§ The House entered upon the consideration of this Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee.
Add after the names of the commissioners the words 'and two other persons to be appointed by Her Majesty.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)
§ MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)
I rise to move the Amendment that stands in my name in regard to the constitution of the Commission. The London University is undoubtedly a great examining organisation, which at the present time examines more than 6,000 candidates a year. The London University receives its candidates not merely from England, but from Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and the House will therefore realise the delicacy of the problem. We are dealing with a great problem, and we have to look first to the authority which is to deal with this problem. It has been said that the powers and duties of these authorities are very directly laid down, and that therefore it is not a question of persons as of carrying out the instructions. But anyone who considers the matter will find that that is not so at all. The Commissioners are empowered to carry out the recommendations of a Report, which is a Blue Book of 60 pages. The 10 recommendations are omitted from the Bill altogether. I ask the House to realise the importance of having a Commission thoroughly capable and adequate. I do not mean for one moment the question personally of the commissioners. There are seven men, some of whom I know by repute are persons admirably qualified for the task which is committed to them. But six out of the seven are associated with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and I question whether these gentlemen, saturated with the traditions of the old universities, are the best men by themselves to deal with problems not on the lines of Oxford and Cambridge, and properly to treat the existing London 1170 University, which is doing so great a work. I ask the House whether this number of seven is adequate to perform this function? I ask the House to add two names, and I suggest that those who are proposed should not be so closely bound to the traditions of the old untversities.
§ SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)
The number of commissioners is a matter that has been carefully considered, and the Standing Committee support the Government in thinking that the numbers in the Bill were the best. I quite admit the difficulty of the task, but I do not think it is so difficult as the honourable Member suggests. I do not know that it necessarily follows that the appointment of a larger number of commissioners will decrease the difficulty. I hope the House will endorse the number proposed in the Bill.
§ SIR H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton)
I wish to say one word on this question, and that is with reference to the constitution of the Commission. Nobody would say a word against the seven names mentioned in the Bill, but there is a feeling that the legitimate claims of Nonconformity have not been recognised in the constitution of this Commission, and that at least one member of that Commission should have been selected from the ranks of the very distinguished men who have won very high honours in the University of London, as representing the denominational colleges outside the Church of England. Of course, if the Government say "No," we have no power. I only wish to state that I hope, before the Government and the right honourable Gentleman give a final "No," they will reconsider that point, whether there is or not that representation of English Nonconformity which I think there ought to be, having regard to the original founders of the London University, and its present constitution.
§ MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)
There was considerable discussion on this subject, and no suggestion was made that the representation of Nonconformity wanted any special addition. It, is an idea that occurred later, but it did not occur to anyone who took a part 1171 in the formation of the Commission. I point out to my honourable Friend that there is no serious danger in not having any more representatives of Nonconformity on it. This Commission is not a roving Commission; it is a Commission to carry out certain very definite instructions given to them. I do not think it is a good thing to appoint a Commission representing conflicting interests. The Government have done wisely in forming a workable Commission of a judicial character, and I believe that it will be found that every point, of view which ought to be represented will be adequately provided for.
§ *SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)
In the Committee I moved an Amendment to increase the number of the Commission, and I still think, having regard to the importance and the difficulty of the work entrusted to this Commission, and to the absence of any direct representation of the external students, that it would be desirable to have some additional representation. The answer to that made by my honourable Friend opposite is that it has been a matter of compromise. I am quite sure that no one could give greater force to a compromise of this sort; but, after all, the point before the House is, whether that compromise arrived at is a right one, and whether it would not be in the interests of the university to enlarge the Commission. Only one gentleman it assigned as at all representing the external students. Now, of the chairman of convocation not a word can be said in regard to his general qualifications; but it should be remembered that convocation is a composite body composed of many persons connected with the various colleges which form part of the university. The chairman of convocation himself is a member of one of these colleges—namely. University College; at any rate, he graduated from one of the colleges. On the other hand, I would like to point out that the vast majority of the students of the university are distinctly at present external students, yet only one such representative yet can be said to be assigned to them by the compromise. The crux of the whole problem is undoubtedly the possibility of reconciling the interests of the external and the internal students. That is the great question that has been 1172 the subject of conflict in convocation, which, I say, is by no means composed of external students. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter on behalf of an important element—namely, the present university external students.
