolved until the now University is in a position to confer degrees.

MR. J. LOWTHER

thought the words unnecessary, because the Bill already carried out their intention. But as there could be no harm in doing so he was ready to admit the words.

Amendment agreed to; words added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Saving for Queen's Colleges).

MR. J. LOWTHER moved the addition to the clause of the words— And the Professors of the Queen's Colleges who are in office at the date of the said Charter shall, so long as they hold office as such Professors, continue to be styled University Professors.

Amendment agreed to; words added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 (Saving of rights of officers of Queen's University).

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he had a very simple Amendment to propose to the clause, which he hoped the Government would accept. The clause provided that if the existing officers should not be appointed to the new University, they should be entitled to receive during life, by way of retiring pensions, the full amount of their salaries. That, it appeared to him, was carrying vested rights to an extreme. It must be remembered that although a man's office might be abolished his labour was still worth something, and this he could carry to another market. He trusted it would not be necessary to dispense with the services of any of the existing officers; but it might be necessary to do so, and in that case they would receive their full pay for life, plus the pay they might receive for other labours. He did not agree that the application of this principle was desirable, and, therefore, moved that the words "full amount," in page 5, line 23, be struck out, in order to insert the words— Such portion as the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall deem to he equitable.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 23, to leave out the words "full amount," in order to insert the words "such portion of."—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'full amount,' stand part of the Bill."

MR. J. LOWTHER

thought if the hon. Gentleman had read to the end of the clause he would have seen that his Amendment was perfectly unnecessary. The words he referred to were— Any such person who shall decline to accept any such office as aforesaid if tendered to him, shall be deemed to have resigned his office in the Queen's University, and shall not be entitled to any pension or compensation. As these words were sufficient, he could not agree to the Amendment, which he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

had a strong opinion on the point contained in his Amendment, and would prefer a negative to its withdrawal.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he would now make an appeal to the House, that they would consent to the third reading of the Bill. It had to go back to "another place," in order that the Amendments should be considered; and there was, for that reason, no time to be lost.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time,"—(Mr. James Lowther),—put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.