MR. GRIFFITH (Anglesey)
The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has referred to the Nonconformist aspect of the question, and the honourable Member behind me has spoken of a compromise, and stated that it must stand in the Bill. He has said that he has settled the matter by this compromise, but who gave the honourable Gentleman authority to settle the question? This House has not. There is this additional point: in its initiation this was a Nonconformist university; it was the only university where Nonconformists could take their degree in the old days of tests. We want to maintain this aspect of the University in full force. I think there ought to be some safeguard in the interests of Nonconformists in this matter. The honourable Gentleman has referred to the present external students. It is admitted that upwards of three-fourths are external students, and that only one member of the Commission represents external students, but I doubt whether that is so. There is no one among these seven commissioners who represents the external colleges, and why in the world should they not be represented in this Bill? Again, there are the teachers in our elementary schools, who have a, great interest in this Bill. Hundreds of them owe their position to the benefits they have derived from this University, and there is nobody amongst these commissioners who represents in any special way the teachers in our elementary schools. Therefore I hope the Vice-President will see his way to come to an agreement on this point.
§ MR. BRIGG (York, W.R., Keighley)
I venture to support what has been said. A very large proportion of those who have been students in the London University come from the provinces, and their representation is exceedingly meagre, if they are represented at all. I do think the Vice-President might have seen his way to admit a larger represen- 1173 tation of those who we may call country people, I could very easily add three or four names to that body of men who would have some knowledge and business capacity, and know what is going on in the outside world. I think that, out of deference to those who form the bulk of the students of the University, there ought to have been a stronger representation given to them. It is rather a suspicious circumstance that the very people who have the largest interest in this University should be scarcely represented at all. Therefore I very strongly recommend the right honourable Gentleman, as far as he has the power, to take that course. I believe in Committee upstairs it was felt that the Government have no power. I do not know exactly what may be the weight of that statement, but if they have the power I certainly, looking at it from the outside point of view, and as representing a very large number of country people who are now dreading the loss of the university, think the least we can do is to take What power we have in our hands and see that their representation on the Commission is increased. I beg to support the Amendment.
§ SIR W. PRIESTLEY (Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities)
A great deal of sympathy which has been expressed for what are called external students is due to the erroneous supposition that the majority of people in the country who have taken great pains to qualify themselves for the examinations of the University of London are private students. But that is really not the case, because I gather from the memorandum which I hold in my hand, which is drawn up by the Registrar of the University of London, that in 1897, of 140 candidates who graduated II.A., 45 were entered under private study only (most of these were certainly tutorial), whilst 81 were entered under some college or school. Of 98 candidates who graduated B.Sc., only 10 were entered under private study; and of 133 candidates who graduated M.B., not a single one was a private student. Therefore, a very large proportion of the students who come up to the University of London have undergone more or less collegiate education, 1174 apart from mere private study. I hold that the external students proper are amply represented on the Commission. It should not for one moment be supposed that the Interests of internal and external students are antagonistic, nor are the Commissioners, I take it, likely to regard the interests of one class of students in preference to those of the other.
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)
My honourable Friend who has just sat down tells us that at a given examination there were out of 140 candidates only 45 who were private students, and he assumed, therefore, that these were the only external students. Under this Bill the external students will not only be those entering under private study, but all the students in country colleges. At the present moment the University of London examines candidates from as many as 200 institutions scattered all over the country, and except a small minority from certain London colleges these will all be external students. Now it is because the University of London differs so very materially from the other universities that I think it is important that there should be mi the Commission a larger number of Gentlemen who are cognisant with the manner in which the university is conducted. I agree with all that has been said about Mr. Busk and Professor M. Foster: but the majority of the present Commission, however eminent, have not the same special knowledge, and I hope the Government will add two other Commissioners, not to represent any special interest, but thoroughly conversant with the affairs of the university.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
I wish to take this earliest opportunity to associate myself with the honourable Member who has moved the Amendment, although I rather prefer an Amendment of a similar nature which stands lower down in the Paper in the name of an honourable Gentleman representing a Yorkshire constituency [Mr. Brigg], but which will, I understand, be excluded from consideration.
§ MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,) Mansfield
I wish to reiterate the complaints which have been made of the 1175 non-representation, of Nonconformists on the Commission. I observe that the representation includes one of the most eminent of the bishops. For my part, I should prefer that no ecclesiastic should be a member of this Commission, in order to avert all suspicion. But if it is necessary to appoint a bishop I should have thought it would have been much better not to have appointed the Bishop of London, because he is officially connected with King's College, which is a sectarian institution. The Noncon-
§ formists, Sir, are largely interested in this University of London; very many of their ministers have obtained their degrees there; they are proud of the university because of its unsectarian character, and they are naturally anxious that nothing should happen which would deprive the institution of its unsectarian character.
That those words be there inserted.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 186.—(Division List No. 246.)
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Henderson, Alexander||Purvis, Robert|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Colston, C. E. H. Athole||Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Holland, Hon. Lionel R.||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.||Hornby, William Henry||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.||Howard, Joseph||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.|
|Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.||Howell, William Tudor||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hozier, Hon. James H. C.||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Ryder, John Herbert Dudley|
|Cruddas, William Donaldson||Jenkins, Sir John Jones||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Curzon,RtHnG.N.(Lanc.,SW)||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Savory, Sir Joseph|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Jones, David B. (Swansea)||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.||Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Knowles, Lees||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.||Lafone, Alfred||Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)|
|Doxford, William Theodore||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)||Smith, James P. (Lanark)|
|Drucker, A.||Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)||Smith, Hon.W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Edwards, Gen. Sir James B.||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.||Leighton, Stanley||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Llewelyn, SirDillwyn- (S w'ns'a)||Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Pinch, George H.||Loder, Gerald Walter E.||Strauss, Arthur|
|Finlay, Sir Robert B.||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Lowles, John||Thornton, Percy M.|
|FitzWygram, General Sir F.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Flannery, Fortescue||Lucas-Shadwell, William||Valentia, Viscount|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Verney, Hon. Richard G.|
|Flower, Ernest||Maclure, Sir John William||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.|
|Folkestone, Viscount||McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Fry, Lewis||McCalmont,Mj.-Gn.(Ant'm N)||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)|
|Gilliat, John Saunders||Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Monk, Charles James||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||More, Robert Jasper||Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)|
|Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Mount, William George||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Gretton, John||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Gull, Sir Cameron||Murray, C. J. (Coventry)||Yerburgh, Robert A.|
|Gunter, Colonel||Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)||Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||Newdigate, Francis A.|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Nicol, Donald Ninian||TELLERS FPR THE NOSE—|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Sir William Walrond and|
|Hardy, Laurence||Pierpoint, Robert||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)|
Page 1, line 26, after 'London' insert 'and two graduates of the University of London to be recommended by convocation.'"—(Mr. Henry Labouchere.)
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
On behalf of the honourable Member for South West Bethnal Green, I beg leave to move the Amendment which stands in his name. I have no personal objection to any of these gentlemen, and possibly they know a great deal about the subject. But, Sir, with the exception of one gentleman, they really have no connection whatever with this university. Now, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Univer- 1178 sity of Edinburgh has told us that a vast number of the young men who gained degrees were educated in the university itself. I think he makes a mistake there, for I believe that the real number is about one-third.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE
Well, the honourable Gentleman gave me that impression. But that is not the question, for what we want, and what we are anxious to do, is to secure that there should be some representation of London upon the University of London, and we find that that is not the case as 1179 regards its present constitution, or as regards Mr. Henry Busk, Master of Arts, Bachelor of Laws, and Chairman of the Convocation of the University of London, for this gentleman has something to do with another university, and he has made himself very prominent in supporting this Bill. Therefore he cannot be said to take an absolutely impartial view on account of his status and the position he has already taken up. Therefore he could not decide impartially whether they should be examined as at present, or whether in other ways they should obtain those degrees. Sir, it appears to me that the Amendment of my honourable Friend meets the difficulty to a very great extent, and I cannot see what the objection is to it. It does seem to me that the Government ought not to use their position and power as a Government in order to induce all their followers to come in and vote against this Amendment. We know perfectly well what it moans when the Government take a Government view on the matter, because a very large number of Members will hurry into the House and vote as the Government dictates. At present the Government, I need not say with their majority, keep a House at the end of the Session, and the Government can do precisely what they want to. I believe that on this side there are a large majority of honourable Members in favour of two of these additional gentlemen being appointed. Now, we have already had one Division upon this question, and it is, therefore, all the more desirable that the Government should meet the requirements of this case by accepting the Amendment. I cannot help feeling that this is an attempt to crush out the University of London as it exists at the present time, and I cannot understand my honourable Friend from Scotland taking such an active part in this matter. My honourable Friend is an able man, but he is a Scotchman, and I cannot understand wiry he has decided to come meddling with the University of London. He, as a Scotchman, ought to say, "I will join with those who wish to maintain this as a university for the whole country." But, putting aside the interests of Scotland, he tries to turn it into a little "hokey-pokey" University 1180 of London. Why, you are proposing to take away the essential principle which has made the University of London what it is. I beg, therefore, to move the Amendment standing in the name of my honourable Friend.
§ SIB J. GORST
I desire to point out that the arguments used in the Debate on the last Amendment against increasing the number of the Commission are equally applicable to the present Amendment. But there is a still further objection to this Amendment, and that is that if additional appointments were snown to be necessary, to increase the number by appointing two graduates of the University of London, it should be increased by appointments made by the Crown. There is another question—that of allowing the University to appoint themselves. There were no grounds for that course at all, and it was not done in the case of Oxford or Cambridge, or the Scotch universities, and it is, there fore, against all precedent to do it in the present case. The honourable Member for Northampton and others have spoken with alarm as to the destructive effect which this Measure will have upon the University of London. Now, I think that if they will look into the Bill, they will find that every possible precaution has been taken to prevent such a result from ensuing. I may remind the House that this particular constitution of the Commission has been submitted to the consideration of the Senate of the University of London, and also of Convocation, and they have both approved of the Commission as at present constituted.
§ *SIR C. DILKE
I am astonished to hear the right honourable Gentleman say that this was not done in the case of Oxford and Cambridge. They were by the Act almost exactly in the same position as is proposed by this Amendment. I should have thought that the treatment of those institutions formed exact precedents for this Amendment—Commissioners' vote added for each college affected. I do not know exactly what the right honourable Gentleman means by his reply.
§ *SIR A. ROLLIT
I think the right honourable Gentleman has been misinformed as to there having been any 1181 compromise upon this point. When the question of the composition of the Commission came before the Senate of the University of London, I challenged it, and the question was reserved for decision in Parliament, and nobody was committed upon that question.
§ MR. J. BRYCE
It is not the case that persons are appointed under the Bill by the general assent of the Commission. All that happened when the Commissioners who were appointed by this House were dealing with the question was that they were considering a particular policy in which property was involved, and that does not apply to the case of universities. The university authorities did not appoint any Commissioners to sit on these university affairs, and there is no parallel between these cases at all, because there is no property to be dealt with. I hope that the House will not in this case disturb the composition of the Commission, which has not only been very carefully considered, but has received the approval of the Senate of the University of London, and also of Convocation.
I cannot agree with the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen that Convocation is in favour of this Bill.
Convocation was not in favour of the Bill, and Convocation, more than any other body can, does represent the external student, whom we wish to protect. It is for that reason we say that Convocation should choose two men and add them to the Commission. If these two gentlemen are chosen they will represent not only the external student, but the colleges outside the 30 miles radius, and the interests of the teachers will also be safeguarded.
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCK
My right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council of Education says that all the arguments against the previous Amendment apply to this, 1182 but, practically, the only argument brought forward was the analogy from the Commission in the case of Oxford and Cambridge. But it has been shown that in those cases any college affected was represented on the Commission. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen says that in the cases of Oxford and Cambridge the question arose of the property that was affected, but surely there is something higher than property to be considered in thesa educational matters? There is no doubt that the majority of colleges in London are in favour of this Bill, but the great bulk of the members of Convocation are in the country. [Cries of dissent.] Yes, they are; and it is the external student who will be affected by this Hill, and I agree with, the statements of the honourable Member for Islington [Sir Albert Rollit] that those who are really affected by this Bill have shown by the recent senatorial election that they are in favour of the Amendment.
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
I very much regret that the Yice-President of the Council has not seen fit to assent to this Amendment. In a matter of this kind the outside students ought really to be represented, and at the present time no one on the list represents them. No one could say a single word against the present members of the Commission—one of them had great experience of teaching, and was a member of both a Scotch and an English University—but someone was wanted on the Commission to represent the teacher and the external student.
§ MR. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
Whatever the rights or wrongs of the proposal before the House. I believe that this Amendment is a desirable and proper one.
§ *MR. E. GRAY (West Ham, X.)
I should like to ask the Vice-President of the Council whether a compromise has been effected. If a compromise has been effected, surely those representing the external interests ought to be parties to it. So far as I can see, Sir, the only body which can represent the interests of the external colleges and 1183 the external students is the Convocation of the University of London; and the Convocation has pronounced, with no uncertain voice, dead against these proposals. I should like to see this Bill deal not only with those within the 30-miles radius, but with the whole of the students who look to London as the goal of their academic career. I believe the Commission can be strengthened with advantage, and have a wider area for its activity. I happen to know that the outside colleges have a great interest in this Bill, and are looking forward to its provisions, as at present sketched out, with no little alarm. Therefore, I very
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Ambrose, R. (Mayo, W.)||Gourley, Sir E. Temperley||Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)|
|Asher, Alexander||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Roberts J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Baker, Sir John||Griffith, Ellis J.||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Harwood, George||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Heaton, John Henniker||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)|
|Bowles,Capt.H.F. (Middlesex)||Hedderwick, T. C. H.||Souttar, Robinson|
|Brigg, John||Holburn, J. G.||Spicer, Albert|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Horniman, Frederick John||Steadman, William Charles|
|Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson||Jacoby, James Alfred||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Caldwell, James||Joicey, Sir James||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Leese Sir J. F. (Accrington)||Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lewis, John Herbert||Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)||Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Clough, Walter Owen||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Wayman, Thomas|
|Colville, John||Macaleese, Daniel||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Crombie, John William||M'Ghee, Richard||Williams, John C. (Notts)|
|Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)||Maden, John Henry||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')|
|Davies.M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Norton, Capt. C. William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Duckworth, James||Oldroyd, Mark||Mr. Labouchere and Mr.Pickersgill.|
|Dunn, Sir William||O'Mailey, William|
|Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)||Palmer, Sir Charles M.|
|Fenwick, Charles||Pease, J. A. (Northumberland)|
|Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.||Bartley, George C. T.||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John|
|Aird, John||Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James|
|Allhusen, A. H. E.||Beresford, Lord Charles||Bucknill, Thomas Townsend|
|Arnold, Alfred||Bethell, Commander||Burt, Thomas|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Butcher, John George|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Bigwood, James||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)|
|Baird, J. G. A.||Bill, Charles||Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Birrell, Augustine||Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)|
|Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)|
|Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W.(Leeds)||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. J.B. (Clackm.)||Boulnois, Edmund||Chamberlain.Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Bousfield, William Robert||Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)|
|Banes, Major George Edward||Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Brassey, Albert||Charrington, Spencer|
§ much regret that the Government do not see their way to accept the Amendment. I am bound to admit that we have been beaten; but had the vote been taken of those who heard only part of the Debate, the majority would not have been anything like what it was. When it is known throughout the country what the Bill is, and that the interests of the provincial colleges are bound up in it, there will be a considerable difference of opinion exhibited towards it.
§ Amendment put.
§ The House divided:—-Ayes 81; Noes 198.—(Division List No. 247.)
|Chelsea, Viscount||Hardy, Laurence||Newdigate, Francis Alexander|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)||Haslett, Sir James Horner||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Hazell, Walter||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Henderson, Alexander||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready||Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)|
|Colston, C. E. H. Athole||Holland, Hon. L. R.||Purvis, Robert|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Hornby, William Henry||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.||Howard, Joseph||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.||Howell, William Tudor||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Cozens-Hardy, H. Hardy||Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Ryder, John Herbert Dudley|
|Cruddas, William Donaldson||Jenkins, Sir John Jones||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Curzon,Rt.Hn.G.N.(Lanc,SW)||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Savory, Sir Joseph|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Jones, D. B. (Swansea)||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon||Knowles, Lees||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lafone, Alfred||Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)|
|Doxford, William Theodore||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Smith, J. Parker (Lanark)|
|Drucker, A.||LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)||Smith, Hn. W. F. D.(Strand)|
|Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)||Stanley, Lord (Lanes)|
|Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward||Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Finch, George H.||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart|
|Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne||Leighton, Stanley||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)||Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|FitzWygram, General Sir F.||Loder, G. W. Erskine||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Flannery, Fortescue||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Folkestone, Viscount||Lough, Thomas||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lowles, John||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Fry, Lewis||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Garfit, William||Lucas-Shadwell, William||Whiteley, George (Stockport)|
|Gedge, Sydney||Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.)|
|Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Maclure, Sir John William||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Gilliat, John Saunders||McArthur, C. (Liverpool)||Williams, J. Powell (Birm)|
|Gordon, Hon. John Edward||McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.||McCalmont,Mj.-Gn.(Ant'm,N)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcsh., N.)|
|Goschen,RtHn. G. J. (St.G'rg's)||McEwan, William||Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R (Bath)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Wylie, Alexander|
|Gretton, John||Monk, Charles James||Wyndham-Quin. Maj. W. H.|
|Gull, Sir Cameron||More, Robert Jasper||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Gunter, Colonel||Morrell, George Herbert||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||Morton, A. H. A (Deptford)||Young, Commander (Berks.E.)|
|Halsey, Thomas Frederick||Mount, William George|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Murray, C. J. (Coventry)||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Murray, Col. W. (Bath)|